Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2? Mauna Loa Data Say, Not Yet

March 22nd, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Some global warming alarmists are celebrating the current economic downturn as just what is needed to avert climate catastrophe. I’ve seen a couple estimates that China’s manufacturing and commerce might have seen up at 40% reduction recently.

The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions (assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels).

I already know that some of my “deep skeptic” acquaintances (you know who you are) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural will claim a continuing CO2 rise in the face of a decrease in economic activity supports their case. I have previously shown that a simple model of the CO2 variations since 1959 forced with anthropogenic emissions accurately explain the Mauna Loa observations (see Fig. 2 , explanation here). It will take considerable evidence to convince me that the long-term rise is not anthropogenic, and maybe the current “coronavirus experiment” will provide some contrarian evidence.

Of course, for anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions to have any effect, they actually have to show up in the atmosphere. The most widely cited monitoring location for CO2 is on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. It is at high elevation in a persistent subtropical high pressure zone that should be able to detect large emissions changes in several weeks time as weather systems move around the world.

I’ve had several requests, and seen numerous social media comments, suggesting this is something that should be looked at. So, I’ve analyzed the Mauna Loa CO2 data (updated monthly) through February 2020 to see if there is any hint of a CO2 concentration downturn (or, more accurately, reduced rate of rise).

The short answer is: No… at least not yet.

The Mauna Loa Data: Removing Seasonal and ENSO Effects

While an anthropogenic source of CO2 can explain the long-term rise in CO2, the trouble with finding an anthropogenic signal on time scale of a few months to a couple years is that natural variations swamp any anthropogenic changes on short time scales.

The monthly data (arbitrarily starting 1996, below) shows a continuing long-term rise that has been occurring since monitoring began in 1958. Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay.

Obviously, not much can be discerned from the raw monthly average data in the above plot because the seasonal cycle is so strong. So, the first step is to remove the seasonal cycle. I did this by subtracting out a 4th order polynomial fit before removing the average seasonal cycle, then adding that statistical fit back in:

Next, there are some wiggles in the data due to El Nino and La Nina (ENSO) activity, and if we remove an average statistical estimate of that (a time lag and averaging is involved to increase signal), we can get a little better idea of whether the most recent month (February 2020) is out of the ordinary. I have zeroed in on just the most recent 5 years for clarity.

The polynomial fit to the data (thin dotted line) shows what we might expect for the coming months, and we can see that February is not yet departing from the expected values.

Of course, there are a variety of natural variations that impact global average CO2 on a month-to-month basis: Interannual variations in wildfire activity, land vegetation and sea surface temperatures, variations in El Nino and La Nina effects, and short-term fluctuations in anthropogenic emissions immediately come to mind. (The Pinatubo and El Chichon volcano eruptions actually caused a reduction in global CO2, probably due to post-eruption vegetation effects from an increase in diffuse sunlight penetration of forest canopies).

I will try to update this analysis every month as long as the issue is of sufficient interest.


368 Responses to “Is the COVID-19 Economic Downturn Affecting Atmospheric CO2? Mauna Loa Data Say, Not Yet”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. When spring and photosynthesis kicks in in the northern hemnisphere, we’ll see the usual downtown, coupled with some anthropogenic reductions, it might then be seen.

    I don’t think it will be much.

    But, this exercise in economic pain will teach everyone a hard fast lesson that this is what life may be like if we heed the Gretas, Extincters, and McKibbenites of the world.

    • Nate says:

      ‘celebrating the current economic downturn’

      Yeah, no. Im not seeing much celebrating by anyone.

      CO2: the annual variation in CO2 growth rate can easily be ~ 50%.

      If anthro emissions are down by even as much as 20% for the whole year, it might still not be distinguishable from background variation.

    • bdgwx says:

      The current economic situation was not caused by energy shortages, energy pricing, CO2 release, or any global warming mitigation strategy either proposed or implemented. It is caused by social distancing policies (necessary) to combat a pandemic.

      I do agree with you that this probably won’t have much impact on global CO2 levels at least in the short term though it won’t be surprising if the effect is at least detectable. We’ll see.

    • ALLAN MACRAE says:

      If Ed Berry is correct in this paper, human CO2 emissions play a minor part in the total increase in atmospheric CO2 and any human-caused downturn will be difficult to detect.
      Regards, Allan

      From the Abstract:
      “Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm.”

      PREPRINT: “THE PHYSICS MODEL CARBON CYCLE FOR HUMAN CO2”
      by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics
      https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/

      ABSTRACT
      The scientific basis for the effect of human carbon dioxide on atmospheric carbon dioxide rests upon correctly calculating the human carbon cycle. This paper uses the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon-cycle data and allows IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. It derives a framework to calculate carbon cycles. It makes minor corrections to IPCC’s time constants for the natural carbon cycle to make IPCC’s flows consistent with its levels. It shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle contains significant, obvious errors. It uses IPCC’s time constants for natural carbon to recalculate the human carbon cycle. The human and natural time constants must be the same because nature must treat human and natural carbon the same. The results show human emissions have added a negligible one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. If human emissions were stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.

      • bdgwx says:

        Ed Berry is not correct. The main issue is that he conflates residence time, which I also believe he computes incorrectly, with adjustment time. He then uses his residence time calculation to draw conclusions that can only be drawn from adjustment time. It is not even clear that he understands what RT and AT even are.

        • ALLAN MACRAE says:

          bdwgx:
          First, post under your real name if you want to be credible.
          Next, several of the smartest people I know think Berry is correct.
          Do you really think you are smarter than them? Have you duplicated Berry’s equations in detail?
          For the record, I still have not duplicated Berry’s work, so am officially agnostic.
          Regards, Allan

      • Nate says:

        I will say this about Ed Berry. He is slick about marketing his ideas.

        He presents them with great confidence that they are correct.

        He toots his horn loudly that with his physics PhD, he is an authority (never mind that thousands of other physics PhDs disagree).

        He confidently labels his model ‘physics’, as opposed to the IPCC models, making one believe that they are not physics based.

        His ideas are appealing because of their simplicity.

        He explains them in simple terms while impressing with a bit of math.

        All in all, this will impress people who dont have the training or knowledge to see the flaws.

        His slick presentation will be especially inspiring if one is already ideologically primed, as Chic is, to believe that mainstream science is incompetent or fraudulent.

  2. Svante says:

    Question for Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    barry says:

    I wonder if there might be a slight miscommunication in your article. To quote:

    “Interestingly, without the greenhouse effect, the upper layers of the troposphere would not be able to cool to outer space, and weather as we know it (which depends upon radiative destabilization of the vertical temperature profile) would not exist. This was demonstrated by Manabe & Strickler (1964) who calculated that, without convective overturning, the pure radiative equilibrium temperature profile of the troposphere is very hot at the surface, and very cold in the upper troposphere. Convective overturning in the atmosphere reduces this huge temperature ‘lapse rate’ by about two-thirds to three-quarters, resulting in what we observe in the real atmosphere…”

    And then later;

    “Even the oft-quoted 33 deg. C of warming isn’t a measure of the greenhouse effect… it’s the resulting surface warming after convective heat transports have cooled the surface. As I recall, the true, pure radiative equilibrium greenhouse effect on surface temperature (without convective heat transports) would double or triple that number.”

    I believe you have erred in the former quote, saying “Without the greenhouse effect,” when you actually mean, “Without convective overturning,” in a greenhouse atmosphere.

    If not, the statements appear to have similar conclusions with different premises. Wondering if I’m right or I’m missing something.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/comments-on-dr-ollilas-claims-that-greenhouse-effect-calculations-violate-energy-conservation/#comment-448324

    • Svante, no, I meant exactly what I said. Convection transports some of the energy from the surface to the upper troposphere, thus HEATING it, and without greenhouse gases and IR emission to higher-altitude layers and to outer space there would be no way for that energy to be lost. Greenhouse gases thus destabilize the troposphere, which allows convection to occur in the first place.

      • Svante says:

        OK, is that with or without “heating from the top” by radiatively active non-GHGs, like in the stratosphere?

        Without heating from the top there would still be circulation, e.g. from equator to poles, would that not create a lapse rate as rising air expands and cools, and vice versa?

        • Alasdair Fairbairn says:

          There is a general confusion here. Convection and the buoyancy of water vapor are very different mechanisms and should NOT be conflated. A great deal of energy is moved up through the atmosphere by the buoyancy of water vapor irrespective of convection, albeit in conjunction with it. When I say a great deal I mean some 694 Watts/Kg of water evaporated at the surface.

        • pochas94 says:

          On Venus the atmosphere is heated from the top, on earth it is heated from the surface. On both planets advection (circulation between equator and poles) and convection act to establish the adiabatic lapse rate and hence the temperature profile. The same physics applies on both planets, one with an opaque atmosphere, and one with a semi-transparent one.

      • Amazed says:

        So convection is the result of heated gases becoming less dense and rising. Including oxygen and nitrogen? Or do you believe that oxygen and nitrogen cannot be heated by infrared? Any gas can be heated by radiation. No gas is perfectly transparent to all radiation. In total, oxygen and nitrogen both absorb and emit more radiation than CO2.

        GHGs are not necessary for the atmosphere to cool. All matter above absolute zero radiates. Even NASA will support me.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Amazed, go here: https://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php

          You should be able to convince yourself that CO2 & H2O radiate about 10 *orders of magnitude* better than N2 & O2.

          For every 1 Watt radiated by H20 & C02, about
          0.0000000001 Watts are radiated by N2 & O2.

          ‘NASA’ will certainly agree that N2 & O2 radiate, but that the radiation from N2 & O2 is insignificant in the overall energy balance. This is the same order of magnitude as $5 vs the entire annual US Federal Budget! Or 1 grain of sand vs an entire train car of gravel.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          The main contribution of N2 and O2 (apart from the latter allowing us to breathe) is the ability of the bulk air to thermalize radiation absorbed by the IR active gases in the air. Near the surface, an activated CO2 molecule is much more likely to transfer its energy to a N2 or O2 molecule than to emit. The heated air expands, rises, and cools the surface more efficiently than simple conduction could.

          Cooling continues at high altitudes where the air is much thinner and the reverse phenomenon predominates.

  3. Dan Pangburn says:

    I am not sure what a “deep skeptic” is. I accept that at least part of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic but contend that CO2 has no significant effect on climate in spite of its being a ghg. Although the assertion that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is consistent with accepted paleo data, the finding that water vapor has been increasing faster than possible from temperature feedback and that WV increase explains the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is compelling.

  4. Steve Fitzpatrick says:

    Ummm… The upper troposphere cools by loss of heat to space (radiatively) and the lower troposphere warms by absorbing heat from the sun warming the surface. That sets up the conditions for convective instability. That is, when the rate of temperature drop with increasing altitude is greater than the lapse rate, convection starts and transports heat upward from the surface, which keeps the lapse rate reasonably constant. The normal atmospheric lapse rate rate is just a boundary between convective and non-convective behavior….. more than about 10C per Km elevation in perfectly dry air, or more than about 6.5C per Km altitude in air with typical humidity immediately causes convection. If the rate of temperature drop with altitude is less than the lapse rate, then the atmosphere is stable…. no convection at all, or more commonly called a temperature inversion. It is not normally an actual inversion of temperatures, because it is still cooler above than below, it is just a rate of cooling below the normal lapse rate, so no convection.

  5. DMA says:

    “I already know that some of my “deep skeptic” acquaintances (you know who you are) who believe the global CO2 increase is mostly natural”
    I have graduated to “deep skeptic”. I will remain as such until someone refutes Harde, Berry and Salby. Kohler’s attempt at refuting Harde 2017 was not at all convincing as well as being underhanded and every point they tried to make was refuted in Harde 2019 and Salby’s video
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

    • professor P says:

      DMA : Drastically Misinformed Amateur

      • DMA says:

        Quite possibly a true analysis. Amateur is certainly accurate. Do you have links to the definitive refutation of these authors I have studied in my amateurish review of climate science literature? If they are correct all the other hand waving about dangers from emissions are moot. That is the reason I continue to look for their errors. I can’t get excited about analyzing the myriad climate crisis dangers if I can’t get past this hangup.

        • professor P says:

          Sorry, neither I nor anybody else has the time to respond to the thousands of crackpots who put together home-made video posts of their latest theories.
          Get back to me when there is a paper published in a reputable journal.

    • Nate says:

      DMA,

      Salby’s videos are full of deception and cherry picking. See eg here.

      https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/dissembling-with-graphs-murry-salby-edition/

      One should be deeply skeptical of his claims.

      • DMA says:

        I have reviewed Mr. Telford’s post before and find it disagrees with the way Salby formatted his graphs but did not address any of the first principal analysis shown in that vides of subsequent ones. Find a rebuttal that shows errors in reasoning, not graphing technique. Harde 2017 consulted Salby extensively and came to the conclusion that our CO2 emissions amount to about 15% of atmospheric CO2. No reasonable rerutation of his analysis exists to my knowledge.

      • Nate says:

        “Find a rebuttal that shows errors in reasoning, not graphing technique.’

        The reasoning he uses is based on the data he shows. If the data is misrepresented, cherry picked, etc, the reasoning is invalid.

        These guys views are outliers.

        In particular they ignore all sorts of data measuring carbon fluxes.

        They believe the the anthro flux has been gobbled up by nature but cannot say where it went.

        Meanwhile it has been replaced by natural flux. The amount of natural flux coincidentally matches the anthro flux decade by decade for at least 6 decades in a row.

        The amount of anthro flux coincidentally matches (approx) the rise in atmospheric carbon plus ocean carbon plus biosphere carbon.

        Again, this match coincidentally occurs in each of the last 6 decades.t

        There has been no similar large variations in the CO2 ice-core record for several millenia at least.

        Thus this event, if natural, is extremely rare in the geologic recors. Yet it coincidentally occurs at precisely the same moment as the anthro emissions rapidly rise.

        All in all, quite implausible, and mathematically extremely improbable.

        Not to mention isotope evidence..

        • Nate says:

          Isotopes: See Svante’s comment and video below

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          “If the data is misrepresented, cherry picked, etc, the reasoning is invalid.”

          That is an example of inductive reasoning. You are using it inappropriately to discredit the two valid points that Salby makes: 1) Removal of 14C is exponentially fast and 2) Fossil fuel emissions correlate well with human population growth.

          Your arguments are assertions of others’ assertions and correlations without proof of causation. We’ve been through this. The arguments of Salby, Harde, and Berry have not been indisputably challenged.

          The coincidence between rise in emissions and CO2 is conflated with population increase. Think about it. How much CO2 is released from all the land use changes that occur in order to feed the world?

          • Nate says:

            Chic, you are supposed to be the skeptical one. Where is your skepticism when it comes to these guys wild claims?

            “The arguments of Salby, Harde, and Berry have not been indisputably challenged.”

            Yes they have, by many people. Why not you?

            The discrediting of Salby’s videos is easy. I have done it. Others have done it. He makes many false or misleading claims, the graphs in the link are just a small sampling.

            BTW he has a track record. He was fired for financial fraud with his grant money.

            Your claims of ‘correlations without proof of causation’ are becoming the new ‘crying wolf’.

            In this case I dont see its relevance?

            “How much CO2 is released from all the land use changes that occur in order to feed the world?”

            a. If you think this is significant then YOU should show a calculation.

            b. Many others have calculated the contributions from land-use changes. They are important but much LESS than those of fossil fuels.
            c. If you want to claim that they matter, but FF dont matter then that is rather illogical.

          • Nate says:

            As far as “1) Removal of 14C is exponentially fast and ”

            That has been debunked by many, including physicist/climate skeptic Freeman Dyson.

            It conflates residence time of a tracer like C14, with concentration relaxation time.

            The two times are not the same. See Svantes video below.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “He makes many false or misleading claims, the graphs in the link are just a small sampling.”

            Again with the straw man inductive reasoning. Mistakes in his presentation do not mean his point is invalid. This is not a courtroom where a cop failing to read a crook his rights makes him innocent.

            Salby has a record of fraud (hypothetically), therefore his science is invalid? More inductive logic and immature subjective analysis. You say you have discredited his videos. Where?

            Otherwise, stop with the irritating obfuscatory trolling.

            I’ve been looking for data on land-use changes and the contributions of natural emissions. Where are those calculations showing the contributions from land-use changes are important but much LESS than those of fossil fuels? I never claimed FF don’t matter. Good grief.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Debunked where?

            “It conflates residence time of a tracer like C14, with concentration relaxation time. The two times are not the same.”

            Why don’t you explain why?

            Svante’s video illustrates the very model Ed Berry and others are disputing. I think it is based on the Bern model which is unphysical. Making a fancy graphic does not make it science unless you are a religious fanatic with an agenda.

            I am skeptical about this stuff in the agnostic sense. Any good scientist would be. Which is why I want that reference to what you claim Freeman Dyson debunked.

          • Nate says:

            Freemsn Dyson explaining difference between residence time and concentration relaxation time.

            https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008/10/09/how-long-will-they-stay/

            Svantes video illustrates this nicely.

          • Nate says:

            “Mistakes in his presentation do not mean his point is invalid. This is not a courtroom where a cop failing to read a crook his rights makes him innocent.”

            What kind of skeptic overlooks misrepresented data, deceptive graphs, and unexplained models?

            I believe his ‘mistakes’ are about key points and too numerous to not be intentional.

            He shows a graph of ‘natural only’ co2 rise that accounts for essentially all of the rise. But neglects to explain how he gets it.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No wonder you are so confused. That reply by Freeman Dyson was as clear as mud. Berry uses mathematics to explain what Dyson was referring to by a “matter of arithmetic.”

            What is your mathematical definition of adjustment time? Be specific. How many relaxation times (e-times)?

            If you think Svante’s video illustrates anything, explain how?

            “What kind of skeptic overlooks misrepresented data, deceptive graphs, and unexplained models?”

            What kind of troll has to have things explained multiple times before he gets it? I didn’t overlook data or graphs. I explained those complaints do not preclude valid conclusions as any astute scientist would understand. What unexplained models?

            “I believe his mistakes are about key points and too numerous to not be intentional.”

            I don’t care what you believe. It’s not about faith. You are real piece of work. “Begone troll”

          • Nate says:

            “No wonder you are so confused. That reply by Freeman Dyson was as clear as mud. Berry uses mathematics to explain what Dyson was referring to by a ‘matter of arithmetic.’

            Make an effort. He may use different terms but his point is clear: there are two different times.

            What he (and we) call ‘residence time’ is what shown in the Svante video. The time for tracer red balls to spread into all reservoirs.

            When a red ball is sucked into plant reservoir, the plant can also emit a black ball during resppiration, hence no net change in mass is required.

            Similarly, when ocean both abs*orbs and emits in annual cycle, red balls and black balls are exchanged with no net mass change.

            He says what Monckton improperly calls -‘residence time’ is actually a much longer time (bdgwx calls adjustment time). That would be time for total number of balls in atm resrvoir to relax.

          • bdgwx says:

            I got the term ‘adjustment time’ from the scientific literature. That seems to be the adopted term for the concept of long CO2 mass stays in the atmosphere. I will say that I’ve seen many different terms used for this concept so that could definitely be part of the confusion.

          • bdgwx says:

            The important point is that the amount of time a specific molecule stays in the atmosphere is not the same as the amount of time a unit of mass stays in the atmosphere. Case in point…one e-fold from an interglacial peak is on the order of 10,000 years. CO2 mass can stay in the atmosphere for a really long time even though the molecules are getting exchanged at a rapid pace.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You guys are beating around the bush. No need to refer to red and blue balls or molecules sticking around for a really long time. The CO2 in air is measured and the estimated inflows of emissions are not substantially disputed for the sake of this discussion. Between a fourth and a third of the CO2 in the air is sinked and replaced by slightly more each year. This comes out to an e-time of about 4 years. [4 years = 1/0.25 per year] Different people use slightly different numbers.

            How do you measure adjustment time? If all emissions stabilize at current levels, CO2 in air will adjust to a new constant level in a short time and stay there forever. In another scenario, you can end only FF emissions and get a slightly lower level, but CO2 will remain forever because the reservoirs will continue to recycle about a 100 ppm/year.

            So I ask you again. How do you calculate or measure an adjustment time?

          • Mark B says:

            If all emissions stabilize at current levels, CO2 in air will adjust to a new constant level in a short time and stay there forever.

            If this is the case where are the CO2 emissions winding up such that none of the net excess stays in the atmosphere?

          • Nate says:

            “You guys are beating around the bush. No need to refer to red and blue balls ”

            How ridiculous.

            Why do we bother discussing a point with you when in the end you are just going to ignore what we, and our sources, even Freeman Dyson say, and just pretend that it doesnt matter anyway?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic: This comes out to an e-time of about 4 years. [4 years = 1/0.25 per year] Different people use slightly different numbers.

            That’s residence time.

            Chic: How do you measure adjustment time?

            By looking at changes in mass or concentration level. Or by tracking the flows of mass from one reservoir to another. This is what the Bern model does.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “If this is the case where are the CO2 emissions winding up such that none of the net excess stays in the atmosphere?”

            Mark B, welcome to the discussion.

            No one claims none of the net excess stays. The amount that stays depends on the scenario. If emissions stabilize, the proportion of the air containing FF emissions will gradually rise as FF CO2 is recycled. But because FF emissions are only about 5% of natural emissions, the atmosphere cannot contain more than about 5% now. If FF emissions stop, that fraction will gradually recede as sinks are recycling a lower concentration of CO2.

            bdgwx,

            “By looking at changes in mass or concentration level.”
            Or by tracking the flows of mass from one reservoir to another. This is what the Bern model does.”

            But as Salby shows, the Bern model doesn’t work at all for 14C. It is supposedly modelling a pulse just as 14C was a pulse in 1960. It is understandable that the time to remove the pulse would be elongated if there were slower 2nd and 3rd rate constants involved. However, the fastest Bern model rate constant is obviously in error.

            Now insert the fact that we don’t have a pulse of FF emissions. We have a gradually increasing flux. There is no way to measure or compute an adjustment time under these conditions. First there is no set time for ending the flux. If there was, there will still never be 100% removal. You have a lot to answer for.

          • Nate says:

            “But as Salby shows, the Bern model doesnt work at all for 14C.”

            Nor should it, as renowned physicist Freeman Dyson has noted. The Bern Model is for CO2 concentration, not tracer concentration.

            That is a strawman.

            And BTW, Salby straightforwardly cheats to obtain a shorter e-time for C14. Chic thinks such cheating is ok, but I dont.

            “First there is no set time for ending the flux. If there was, there will still never be 100% removal.”

            Why?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Why?”

            That’s your homework, Nate. :>}

    • bdgwx says:

      Kohler summed it up pretty well. IPCC AR5 WGI chapter 6 provides an even more comprehensive refutation of Harde, Berry, and Salby. You are certainly free to review any of the 800+ lines of evidence contained within that contradict the gang of three.

      For the lurkers Harde, Berry, and Salby all make the same mistake. They conflate the concepts residence time with adjustment time even though they are different concepts.

      Residence Time – The amount of time a specific molecule remains in the atmosphere before getting exchanged with a different molecule.

      Adjustment Time – The amount of time a unit of mass remains in the atmosphere after a pulse.

      RT is on the order of a few years. AT is on the order of 100 to 10,000 years depending on a variety of factors. RT is not relevant to CO2’s cummulative radiative forcing effect, but AT is.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “For the lurkers Harde, Berry, and Salby all make the same mistake.”

        No they don’t. They understand very clearly that adjustment time is a way to fool lurkers into thinking that CO2 is some evil molecule we can’t get rid of. Rather, it’s beneficial plant food and is readily absorbed by the natural sinks with an e-time of around 4 years. Your adjustment time varies by two orders of magnitude because you don’t specify what percentage of the pulse has to be sinked.

        If you know any more of the details of carbonate chemistry, you will know that the jury is still out on the sink conditions.

  6. Peter F Gill says:

    You may well get your experimental data Roy and then we shall see if your ideas have the edge or those of Murry Salby and others. William Henry may also be looking down from above and taking an interest too.

  7. René Dercksen says:

    The human CO2 emissions haven’t increased in 2019, while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose further. Might that be the proof that CO2 in the atmosphere follow the temperature and not the other way around?

    https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019

    • bdgwx says:

      According to your link we put 33.3 GtCO2 or 4.3 ppm into the atmosphere in 2019.

    • Roy W. Spencer says:

      Rene’:
      You are confusing emissions with atmospheric concentration. If emissions remain constant, the atmospheric concentration will continue to rise unless there is a removal process (sink) that is as large as the emissions source.

      • René Dercksen says:

        Clear, but than we should see een decrease of the increase, which I don’t see in the graph

        • bdgwx says:

          According to your link we put the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2019 as compared to 2018. Why are you expecting a decrease of the increase exactly?

  8. Girma says:

    Roy, you wrote
    1. “Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay”
    2. The Pinatubo and El Chichon volcano eruptions actually caused a reduction in global CO2, probably due to post-eruption vegetation effects from an increase in diffuse sunlight penetration of forest canopies

    That is your interpretation or assumption.

    An alternative interpretation is based on the fact that the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases with increase in the ocean temperature. Based on this fact, the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 is due to the seasonal cycle in ocean heat content with some delay. Similarly, the reduction in atmospheric CO2 after the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon were due to the cooling of the ocean that absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere.

    I was also thinking of the effect of the reduction in human emission of CO2 due to the economic downturn as a result of COVID19 on the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thanks for writing this very interesting article.

    My expectation is even if human emission of CO2 were reduced to zero, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would continue to increase because the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the warming of the deep ocean because of heat flow from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean since mid 19th century. This is based on the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics that states “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale” (Holman, 1981, p. 2).

  9. Girma says:

    Roy, you wrote
    1. Also seen is the strong seasonal cycle as the vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere goes through its normal seasonal variations in growth and decay
    2. The Pinatubo and El Chichon volcano eruptions actually caused a reduction in global CO2, probably due to post-eruption vegetation effects from an increase in diffuse sunlight penetration of forest canopies

    That is your interpretation or assumption.

    An alternative interpretation is based on the fact that the solubility of CO2 in the ocean decreases with increase in the ocean temperature. Based on this fact, the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 is due to the seasonal cycle in ocean heat content with some delay. Similarly, the reduction in atmospheric CO2 after the eruptions of Pinatubo and El Chichon were due to the cooling of the ocean that absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere.

    I was also thinking of the effect of the reduction in human emission of CO2 due to the economic downturn as a result of COVID19 on the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration. Thanks for writing this very interesting article.

    My expectation is even if human emission of CO2 were reduced to zero, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would continue to increase because the increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by the warming of the deep ocean because of heat flow from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean since mid 19th century. This is based on the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics that states “heat must flow downhill on the temperature scale” (Holman, 1981, p. 2).

  10. Girma says:

    Please delete my first comment. Thank you.

  11. Mike says:

    Thanks for the work you are doing. I look forward to seeing the results.

    I am engineer, also an uninformed amateur as referenced by the Professor above, but I guess I am in the majority of those interested in this subject.

    The contrast between your view (Roy) and Salby’s seems striking. Even without further evidence from the work you are doing, the evidence from C12 and C13 would seem compelling to me, assuming the data used by Salby is correct. I am very happy to see others bringing this conflict of explanations to the fore on your page.

    If you can already refute Salby I would be very interested to see how.

    • Svante says:

      I’m also an amateur, but Salby’s atmospheric isotope argument is obviously flawed because he doesn’t consider the exchange with other reservoirs.

      Keep an eye on the red dots after 1850:
      https://tinyurl.com/tq2h8az

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        I don’t think that model allows for any growth in natural emissions, which is a key element of Salby’s hypothesis. Berry extends the argument to include the exchange with other reservoirs.

        • Svante says:

          Here he is, ignoring reservoir turnaround and confusing the C14 drop with the IPCC net curve.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8&t=1860s

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            No one is ignoring reservoir turnaround. It sounds like you haven’t understood the 14C arguments and haven’t read Harde and Berry papers on this.

            What do you mean by IPCC net curve?

          • Svante says:

            The Bern model shows the net remaining atmospheric fraction.
            It’s crazy to match that with the C14 curve without considering circulation in/out of the ocean and land reservoirs which are much greater.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Where does the Bern model show net remaining atmospheric fraction? Who isn’t taking circulation into consideration?

          • Svante says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Where does the Bern model show net remaining atmospheric fraction?”
            On the y-axis in Salby’s video.

            “Who isn’t taking circulation into consideration?”
            Salby when he compares C14 fraction with the Bern model.

            It would be fine if oceans and plants did not assimilate CO2, and if they did not contain so much more CO2 than the atmosphere.

            bdgwx has explained it a hundred times but you don’t get it.

            The only interesting question is how a professor of atmospheric physics can make such a mistake, is it because he ignores everything except the atmosphere?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I have a hunch you don’t know what you are talking about. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

            Salby compares actual data of the disappearance of C14 as a proxy for CO2 and compares it to the Bern model showing that the Bern model is wrong. Why can’t you see that?

            Where has bdgwx explained “it” at least once? Pick the best instance, if possible. I think he is as confused as you are.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic: Salby compares actual data of the disappearance of C14 as a proxy for CO2 and compares it to the Bern model showing that the Bern model is wrong. Why cant you see that?

            C14 decay is driven by carbon cycle exchange. The rate at which C14 decays is modulated by the residence time.

            The Bern model is not designed to estimate residence time or predict C14 decay. It is designed to estimate adjustment time or mass decay.

            That’s the conflation we’re talking about. Salby, Berry, and Harde measure the residence time and then compare it to the Bern model which estimates adjustment time. But that’s an erroneous comparison. It would be like if I claimed the Earth-Sun distance were X and you claimed it was actually Y by measuring the Earth-Moon distance instead. Your measurement of the Earth-Moon distance does not falsify my measurement of the Earth-Sun distance because they are two different measurements.

            If Salby, Berry, and Harde want to challenge the Bern model then they first need to measure or model the adjustment time.

          • Svante says:

            Chic, while you ponder over that one, here’s some of Salby’s natural CO2 sources:
            https://tinyurl.com/ty97wnp

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Are referring to radioactive decay? That’s like 5700 years. Of course, 14C is driven by the carbon cycle and modulated by residence time. So is any CO2 molecule from FF emissions. They differ for reasons not pertinent to how you and Bern estimate adjustment time. Salby et alia don’t need to explain adjustment time because they are simply pointing out how the Bern model is wrong right out of the gate, because it doesn’t match the 14C data.

            Your concept of adjustment time is no use because it doesn’t tell you anything other than stuff hangs around if it continues to show up. It’s ok to believe in it. No harm no foul.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Thanks, Svante. Those graphs are cool. However, I object to this commentary:

            “Carbon dioxide molecules linger in the atmosphere for a century or more, so much of what OCO-2 observes is greenhouse gas that was emitted and accumulated years ago.”

            We know this is not true from the short residence time of any CO2 molecule. It will take longer than a century (forever) for any reduction in CO2 as long as we continue to flourish on this Earth.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            Sorry. That is confusing. C14 radioactive decay is a different concept with it’s own e-time (or typically half-life in that case). What I’m talking about is the relaxation of the ratio of C14 relative to all carbon. This ratio can and does change without any corresponding change in the total mass of CO2.

            Think about it. If you pulse say 0.000000000400 ppm of C14 into the atmosphere thus doubling the concentration to 0.000000000800 ppm and if that C14 relaxes to 0.000000000548 ppm in 4 years then how much did the total CO2 concentration change? Answer…essentially zero because the 0.000000000252 ppm drop is inconsequential considering that there is 400 ppm or 12 orders of magnitude more CO2 of all types in the atmosphere.

            See the problem? Barry, Salby, and Harde are trying to make statements about the relaxation of the total CO2 level by observing a decline of 0.000000000252 ppm of a specific kind of carbon.

            The bomb spike essentially doubled the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. But considering the C14/C12 ratio is like 1 part in a trillion that’s not a lot of the C14 tracer that got added. This makes C14 an incredibly useful tracer for estimating residence time (exchange rate), but a horrible tracer for measuring adjustment time (removal rate).

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You really don’t understand what’s going on. I just hope you will take a fresh look at it. Go back to your analogy. Try red and blue balls again. I give up.

          • Nate says:

            ” I give up.”

            I can find no facts or logic to backup my POV, but I continue to believe it anyway.

            Predictable, by induction.

          • Svante says:

            Chic, I agree with your objection at March 24, 2020 at 5:28 PM.

            Here you can explore how long our CO2 perturbation will last.

          • Svante says:

            Try 400 Gtons and show a million years:
            https://tinyurl.com/yb65bxkq

        • bdgwx says:

          Chic,

          Salby and Berry only measure resident time. They don’t even attempt to measure adjustment time. Yet they play their figures off as if it were adjustment time. The C14 bomb spike and relaxation curve is a demonstration of resident time; not adjustment time.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Berry makes a concerted effort to explain that residence time, relaxation time, and adjustment time are misleading. He uses e-time so as to have a well-defined standard meaning.

            As I wrote above, how can you refer to adjustment time without explaining how close to 100% removal of the pulse has to be absorbed? What if there is no pulse, but rather an exponentially increasing dose?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            e-time is not a thing that is being measured. It is the units you use to measure a thing. He could have used half-life or even just straight years to measure the same thing. It’s an arbitrary choice no different than choosing Fahrenheit or Celsius.

            Both residence time and adjustment time can be expressed in terms of e-folding. But just because you chose to measure them using the same units does not mean you are measuring the same thing. The difference between RT and AT is like the difference between the Earth-Moon distance and the Earth-Sun distance.

            Again…

            Residence Time – The amount of time a specific molecule remains in circulation.

            Adjustment Time – The amount of time a unit of mass remains in circulation.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            Here is an easy to understand analogy.

            Consider a store that stocks widgets. On day 0 the store has 100 widgets in stock. Every day 50 widgets are sold and 49 widgets are restocked.

            Residence Time – The amount of time a specific widget with a unique serial number remains on the shelf.

            Adjustment Time – The amount of time it takes for the total stock to deplete.

            In this example the e-folding rate for RT is 2 days. After 2 days only 37% of the original stock remains. After 4 days it is 14%. After 6 days it is 5.

            In this example it takes 63 days for the stock to deplete to 37% of its original amount. It takes 100 days for the stock to drop to 0%.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “e-time is not a thing that is being measured. It is the units you use to measure a thing. He could have used half-life or even just straight years to measure the same thing. Its an arbitrary choice….”

            You are apparently confused about e-time or half-life “not a thing that is being measured” yet they or “even just straight years” can be used “to measure the same thing.” Which is it? The choice of using one or the other is arbitrary, but the definition of how you calculate or “measure” whichever you choose is not. This is all clearly explained in the first of Ed Berry’s papers. Have you read them?

            You don’t need an analogy to explain to me the difference between a residence time (e-time, etc.) and an adjustment time. What you need to do is ask yourself how to calculate “or measure” an adjustment time. There is a tried and true way to mathematically fit an exponential decay and calculate an e-time or a half-life.

            So how about it. Please provide the procedure for calculating an adjustment time.

            I am impressed with your analogy just the same. Unfortunately it does not represent exponential decay. Every day the stock goes down by one. That’s linear, not exponential. You’ve challenged me to improve on it.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            I am not confused about e-time or half-lives. They are not entities or concepts that are measured. They are the units used to do the measuring. You have to define what it is your measuring for the e-time value to make any sense. Saying the e-time of CO2 is this or that makes no sense on its own.

            For my analogy RT is an exponential decay. We calculate RTe as being 2 days. However the AT is not exponential. It is linear like you said. That was intentional. But we can turn AT into an exponential decay by tweaking the analogy. Instead of the stock depleting by 1 unit per day let’s say it depletes at 1%. The ATe is now 100 days. So RTe is 2d and ATe is 100d.

            To estimate RT of CO2 in the atmosphere you can use a tracer. 14C is an ideal tracer because of the bomb spike. RT is believed to be around 5 years perhaps a hair more maybe.

            To estimate AT of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to consider the carbon cycle as whole and all of the physical processes that play out. The Bern model does this. AT is believed to be 100-1000 years for the anthroprogenic pulse. The interglacial pulses had an observed AT on the order of 10,000 year. The AT of the PETM pulse was on the order of 1,000 years.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “Saying the e-time of CO2 is this or that makes no sense on its own.”

            Neither Berry, Salby, or I are ambiguous on what we mean by e-time. To show that you know what it means, please write the classic equation for exponential decay and identify the e-time variable.

            As I explained, your analogy is not mathematically correct and I haven’t finished showing you one that is. It will show an adjustment time is a function of e-time and the % left to be sinked/removed/decayed. Saying that an adjustment time is 100 to a 1000 years is meaningless.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            Are you disagreeing that in my analogy the e-time for shelf life (residence time) is 2d for 50% exchange and stock depletion (adjustment time) is 100d for 1% removal?

            I double checked my math and I even did an iterative simulation to confirm my numbers. RTe=2d and ATe=100d.

            The point of my analogy is to demonstrate the difference between RT and AT. It’s not meant to be a proxy for the actual carbon cycle…not even close actually.

          • Nate says:

            Chic

            bdgwx is correct that e-time is a math thing, but not telling us what quantity is relaxing.

            Is concentration of co2 relaxing or is c14 tracer relaxing? Not the same, as we have tried to explain.

            You seem determined not to understand.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “For my analogy RT is an exponential decay.”

            Exponential decay of the original stock, not the whole stock. Because roughly half the stock is shipped out each day and replaced with new stock. So roughly 25% of the original stock remains after the second day and 0% by the 7th day or 8th at the most if you are randomly selecting stock to ship. If you are sending the old stock first, it will be gone in 2 days. So your adjustment time is 2 to 10 depending on whether you rotate your stock. I get an e-time of about 1.5 days.

            100 days to deplete your whole stock has nothing to do with the atmosphere. No one is expecting total disappearance of CO2, only the FF emissions.

            “Are you disagreeing that in my analogy the e-time for shelf life (residence time) is 2d for 50% exchange and stock depletion (adjustment time) is 100d for 1% removal?”

            Yes.

            “The point of my analogy is to demonstrate the difference between RT and AT.”

            Back to the drawing board. Keep working on that procedure for computing adjustment time.

            “It’s not meant to be a proxy for the actual carbon cyclenot even close actually.”

            You got that right.

          • Nate says:

            “Back to the drawing board”

            I really didnt think Chic was so dumb that he couldnt understand this basic concept, the difference between residence time and adjustment time, that intelligent skeptics like Roy and Freeman Dyson do, of course, understand.

            Even after graphical illustrations and $ analogies, he just is unable to get it.

            Or he choosing to be willfully ignorant?

            Which one?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic: Exponential decay of the original stock, not the whole stock.”

            Original stock has 50% decay. Total stock has 1% decay. Both are exponential.

            Also, I’m assuming continuous decays for both the 50% exchange rate and the 1% removal rate. You get slightly different e-time values if you use discretized exchanges and removals at end-of-day boundaries compared continuous exchanges and removals throughout the day. I didn’t really want to get into that detail just yet, but I suspect you may have stumbled upon this on your own.

            Chick: Keep working on that procedure for computing adjustment time.

            I do not have the expertise to do this on my own. Fortunately I don’t need to since the Bern model already exists.

          • Amazed says:

            Dummies who cant accept physics are reduced to widget worship. As other commenters have pointed out ad nauseam, increasing CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source does not make the thermometer hotter! No understanding of widgets required.

          • Nate says:

            You mean ‘As strawman specialists have pointed out ad nauseam’

  12. Leitwolf says:

    With regard to CO2 levels we will likely see a sharper dipp as the models have it, since CO2 sinks work independently of emissions. If CO2 emissions would be halved, CO2 levels might actually sink. Though that of course depends on how long the shut down lasts.

    Anyhow, far more interesting is what the shut down of air travel will mean to global temperatures. Also this should not take a long time to take effect.

    My prediction is that we will see a huge decline in temperatures in the NH in the upcoming months.

  13. ken says:

    I am of the understanding that China is back to work. too, people everywhere are still heating their homes and driving to the grocery store. So there might be a dip in overall CO2 emissions this year but I doubt it will be significant.

  14. scott allen says:

    Dr. Spencer we do have a precedence for this global shut down the years of 2014-2015-2016 That is a 3 years of baseline of manmade CO2 (no increase)
    In the years 2014 though 2016 man made output of CO2 remained flat (using a standard base line) and actually declined during 2015 and 2016 This information is supplied by the Global Energy and CO2 Status report released in March of 2019 by the International Energy Agency (your tax dollars at work).
    The CO2 detectors on Mauna Loa observatory of those years shows no corresponding leveling off (pause) in the rise in CO2. (in fact between 2015 and 2016 the rate of rise actually accelerated)
    For the year 2013 CO2 was measured at 396.52 ppm
    For the year 2014 CO2 was measured at 398.65 ppm
    For the year 2015 CO2 was measured at 400.83 ppm
    For the year 2016 CO2 was measured at 404.24 ppm
    If man were causing the increase in CO2 wouldn’t a decline in output show a pause in the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa?
    I am guessing that man made CO2 production dropped during the global recession of 2008 thru 2012 as well, with no concurrent drop in “MEASURED” CO2
    https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2-status-report-2019

    • Nate says:

      ‘If man were causing the increase in CO2 wouldnt a decline in output show a pause in the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa?’

      Yes, if human output was the ONLY source of atm CO2 variability.

      It is well known that there are other reasons for atm CO2 to vary.

      For example the large annual reduction due to the leafing out of N. Hemisphere forests.

      And during El Ninos (like 2015-16) the warming and drying of tropical forests causes their uptake of carbon from the atmosphere to diminish and more fires in these regions release more carbon.

    • bdgwx says:

      Scott,

      According your link…

      2013 = 32.2 GtCO2
      2014 = 32.3 GtCO2
      2015 = 32.2 GtCO2
      2016 = 32.2 GtCO2
      2017 = 32.7 GtCO2
      2018 = 33.3 GtCO2
      2019 = 33.3 GtCO2

      …so I’m not sure why you’re expecting a leveling off of CO2. Also note that 2015-2016 was ENSO positive.

      • scott allen says:

        2013 = 32.2 gt co2

        2014 = 32.3

        2015 = 32.2

        2016 = 32.2

        That looks pretty level to me for CO2 output, the corresponding years for Mauna Loa shows an increase of about 8 ppm and there is an acceleration during some of those years.

        I would compare it to filling a glass of water. when the glass is full the additional water flows over the top at a constant rate, it is not until the faucet is turned higher that the overflow would increase, this is counter to what is reported at Mauna Loa.

        Thus if the natural balance is 300 ppm (i just picked a number) and man is adding 2 ppm every year with increasing co2 output, when man’s output co2 levels off the increase should level off (if man is responsible for the increase)

        • bdgwx says:

          Yes. It’s level. That’s my point. Constant emissions mean rising CO2 level.

          Man injects about 4 ppm/yr into the atmosphere. The hydrosphere buffers about 2 ppm/yr of this injection.

          Getting CO2 levels to stop increasing requires either dramatic emissions reductions or dramatic sequestration.

          The atmosphere and hydrosphere have no practical limit on the amount of CO2 that can be injected. The atmosphere and hydrosphere partition the injection in a complicated way. This is why even though 4 ppm/yr go in the atmosphere only 2 ppm/yr actually stays. But this unbalanced partitioning can persistent for the conceivable future given large persistent emissions.

          • scott allen says:

            You make my point (if you would have just ran the number a few more years.

            YEAR MAUNA LOA CO2 GROWTH RATE MAN’S CO2 Gt. GROWTH RATE
            2013 396.52 2.01 32.2 0%
            2014 398.65 2.19 32.3 0.01%
            2015 400.83 2.99 32.2 -0.01%
            2016 404.24 2.99 32.2 0%
            2017 406.55 1.89 32.7 0.5%
            2018 408.55 2.86 33.3 0.6%
            2019 410.44 2.47 33.3 0%

            Zero growth rate in output but a steady increase in CO2 in the air. If the growth rate of CO2 in the air rises even when manmade co2 does not, where is the co2 that causes the rise in the years that man’s output flat lines, come from?

          • bdgwx says:

            Scott,

            If sources are 104 ppm/yr and sinks are 102 ppm/yr then there is a +2 ppm/yr imbalance so CO2 concentration increases by 2 ppm/yr. This is true even if sources are held constant. Emission can have 0% growth and yet total concentration still increases.

            Go back to my bank analogy below. If you deposit $104 dollars and withdrawl $102 every day your bank account will grow. This growth of the amount occurs even through your deposit growth is 0%.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          The rate that CO2 is sinked is not a function of ONLY the excess as in water over the dam. It is proportional to the total concentration in the atmosphere, like air passing through a filter.

          bdgwx is correct that CO2 will continue to rise even if emissions are held constant, but with two caveats. Eventually a new level would be established when a new level stabilizes at constant inflow. Secondly, if natural emissions continue to rise, so will CO2. This is what Dr. Spencer’s experiment is looking at.

          scott allen is correct that a leveling off of FF emissions during 2014-2016 would show up as a change in the CO2 trend all other things being equal, ie continued rise in natural emissions.

          Nate is correct that those natural emissions might be confounding the evidence, but he is incorrect in proposing “leafing out of N. Hemisphere forests” are introducing any significant variability. There is no evidence of any unusual change in those yearly cycles due to that particular phenomenon.

  15. Louis Gagnon says:

    Since CO2 is not a pollutant, and since it is critical for life on earth, and since it is in relatively short supply in planet earth’s history, and not too far off from a critically low level below which life on earth may not be sustained (150-175ppm), we should celebrate whatever smalll amount of CO2 humans might be adding up to the environment. This being said, I am baffled by our inability to even measure how much CO2 mankind contributes to the environment.

  16. Chic Bowdrie says:

    I self-identify as a deep skeptic, especially on this issue of the percentage of CO2 contributed by human activity. I do think we have to make a distinction between ancient carbon from fossil fuel emissions and “recent” carbon either of which could be anthropogenic or natural. Volcanic activity is a source of natural ancient carbon, but possibly only a few percent of the total. Land use changes are arguably totally anthropogenic recent carbon. Natural recent carbon comes from plant decomposition and fires that would have occurred without human influence.

    The economic downturn is most likely to affect only the human fossil fuel consumption, not the land use changes so much. I was out pruning, raking, and composting yesterday. That type activity is likely to continue globally mostly unabated by the Wuhan virus epidemic. Fields have to be plowed, etc.

    So I applaud Dr. Spencer for monitoring this “experiment” to see if reduction in human fossil fuel emissions will result in a significant change in atmospheric CO2 content.

    • Nate says:

      Skeptics should be skeptical of all ideas, particularly outlier ideas that require us to reject the validity of loads of data, and to swallow a series of highly unlikely coincidences.

      “see if reduction in human fossil fuel emissions will result in a significant change”

      when one puts in actual numbers and looks at actual year to year natural variablity, it can be seen that a short term reduction in human fossil fuel emissions is unlikely to be easily detected in global atm co2.

      Maybe if we look at regional CO2 fluxes.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “when one puts in actual numbers and looks at actual year to year natural variablity, it can be seen that a short term reduction in human fossil fuel emissions is unlikely to be easily detected in global atm co2.”

        Yeah, so let’s not bother to look. /sarc off

      • DMA says:

        “when one puts in actual numbers and looks at actual year to year natural variablity, it can be seen that a short term reduction in human fossil fuel emissions is unlikely to be easily detected in global atm co2.”
        This statement is consistent with( https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ ) which finds that atmospheric Co2 content is not responsive ti human emissions on time scales from 1 to 5 years. I do not think it is consistent with the IPCC statement that ” All of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity.

        • Nate says:

          Well, its all about the amount of change.

          As I noted above, there is natural variability of CO2 growth rates that has presumably always been there.

          That doesnt go away just because we have added an anthro component.

          If human component is drastically reduced for an extended period, it would then be expected to show up in the growth of atm CO2.

          • scott allen says:

            Nate

            We did level off mans output between 2013 and 2016 yet atm co2 still went up…

          • bdgwx says:

            Scott,

            If you had a bank account in which you leveled off your deposits wouldn’t the value of the account still increase?

          • Amazed says:

            b,

            If you doubled your intelligence would it change any physical fact at all? People who know what they are talking about don’t need analogies, do they? Especially if they start with “If . . .”.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            bdgwx,

            Please stop with the pointless analogies. You don’t take into account enough factors like deposits from more than one job and changes in spending habits.

            Use the math as outlined by Ed Berry. If you don’t understand it, then stop trying to explain it to others.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic: You don’t take into account enough factors like deposits from more than one job and changes in spending habits.

            We can’t yet add complexities like this until other posters here understand that a constant deposit of money/CO2 still results in an increase of balance/concentration.

            Chic: Use the math as outlined by Ed Berry. If you don’t understand it, then stop trying to explain it to others.

            I have no problem with Berry’s math. I have a problem with his conflation of residence time with adjustment time.

          • Nate says:

            Nate

            “We did level off mans output between 2013 and 2016 yet atm co2 still went up”

            As expected..we had a strong El Nino.

          • barry says:

            “We did level off mans output between 2013 and 2016 yet atm co2 still went up…”

            Because human output continued.

            If I add add $100 to a savings account, then next week $101, then next week $102, the savings account will grow.

            If when I reach $110 I fix that amount to be the same weekly, the savings account will still grow.

            It will still grow if later I reduce the weekly addition to $20.

            Geddit? Atmospheric CO2 will rise as lonmg as anthro output of CO2 continues, whether the year following is slightly less or slightly more output than the year before.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            barry and bdgwx,

            I made a spreadsheet to demonstrate how useless your analogies are for this topic. The balance depends on how much you spend relative to your deposits. Unfortunately many of us (including governments) don’t pay any attention to that. Fortunately the atmosphere has stricter rules.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/m6p7hdbsdreb921/Bank%20balance%20model.xls?dl=0

            Use the red fields to demonstrate changes in spending rate and starting balance.

          • Nate says:

            Analogies have to make sense.

            How does spending dropping so drastically relate to the Earth?

            Why would the Earth’s sinking of carbon suddenly drop so drastically?

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            We get it. The carbon cycle is more complicated than banking with a single deposit source. But if we can’t get posters on here to understand that constant deposit amounts still result in an increase in your account balance then there’s no way they’ll be able to understand the more complex carbon cycle.

  17. Gerald Machnee says:

    Even if the CO2 levels decrease due to the economic slowdown, some may claim success, but what is real success?
    We have NO way of MEASURING temperature change due to changes in CO2 levels. So you can say emissions are lower, CO2 is lower, but will the temperature change as a result?
    If it does, how will you know (measure) that it is due to CO2.
    That is the problem with the IPCC and the Greenies who only talk about cutting emissions due to fossil fuels. But everyone has MISSED Step ONE – Step One is first prove that CO2 emissions are actually causing temperature change. NOBODY has done it. The RCP etc, are only calculations. So the IPCC ASSUMES that temperatures will rice with increased CO2.

  18. Snape says:

    @ Chic Bowdrie

    [I self-identify as a deep skeptic, especially on this issue of the percentage of CO2 contributed by human activity.-]

    How does the atmosphere differentiate between new and ancient carbon?

    IOW, do you think ancient carbon is specifically selected for sequestering, while only new carbon is allowed to increase global concentrations?

    Neat trick.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Fossil fuel sources have no 14C and new sources depend on how long the source has been sequestered before releasing CO2 and 14CO2. But once released into the atmosphere, the sinks don’t know from where a CO2 or a 14CO2 molecule came from. It treats each the same, respectively.

      There will be some difference in how a plant treats 14CO2 vs. 12CO2 on biological grounds and the ocean on chemical grounds. But I need to review why the e-time for CO2 is so different from 14CO2. You stumped me on that.

  19. Snape says:

    Whoops. The question should be: how do the various carbon sinks differentiate between new and ancient carbon?

  20. ren says:

    Findings from the Wang et al study published on JAMA and based on 138 hospitalized patients
    Common symptoms included:
    (Wang et al study)
    Fever
    98.6%
    Fatigue
    69.6%
    Dry cough
    59.4%
    The median time observed:

    from first symptom to → Dyspnea (Shortness of breath) = 5.0 days
    from first symptom to → Hospital admission = 7.0 days
    from first symptom to → ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) = 8.0 days (when occurring)

  21. Tom says:

    I want to bring your attention to deepcarbon.net in the light of your comment:

    “Of course, there are a variety of natural variations that impact global average CO2 on a month-to-month basis: Interannual variations in wildfire activity, land vegetation and sea surface temperatures, variations in El Nino and La Nina effects, and short-term fluctuations in anthropogenic emissions immediately come to mind.”

    The project deepcarbon.net points out immense natural sources, which are hardly considered so far.

    Essentially, five unnoticed sources have been investigated:
    1.) CO2 emissions in the vicinity of inactive volcanoes
    2.) CO2 outgassing at any unfolding of the earth’s crust
    3.) A gigantic deep-sea and crustal bisosphere that releases CH4, which later decays into CO2 and H2O
    4.) Physical processes that permanently generate H2, CO2 and hydrocarbons in the deep earth’s crust
    5.) The clear refutation that hydrocarbons are solely of fossil origin. They are permanently produced by the earth’s crust and deep biosphere

  22. bohous says:

    Even if the measurement of CO2 is directly dependent on emissions in China, it takes maybe three weeks for the wind to bring the cleaner air from Wuhan to Mauna Loa. I would expect longer time to observe the effect – especially if I consider that the measurements do not fluctuate observably depending on the direction of the wind.

    • Tom says:

      Yes, but

      Yes: It takes time to be well mixed

      But: There is no CO2 reduction at all around 2008. During the financial crisis, there was also a significant decrease in economic activity and thus human CO2 input.

  23. Allan Kiik says:

    Data from OCO2 satellite seems to confirm the idea that most of the CO2 is coming from warming oceans (and tropical rainforests), oceans are getting warmer since Little Ice Ages end and this is what can be behind this slow constant upward trend. Who need human contribution when such a large players are in the game…
    https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/pia18934
    CO2 sources and sinks are clearly visible and China is indeed a big player too.

  24. Guy says:

    Dr Ed Berry has a better simple model of the atmosphere, which obeys the Equivalence Principle and follows Raoult’s Law.
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint-a-fatal-flaw-in-global-warming-science/

    The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not an accumulation of human emmissions, and can’t be because of this principle.

    • Nate says:

      “The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not an accumulation of human emmissions”

      Ed Berry has a model. Others have different models. Some even published.

      Models are not evidence. They are hypotheses.

      They need to be thoroughly tested against all available data.

      Berrys model has not been tested against all sorts of available data on ocean carbon, carbon fluxes, the known carbon cycle.

      It already fails when tested against ice core data.

  25. pochas94 says:

    It will take quite a while for things to change if you’ve got seltzer water rising from the deep.

  26. Data for the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory is available from the Scripps Institution web site. A study of the monthly data covering the period March 1958 to January 2020 gave the following statistics.

    The data displays a regular seasonal variation superimposed on a gradually increasing concentration. The rate of increase in concentration was 1.58 ppm pa for the 61 year period January 1959 to January 2020. The rate increased from 0.69 ppm pa for the 5 year period March 1958 to March 1963 to the recent rate of 2.37 ppm pa for the 5 year period January 2015 to January 2020. The seasonal variation also increased in amplitude over time in an irregular pattern having a annual range between 5.2 ppm and 7.9 ppm. The seasonal variation reached a maximum in about
    April when the temperature was near minimum for the year then declined rapidly to reach a minimum in September when the temperature reaches a maximum. This is the complete opposite to the UN IPCC proposition that CO2 causes warming.

    The later years of the time series were compared with the seasonally adjusted monthly UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature for the Tropics with the series beginning in December 1978. The CO2 data was listed in column 4, the original measurements plus in-fill of missing values from the smoothed sequence and column 9 being the seasonally adjusted values again with missing values filled from a smoothed sequence. Neither set of data fitted a Normal Probability Distribution especially as they displayed strong autocorrelation, that is, the time series were definitely not a random sequence. Consequently First Order Autoregression Model analysis is required in order to determine the relationship between the time series.

    Calculation of the correlation for the seasonally adjusted data between satellite temperature and CO2 concentration gave a value of 0.56 for the Land temperature and 0.42 for the Ocean temperature time series. After detrending of the series, the correlation was 0.068 for the Land temperature and 0.060 for the Ocean temperature series. This shows that the high correlation values from the seasonally adjusted data were the result of the positive linear trend in both of the sequences. This does not give any indication of a causal relationship between the two entities as every time sequence can be fitted with a linear trend.

    Applying First Order Autoregression Model in an analysis of the data gave a correlation for CO2 as the independent variable verses Land temperature as the dependent variable of 0.047 with a probability of zero correlation of 37%. For the Ocean temperature component, the correlation was 0.057 with a probability of zero correlation of 18%.

    There is nothing obvious in the data to date to indicate any component of anthropogenic origin.

    • Dan Pangburn says:

      Agreed, CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on warming. However, warming as a result of water vapor increase, which is above the WV increase from feedback from warming, is from human activity. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

    • Nate says:

      ” CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect”

      IOW

      “It is so because I say it is so.”

      Child-like certainty expressed there, Dan.

      • Amazed says:

        N,

        And your certainty is based on . . . ?

      • Nate says:

        If a dumb strawman can be found, Im certain Amazed-Mike will post it.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Nate,
        Not even close. It took a lot of research (about 13 years) to verify the conclusion that CO2 has no effect on climate. Some of the compelling evidence is listed in Section 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com The cause of the human contribution to GW (increasing water vapor) was discovered mid 2016. Found out the WV increase was mostly due to irrigation about a year later.

        • Nate says:

          No Dan, you believe you have done definitive research. But it has flaws that have pointed out to you.

          Real scientists dont ever claim their results are definitive before the scientific community has even had a chance to review it.

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            Sounds like you will be one of the last to realize that CO2 has no effect on climate and that water vapor does. Hopefully the world will become aware before destroying prosperity of the developed world with action like the Green New Deal. The developing world is apparently ignoring the nonsense.

          • Nate says:

            No, the scientific community will be the last to hear about it, given that you have no intention of publishing your work.

            “Hopefully the world will become aware ..”

            Nope, not if you dont publish your work. Obviously not important to you that the world become aware…

          • Dan Pangburn says:

            Nate,
            The world will become aware when the WV stops increasing.

    • Nate says:

      Bevan,

      I am unclear why you are expecting to see a correlation between CO2 and land temperature after removing a trend?

      What theory are you testing?

      • Nate,
        As I stated above, any time series can be fitted with a linear trend. Comparison between time series with dominant linear trends, as is the case for the CO2 concentration, proves nothing about causation. It is coincident or lagged variations that show possible causation between time series.

        The error estimate for the calculation with the First Order Autoregression Model for CO2 concentration verses UAH satellite lower troposphere temperature mainly shows the variation in the temperature because of the lack of variation from a linear trend for the CO2 concentration.

  27. sott allen says:

    Did anyone else notice that Mauna Loa has quit give daily CO2 readings.

    Very strange that it stopped the day Dr. Spencer wrote this blog.

    the NOAA website gives the following explanation.

    The Mauna Loa analyzer is currently down. No new data will be available until further notice.”

    I am not into conspiracies, but ……………….

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

  28. TimBo says:

    Ive noticed exactly the same and you are definitely onto something.

    Theyve ceased the daily updates because the data wasnt going the way they wanted it to.

    This whole story is actually massive and more needs to be made of it.

    We have a unique historical opportunity to analyze the raw data alongside these mass and abrupt lockdowns and its showing no impact of CO2 levels and blowing the idea we can somehow control CO2 out of the water right in front of our eyes.

    This topic needs far more traction than its currently getting!

    • Nate says:

      Or, just a thought, they have sent people home to social distance…

      • TimBo says:

        I really don’t buy that – I’m sure the site is being serviced and is known for its remote location anyone.

        If it is the case, then perhaps they should state it as so on their site.

    • Nate says:

      Interesting.

      Exactly what way would the data be going that they would need to cover up?

      And do they usually leave gaps in the data?

  29. Eike Roth says:

    Interesting analysis with an interesting result. While it is probably too early to draw a final conclusion, I do not expect much change within the next few months. The major part of the increase in CO2-inventory in the atmosphere seems to stem from natural processes! Anthropogenic emissions are just too small to cause increases in the CO2-concentration by almost 50% in the atmosphere, a quarter of which is exchanged every year. And if another CO2-source is the main culprit, not much change should be seen in the increase of atmospheric concentration if anthropogenic emissions are reduced.
    In your model you presume the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere is proportional to the excess atmospheric CO2 above some equilibrium value. I cannot see a physical reason for that assumption. The outflow should be proportional to EXISTING DIFFERENCES IN PARTIAL PRESSURES! Such differences do exist as a consequence of the mixing of the atmosphere by winds and other weather phenomena: These processes lead to a homogeneous atmospheric CO2-concentration all over the world. In contrast, the partial pressure of CO2 in water is inhomogeneous, because it is strongly dependent on temperature. Therefore, in cold regions we have a high transfer of CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean, and in warm regions we have it in the opposite direction! Regarding biomass, we have an analogous effect due to the change of growing season and decaying season. Both interactions together form the natural circulation. In equilibrium, this circulation is balanced.
    For any increase in atmospheric concentration, anthropogenic or natural, there is an increase in the difference of partial pressures in cold regions and a decrease in that difference in warm regions. As a consequence, the natural circulation is unbalanced and CO2 is sequestered from the atmosphere! This goes on until the net outflow of the atmosphere equals the additional inflow. This leads to a STEADY STATE EQUILIBRIUM with increased concentration and increased but IMBALANCED CIRCULATION. The sum of all inflows equals the sum of all outflows.
    The mixing of the atmosphere has further consequences: All inflows into the atmosphere are thoroughly mixed. Therefore there is neither a preferential flow from source A to sink a, nor from source B to sink b and so on, rather all flows are well mixed into a flow of uniform composition. The atmosphere does not only have the same concentration of CO2 all over, it also has the same composition of CO2-molecules originally stemming from different sources all over! None of these molecules may be distinguished by source, nor residence time in the atmosphere, nor into which sink it will eventually be sequestered. Due to all CO2-molecules being subject to the circulation and all sinks retrieving the same composition of CO2-molecules, the time constant for sequestration must be the same for all CO2-molecules! Any possible group of CO2-molecules has the same time scale.
    The only possibility to have different time constants for groups of CO2-molecules is, if the atmosphere were divided by partition walls into separate sectors, with each sector having its own source, its own flow through it and its own sink. This is definitely not the case in the real atmosphere!
    Following the aforementioned, an increase of the inflow of CO2-molecules into the atmosphere by 5% above the equilibrium value must result in an increase of the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere of also 5%! This is what the anthropogenic emissions should lead to. If the actual increase in CO2-concentration in the atmosphere is larger than 5%, the difference MUST COME FROM A SOURCE ADDITIONAL TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS!
    This additional source is very probably general global warming, whatever the cause. Other effects might contribute, for example changes in oceanic flows with different CO2-content. More work has to be done to finally identify the additionally source, but its existence and overwhelming contribution seem to be beyond doubt.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “In your model you presume the outflow of CO2 from the atmosphere is proportional to the excess atmospheric CO2 above some equilibrium value. I cannot see a physical reason for that assumption. The outflow should be proportional to EXISTING DIFFERENCES IN PARTIAL PRESSURES!”

      Along those lines, I modified Dr. Spencer’s model with some hypothetical growth in natural emissions. It supports your view and mine.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tqog25c4ofxnu9/Modified%20Spencer%20CO2%20model.xls?dl=0

    • Nate says:

      Eike,

      All you say makes sense, until you get to

      “Following the aforementioned, an increase of the inflow of CO2-molecules into the atmosphere by 5% above the equilibrium value must result in an increase of the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere of also 5%!”

      Dont see how that follows from the aforementioned? What is the ‘equilibrium value’?

    • Nate says:

      ‘hypothetical growth in natural emissions.’ that are completely made up, with no independent evidence of their existence. Sure.

    • barry says:

      Eike,

      “Anthropogenic emissions are just too small to cause increases in the CO2-concentration by almost 50% in the atmosphere, a quarter of which is exchanged every year.”

      The increase from anthro CO2 has accumulated over 250 years.

      The total of anthro output for this period is nearly equal to the entire atmospheric CO2 content prior to the industrial revolution. We should have nearly doubled that amount in the last 250 years.

      But the biosphere has been a net sink of these excess emissions.

      The fact that we have output double the atmospheric increase leaves little doubt that the biosphere is a net sink, and that the increase is due to human activities.

      That relationship remains stable into the present. We have tracked it. We output this much, the atmosphere increases by roughly half that amount, decade after decade.

      It’s Occam’s razor to the pwer of 10. It’s not just the most parsimonious explanation, it’s very obvious.

      • Eike Roth says:

        @ Nate:
        All influxes into the atmosphere are completely mixed together into a homogeneous mass and all outflows do not change the composition of this mass. Therefore, if you have equilibrium and you add 5 % influx by an additional source, then the CO2-concentration in that homogeneous mass must go up by 5 % too (as long as there are no saturation effects). If there is much more CO2 within the atmosphere it must have been delivered by another source!
        Natural emissions from the atmosphere are a consequence of higher CO2-concentration in the atmosphere than in the water in cold regions. If atmospheric concentration increases, the difference in partial pressure increases, boosting the natural emissions.
        @ barry:
        In the beginning, constant anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere increase the outflow from the atmosphere to the ocean due to increased difference in the partial pressure in cold regions and reduce the inflow into the atmosphere from the ocean due to decreased difference in the partial pressure in warm regions. The interchange with biomass is more complicated, but in essence follows the same pattern. After some time equilibrium is reached and NO ADDITIONAL CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere. In reality anthropogenic emissions are not constant but rising. But they are so much smaller than the natural circulation that there should be no great divergence to equilibrium conditions.
        The fact that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulated in the atmosphere demonstrates that natural outflow and natural inflow have not remained constant. We do not know the quantity of changes, we only know outflow exceeds inflow by 2 ppm per year. If one of these two had remained constant, the interpretation that 50 % of the anthropogenic emissions remain in the atmosphere and 50 % are sequestered might be correct. But since both natural outflow and natural inflow have increased (albeit in a way leading to a difference between them of 2 ppm per year) and since the atmosphere is well mixed, this interpretation contradicts physics. The only rational interpretation is that some 2 % of the TOTAL annual emissions remain in the atmosphere.
        Natural outflow and inflow have changed in such a way that a difference of 2 ppm per year between them has resulted, leading to the impression of 50 % of anthropogenic emissions staying in the atmosphere. If natural flows had changed to give a difference of e. g. 3 ppm per year, this would give a different percentage remaining. Whatever the value, it would appear to be a very random number in any case. As long as we do not know the laws of these changes very precisely, any resulting number appears to be a very unlikely result. I dont think Occams razor is of any help here.

      • Nate says:

        “If you have equilibrium and you add 5 % influx by an additional source, then the CO2-concentration in that homogeneous mass must go up by 5 % too (as long as there are no saturation effects).”

        This is repeating what you already stated, without explaining it.

        In the real Earth there are seasonal fluxes in and back out that have nothing to do with setting the equilibrium co2 concentration because they are oscillatory.

  30. Snape says:

    @ Chic Bowdrie

    [But I need to review why the e-time for CO2 is so different from 14CO2. You stumped me on that.]

    Are you referring to residence time as e-time?
    No reason I can think of for the two to have different residence times.

    And I assume you are taking about MEAN residence time? Nonsense otherwise. For example, the length of time an individual CO2 molecule spends in the atmosphere varies by chance….. one molecule could leave the exhaust pipe of a car and be sequestered by a plant 10 minutes later. 10 minute residence time.

    Another could get caught in a thermal, climb to 30,000 feet and stay in the atmosphere for weeks, months, years.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “No reason I can think of for the two to have different residence times [or e-time, as Dr. Berry defines it].”

      Salby suggests nuclear power plants have introduced 14C prolonging the residence time. There is probably more to it than that. I think it also involves the influx of 14C from the sinks (recycling). Fossil fuel (ancient) carbon has only been introduced recently relative to 14C which has been introduced at a relatively constant rate forever.

      There is a way to model the difference between a pulse decay and inflows into reservoirs with drains. I spend too much time commenting instead of working on it.

      I don’t think there is any other meaningful measure than mean residence time. Yes, nonsense otherwise.

    • bdgwx says:

      Nuclear power related C14 emissions is a good hypothesis. But that would not increase residence time. What it would do is change the decay curve and provide an illusion that residence time was longer if you do not correct for that bias. I think Berry’s estimate of the residence time is far too long. I’m wondering if he’s not taking into these natural and anthroprogenic sources of C14. I think the actual residence time is closer to 4-5 years.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        C14 emissions from nuclear power would not change the residence time of CO2 which is probably 4-5 years as you say. But those ongoing C14 emissions do flatten the decay curve and that is where the 16 year C14 e-folding time comes from, by fitting the curve. Berry’s not picking and choosing sources. He is simply fitting the curve with one e-time time constant. It’s not a pure residence time because of the conflation with fossil fuel free 14CO2 and additional inflow from nuclear C14.

      • Nate says:

        Papers analyzing bomb curve have also noted that low c14 FF input has made atm decay appear more rapid.

      • bdgwx says:

        Yeah…FF is almost entirely C14 depleted. That would change the C14 decay curve as well.

        BTW…another reason we know the atmospheric increase in CO2 comes from the FF reservoir is because of the C14 drop in trees prior to the bomb spike.

  31. Snape says:

    @ Chic

    This is from a recent comment (Eike Roth):

    [Following the aforementioned, an increase of the inflow of CO2-molecules into the atmosphere by 5% above the equilibrium value must result in an increase of the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere of also 5%! This is what the anthropogenic emissions should lead to. If the actual increase in CO2-concentration in the atmosphere is larger than 5%, the difference MUST COME FROM A SOURCE ADDITIONAL TO ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS!]

    Flawed reasoning – there is a big difference between a linear flow and circulation! The above is true for a linear flow, but CO2 CIRCULATES into and out of the atmosphere.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Eike Roth’s reasoning isn’t flawed, but you are correct in distinguishing between new flow (not necessarily linear) and circulation. My model does predict a 5% increase in atmospheric CO2 if the inflow is increased by 5%. It takes 15-20 years to reach a new level with a 4-year e-time.

      But if you discriminate between ancient (as the 5% increase) and “regular” carbon (in reality you can’t), eventually the ancient carbon will represent greater than the 5% increase in atmospheric CO2 because of recycling.

    • Eike Roth says:

      Snape, I am afraid, you did not see the main point: The atmosphere does not differentiate between linear flow or circulation or any such terms. The atmosphere simply receives CO2 from different sources (ocean, biomass, anthropogenic activities, etc.), mixes all influxes together into a homogeneous mass and emits CO2 from this homogeneous mass to all available reservoirs with a lower partial pressure. This sequestration is subject to only one time constant, which depends only on the CO2-concentration and is the same for all CO2-molecules! The atmosphere does not differentiate whether the CO2-molecules released will be reshuffled to atmosphere in the short term (i. E. the growing and rotting of leaves) or after one thousand years (after remaining in the deep ocean for such a long time) or not at all or whatever happens to the CO2-molecules which have left the atmosphere. Circulation is only an attempt of man to describe the carbon cycle, nature only knows actual parameters of adjacent reservoirs.

      • Nate says:

        “This sequestration is subject to only one time constant, which depends only on the CO2-concentration and is the same for all CO2-molecules!”

        Dont see why that would be true. Sequestration in trees, soils, surface ocean, deep ocean all have different time onstants, and different dependence on concentration.

  32. CO2isLife says:

    My bet is we will see an acceleration is warming due to the Coronavirus and recent shipping rule changes. While CO2 may be decreasing, the result will likely be WARMING not cooling. Why? Shipping regulations require ships to burn cleaner fuels, and falling air traffic has cleaned the skies of contrails. The result will be more radiation reaching the oceans. Warm the oceans and you warm the globe, no CO2 needed.

  33. Snape says:

    @ Chic

    [My model does predict a 5% increase in atmospheric CO2 if the inflow is increased by 5%. It takes 15-20 years to reach a new level with a 4-year e-time.]

    We are adding CO2 to a system where CO2 is CIRCULATING. This does not result in a new equilibrium, it results in a continuous increase.

    Think of adding water to a hot tub.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      My 1:16 PM response was meant to go here.

      I forgot to add that there are two reasons our atmosphere has not reached a new balance level and continues to increase in CO2. The obvious one is that the emissions are growing not constant. The other is like an activation energy. If the emissions were to level off at constant inflow, there will be the expected temporary increase in level followed by a latent decrease while the sinks catch up.

  34. Chic Bowdrie says:

    I recommend reading carefully the first of Ed Berry’s two new papers. His Figure 2 shows a bucket which acts in the same way as a bathtub. While water flows in, it also drains. The additional inflow adds pressure producing additional outflow creating a new equilibrium balance level. Nature really does work like that. Mathematically, it is a first order process.

    • Nate says:

      “Nature really does work like that. Mathematically, it is a first order process.”

      No evidence that this is the dominant mechanism. See my comment at bottom.

  35. CO2isLife says:

    If you are looking at energy flow, you need to look at the oceans. The oceans warm, they then release tremendous amounts of energy through an El Nino and Hurricanes. The oceans cool. To tie warming to CO2, once must be able to show that CO2 can replace the energy lost due to a hurricane or El Nino. What you will find is that the negligible increase in W/m^2 due to CO2 doesn’t provide nearly enough energy to replace the energy lost due to an El Nino. CO2 and 15 micron LWIR won’t warm the oceans, especially the deep ocean. The El Ninos act as a pressure valve for the climate ensuring that it will never experience run away warming due to CO2 even if CO2 can warm the oceans. If CO2 does warm the oceans the time between El Ninos will be reduced, that is it. Simply look at the 600 million year geological record. CO2 has been 7,000 ppm and temperatures never got above 22 degree C.

    • bdgwx says:

      The last time CO2 was at 7000 ppm was about 500 million years ago. Relative to today the CO2 and solar forcing back then was…

      CO2: 5.35*ln(7000/280) = +17.2 W/m^2 (Myhre 1998)

      SUN: -0.4*(1-4100/4600))^-1 * 240 = -10.4 W/m^2 (Gough 1981)

      …which is a net of +6.8 W/m^2. That is climate sensitivity of (22-14) / = 1.18C per W/m^2.

      And if we apply that sensitivity to 2xCO2 today it yields a temperature increase of 1.18 * 5.35 * ln(560/280) = 4.4C.

      That is on the upper end of the IPCC estimate for the 2xCO2 temperature increase.

      • CO2isLife says:

        I would really love to see how those metrics are reached, and what data set is used. The climate data is so corrupted there is no way to rely on and data set for such conclusions. What you can do however is identify locations where you can isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures like dry and cold deserts. Simply look at Alice Spring. CO2 has increased by 33% since 1900, and yet 0.00% temperature increase. You can test this youself by simply finding dry and cold deserts and measure the temperature change. You get 0.00% increase. Before I spent all this time trying to prove that CO2 can cause warming, I would first try to explain why CO2 didn’t cause warming in the areas that are controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. How can CO2 not cause warming when it increased from 270 to 410 is certain locations what have remained essentially unchanged over that time period. That is how real science is done. You don’t set out to prove something, you set out to disprove something. That is why you reject then null. Science never accepts the null as proof. Einstein said, not amount of experiment can prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong. NO estimated values account for clouds or the countless other factors that are needed for such metrics to have validity.

        • bdgwx says:

          I would really love to see how those metrics are reached, and what data set is used.

          I used the Arrhenius formula with Myhre 1998’s 5.35 sensitivity parameter for CO2 forcing. I used Gough 1981’s solar luminosity formula for solar forcing. The 7000 ppm and 22C figures came from you.

          The climate data is so corrupted there is no way to rely on and data set for such conclusions.

          So how do you know temperatures never got above 22C or that CO2 was even 7000 ppm?

          What you can do however is identify locations where you can isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures like dry and cold deserts.

          That might be a reasonable approach if CO2 were the only agent that modulates temperatures on a local scale. But it’s not so…

          How can CO2 not cause warming when it increased from 270 to 410 is certain locations what have remained essentially unchanged over that time period.

          It did cause warming. The global mean temperature increased by 1.1C. The warming is not homogeneous though. There will be variations from one locality to another. Some localities have even experienced cooling.

          You don’t set out to prove something, you set out to disprove something.

          Agreed. Just understand that the hypothesis “CO2 will cause the same amount of warming at every locality on Earth” is not part of modern climate science theory. It has never been considered a viable hypothesis. That makes any argument using it a strawman.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “I used the Arrhenius formula with Myhre 1998’s 5.35 sensitivity parameter for CO2 forcing. I used Gough 1981’s solar luminosity formula for solar forcing. The 7000 ppm and 22C figures came from you.”

            Goldman Sachs said there would be no recession this year. So what. Anyone with experience with forecasting and multivariable models knows they aren’t worth much. Please tell me how CO2 can increase 33% in Alice Springs and every other dry and cold desert without any warming? If CO2 drives temperatures, why are those areas exempt from the laws of physics?

            “So how do you know temperatures never got above 22C or that CO2 was even 7000 ppm?”

            I used published research like you did. If you claim it is garbage, then it is garbage. Are you claiming that the geological records are unreliable? My bet is they are far more reliable than Ice Cores and Tree Rings.

            “That might be a reasonable approach if CO2 were the only agent that modulates temperatures on a local scale. But it’s not so…”

            That is why I chose dry and cold deserts. It is as close to a controlled experiemt as you can get for a climate. As I stated, nothing material has changed in those locations and they are removed from the UHI and Water Vapor effect. Once again, why didn’t a 33% increase in CO2 cause temperatures to increase? DO the laws of physics cease to exist in Alice Springs and other countless areas?

            “It did cause warming. The global mean temperature increased by 1.1C. The warming is not homogeneous though. There will be variations from one locality to another. Some localities have even experienced cooling.”

            That is pure hogwash. The globe did not increase by 1.1C. Michael Mann created a chart that shows it increased by 1.1C. This is so easy to refute. Go to NASA GISS, download all the data for stations with a BI of less than 10 (control for the UHI), and measure the temperature change between 1902 and 2000 (Hockey Stick Instrumental era). You will see that what Michael Mann measured is the combination of the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor. If you control for those two factors, and use the NASA GISS Data (it is even adjusted), you will find no warming since 1902. Don’t take my word for it, simply do that controlled experiment using NASA’s own data. They even “adjusted” the data and it still doesn’t show warming.

  36. Snape says:

    @Chic Bowdrie

    [His Figure 2 shows a bucket which acts in the same way as a bathtub. While water flows in, it also drains. The additional inflow adds pressure producing additional outflow creating a new equilibrium balance level. Nature really does work like that. Mathematically, it is a first order process.]

    This is an example of what I called a linear flow. Water enters and then leaves the bathtub, never to return.

    Do you think CO2 leaves the atmosphere, never to return?

    *****

    You need to apply the same idea – higher water level equals faster outflow – to water circulating through a hot tub.

    *****

    @CO2isLife

    Sorry for commenting in the wrong place. For some reason they all end up at the bottom of the thread.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “Do you think CO2 leaves the atmosphere, never to return?”

      No of course not. But I see where you got that impression. There’s new input from sources (ignore from where for the moment) that is more than the output through the drain, which requires an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s one factor.

      But another factor is the drain is connected to other reservoirs where circulation happens. In that sense a hot tub is a better analogy than a bucket. The data indicates about a third of the CO2 gets circulated each year.

      Another issue is that the reservoirs are both sources and drains. Land, surface ocean, deep ocean, etc. Some of the CO2 that leaves the atmosphere never returns. For example, if it gets into the surface ocean and subsequently goes to the deep ocean
      ending up in an organism or a precipitate that sinks to the bottom.

      As Eike Roth explains, nature doesn’t differentiate on what is human or natural source of CO2. Alarmists are interested in spooking people into a fear that the build up of ancient carbon is harmful. I’m trying to show that this will be extremely slow and totally beneficial.

    • CO2isLife says:

      From the above: 1.18C per W/m^2.

      That energy is quantifiable. The energy needed to warm a gram of water is known. Estimates of the ocean volume are known. Temperature estimates of the oceans are known.

      To warm the oceans takes a whole lot of energy. Simply calculate out how much energy is needed to warm the ocean, and compare it to the energy added by CO2. An El Nino can reduce the ocean surface temperature by degrees. To warm it back up using 1.18C per W/m^2 will take a certain amount of time. What you will find is CO2 simply doesn’t replace the energy lost by the oceans enough to make a difference. BTW, a simple cloudy day accounts for 80x the energy provided by CO2. 1 Cloudy data negates 80 days of CO2’s impact. El Ninos happen far too frequently for CO2 to have an impact. Anyway, CO2 can’t stop El Ninos from releasing energy, so we will never have catastrophic warming as long as the natural pressure valve works. We may shorten the time between them, but we will never have run awaq warming as long as the oceans rule the climate…which is forever.

      • bdgwx says:

        Climate sensitivity in C per W/m^2 is for the lower troposphere.

        El Nino is correlated with higher global SSTs; not lower.

        El Nino is correlated with lower OHC.

        ENSO is a heat transfer cycle. ENSO+ transfers OHC into the atmosphere. This is why the OHC pressure is negative and atmospheric temperature pressure is positive for ENSO+. ENSO is not a source of heat. It is a measurement point for a cycle that transfers heat between the ocean and atmosphere.

        The source of heat for long term increases in OHC and atmospheric temperatures is the planetary energy imbalance. Heat is being trapped inside the geosphere where it accumulates in the hydrosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere, and land. Heat constantly moves between these reservoirs.

        I do agree that clouds are yet another agent that modulates the planetary energy imbalance. However, clouds do not turn off the CO2 effect. Just like CO2 does not turn off the cloud effect. CO2 and clouds plus many more agents have to weighed and considered in aggregate to determine the net effect on the climate system.

        I do agree that CO2 will not stop ENSO cycles.

        I also agree that Earth will not experience a runaway GHE. But it is not because of ENSO. It has to do with the Simpson-Nakajima limit. However, a moist GHE, which can cause water depletion, is possible but would likely take upwards of 10,000 ppm or more of CO2 to kick start it and even then it could be clamped.

        • CO2isLife says:

          “I also agree that Earth will not experience a runaway GHE. But it is not because of ENSO. It has to do with the Simpson-Nakajima limit.”

          The two are not mutually exclusive. An El Nino is like a Firehose, and CO2 is like a drinking straw. En Ninos rush huge amounts of energy out of our system, and CO2 drips small amounts of energy back in. According to MODTRAN about 0.94 W/m^2 since the start of the industrial age (270 ppm to 410 ppm, looking up from 0 km). Let’s say El Nino removes 120 units of energy from the system, and CO2 adds back 1 Unit/mo. It would take 10 years just to get back to where another El Nino was triggered. Let’s assume there is 1 extra cloudy day. Suddenly it is 10 years and 3 months. That also assumes that CO2 and 15 micron LWIR can actually warm water without penetrating it. In reality, my bet is that it causes colling and surface evaporation. Once again, H20 has the highest specific heat of any common substance. The not sure what the “Simpson-Nakajima limit” is but without a Ph.D. in Climate Sophistry my bet is that it is an extrapolation of the CO2 W/m^2 curve which shows a logarithmic decay and eventually approaches an asymptote. That is just another reason CO2 won’t cause and never has caused CAGW. The &delta W/m^2 approaches 0.00.

  37. barry says:

    “The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions.”

    I don’t see how. The current global crisis is a shut down. The plan to reduce CO2 emissions is about replacing energy sources.

    “(assuming there is no reasonably affordable and practical replacement for fossil fuels).”

    Affordable is already happening, even without subsidies:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

  38. Snape says:

    Barry

    [The current global crisis will be a test of just how much economic pain is required to substantially reduce CO2 emissions.]

    This is wrong in some ways, but right in others.

    For example, I have made a point of not flying very often. But if everybody followed my example – as is occurring right now – the airline industry would be devastated. Related industries…. car rentals, hotels, restaurants, would also suffer.

    • barry says:

      It’s wrong to equate “economic pain” from COVID 19 with replacing fossil fuels with anlternative energy sources.

  39. Snape says:

    @ Eike Roth

    [The atmosphere does not differentiate between linear flow or circulation or any such terms.]

    Neither does the water in a hot tub.

  40. Snape says:

    I saved this analogy:

    Lets say 1 gallon of water per minute is pumped into a hot tub and 1 gallon per minute is pumped out. Water level is constant.
    However, if I add just 1/2 cup of water per minute to the hot tub from my garden hose, the water level will rise.

    A knucklehead may errantly conclude:
    Hey, 16 times more water is coming from the pump than from the hose. This proves the hose contribution to the rising water level is negligible!

    • bohous says:

      A more exact example would be that water is pumped out from the bath with speed So depending on the volume in water V which is in bath: So=So(V). For example, the speed with which CO2 is dissolved in water is higher for high concentration of CO2 in the air and the dependence is nearly linear (at constant temperature).

      Lets imagine that So is linear, i. e. So=A*V. At the same time water is pumped into the bath with speed Si. We can write
      dV/dt=(Si-So)
      dV/dt=(Si-A*V)
      Solving the differential equation we get
      V=(Si-C*exp(-A*t))/A
      where constant C depends on the initial volume in the bath for t=0.
      After some time the volume will settle at the stationary value Vs=Si/A.
      Now, if you increase Si, e. g. to Si+d, the volume in the bath will gradually rise to the new stationary value Vs1=(Si+d)/A where it will stop, it will not grow infinitely.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Snape,

      You won’t find a hot-tub analogy that resembles the atmosphere without providing for a drain that sinks in proportion to the level of water in the tub. Obviously maintaining a recycling flow constant while adding a separate inflow will eventually overflow the tub.

      bohous’s model addresses this, but doesn’t explicitly say how the outflow and inflow are related. Just modifying the speed of the pump will not avoid overflow from your garden hose.

      Berry has a more complete development of the model in his second paper on this subject.

      • Nate says:

        ‘providing for a drain that sinks in proportion to the level of water in the tub.’

        Yeah, no.

        Obviously if atm and ocean track each other closely (hint: they do), then no sinking in proportion to level can happen.

  41. Snape says:

    Whoops, should be 32 times more water is coming from the pump than from the hose.

  42. ren says:

    New York Governor Cuomo says:

    Peak number of cases is still 2 to 3 weeks away in New York
    “We’ve procured about 7,000 ventilators. We need, as a minimum, other 30,000 ventilators. This is a critical and desperate need for ventilators [..] We need them in 14 days. Fema is sending 400 ventilators only. Federal action is needed to address this now through the Federal Defense Production Act”
    “The numbers are higher in New York because it started here first, it has a lot of international travelers and has high density, but you will see this in cities all across the country, and in suburban communities. Where we are today, you’ll be in 4 weeks or 6 weeks.
    Probably “hundreds of thousands of people” have already had Covid-19, didn’t know they had it, and recovered. Should be tested for antibodies so they could go back to work and keep the economy going.

  43. Scott Allen says:

    This article by Scipps Insitution of Oceanography on the effect of man’s declining output of CO2, they interviewed Dr. Ralph Keeling (Scipps supplies NOAA with CO2 readings for Mauna Loa)

    “It has been reported, however, that CO2 emissions from China have dropped by 25 percent since the beginning of the outbreak. That alone represents a 6-percent drop in global emissions.
    Based on calculations of how many fewer tons of carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere if there were a sustained 10-percent decline, Keeling estimated CO2 levels in the atmosphere would deviate by roughly 0.5 ppm under that scenario.”

    If I am to understand the last sentence if man made CO2 production dropped 10% we would only see a 0.5 ppm drop in CO2 levels, so in running the numbers a 50% drop in man made CO2 would only be a 2.5 ppm drop in CO2 levels and if man would reduce CO2 production by 100% we would only see a 5 ppm drop in CO2. So out of 415 ppm of CO2 man only produces 5ppm. Can some one explain how my math is wrong or his math is wrong?

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2020/03/11/what-does-it-take-for-the-coronavirus-or-other-major-economic-events-to-affect-global-carbon-dioxide-readings/

    • bdgwx says:

      We would see a 0.5 ppm deviation; not a drop. What that means is that instead of CO2 increasing by 2.5 ppm it would only increase by 2.0 ppm. But it still increases. And this 0.5 ppm deviation would need a sustained 10% drop in emissions for 1 year. A 50% drop in anthroprogenic CO2 sustained for 1 year would take us from a +2.5 ppm increase to a 0 ppm. A 100% drop in anthroprogenic CO2 sustained for 1 year would take us from a +2.5 ppm increase to a -2.5 ppm decrease.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Scott,

      What does deviate mean? From the absolute amount or projected rise? I modeled the effect of a 10% drop in FF emissions starting in 2020. There are three scenarios: The orange curve represents if natural emissions leveled off in 2009. The green curve represents natural emissions leveling off in 2020. The blue curve represents natural emissions not leveling off until 2030.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/j2zrgag52d8kzdp/FF%20emission%20scenarios.xls?dl=0

      This simulation indicates a drop in FF emissions will be noticed immediately if natural emissions have been or will be constant. If natural emissions continue to rise (due to land use changes and population growth), a drop in FF emissions will hardly be noticed.

      • Nate says:

        “If natural emissions continue to rise (due to land use changes and population growth), a drop in FF emissions will hardly be noticed.”

        As discussed above, that is utter nonsense, Chic, given that all calculations show that FF emissions are larger than land-use-change emissions.

        Unless you have NEW calculations that show otherwise?

  44. Nate says:

    Nice work Bouhous.

    But this assumption is not justified:

    ‘Lets imagine that So is linear, i. e. So=A*V.’

    On Earth the natural So (and Si) is driven by Earth dynamics, much of it seasonal.

    Much of So comes from annual leafing out of forests.

    Lots of So comes from seasonal reduction in ocean and land temps that produces an increase in carbon uptake.

    These effects are relatively insensitive to atm carbon content, not linear.

    • bohous says:

      You are probably right. The reality is not so straightforward as any example. I do not dare to claim that I fully describe the complexity of air-ocean CO2 exchange. Nevertheless, I would add that the increase in biomass also may dependent on the concentration of CO2 (not speaking of that in the long term most of the biomass will rot or be burned and the carbon returns into atmosphere).

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        No, he isn’t. He’s doing his usual obfuscation.

        The “So” is not “pumped” but rather drained and it’s a first order kinetic process just as your math describes. Seasonal variation doesn’t change that. CO2 inputs can be manipulated by human activity, but the sequestration processes follows defined physical laws. One needs data to illustrate the exceptions to those rules.

      • Nate says:

        “The ‘So is not ‘pumped’ but rather drained and its a first order kinetic process just as your math describes. Seasonal variation doesnt change that.”

        Well, kinetic processes are important but so are dynamic processes.

        Do you deny that the Earth has driven dynamics that produce the equivalent of pumping?

        Heat is moved around the system causing ocean sinks to become sources and vice-versa.

        Ocean currents carry CO2 to the surface and the deep.

        Plants actually pump CO2 with solar powered biological pumps.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Oh, yeah, I always breathe in a first order process. Those worms, they really pump out CO2 in proportion to the amount they chew. Cow fart pumps rock! Plants…oh wait, they suck CO2 not pump it. And don’t get me started on temperature.

          Nate, King of the Obfuscators.

          Seriously, “Si” are active processes like pumps. “So” are passive. Their output is proportional to concentration with the usual caveats.

          • Nate says:

            “King of Obfuscators”

            Again with ad-homs attacks on the messenger?

            Obviously you dont understand what obfuscation means. Look it up.

            I present arguments or facts, that Bouhous understood, even though you didnt.

            If you dont understand the argument, miss the point, or disagree. That might be on you.

          • Nate says:

            Seriously, ‘Si’ are active processes like pumps. ‘So’ are passive. Their output is proportional to concentration with the usual caveats.

            For some processes ok. But the entire growth of plant requires pumping of fluid up through vessels.

            In a tree that process brings sugars from roots to branches to make buds and leaves. We tap that for Maple syrup. None of that happens without pumping action

            Without dynamics on Earth, seasons, etc all these processes will simply cease.

            What about the thermohaline current sucking carbon from the atmosphere in N Atlantic?

            What about ENSO moving water to the surface or to the deep?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            That’s a case study in obfuscation. You don’t address the first order kinetics math concept that output is proportional to concentration, level, volume, etc. as bohous proposed. Maple syrup? What does that have to do with CO2 sequestration?

            BTW, if it makes you feel better, ad-hom me back.

          • Nate says:

            Obfuscation: I asked you several steps back, and so far no answer.

            “Do you deny that the Earth has driven dynamics that produce the equivalent of pumping?”

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Bohous’ analogy equates speed (S) with rates of CO2 transfer. Si are inputs, So outputs. As long as there is no restriction on the circulating outflow, Si = So. But this is not a proper physical representation of the atmosphere. Inputs can be both active (pumped) and passive, but outputs generally depend on the latter, diffusion and partitioning, first-order processes dependent on the total CO2 concentration. That is what So = A*V represents in the bohous analogy.

            Fossil fuel emissions are one type of CO2 input that is “pumped” in the sense that no natural first-order kinetic process controls it. The air:ocean exchange involves forward and reverse first-order processes that determine the theoretical equilibrium between the two reservoirs. I’ll leave it as homework for you to characterize the multitude of nature’s other processes. You get the final word. Knock yourself out obfuscating.

          • Nate says:

            Well put.

            “Inputs can be both active (pumped) and passive, but outputs generally depend on the latter, diffusion and partitioning, first-order processes dependent on the total CO2 concentration.”

            For many processes that may be true for the atmosphere.

            CO2 is passively leaked thru pores into a leaf, but the reason it does that is because an active process first converted CO2 and H2O in the leaf into carbohydrates. A reduction in CO2 partial pressure in the leaf was created by this active process, in effect it is a pumping process.

            The time scale for the CO2 to leak into a leaf and restore its partial pressure to ~ 350 ppm is << 1 day. Even if multiplied by a trillion leaves, the time scale remains the same << 1 day.

            Of course a < 1day relaxation process cannot possibly have anything to do with the total atm CO2 partial pressure relaxation time of years.

            There are several other time scales involved in the carbon cycle.

            Thus, Berry's model with a single first-order equation giving an exponential decay with a single time constant of ~ 4 years makes no sense.

    • Midas says:

      Do you have the snow mass for ALL years to show that above average snow mass for a particular year is unusual?

      • Ken says:

        Graph says Snow mass this year is compared to 1982 – 2002 max min and average. I heard it somewhere (Lindzen?) say Global temperature anomaly depends much more on Insolation at 60 N than anything else.

    • Svante says:

      Ken says: “Cooling?”

      More snow is not the same as cooling.
      Last winter was the warmest on record.
      You get the most intense snow falls around 0 C.
      Places that were colder will have more snow.
      Warmer air over ice free water generates more snow.

  45. Snape says:

    Chic Bowdrie

    [You wont find a hot-tub analogy that resembles the atmosphere without providing for a drain that sinks in proportion to the level of water in the tub. Obviously maintaining a recycling flow constant while adding a separate inflow will eventually overflow the tub.]

    A drain that sinks in proportion to the water level of the hot tub? Easy, just imagine the hot tub drain is like the bathtub drain, where the outflow increases with pressure.

    You will see it makes no difference!
    When water is circulating, a faster outflow results in a faster inflow. The water from my hose would still cause the water level to rise. Same rate as before.

    *****

    This has been my assertion all along. You and Eike are using the math for a linear/one-way flow, to what in reality is a circulation problem.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      “When water is circulating, a faster outflow results in a faster inflow.”

      You are conflating two types of flow. [Another reason these analogies suck.] If you have just the circulating flow with no draining, the level will remain the same no matter how fast you circulate, right? I do this in the lab with a water bath all the time and it never overflows. But if you add another flow without a drain, the level will rise.

      Add a drain that restricts the outflow so that the tub stays at least with some water remaining. You won’t affect a new level by altering the speed of the circulating flow. The drain only cares about the pressure from additional flow from your garden hose.

  46. Snape says:

    [When water is circulating, a faster outflow results in a faster inflow.]

    Easy to see the same idea WRT the carbon cycle. In Spring, a hundred maple trees would be a much greater carbon sink than 10 maple trees. Greater outflow.

    In Fall, just the opposite. A hundred maple trees would RELEASE much more carbon than 10 maple trees. Greater inflow.

    • Nate says:

      What you call circulatio, I call dynamics, but I think same idea. Fluxes not driven by amount in reservoir.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      I recommend understanding the model before you speculate on what nature is going to do. Or better yet do an experiment that proves your case.

    • Nate says:

      Ok I did one at home. Should film it, but it is simple enough.

      Two classes on a table with a tube between. Fill one glass half way with water, the other half way with a mixture of water and coffee (cold).

      Make the tube act like a siphon by sucking water into it and dipping it below the water level in both glasses.

      The glasses represent the ocean mixed layer (ML) (pure water glass) and the atmosphere (A) (coffee glass). The water represents CO2. The coffee represents CO2 with C14 in the atmosphere.

      A third glass with a tube connecting it to the coffee glass could be added to represent the biosphere, but for simplicity leave it out.

      The water level in the glasses equalizes.

      Now place the ML glass on a book. Its water level is now higher and it flows into the A glass. After about a minute the levels are equal, but more water is in the A glass.

      This represents a warmer ocean during summer that out-gasses into the atmosphere.

      But this is a cyclic process. So take the ML glass off the book and put it on the table to represent the ocean cooling in winter. Water in the A glass flows back into the ML glass, bringing some coffee with it (C14), until the levels again equalize.

      After about 4 repeats of this cyclic process, the coffee is thoroughly mixed into both glasses. This represents the fast decay of C14 levels in the atmosphere due to its short Residence time.

      Now slowly add more water to the A glass. The level rises and equalizes with the ML cup. The level in both cups slowly rises, half of it stays in the A glass.

      This represents the anthro input. About half of it remains in the atmosphere for a long long time.

      Now, to represent the deep ocean, connect the ML cup to a 5 gallon bottle (DO) with a long winding tube. The level in ML glass will equalize with the DO bottle after a long time. In this way both the ML and A will eventually come to equilibrium with the DO after a long time (hundreds of years).

      Now dismiss this analogy if you want, but be specific about the (significant) ways that it differs from the real Earth.

      • Nate says:

        uggh found a mistake ‘Two classes on a table’ should be ‘Two glasses on a table’

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        I applaud you for doing an actual demonstration. It does a good job of illustrating the concept of residence time and alludes to the longer turnover associated with the ocean surface and the deep ocean compared to that between the atmosphere and its land and ocean surface sinks.

        But what does this have to do with the carbon cycle models, in particular the rate and, more importantly, the reason that nature sequesters around 25% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere every year?

        I’m also wondering what you mean by “half of [the anthro input] remains in the atmosphere for a long time” as if this is a bad or unusual thing. What else could it be in your two glass demo? That is one difference from the real Earth.

        How else does it differ from the real Earth? For a start, gravity isn’t the mechanism causing the seasonal cycling of CO2.

        • Nate says:

          “But what does this have to do with the carbon cycle models, in particular the rate and, more importantly, the reason that nature sequesters around 25% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere every year.”

          The fraction retained in the atmosphere is reported to be 45%, so 55% ends up in nature.

          The model is consistent with this, but didnt include biosphere. So not sure what the issue is?

          “Im also wondering what you mean by ‘half of [the anthro input] remains in the atmosphere for a long time’ as if this is a bad or unusual thing.”

          Not bad or good, just is.

          “What else could it be in your two glass demo?”

          Indeed, by design. Again it is simplified.

          Complexity can be added to allow for mixing over time into trees, soils, middle ocean.

          “gravity isnt the mechanism causing the seasonal cycling of CO2.”

          Duh, thats why it is an analogy.

          Raising a glass means a gravitational imbalance is induced between two reservoirs. That mimics the concentration imbalance between ocean/atm induced by the seasonal temperature change.

  47. Snape says:

    Nate, Chic, Eike

    From what I can tell, the reality is a combination of both ideas –

    a) about 50% of anthropogenic emissions have the same sort of effect as adding water to a circulating hot tub. Atmospheric CO2 concentration increases in direct proportion to the input.

    b) but about 50% of anthropogenic emissions end up in a deep sink, not to return to the atmosphere anytime soon.

    This IS the result of the higher concentration in the atmosphere, where the higher concentration leads to greater uptake:

    [This percentage of CO2 taken up by the oceans has remained relatively stable compared to the preceding 200 years, but the absolute quantity has increased substantially. This is because as long as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises, the oceanic sink strengthens more or less proportionally: the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more is absorbed by the oceans until it becomes eventually saturated.

    So far, that point has not been reached. Over the examined period, the global ocean continued to take up anthropogenic CO2 at a rate that is congruent with the increase of atmospheric CO2 , Gruber explains.]

    https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/03/marine-senke-fuer-co2-bestimmt.html

    • Eike Roth says:

      From what I can tell, the reality is quite different: The atmosphere receives CO2 from different sources, blends all of it to a homogeneous consistence, and sends the same CO2 (exactly the same consistence) into all sinks. Anthropogenic CO2 is treated just the same as any other CO2. All sinks receive CO2 from all sources and the consistence of this CO2 is exactly the same for all sinks. All sources contribute to the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere in proportion to their strength. If anthropogenic release is 5 % of the total release, 5 % of the CO2-molecules in the atmosphere can be attributed to anthropogenic release.

      • bdgwx says:

        What percentage of the molecular distribution is anthroprogenic? 5%

        What percentage of the increase in mass from the baseline of 280 ppm is caused by anthroprogenic release? 100%

        Let me give you an analogy that is easier to understand that is should help you visualize this.

        The balance in your bank account is $400 dollars. Every day you get a $100 deposit from your employer and you withdrawal $100 dollars for expenses. The balance will remain $280 indefinitely. Now consider that your parents decide to deposit $5/day so that after 20 days your balance is now $500.

        What percentage of the distribution of your account is from your parents? ~5%

        What percentage of the increase in your balance from $400 to $500 was the result of your parent’s deposit? 100%

        So you see the 5% deposit/emission from parents/humans caused 100% of the increase in account-balance/carbon-mass. If parents/humans did not initiate their deposit/emissions then the account-balance/carbon-mass would not have increased.

        • Amazed says:

          Unfortunately, nobody has ever managed to raise the temperature of a thermometer by surrounding it with CO2. That is why you are reduced to stupid and pointless analogies, isn’t it?

          No science.

        • Chic Bowdrie says:

          Honestly, bdgwx you are polluting this topic with your stupid analogies. I explained with your stock analogy that nature doesn’t rotate its stock. It’s not last in, last out. The stock gets mixed and the output is random. So your parents contribution doesn’t just sit there accumulating while you continue to spend your $100/per day.

          The second problem is the increased input puts pressure on the output. Therefore the additional parental contribution forces an increase in withdrawals.

          You say you “get it” but continue to demonstrate you don’t.

          I’m not done. People like Nate keep claiming without evidence that there is no increase in natural emissions as if 250 years of population growth has had no effect on them. It’s a shame that you all have to go to such lengths just to confirm your biases.

          • bdgwx says:

            My analogies are not last in, last out. The stock of money/CO2 is mixed and is randomly selected for output. I’m not assuming the parent-money/human-co2 sits there and accumulates. In fact, I’m assuming the exact opposite. That’s why the parent/human contribution to the mixture is only 5% despite their contribution to the increase is 100%. That was the whole the point. Now if I were to use a last-in/last-out approach then the parent/human mixture of the total would be 100/500=20% and 130/410=31% respectively which is not correct and proves that I didn’t use that approach. And finally, if you remove the parent/human deposit/emission then the balance/concentration would not have increased.

            Yes. Increased input does put pressure on the output in the real world. It doesn’t matter. Do the simulation yourself. The distribution of the mixture is driven by the exchange rate while the amount is driven by the imbalance. You’re still going to get a low distribution percentage (~5%) and a very high percentage (~100%) reason for the increase in total amount given the new source and tapping of the new reservoir. This occurs even when the biosphere and hydrosphere scrub 50% of the atmospheric emission.

            You are still conflating the concepts of residence-time/mixture-ratio with adjustment-time/mass-balance.

            I fear that Berry, Salby, and Harde have fooled people so badly that many will never be able to understand concepts that should be easy enough for high school and even middle school students to understand. And if people cannot understand a simple banking example of which they should be very familiar then they’ll never be able to understand the vastly more complicated carbon cycle.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I understand your first paragraph and agree that the $100 in and $100 out scenario means that your parents are contributing 100% of the increase in the balance from $400 to $500. Based on your concession in your second paragraph “Increased input does put pressure on the output in the real world,” do you agree that this $100 in/$100 out scenario is non-physical in an Earth science sense? I hope so, because there is plenty of evidence that the sinks are not backing up. Snape has just linked to a relevant Gruber paper at the beginning of this subthread.

            “The distribution of the mixture is driven by the exchange rate while the amount is driven by the imbalance.”

            I have no idea what you mean by that. I have done the simulation myself and I will link to it again. Let me know if you do or don’t understand that model and how it differs from Dr. Spencer’s model.

            https://www.dropbox.com/s/ocmvbbo71fplkr0/Modified%20Spencer%20model.xls?dl=0

            The fact that there is any net amount sequestered is driven by an imbalance, but the specific amount sequestered is a function of the whole concentration not just of the amount of imbalance. The difference is crucial.

            What we are discussing has nothing to do with residence time vs. adjustment time. That is another issue. Our issue here is the first order kinetics (sequestration proportional to total concentration) vs. some non-linear process (sequestration proportional to imbalance).

            If you can’t distinguish the difference between these two concepts, you have no business besmirching Salby, Berry, and Harde. It’s mind-boggling that you would propose a banking analogy to explain a physical process. At least the hot tub has some related physical processes involved.

          • Nate says:

            ‘Our issue here is the first order kinetics (sequestration proportional to total concentration) vs. some non-linear process (sequestration proportional to imbalance).’

            That is another important issue.

            But why do you think sequestration proportional to imbalance is NOT playing a role, when it clearly does determine ocean-atmosphere flux?

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Read this:

            http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/carbon-14-origins-and-reservoir.html

            and the subsequent discussion between Gavin and Kevin. Gavin and Dr. Spencer’s model is based on the imbalance model. My modified model is based on Kevin’s physical model demonstrating sequestration proportional to total concentration. Same model Salby, Berry, and Harde use.

          • Nate says:

            ‘People like Nate keep claiming without evidence that there is no increase in natural emissions as if 250 years of population growth has had no effect on them. It’s a shame that you all have to go to such lengths just to confirm your biases.”

            No. Im claiming that if you think that the human effect on ‘natural’ emissions are significant, you need to be quantitative.

            Show or cite even a rough calculation of the magnitude of these emissions, and you refuse to do so.

            You need to be quantitative because others have done so, and always found that FF emissions are larger than the human-caused emissions from their effects on the land.

            This argument is thus glaringly illogical.

            Because you and Berry et al believe FF emissions are much too small to account for the rise in atm co2.

            Yet you want us to believe that another human-caused source, that is by all calculations SMALLER, is yet big enough to account for the rise in atm co2.

          • Nate says:

            “and the subsequent discussion between Gavin and Kevin”

            You can see it in the very first exchange. Where Gavin politely makes the simple point about residence time vs adjustment time and why this matters.

            Kevin, instead of addressing this KEY point head on, his response is to simply ignore this, and try to repeat his own points.

            This is strikingly similar to OUR arguments!

            I was unable to glean from any of it the answer to my question to you (surprisingly!):

            ‘why do you think sequestration proportional to imbalance is NOT playing a role, when it clearly does determine ocean-atmosphere flux?’

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            I already showed in my modified Spencer model that an increase in natural emissions from 166 to 236 GtC matches the Mauna Loa data perfectly. I admit that might be an exaggeration, but there are extenuating circumstances not yet introduced.

            “You need to be quantitative because others have done so, and always found that FF emissions are larger than the human-caused emissions from their effects on the land.”

            I’m going to assume by human-caused emissions from their effects on the land, you mean land use changes. Yes, these are reported to be around 1.5 GtC/year from one old source (Houghton, 1995). A description of that data says, “Please note that recorded values outside of the tropics after 1990 represent crude estimations and not new calculations.”

            I don’t see any data estimating natural emissions that are not considered land use changes. Please provide the quantitative data showing that FF emissions are greater than the total of all natural emissions, not just those from land use changes.

            I’m not asking you to believe anything in particular (other than to unbelieve some of your biases). I don’t see any estimations, let alone calculations, showing that natural sources–other than those caused by humans–could not exceed FF emissions.

            “This is strikingly similar to OUR arguments!”

            Not really. Gavin defends his math despite being shown how unphysical it is. You have yet to demonstrate any such understanding of the difference.

          • Nate says:

            “I dont see any data estimating natural emissions that are not considered land use changes. Please provide the quantitative data”

            Nice obfuscation example there. You have no answer to my questions, you try to turn it around.

            YOU were asked to provide a quantitative estimate to support YOUR claim that human effects on the land have increased emissions significantly.

            A real skeptic would have already done or found an estimate.

            Bizzarely you dont understand the illogic of this claim.

          • Nate says:

            Residence time vs adjustment time. You seemingly understand the difference (coffee-water example).

            But do you still insist that the Berry et al use of C14 data is all good? Or are you just going to pretend it doesnt matter as Kevin does?

          • bdgwx says:

            Obfuscation is what Berry uses as well.

            He has been asked to explain the source of the carbon in the atmosphere. He deflects, obfuscates, and equivocates because his model has no answer to that question.

            He has been asked to clarify what values of residence time and adjustment time his model yields. And again we see obfuscation. He does not seem to want to provide any clarifying details. In fact, he often just claims there is no such thing as adjustment time. Now if we take his statement verbatim he is saying there is no such thing as the time it takes for sources and sinks to return to a balanced state.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Nate and bdgwx,

            I wish guys would let it go. All I’m doing is exposing the holes in the arguments claiming humans produce all the increase in CO2. Go ahead and believe what you want. Continue to throw up the same old arguments over and over without any hard data. I wish I had the time and resources to do the work (experiments and measurements, not google searches) necessary to show how much natural emissions have grown since man began multiplying and subduing the Earth. Genesis 1:28-30. If you count all of that activity as human-caused CO2, then I agree with you.

            However, if you want to concentrate only on the FF emissions and claim they are responsible for a given proportion of the CO2 in the air today, then you need definitive evidence that Berry and the rest of us are wrong. Berry et alia have demonstrated the mathematical concepts underlying our positions. They have shown those concepts fit the hard data such as C14. I showed how hypothetical data could also match the Mauna Loa data.

            Even if you could provide the missing data for what the magnitude of the growth in natural emissions actually is, I would then explain why CO2 is more concentrated without attributing an unwarranted share to FF emissions based on air to ocean physical chemistry.

            I apologize for any ad-homs, but if you still don’t understand the adjustment time problem then you are dense or not reading what I write.

            If Berry has been asked and failed to clarify carbon sources, I would like to read about it. Where? I suspect he shares my view that the data on how much non-FF emissions contribute is unknown.

            Include Berry’s position on adjustment time, too, please.

            Adjustment times of 100 to 100,000 years are meaningless. What is the difference in adjustment times under these three scenarios? 1) FF emissions end immediately. 2) FF emissions continue at 5 GtC/year. 3) FF emissions continue to rise unabated.

          • Nate says:

            “if you still dont understand the adjustment time problem then you are dense or not reading what I write.”

            Exactly how I feel about you Chic.

            Youve simply tried to pretend the issue doesnt matter, with no explanation.

            Im sure bdgwx, svante, roy, and freeman dyson would agree.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Ok, then where did you write your explanation of the adjustment time problem? Which is as I’ve asked at least twice before without a coherent response from you:

            “Adjustment times of 100 to 100,000 years are meaningless. What is the difference in adjustment times under these three scenarios? 1) FF emissions end immediately. 2) FF emissions continue at 5 GtC/year. 3) FF emissions continue to rise unabated.”

            And get all the help you need from any of your friends who are still living.

          • bdgwx says:

            1) About 1000 years for one e-fold. The return to < 300 ppm is about 100,000 years. The temperature response returns to within 1.0C in about 3000 years.

            2) Good question. I don't know except to say that it would be greater than for #1.

            3) For a 3000 GtC pulse (known FF reserves). It is about 4000 years for one e-fold. The return to < 300 ppm is about 800,000 years. The temperature response returns to within 1.0C within 300,000 years.

            http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/slugulator/slugulator.html

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            1) What calculation did you use to get 1,000 years for one e-fold? I thought we all agreed that e-folding time was the retention time of about 3 to 10 years depending on whose estimate you use. And how did you get from 1,000 years to 100,000 years? Using the Slugulator model?

            Have a look at the source code for that model. Do you see drawdownTime = [300, 5000, 400000] and drawdownFrac = [0.75, 0.15, 0.1]? Where do you suppose those numbers came from?

            2) Good answer. When we agree on 1), we will have agreed on 2).

            3) Now you are saying the e-fold time is 4,000 years. Maybe we have different definitions of e-time. Please define exactly what you understand e-fold to be. In my model using e-times between 4 and 16 years, the 3000 GtC pulse is back to base line in about 5 e-times.

            It’s penetrating insight into the intuitively obvious to know that the time something takes to completely disappear is longer than the time it takes for a portion of it to be turned over each year. If you think it’s more complicated than that, then let’s get into the details. But first we have to get on the same page with the jargon and the math.

          • bdgwx says:

            Chic,

            We agree on what e-time is. It is one e-fold or 1/e of the whole. And in this context ‘whole’ is the pulse. And what we are measuring here in units of e-time is the adjustment period for the relaxation of mass.

            1) Enter 550 GtC for CO2. That is a 280 ppm pulse for a final concentration of 560 ppm. That is a 2xCO2 scenario. One e-fold for this 280 ppm pulse is (1/e)*280 = 103 ppm of the pulse remaining. That is a final concentration of 103+280 = 383 ppm. Observe where the blue line drops below 383 ppm. This is a bit more than 1000 years. And takes about 100,000 years to return to < 300 ppm.

            3) Enter 3000 GtC for CO2. This is a 1500 ppm pulse for a final concentration of 1780 ppm. That is a full FF extraction and emission scenario. One e-fold for this 1500 ppm pulse is (1/e)*1500 = 550 ppm of the pulse remaining. This is a final concentration of 550+280 = 830 ppm. Observe where the blue line drops below 830 ppm. Again…a bit more than 1000 years. For this pulse size it does take about 800,000 years to return to < 300 ppm. My 4000 figure in the above post was a typo. Sorry about that.

            I believe the numbers you see in the source code are the partitions. That's how the Bern model works. It partitions the relaxation of concentration based on the physical processes in play. Some processes are fast (a few years) and some are slow (thousands of years or more).

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            1) I see what you are doing now. Your Slugulator has only one field for ocean overturning time and you set it or it defaulted to 1000 years. Did you notice that if you set it to 10 years, you still would never get below 300 ppm? This is gigo from the Slugulator. Someone has purposefully programmed it to mislead you, didn’t write the program correctly, or used the invalid Bern model adjustment factors. Either way, the adjustment time is grossly exaggerated.

            Same applies for 3). I don’t know why you believe those partition/Bern model numbers. The C14 pulse in 1960 is all but gone now in 60 years or about four e-times. Why would a burst of CO2 take any longer?

            At least I’m satisfied that our disagreement is over the Bern model and not the definition of adjustment time or e-time.

          • bdgwx says:

            I’m not sure I do believe the Bern model partitioning parameters. In fact, there’s good reason to believe that the Bern model could be underestimating adjustment time. Why? Because the paleoclimate record shows that it often takes > 10,000 years for a pulse to e-fold.

            The C14 bomb spike pulse is almost gone because it is being exchanged at a rapid pace with C12/13 molecules. This exchange occurs even if there is no change in the total ppm of all CO2. In other words, C14 will almost fully deplete without any change whatsoever in total CO2 concentration. And it will happen very quickly.

            Think of it like this…let’s say humans tune their emissions to bring to the carbon cycle back in balance such that there is 0 ppm YoY change in CO2 level and that this balance persists indefinitely. The 410 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere today will remain 410 ppm forever. But…the C14 will continue to deplete. Again…C14 molecules are being exchanged for C12/13 molecules even though there is no change whatsoever in the total CO2 concentration.

  48. Snape says:

    Good example!

    You clearly meant to write – The balance will remain $400 indefinitely.

  49. Snape says:

    Mar. 26, 2020: 415.43 ppm
    Mar. 26, 2019: 410.44 ppm

    Feb. 2020: 414.11 ppm
    Feb. 2019: 411.75 ppm

    https://www.co2.earth/monthly-co2

    • Jim Ross says:

      Thanks for posting this but, as I am sure you will know, using a specific date (such as March 26th) for year-to-year comparisons is almost completely meaningless at this time of the year.

      If you look at the daily data here (esp. last March): (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html) you will observe that daily fluctuations are huge from Jan-March and hence are not really helpful. At a weekly level, they are potentially more informative but, as we can see, last year CO2 levels were dropping through March but are climbing this year. In my view, this is simply a combination of the year-to-year small variable timing of the reduction in growth rate (either Jan-Feb or Feb-Mar) and the uncertainties in the weekly data due to the large daily fluctuations.

      More relevant, in my opinion (to the extent that we can ascertain anything meaningful from the weekly data) is the relationship between the latest weekly values and the previous month. We know that the monthly values show a drop in growth rate of CO2 during Jan/Feb/Mar virtually every year (with the possible exception of during El Niño years, where the reduction in growth rate is generally minimal or absent). It looks like this year’s growth from Feb-Mar will also be very small, so that will not tell us anything new. The key will be the growth during April and May.

      Having said that, It is worth noting that the annual growth rate based on the last 20 years (NOAA data, May-May) is 2.2 ppmv/yr but the real issue is that the SD is 0.7 ppmv. This is very largely driven by ENSO, but the idea that we can interpret anything meaningful from a year-on-year drop of say 0.2 ppmv is of course nonsense.

      Nevertheless, I do support Dr spencer’s serious efforts to see if any meaningful differneces can be identified and I shall keep an open mind until we see the actual data.

    • bdgwx says:

      Yeah. I agree Jim and I suspect Snape does too. There’s just too much variability in YoY changes to draw too many conclusions. And like you I am interested in seeing how much CO2 emissions are suppressed and whether it will have a noticeable effect on CO2 levels. The problem is that these economic slowdowns don’t typically have a huge impact on emissions. I believe the 2008-2009 recession only dropped emissions by a couple percent or so if I remember correctly.

  50. globalwarmer says:

    it is my opinion that the human race is heating the Earth directly by burning fossile fuels and such (nuclear fuel). I had given it some thought and I even made some primitive calculations myself. Should the temperature drop in the next month or so this should be a very plausiple hypothesis for my second Nobel prize.

  51. globalwarmer says:

    concerning the satellite measurements. Should we cover the earth with an insulator and the temperature below rises, what would the satellite show?

  52. Chris Hanley says:

    I’m wondering how long this global economic shutdown must continue to get below the ‘safe’ atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350ppm.

  53. Snape says:

    @ Jim Ross

    I totally agree with you. OTOH, the link debunks the conspiritards upthread, who thought the scientists at Mauna Loa were trying to cover up inconvenient data:

    sott allen
    March 24, 2020
    Did anyone else notice that Mauna Loa has quit give daily CO2 readings.

    Very strange that it stopped the day Dr. Spencer wrote this blog.

    the NOAA website gives the following explanation.

    The Mauna Loa analyzer is currently down. No new data will be available until further notice.

    I am not into conspiracies, but .

    Petwap
    March 24, 2020
    DR Roy Spencer.

    Comment?

    Ken
    March 24, 2020
    That closure is just too convenient.

    TimBo
    March 25, 2020
    Ive noticed exactly the same and you are definitely onto something.

    Theyve ceased the daily updates because the data wasnt going the way they wanted it to.

    This whole story is actually massive and more needs to be made of it.

    We have a unique historical opportunity to analyze the raw data alongside these mass and abrupt lockdowns and its showing no impact of CO2 levels and blowing the idea we can somehow control CO2 out of the water right in front of our eyes.

    This topic needs far more traction than its currently getting!

    • scott allen says:

      Snape you read way tooooo toooo much into my post about Mauna Loa being shut down right after Dr. Spencer posted that he was looking into CO2 levels dropping or not dropping.

      I just find that things like this just strange. Like someone will complain about a factory (for what ever reason or no reason) at that same factory will have a fire/etc. or someone will point out a flaw in a car/airplane/bicycle/food/clothing etc. and that day planes will crash, Tesla’s will catch fire, Explores will roll over, GMC pick ups’ gas tanks catch fire, etc.

      Or how about this oddity
      The Chair of the Chemical and Biology department at Harvard University was charge with criminal conspiracy. Two Chinese nationals were also charged, one of them was arrested on the 10th of December 2019 after being caught trying to smuggle out 21 vials of biological research.
      The two Chinese researchers also working at the Wuhan biological lab.
      The timing on the Harvard professor could not have come at a worse time for him, every juror or judge will believe in the back of their minds that he was helping the Chinese import/export Wuhan/Chinese/Corona flu.

      I just find somethings odd.

  54. Entropic man says:

    Coming back to Covid-19. This is interesting.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M

  55. Snape says:

    @ Chic Bowdrie

    Your comments have helped me to better understand the CO2 situation. Thank you!
    Two processes, each involving different math, are happening at the same time. These can be combined into one simple analogy:

    Imagine a sink with two, equal sized drains. One drain leads to the sewer. The other drain wraps around and empties back into the sink (all the water that goes down this drain ends up back in the sink).

    Now, turn on the faucet. Half the water will gone for good, half the water will be recycled.

    What happens to the water level in the sink?

  56. Snape says:

    Yeah, I really liked what Nate came up with.

    I was looking for a way to also incorporate the pressure forcing you mentioned. The more water in the sink/tub, the greater the pressure. The greater the pressure, the faster the water goes down the two drains.

  57. Snape says:

    Chic
    I wont be able to understand the top link until spending some time reading about C14. The math in the bottom link is above my ability.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Not a problem. I was introduced it forty years ago and haven’t used it much since. Well worth the time if you are interested in heat transfer and chemical diffusion applications. I’ll look for something basic which does the same as Ed Berry does, but with a more purely mathematical than engineering approach.

  58. Entropic man says:

    Sorry, wrong video.

    Try this one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54XLXg4fYsc

  59. Snape says:

    http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/carbon-14-origins-and-reservoir.html

    In the comments section, Gavin Cawley explains the point I have been trying to make regarding circulation:

    [The residence time for CO2 is not equal to the adjustment time because of the vast exchange fluxes that constantly exchange CO2 between reservoirs, but this is a straight swap, so it doesn’t change atmospheric concentrations. 14C has a short residence time, but mostly because it is just being exchanged with 12C and 13C from the oceans and terrestrial biota. This is a somewhat counterintuitive idea that is often misunderstood, which is why I wrote a paper about it]

    For reference, adjustment time is the time it takes for the inflow into a reservoir to once again equal the outflow…. after they were thrown out of balance.

    • bdgwx says:

      That’s a great description/definition of adjustment time.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      Gavin is coming from the perspective that an equilibrium of CO2 between the air and biosphere has existed from time immemorial. Therefore its reasonable for he and others to refer to a “straight swap” when discussing retention time. The introduction of FF emissions represents a pulse of new CO2 that perturbs that equilibrium. It’s understandable to speculate on how long it takes for that pulse to re-equilibrate.

      I don’t think the argument over residence time vs. adjustment time will ever be settled. It’s hard enough to agree on what residence time is. I still can’t get my head around how different it is for C14 vs. C12. And there will never be a finite adjustment time until we run out of fossil fuels.

      The main conflict between Gavin and Kevin is over the physical process that governs an imbalance in the equilibrium. Gavin (and Dr. S) are modeling it as proportional to the excess. Kevin uses a “textbook” model makes it proportional to the whole concentration which includes the excess. I illustrated how that works by modifying Dr. Spencer’s model.

      As a follow up on understanding Keven Hashemi’s model, I recommend understanding a more simple two-compartment model with constant input into one and first-order output from the other and exchange between the two (also first order). That is essentially your two-hot-tub model.

  60. CO2isLife says:

    Someone, please give me an explanation of this observation. I’m not a Climate “Scientists” but I have a scientific background. I rely on the scientific method, data and experimentation to shape my opinions. Looking from the outside at this CO2 driven warming theory I developed a simple controlled experiment. Temperatures are impacted by Sun, the Urban Heat Island Effect, Water Vapor, CO2 and other factors. Cold and Dry Deserts are natural controls for the UHI Effect and Water Vapor. CO2 evenly blankets the globe, so its effect is effectively a constant relative to location, i.e. CO2 is 410 PPM at the N Pole, S Pole, Equator, Surface and 70 km up. In other words, CO2 can’t be blamed for regional/spacial temperature differences, it should cause a parallel shift in temperatures. The experiment was simply to identify locations in the cold and dry deserts, and measure the temperature differences over the past 100 years when CO2 increased by about 33%. What you will find is that the Raw/UnAdjusted Data shows no warming. None at all, in fact, temperatures were much cooler in 80s and 90s then back in the early 1900s. How can that be if CO2 is the main driver of temperatures? Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in the areas only impacted by an increase in CO2? Here is a chart for your review, be sure to use unadjusted data for analysis.

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=501943260000&dt=1&ds=5

    • Bindidon says:

      CO2isLife

      All I can say is that much much alarming happens because so many people – like you – think that an increase in CO2 automatically means an increase in surface temperatures, because CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere and its effect therefore should be measureable everywhere.

      This is not the case because at surface, the main GHE agent still is water vapor, and that won’t change before the next Milankovitch cycle bottom is reached.

      At that time it will become so cold again that all water vapor present in the troposphere will precipitate down to snow and ice.

      In all deserts, there is few water vapor above the surface, and there are no clouds above; and that is the reason why it is cold there at night, be it in Adelaide, in the Sahara, in the Atacama or in the Gobi desert.

      The best explanations concerning GHE are here:

      http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf

      Unfortunately it is written in French (Google Translator might help).

      These people say that
      – H2O and CO2 (and other gases like CH4, N2O etc) intercept IR radiation emitted at the surface, and equally reradiate it up and down;
      – this process lowers the amount of energy radiated to space;
      – CO2 has no such influence where H2O exists;
      – but it has where it is so cold that H2O stops to exist due to precipitation (above the tropopause);
      – the more CO2 there is in the stratosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which IR leaves the planet, what again lowers the amount of energy radiated to space due to the T^4 problem;
      – the very tiny warming induced by this process has a deeper consequence, namely to incrementally obstruct the atmospheric window (8-12 microns) which up to now lets all IR pass thru (H2O actually absorbs below it, and CO2 does above).

      This, CO2isLife, is termed ‘pseudoscience’ by exactly those people who are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict it.

      J.-P. D.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “All I can say is that much much alarming happens because so many people – like you – think that an increase in CO2 automatically means an increase in surface temperatures, because CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere and its effect therefore should be measureable everywhere.”

        The quantum physics of a CO2 molecule and the GHG Effect are fixed. If you claim that CO2 is the main/most significant driver of temperatures, then that is a pretty simple model and you have no evidence to prove it. None as I’ve demonstrated. If I add 1000 BTUs of energy to a liter of water, its temperature will increase X Amount, no matter how many times I run that experiment. If the water doesn’t warm as much a calculated, I don’t claim that the model is right and the measurements are wrong. I go re-examine the model. That is what seems to be lacking in this field of Climate “Science.” They don’t seem to rely on how real science is done.

        “This is not the case because at surface, the main GHE agent still is water vapor, and that won’t change before the next Milankovitch cycle bottom is reached.”

        Back to real science. H2O saturates the GHG effect in the lower atmosphere. Additional CO2 won’t alter that effect. You can onnly thermalize 100% of the LWIR. Adding CO2 to the system doesn’t add additional energy. Putting a thermos inside a thermos won’t greatly slow the cooling. The 100 coat of black paint on a window won’t block much additional light. All ground based thermometers are located in the area where H2O dominates. What those measurements are showing is the effect of increaseing water vaorp in the atmosphere, not CO2. What increases H2O in the atmosophere? NOt CO2, but more trees and warmer oceans will. What have we witnessed? The Greening of the N Hemi and warming of the ocean. What is warming the oceans? MOre sun light due to a lower cloud cover over them. If CO2 does contribute to more warming it is due to its effect on plant growth and the resuling increase in H2O.

        “In all deserts, there is few water vapor above the surface, and there are no clouds above; and that is the reason why it is cold there at night, be it in Adelaide, in the Sahara, in the Atacama or in the Gobi desert.”

        That is my exact point. CO2 doesn’t “trap” much heat, H2O does. You can sleep naked in a rain forest, you can freeze to death sleeping naked in a desert. Instead of focusing on CO2, people should focus on what is truly chaning in the lower atmosphere that can have a significant impact on temperatures. It isn’t CO2.

        “CO2 has no such influence where H2O exists;”

        I’ve been saying that for years. Just use MODTRAN and that becomes apparent real fast. Is that the only place you’ve found that published? If so, Climate scientists clearly don’t even understand the basics. That should be paragraph 1 Chapter 1 in every climate text book. If you have to find some French Paper stating that, we are in real trouble if that isn’t widely known information.

        “but it has where it is so cold that H2O stops to exist due to precipitation (above the tropopause);”

        I have also been saying that for years. That is once again easily discovered with MODTRAN. You fist see the 15 micron dip start to occur at about 3km altitude where H2O precipitates out. Problem is, as air thins, the radiative effect speeds energy transfer OUT of the atmosphere. That is why the Stratosphere COOLs with an increase in CO2. There are fewer molecules to block the out path than the down path for energy, and radiation is much faster than conduction and convection. Once again, where is the evidence CO2 causes warming. BTW, the air up there is so thin it holds very little energy. The thermosphere is very hot, yet you would freeze to death if exposed to it.

        “the more CO2 there is in the stratosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which IR leaves the planet, what again lowers the amount of energy radiated to space due to the T^4 problem;”

        I’m pretty sure the instrumental record refutes this theory. Thinner air above and more dense air below will speed energy to outer space. The reason is simply. You stated the radiation is equally radiated up and down. That is true, yet radiation up travels 1m up before hitting a molecule, and only 0.8m down. Thin the air and that dynamic grows. BTW, 99% of the energy form a CO2 molecule is tranfered due to conduction, not radiation according to Dr. Happer, so this radiative effect is a non-starter anyway. CO2 acts as just another molecule really, bumping into others.

        “This, CO2isLife, is termed ‘pseudoscience’ by exactly those people who are absolutely unable to scientifically contradict it.”

        Yep, my “pseudo science” is detailed above. I repeat. How can CO2 not cause warming if it increases by 33%? Clearly there is a flaw in the model if it doesn’t. I rely on empirical evidence, not computer models. That is how real science is done.

        Once again, why aren’t the dry and cold deserts warming? Answer: Because CO2 doesn’t drive warming.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        Hi, Bindidon.

        Pseudoscience to suggest that drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence is valid science. There’s no evidence that intercepting IR radiation does any more than promote cooling during the day and inhibit it at night as CO2isLife’s analysis demonstrates. You failed to explain why increased CO2 didn’t make desert temperatures warmer today than earlier.

        Has anyone ever measured the “altitude at which IR leaves the planet?”

        Consider a planet with no water or CO2, but same N2 and O2 as now. What would daily temperatures be. Imagine how the heat absorbed from the very warm surfaces would dissipate into the air by conduction and convection. Where would that heat go?

        • Svante says:

          It would go straight from surface to space.
          Equilibrium requires -18 C at the surface.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You are imagining a black-body Earth. Try again with an inert atmosphere and real surfaces with heat capacity and no albedo.

          • Svante says:

            No, that was with the same heat capacity and albedo as now.
            A black body has zero albedo and would be warmer.
            In reality the albedo would go up and temperature would go down further.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            You are right. I was ignoring any albedo, because there would be very little without snow. This is a pointless argument, so I won’t be making it anymore. I’m just pointing out that the inert atmosphere would be warmed. Not all the radiation leaves the planet without warming the air above the surface.

          • Svante says:

            It is worth noting that since the average surface temperature is fixed by the radiation balance with space, it doesn’t matter if the atmosphere is hot or cold.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            Just for fun, I have two questions about that.

            If surface temperature is fixed, why does it wander all over the place recently and immemorial?

            If you are a mole, the surface temperature probably doesn’t matter to you. We, on the other hand, live above the surface.

          • Svante says:

            Chic Bowdrie says:

            If surface temperature is fixed, why does it wander all over the place recently and immemorial?

            In the short term it’s weather.
            In the longer term it’s e.g. Milankovitch cycles and CO2, super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, albedo changes due to continental drift.

            If you are a mole, the surface temperature probably doesn’t matter to you. We, on the other hand, live above the surface.

            You mean if you wear high heels? If the air is stirred by wind it would be similar to the frozen surface.

            You are right that the mole would be warmer in its nest.

    • CO2isLife says:

      “Antarctica is a good example of your designated test area.
      https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/14/comprehensive-data-recent-studies-in-top-journals-antarctica-stable-temps-falling-ice-mass-growing/

      My my my, it looks like there are some real scientists in the field of climate science. Imagine that, I, without a Ph.D. in Climate Sophistry was able to predict the exact results of what the data would reveal. The very fact that I, an amature, can develop a far more explanatory model than the experts pretty much proves the “experts” aren’t truly looking for the answer. They want to prove CO2 is the cause, not to honestly explain the climate system. I guess having your income tied to a result can cloud your judgment. As HL Menkin once said, “it is hard to get a man to understand something when his income depends on him not.”

      • CO2isLife says:

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. H.L. Menkin

        That is why everything a Climate Scientists sees is due to CO2. They are paid to repeat that myth. Eisenhower warned us about this in his farewell address.

  61. Bindidon says:

    Ken

    Your comment on March 26, 2020 at 9:31 AM

    I saw this Finnish show snow mass stats

    https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg

    some weeks ago for the first time.

    I had a quick look at who had fun to tell about ‘ HuuuH! Cooooling! ‘ and was not surprised to see the usual suspects: iceagenow.info, electroverse.net, etc etc.

    *
    No idea why this Finnish data differs so much from the snow surface stats published by Rutgers Snow Lab, and which I use to download since years:

    https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/moncov.nhland.txt

    You might understand what I mean if you look at the last 9 months in the list of the monthly anomalies wrt 1981-2010 (Mkm2):

    2019 6 -3.48
    2019 7 -1.05
    2019 8 -0.29
    2019 9 -0.09
    2019 10 4.71
    2019 11 3.10
    2019 12 -0.51
    2020 1 -0.49
    2020 2 -2.11

    Only two departures above the mean… that really doesn’t match Robert’s headline

    One of the Northern Hemisphere’s snowiest winters since records began

    *
    Te be quite sure, I produced a similar graph out of Rutgers’ weekly NH data, showing seasons from week 33 in a year till week 32 in the next one.

    A yearly average of all seasons was also produced in order to have the seasons with topmost resp. bottommost cover:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ff4FW4I2xpkfkBZcGnvrLstPHvo3zUcB/view

    I still don’t understand how the difference between mass and surface measurements can be so big. The season 2019/20 (black line) is here partly below the 30 season mean.

    *
    One thing is sure: there is, after a strong decrease between 1970 and 1990, a slight snow cover rebuild of +- 0.6 Mkm2 / decade since about 2004:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/13SXprayX7MfpSYjMjAk2XpqhQL9vs2P-/view

    But, as Svante wrote upthread, snow is not necessarily a synonym of cooling.

    Apart from Northern CONUS and Southern Canada having to do with polar vortex weakening since at least 2014, the Northern Hemisphere namely experienced in 2019/20 one of its warmest winters since measurement begin.

    Rgds
    J.-P. D.

  62. Snape says:

    Bindidon
    [I still dont understand how the difference between mass and surface measurements can be so big.]

    This is an interesting puzzle. My best guess uses the Sierra Mountains in California as a model (values are made up):

    1) A warm storm system moves inland from the Pacific Ocean, picking up 3 billion gallons snow water equivalent of moisture. This falls as snow at elevations 7,000 – 14,000

    2) A much cooler storm system moves inland from the Pacific Ocean, picking up just 1 billion gallons SWE of moisture. This falls as snow at elevations 5,000 – 14,000

    A greater mass of snowfall in the first scenario, a greater extent in the second.

    • Bindidon says:

      Snape

      Thank you for these helpful hints, which, however, made me think about something else, looking a bit more general.

      I am no meteorologist! But if I understand correctly, the difference between rain and snow is that the air stream above the clouds from which it rains is less cold than the one that causes the snow.

      Could it be that the snow falling over the northern hemisphere recently has become wetter and is therefore much heavier than the colder, drier snow in previous years?

      That could explain why the snow mass measured during this last winter (and possibly during others preceeding it) is higher than the long-term average.

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

  63. Snape says:

    [Could it be that the snow falling over the northern hemisphere recently has become wetter and is therefore much heavier than the colder, drier snow in previous years?]

    Yeah, that seems plausible.

  64. Snape says:

    Chic Bowdrie

    [Imagine how the heat absorbed from the very warm surfaces would dissipate into the air by conduction and convection. Where would that heat go?]

    During the day, the surface would heat the atmosphere. At night, the atmosphere would heat the surface.

    And all the while, the planet Is radiating to space – zero insulation.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      How would the atmosphere heat the surface at night? As soon as the surface gets colder, there will be an inversion. Warm air will hang up there. There’s no radiation producing colder heavier air at the TOA to convect the warmer atmosphere down to the surface.

      So I do disagree that there would be zero insulation, but rather enough insulation to keep the air warmer than the surface on average. Granted the average surface would be colder, because of the greater extremes without the IR active gases. Nowhere near the 33 K some people propose.

  65. Climarco says:

    Hello,

    Is there a consequence on the observed temperature on the ground from the absence of urban heat island (which one can expect) for the month of March ?

    Thanks

    • bdgwx says:

      The UHI effect is not expected to wane in March so probably not; at least in terms of UHI. There is some speculation that the absence of contrails may have a noticeable effect though.

  66. Snape says:

    Chic

    So, warm air rises each day, but does not fall at night.

    You dont see a problem with this?

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      No, why would I? Warm air rises when heated from below. At night, after the surface cools, the air above is warmer and less dense that that below. No more warming from below and no cooling from above = dead air.

  67. CO2isLife says:

    To follow up on some of my comments above about letting the actual observations guide the conclusion, not computer models. NASA has a famous report out about ocean acidification and seashells. The obvious point being that CO2 caused death to coral and shellfish. Well, today there is a report out about coral reefs thriving near CO2 vents in the oceans where CO2 is the equivalent of 95,000 ppm. Trilobites also thrived when CO2 was 7,000 ppm.

    So as a follow up to my question above “why aren’t the cold and dry deserts warming?” “why is the coral thriving in very low pH waters by volcanic vents?” Do the laws of physics and chemistry cease to exist in the oceans near volcanoes?

    • bdgwx says:

      The mean temperature of most regions are warming including deserts. The most noticeable exceptions are the north Atlantic and portions of Antarctica. It is expected for isolated regions to cool even when the planet as a whole warms.

      • CO2isLife says:

        It is expected that over a 100 year time period, CO2 increasing by 33% won’t cause warming in some places? Do the laws of physics cease to exist at certain places? Does nature have an on-off button for the GHG effect that it selectively switches over the places that also happen to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures? Also, do the coral near volcanos also defy the laws of chemistry? Also, how would the thermalization of 15-micron LWIR ever result in cooling? Increasing the kinetic energy of a molecule can only cause warming.

        • bdgwx says:

          It is expected that over a 100 year time period, CO2 increasing by 33% wont cause warming in some places?

          Correct.

          Do the laws of physics cease to exist at certain places?

          The laws of physics are the same everywhere.

          Does nature have an on-off button for the GHG effect that it selectively switches over the places that also happen to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures?

          No.

          I believe the confusion here is that you are assuming that CO2 is the only thing that can modulate the temperature. It’s not. There are many things that modulate the temperature both on a planetary scale and on a local scale. It is the net effect of everything that dictates what the temperature ends up being.

          For example, the North Atlantic is receiving heat from the equatorial regions via the gulf stream current. If this ocean current changes such that the North Atlantic receives less heat transport then it will cool despite the CO2 radiative force directly above. Just remember…these ocean currents transport heat. They are not sources of heat. So if the North Atlantic is receiving less heat from this particular current then another region receives/retains more heat. It is a zero-sum game.

          And there are many mechanisms by which the planet can warm as a whole while some localities actually cool. The above mechanism is only but one among many.

          Also, do the coral near volcanos also defy the laws of chemistry?

          I’m not familiar enough with coral to speak about it. Except I will say that the laws of chemistry are the same everywhere. What that means is that ocean pH isn’t the only thing modulating coral growth/decline. I suspect like the above you may have narrowly focused on only one agent when in reality there are many to be considered.

          Also, how would the thermalization of 15-micron LWIR ever result in cooling?

          It doesn’t. Generally speaking the thermalization and scattering of 15um radiation results in a positive radiative force or warming tendency for the surface. I should mention that there is one incredibly subtle caveat here that we can dive into if you’d like.

          • CO2isLife says:

            “No.

            I believe the confusion here is that you are assuming that CO2 is the only thing that can modulate the temperature. Its not. There are many things that modulate the temperature both on a planetary scale and on a local scale. It is the net effect of everything that dictates what the temperature ends up being.”

            Confusion? Maybe you didn’t understand the concept that I described. I described a “controlled” experiment where those other factors you mentioned are addressed. The Dry Desert Locations are basically unchanged over the past 100 years, so is Antarctica. Those locations are specifically selected because the only measurable change is CO2. The H2O didn’t change, nor did the Urban Heat Island Effect.

            What you can do is randomly select weather stations on the NASA GISS Website, view the Un-Adjusted Data for locations that have a BI of 10 or less (minimal UHI effect) and you will find there is no warming. The Dry Deserts are the best locations as is Antarctica. Unless you can explain how all those locations are impacted by warming negating effects whereas others aren’t, the only confusion that we have is your complete failure of understanding how a controlled experiment is designed and run. The very fact that the experiment I described isn’t in every Climate Science Journal pretty much proves that Climate Science isn’t a true science, or they simply don’t understand how to apply the scientific method to a problem.

          • bdgwx says:

            Are you trying to say that CO2 is the only thing that has changed at your cherry picked locations? That is quite the claim. It’s an extraordinary claim actually. I’m going to ask you to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to back that up.

            And why would I want to use unadjusted data? That is the opposite of performing a controlled experiment. Remember, these stations have undergone changes in location, altitude, time-of-day of measurement, instrumentation, urban expansion, etc. If you don’t adjust (or control) for these changes then your conclusions will be contaminated by changes you did not want to consider.

            But…if you truly want to use the unadjusted data then you are going to have to live with the fact that global warming is more than being officially reported because the net effect of all adjustments over the last 100 years as been to reduce the global warming trend relative to the unadjusted data.

  68. Chic Bowdrie says:

    bdgwx,

    This is a continuation of a long discussion upthread.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/#comment-453272

    “Because the paleoclimate record shows that it often takes > 10,000 years for a pulse to e-fold.”

    Sounds interesting. Please explain.

    “The C14 bomb spike pulse is almost gone because it is being exchanged at a rapid pace with C12/13 molecules.”

    Same as every CO2 molecule is being exchanged at a rapid pace.

    “This exchange occurs even if there is no change in the total ppm of all CO2. In other words, C14 will almost fully deplete without any change whatsoever in total CO2 concentration. And it will happen very quickly.”

    The same can be said for any CO2 molecule derived from a FF source or any other source.

    “But…the C14 will continue to deplete.”

    Only to the extent that the concentration of C14 in the sources are less than in the atmosphere. Meanwhile, any FF or natural C12/13 CO2 molecule is being turned over every 5 years or so.

    I think you are conflating removal from the atmosphere with removal from all the reservoirs. The latter will never happen. Or you’re conflating stabilizing the atmosphere with equilibrating the atmosphere with its reservoirs. FF reserves are less than 10% of the total CO2. There will never be more than 10% of FF emissions in the atmosphere.

    • Nate says:

      “FF reserves are less than 10% of the total CO2. There will never be more than 10% of FF emissions in the atmosphere.”

      Huh? That doesnt follow.

      Might be less than 10 % of total if you include deep ocean.

      Do you deny that it takes a LONG time for CO2 emitted into the atmosphere to be stored in the deep ocean?

    • bdgwx says:

      Sounds interesting. Please explain.

      CO2 depletion during the glacial descents took > 10,000 years. The PETM, which is more analogous to the human pulse, took thousdands of years to deplete to pre-pulse levels. I’m not aware of any CO2 increase in the paleoclimate record in which the adjustment was less than 1000 years.

      Same as every CO2 molecule is being exchanged at a rapid pace.

      The same can be said for any CO2 molecule derived from a FF source or any other source.

      Absolutely. This is why most of the specific molecules emitted by humans have already dropped out. But it is important to understand that while specific molecules are being swapped out quickly the mass increase resulting from the human emissions is not being removed at the same rate. In fact only about 50% of the 260 ppm emitted by humans has been removed. That’s why the current concentration is 280+130 = 410 ppm.

      I think you are conflating removal from the atmosphere with removal from all the reservoirs. The latter will never happen.

      Sure. Total carbon in all reservoirs remains constant (mostly anyway). But remember…the FF reservoir was not participating the Quaternary Period carbon cycle until humans came along and started injecting that mass into it. Now that the FF mass has been placed in this cycle it will always circulate in it. It will take millions of years for the Earth to fully pull out this mass and place it back into the FF reservoir if it ever happens.

      • Chic Bowdrie says:

        “Im not aware of any CO2 increase in the paleoclimate record in which the adjustment was less than 1000 years.”

        I wouldn’t expect you to be. No one was around 56 million years ago to witness what happened. It could be that the source of the CO2 continued to fill the air for all those years and only gradually subsided. As the source(s) subsided, so did the content of the air. This only underscores that adjustment times are longer than residence times. What goes around comes around.

        “But it is important to understand that while specific molecules are being swapped out quickly the mass increase resulting from the human emissions is not being removed at the same rate.”

        That can’t be true by any measure. Using the fraction removed metric (50% blah blah blah), FF emissions are being removed at a slightly faster rate and certainly not slower. I have shown that if natural emissions have increased due to population growth, the rate of sequestration of all CO2 is a constant. You continue to show signs you haven’t read or don’t understand Berry’s papers.

        “It will take millions of years for the Earth to fully pull out this mass and place it back into the FF reservoir if it ever happens.”

        Of course. That’s what I said and have been saying. But the atmosphere will never contain more CO2 of FF origin than the fraction of carbon on the planet represented by FF.

        • Nate says:

          ” But the atmosphere will never contain more CO2 of FF origin than the fraction of carbon on the planet represented by FF.”

          Chic is gonna become the new DREMT, if he keeps up the completely made-up declarations like these.

  69. CO2isLife says:

    “Are you trying to say that CO2 is the only thing that has changed at your cherry picked locations? That is quite the claim. Its an extraordinary claim actually. Im going to ask you to provide an extraordinary amount of evidence to back that up.”

    Once again, we seem to be having difficulties with basic science and sampling. There are likely plenty of things have changed at each separate location, but CO2 is the only thing that is common to all of them as far as a significant variable (in reality the data proves it isn’t a significant variable). The “cherry-picked” locations are what is called a “controlled study.” If I was studying the effect of a drug, I would select people suffering from a specific illness. That isn’t “cherry-picking” that is how you perform sampling for a controlled study.

    If I was going to do a study on weight loss, I would know that exercise and caloric intake were by far the most significant variables. Body type would likely be of secondary importance. To perform a proper study I would “cherry-pick” people that excercised 3 hours per day and ate 3 meals consuming 1,500 calories each day, were male, and weighed between 150 and 160 lbs. The one factor I don’t control for would be height, so I would have people of all heights. That way I can isolate the impact of height on weightloss. That is how a controled study is done. Another way would be to “cherry-pick” identical twins, give one a placebo and the other a drug. That is how real science id done. “Cherry-Picking” that is bad is the real “Cherry-Picking” that happens in Climate Science where they only choose time periods that show warming, or evidence that supports their conclusion. That is what “Cherry-Picking” is. Sampling to isolate the impact of an independent varable on a dependent variable is simply sound science. I’m beginning to believe that you must not know much about science.

    • bdgwx says:

      What hypothesis are you wanting to test?

      • CO2isLife says:

        “What hypothesis are you wanting to test?”

        Null: Climate Change/Global Warming in Natural and not Caused by Anthropogenic CO2

        Data Analysis: Temperature Change for locations selected as controls for UHI and Water Vapor did not show changes statistically different from 0.00. Variations of temperature change post start of the industrial age are not statistically different from the rest of the Holocene.

        Conclusion: I was not able to reject that null hypothesis

        BTW, that is a Ph.D. project for any climate science student. Simply take the Antarctic Ice Core (Already a control for UHI and Water Vapor) and extend it to the current time period by splicing in the average of temperature changes for locations that are controlled for the UHI and Water Vapor. Alice springs goes back to early 1900s, and shows no warming, so basically the Ice Core Data splices in a flat line post 1900. (Note the Hockeystick shows 1.1 degree increase since 1902. That is not supported by any temperature set from the control set) Take the average temperarature for the Industrial age and compare it to the averae temperatures for the Holocene pre-industrial age. Guess what? you don’t fall 2+ Standard Deviations from the mean, in fact, current temperatures done correctly show that we are near the bottom of the range of temperatures for the Holocene. The fact that you don’t see that simple experiment published in ever journal pretty much proves people aren’t looking for the answer.

        • bdgwx says:

          First…CO2 warming is natural. It happens regardless of who/what modules the sources/sinks of it.

          Second…if you want to test hypothesis regarding global warming then you need to construct tests that use the global mean temperature. You’re not even testing your stated hypothesis by using local temperature records.

          Third…your hypothesis has some ambiguity. I’d like to propose rewording it as “Global temperature trends are influenced by non-CO2 agents only”. I am opening to different wordings. I just want to clarify if we are testing 0% attribution, 100% attribution, or spectrum of attribution to the temperature trend.

          Now…if you really mean that you want to test the hypothesis “Local temperature trends are influence by CO2 and only CO2” then you can use your approach. But I’ll save you the effort. This hypothesis has been falsified ad-nauseam already. But…that’s not a hypothesis contained within the consensus theory of climate change. You can certainly create your own theory and call it what you want and we can both work together to tear it down.

          • Chic Bowdrie says:

            “FirstCO2 warming is natural. It happens regardless of who/what modules the sources/sinks of it.”

            What tests have you constructed that proves that?

  70. Snape says:

    @ Chic Bowdrie

    [Thats what I said and have been saying. But the atmosphere will never contain more CO2 of FF origin than the fraction of carbon on the planet represented by FF.]

    What do you mean by FF origin?
    What if a tree, during summer, absorbed nothing but CO2 that had recently come from an automobiles exhaust pipe.

    In Winter, the leaves from that tree would fall and decompose, and some of the C02 it had absorbed would be released back into the atmosphere.

    Is this CO2 of natural, or FF origin?

    ******

    Regarding the N2/O2 atmosphere, Ive decided not to open that can of worms.

    • Chic Bowdrie says:

      FF origin is fossil fuel origin. The rate FF origin CO2 enters the atmosphere is about 5% of the total CO2 inflow each year. The air contains less than that now due to the rapid yearly turnover. Any plant will absorb about the same % and its leaves would produce the same on decomposition. It will take a long time for the fraction of FF carbon to build up at that rate.

      “Is this CO2 of natural, or FF origin?”

      Both. 95% natural, 5% fossil fuel.

  71. Snape says:

    Chic

    Maybe I didnt make myself clear.

    If a tree were to absorb nothing but CO2 of FF origin, what would you call the CO2 the tree releases….. FF or natural?

  72. Snape says:

    More specifically,

    If a tree were to absorb nothing but CO2 that came directly from a cars exhaust, what would you call the CO2 the tree releases.. FF or natural?

    • CO2isLife says:

      A fossil fuel is simply a tree, moss or algae that is very very very old. CO2 is CO2, carbon is carbon. Mother Nature doesn’t know or care the difference (isotopes may be a little different but not much). Facts are NATURAL CO2 was once 7,000 ppm. CO2 has been gradually reducing for 600 million years to where we are now, near the bottom of the geologic record for atmospheric CO2. Never in the geologic record has CO2 caused catastrophic warming…never.

      BTW, you can take a tree, gasify it, apply the Fischer Tropsch Process, and make Gasoline. Fossil fuels are nothing more than a hydrocarbon chain of various lengths. Sugar is basically the same thing as well.

  73. Snape says:

    @ CO2isLife

    A strong polar vortex tends to keep lower latitude warmth from invading the pole.

    With this in mind, please demonstrate that the polar vortex circling Antarctica has not strengthened.

  74. CO2isLife says:

    “A strong polar vortex tends to keep lower latitude warmth from invading the pole.”

    That is even better, the fewer exogenous factors the better. What we want is a climate undisturbed from external factors where we can isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures. That polar vortex acts as a natural container like a thermos or test tube.

    I would imagine the Dry deserts also have similar atmospheric barriers. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be deserts.

  75. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    A transition from a weaker to a stronger polar vortex would, in theory, produce a cooling trend. This cooling trend could potentially offset any warming trend attributed to CO2.

    If you cannot demonstrate that the polar vortex circling Antarctica has remained stable, then there is no way of knowing if your study is controlled or not controlled.

    • CO2isLife says:

      “If you cannot demonstrate that the polar vortex circling Antarctica has remained stable, then there is no way of knowing if your study is controlled or not controlled.”

      That is true about 100% of all variables in climate models. What was the albedo of the earth in 1900? 1700? What was the cloud cover in 1900? 1700? What was the average monthly temperature is some South American Country in 1700? What was the etc etc etc. The Hockeystick used Tree Rings and Coral sample for a temperature gauge. A vortex may or may not have gotten weaker is something you have a problem with? Really? What evidence do you have that it did cause cooling? None. Even so, there are plenty of locations away from the S Pole that show no temperature increase. Alice Springs is the best example, but there are plenty more.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “A transition from a weaker to a stronger polar vortex would, in theory, produce a cooling trend. This cooling trend could potentially offset any warming trend attributed to CO2.”

        Let me get this straight. A polar vortex, caused by the Cold Air at the South Pole getting stronger (this, by the way, means the S Pole was actually getting colder, not warmer) would result in a cooling trend? Ignoring that the cooling trend is what causes the polar vortex to strengthen in the first place, it would somehow have to know how to magically adjust the temperature by just enough to produce zero warming, the same zero warming that happens is similar locations like Alice Spring. Unfortunatly Mother Nature isn’t that exact, so I doubt your theory is accurate. The question you should be asking is why would a Polar Vortex be getting stronger if CO2 increasing by 33% causes warming. A warming Pole wouldn’t create vortexes, they would simply warm.

  76. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    [FF origin is fossil fuel origin. The rate FF origin CO2 enters the atmosphere is…… ]

    I want Chic Bowdrie to explain what he thinks is the difference between FF origin CO2 and natural origin CO2.

  77. CO2isLife says:

    Not to pile on, but NTZ has an article about no warming in Greenland for the past 100 years. I guess there must be a Polar Vortex around Greenland too.
    https://notrickszone.com/2020/04/03/is-greenland-warming-and-melting-hell-no-nasa-data-show-no-warming-in-nearly-100-years/

  78. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    If you want to keep this argument going, lets summarize what it is we are arguing about.

    My position:
    Meteorologists understand that the relative strength or weakness of a polar vortex has an influences on the temperature of the pole it is circling. Here is an example:

    [One way we forecast the strength of the Polar Vortex is by looking at the air pressure difference between the arctic region and the north Atlantic. This is called the Arctic Oscillation (AO). We get a forecast of the Arctic Oscillation. Positive numbers signify a strong Polar Vortex and cold air bottled up in the arctic region. The AO turning negative could foretell a slowing Polar Vortex and a possible cold outbreak.]

    https://www.mlive.com/weather/2020/02/intense-polar-vortex-has-no-sign-of-disruption-put-a-fork-in-harsh-winter-weather.html

    If the polar vortex around the Antarctic has the potential to influence Antarctic temperature, this represents a confounding variable in your experiment.

    Your position:
    Nope, the Southern polar vortex is highly stable. It could not possibly have changed during the test period. Therefore, it does not represent a confounding variable and my test is perfectly controlled.

    ******

    Are you still OK with this?

  79. CO2isLife says:

    “My position:
    Meteorologists understand that the relative strength or weakness of a polar vortex has an influences on the temperature of the pole it is circling. Here is an example:”

    1) There is no Polar Vortex over Alice Springs and other dry hot deserts
    2) There is no Polar Vortex over Greenland
    3) I’m talking about a 100+ year data set. No polar vortex has existed for 100 continuous years.
    4) All controlled data sets mentioned above show 0.00 warming. Is that a coincidence? Nope. That is how real science is done. If something is understood it can be modeled. My simple model works.
    5) Your description is of an oscillation, ie short term cycle, not a period of 100 years. I’m not sure you understand the issue, but please keep digging.
    6) Yes, if the vortex was continuous for 100 years you would have a small point. What the evidence would show for a Polar Vortex that oscillates would be a cyclical pattern in temperatures NOT A CONTINUOUS UPTREND. Once again, I’m not sure you understand the basic principles. There is no evidence of an uptrend in temperatures which would occur with or without an oscillation if CO2 drove temperatures. The oscillation would overlay an uptrend.

    Now that you’ve found yourself in a huge hole, do you want a ladder or a bigger shovel?

  80. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    Yeah, I have found myself in a huge Gish Gallup:

    [The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a conveyor belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
    Although it takes a trivial amount of effort on the Galloper’s part to make each individual point before skipping on to the next (especially if they cite from a pre-concocted list of Gallop arguments), a refutation of the same Gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it’s always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).]

    No worries, I am in no hurry. Starting with the first two (more as I find time):

    [1) There is no Polar Vortex over Alice Springs and other dry hot deserts]

    The question is whether or not the South Pole represents a suitable location for your experiment. Do you already want to jump ship and look elsewhere? Let me know.

    2) There is no Polar Vortex over Greenland

    What???? Have a closer look at the above link.

  81. CO2isLife says:

    “[1) There is no Polar Vortex over Alice Springs and other dry hot deserts]

    The question is whether or not the South Pole represents a suitable location for your experiment. Do you already want to jump ship and look elsewhere? Let me know.”

    I don’t think you grasp the concept here. I’ve identified multiple locations that share common factors as “controls.” Alice Spring, Iceland, and Antarctica are all very different locations, and yet all have identical outcomes for their temperatures.

    By far the most significant variables regarding temperatures are 1) water vapor and 2) The UHI Effect. Those claims are extremely easy to prove. Simply look at West Point and New York City. What you are claiming is that one of those locations, Antarctica is also impacted by an insignificant variable, a polar vortex, so it becomes an invalid location. That is a joke for various reasons.
    1) Your polar vortex is an oscillation, CO2 driven temperatures is assumed to be linear. A polar vortex would create an upward sloaping wavy line, that does not exist. Point CO2isLife

    2) A Polar Vortex requires cooling FIRST. Cooling is what drives the Polar Vortex. The relocation of the cold air would result in WARMING of Antarctica, not cooling, much like leaving a refrigerator door open. Point CO2isLIfe

    “There is no Polar Vortex over Greenland”

    As I’ve said, the data you provide is for an Oscillation. If CO2 caused warming, there would be a wavy upward sloping line. That doesn’t exist. Polar Vortexes are caused by the cold, the cold is the cause, the vortex is the effect. Your analogy is like lung cancer causes smoking. Point CO2isLife

    Polar Vortexes, no matter where they are located, result in relocating cold air, and warming for the area that just lost the warm air. A Polar Vortex is like leaving a refrigerator door open. Do you have any evidence that the poles COOL after a Vortex? Nope. How then, does a Polar Vortex support your position? Point CO2isLife

    Still want that bigger shovel?

  82. Snape says:

    [I dont think you grasp the concept here. Ive identified multiple locations that share common factors as controls. Alice Spring, Iceland, and Antarctica are all very different locations, and yet all have identical outcomes for their temperatures.]

    My argument (for now) is that potential, long term changes to the Southern polar vortex is a variable that is not controlled for WRT Antarctica. Are you claiming this variable is also relevant to Iceland and Alice Springs?

    As in, a common factor shared by all three locations? Hmmm.

  83. CO2isLife says:

    “My argument (for now) is that potential, long term changes to the Southern polar vortex is a variable that is not controlled for WRT Antarctica. Are you claiming this variable is also relevant to Iceland and Alice Springs?”

    Yes, any “potential” factor “could” impact the dependent variable temperature. Point? Yes, a Polar Vortex could impact the temperatures. No, a Sothern Vortex does not impact the other two locations. What evidence have you provided that the vortex does actually cause cooling? None. The mechanism by which a vortex develops is that the air cools first, and then the vortex develops. You have to explain how CO2 causing warming can somehow cause the air to cool enough to cause a vortex. Can’t you see how absolutely insane that concept is? CO2 causes warming that cools the air enough to form a vortex. Huh? Once again, the evidence you provided is for an oscillation, not a trend. If you overlay an oscillation ontop a trend what do you get? A wavy upward sloping line. NO way can an oscillation result in flat temperatures if CO2 is causing warming. Don’t you understand that? If you do, please explain how if CO2 causes warming, and the vortex is an oscillation, how can you get a long-term trend that is flat?

    Do me a favor and please keep digging. The absolute illogical reasoning you are exposing to everyone is a great example of no matter how much evidence is provided a climate alarmist will twist everything to defend their climate change dogma. We could be falling into an ice age and the climate fanatics would still be still promoting CO2 warming. Facts simply don’t matter to a fanatic. Please keep posting for all to see how delusional people can become regarding this issue. That is how people ended up burning witches in the dark ages.

  84. Snape says:

    You are still playing the Galloping Gish game. Force of habit, maybe?

    You answered my two questions, but then came back with 6 more of your own. So again, I will only reply to two at a time, starting at the top:

    [Yes, any potential factor could impact the dependent variable temperature. Point?]

    Temperature IS the dependent variable. You want to see what effect the increase in CO2 concentration – the independent variable – has on temperature.

    To do so, you need to make sure there arent any other factors that could also impact temperature, as that would muddy the result.

    ****

    [What evidence have you provided that the vortex does actually cause cooling?]

    This is your experiment, not mine. YOU need to make sure there have not been long term changes to the PV. If it turns out there have been, then you need to demonstrate that those changes did not have an impact on temperature.

    In other words, you need to make sure the PV remained a constant throughout the experiment, and did not act as a confounding variable.

  85. CO2isLife says:

    “You answered my two questions, but then came back with 6 more of your own. So again, I will only reply to two at a time, starting at the top:”

    ???? Yes, I answered your two questions, explained why you were wrong and then asked questions intended to make you understand why your theory is flawed. That is how most people address a scientific question. If you say the the moon is made a green cheese, I would ask where did the milk come from to make the green cheese. The fact that you can’t answer my questions is the whole purpose. I answered your question, but you can’t answer mine. That is how science works. If you can’t adequately answer a basic question then your theory is most likely wrong and you can’t even defend your own position.

    As far as the Vortex issue, no experiment can control for 100% of all factors. We live in the real world. You claim a vortex causes cooling of the source, I say that is nonsense. Leaving a refrigerator door open doesn’t cool the refrigerator, it cools the room the air flows into. If you can’t accept that simple concept, I guess you will simply believe anything you are told to believe by others with even less logical reasoning skills than yourself. Just curious. From your illogical and irrational thought process, do you have any background in science at all? I’m thinking you must be a literature, elementary education, journalism or history major. Your mind seems to lack mathematical and scientific skills.

  86. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer, from the above discussion, a post on the concept of isolating locations with a minimum amount of UHI and Water Vapor might be of interest.

    1) Isolate Satellite Data over Antarctica
    2) Isolate data over the Sahara and other vast deserts
    2) Isolate Data over a part of the ocean that isn’t known for hurricanes

    Try to isolate data from the Satellite that focuses on remote locations that can isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures.

    I’ve done that experiment using the GISS “adjusted” data, and even that data doesn’t show an uptrend. It does show an oscillation, but not an uptrend. I simply downloaded the data for stations with a record since 1902, had a BI of 10 or less, and normalized the data for the deviation from the 100 yr mean temperature for that station. The deviations over that time period are pretty much random, and show no uptrend. Taking the average of all of them however does show an oscillation. I used the data between 1902 and 2000 to match the Hockeystick. The hockeystick shows a 1.1 degree increase over that time period. None of the stations I examined showed that kind of smooth linear uptrend. In my opinion, Michael Mann’s highly manipulated data at best represents the impact of the UHI and Water Vapor on temperatures, not CO2.

    • Ball4 says:

      “..locations with a minimum amount of UHI and Water Vapor might be of interest…2) Isolate data over the Sahara and other vast deserts”

      Might be? Maybe not. Deserts have relatively low precipitation, not necessarily low atmospheric water vapor. For example, satellite data shows average precipitable water above Tucson, Ariz. and Madison, Wi. in June is about the same even though Tucson’s annual precipitation is less than one-third that of Madison’s.

      Your premise & conclusion need a lot more work.

      • CO2isLife says:

        “Might be? Maybe not. Deserts have relatively low precipitation, not necessarily low atmospheric water vapor. For example, satellite data shows average precipitable water above Tucson, Ariz. and Madison, Wi. in June is about the same even though Tucsons annual precipitation is less than one-third that of Madisons.”

        Ugh!!! You will never have perfection when you can’t put a climate in a test tube in a lab. What I’ve detailed in infinitely better than what is currently being done. At least I’m trying to control for exogenous factors and apply the scientific method. Need I remind you what the Hockeystick used coral, tree rings and ice core, and totally ignored instrumental data until 1902? That is a farce. NASA GISS continually “adjusts” the data. The Hockeystick also erased the medieval warming and little ice age, and not a peep from the Climate Alarmists, but try to apply real science to climate data and they are outraged looking for every little immaterial issue. The “science” being published in “peer-reviewed” journals is a joke and relies on “adjusted” data and a nonsensical theory that isn’t supported by 600 million years of geological records. Yes, the deserts may have some precipitation, but it is relatively minimal, and relatively constant. You don’t get a lot of rain in the deserts, that is why they are deserts. You don’t get any rain in Antarctica or Greenland. What you want is stability, so even if there is water vapor, if it is relatively constant, then the theory holds because its effect basically becomes a constant. What models don’t do well with is variability like humidity, rain, dryness, and cycles. BTW, not existing climate model addresses clouds of water vapor, so were is the outrage? Anyway, the point is, one should seek to identify locations with relatively stable conditions for the UHI and water vapor, you don’t need to have 0.00, you just need them to be constant. That is how a scientific experiment is run.

        • Ball4 says:

          “What I’ve detailed in infinitely better than what is currently being done.”

          What you have detailed is infinitely wrong. Deserts have as much avg. precipitable water in the column as non-deserts as shown in satellite data so your premise is wrong. Deserts have less precipitation because they are regions of descending air, for example, on the lee side of the Sierras, Andes and general circulation (Sahara). Oh and “you get” snow precipitation in Greenland and Antarctica.

          “not (sic) existing climate model addresses clouds of water vapor, so were (sic) is the outrage?”

          The outrage is in your comment; clouds are made visible being liquid water droplets, not invisible water vapor. If you want to run a climate scientific experiment, you need meteorological data. And before that you need to have your meteorology correct – little of which appears in your last two comments.

  87. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    [The fact that you cant answer my questions is the whole purpose. I answered your question, but you cant answer mine.]

    You answered two questions, I returned the courtesy.

    With plenty of time on my hands right now, my intent was to eventually answer every single one. Are you in a hurry?

    [That is how science works. If you cant adequately answer a basic question then your theory is most likely wrong and you cant even defend your own position.]

    And who gets to decide if I have adequately answered your questions or defended my position …… you?

    Nice game.

  88. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    Here is something else for you to ponder:

    [The greenhouse gases that are warming the globe actually cool Antarctica much of the year, a new study confirms. The odd trend doesnt break the laws of physics, but it does highlight what a strange place Earths southernmost continent truly is.
    Antarctica is home to many extremes. Its the worlds highest continent, with an average elevation just a shade under 2300 meters. And despite its ice, its technically a desert thanks to a paucity of precipitation. This lack of moisture is one of the key factors behind the regions negative greenhouse effect, says Sergio Sejas, an atmospheric scientist at NASAs Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, who led a newly published investigation of this atmospheric quirk.]

    [Antarctica is the only place in the world where the surface is colder than the stratosphere, says Justus Notholt, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Bremen in Germany. The continents surface temperatures are typically 20C colder than the temperature a few hundred meters up in the atmosphere, he explains.
    The persistent temperature inversion causes high-altitude greenhouse gases to actually emit more heat to space than they trap, Sejas says. Recent studies identified this negative greenhouse gas effect over Antarctica, but those analyses typically looked at the effect only in terms of CO2, Sejas notes. So he and his colleagues analyzed how water vapor might contribute to the cooling effect.]

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/greenhouse-gases-are-warming-world-chilling-antarctica-here-s-why

  89. Snape says:

    Back on topic:

    [The discovery1 of a hole in the springtime atmospheric ozone layer over the Antarctic in the mid-1980s revealed the threat posed by human-made ozone-depleting substances (ODSs): the damage caused by these compounds exposes people and Earths ecosystems to harmful ultraviolet radiation. A related, unexpected effect was revealed in the early 2000s, when studies2,3 showed that the Antarctic ozone hole, which resides at altitudes of around 1020 kilometres, has affected atmospheric circulation all the way down to the surface in the Southern Hemisphere most notably, by shifting the summertime jet stream poleward. The production and use of ODSs was banned by the Montreal Protocol of 1987 and its subsequent amendments. Atmospheric ODS concentrations are therefore decreasing, and the first signs of ozone-layer recovery have emerged4,5. Writing in Nature, Banerjee et al.6 report that the hole-associated circulation effects have paused since ozone recovery started.

    Stratospheric ozone absorbs ultraviolet solar radiation, and the absorbed energy heats the stratosphere, the atmospheres second-lowest layer. Consequently, ozone depletion and the related lack of heating cool the stratosphere indeed, the Antarctic springtime stratosphere cooled by about 7 C between the late 1960s and late 1990s as a result of the ozone hole2. This cooling increased the northsouth temperature gradient between the southern mid-latitudes and the Antarctic, which strengthened the stratospheric westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere and, in turn, caused a poleward shift of the jet stream in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere).]

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00787-x

  90. CO2isLife says:

    “The continents surface temperatures are typically 20C colder than the temperature a few hundred meters up in the atmosphere, he explains.
    The persistent temperature inversion causes high-altitude greenhouse gases to actually emit more heat to space than they trap”

    This helps your argument how? CO2 is 410 ppm at the surface and the density of CO2 is much higher. As I’ve always pointed out, CO2 works to COOL the atmosphere, and thanks for pointing that out.

    “the Antarctic springtime stratosphere cooled by about 7 C between the late 1960s and late 1990s as a result of the ozone hole2.”

    Tell me how this applies to the surface temperatures? The Stratosphere is WARMER than the surface, and this somehow cools the surface? You have me scratching my head here. Help me understand the point you are trying to make other than my points are correct, and yours aren’t. I appreciate you providing me evidence to strengthen my arguement.

  91. Snape says:

    @CO2isLife

    The top link explains that CO2 in Antarctica often produces a NEGATIVE greenhouse effect, cooling the surface rather than warming it, as is the case everywhere else on our planet:

    The greenhouse gases that are warming the globe actually cool Antarctica much of the year, a new study confirms. The odd trend doesnt break the laws of physics, but it does highlight what a strange place Earths southernmost continent truly is.

    If this is consistent with your hypothesis, then I am glad to have helped.

    ****

    The bottom link asserts that the ozone hole resulted in a stronger, poleward shift in the polar vortex. This, they they argue, helped prevent warmer air from lower latitudes from meandering into Antarctica, keeping it colder than otherwise.

    As I have mentioned many times, this alleged cooling influence would represent a confounding variable to what you have argued is a controlled experiment.

    *****

    BTW, you really need to find a thermometer and put this claim to the test. (Leaving the freezer open would speed up the results)

    [You claim a vortex causes cooling of the source, I say that is nonsense. Leaving a refrigerator door open doesnt cool the refrigerator, it cools the room the air flows into. If you cant accept that simple concept, I guess you will simply believe anything you are told to believe by others with even less logical reasoning skills than yourself.]

  92. Snape says:

    Whoops, my bad. I completely lost my train of thought regarding the experiment I suggested. Leaving the door open obviously doesnt cool the fridge or freezer. They would get warmer and food would spoil.

    Heres the thing, a strong polar vortex is analogous to a CLOSED fridge. The cold air within the vortex is not allowed to escape.

    A weaker PV is analogous to leaving the fridge OPEN.

  93. CO2isLife says:

    “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own?

    If you spend so much time trying to find minor flaws in my theory, imagine the headaches you would have looking at what is being doing in the entire field of climate science. I’m at least trying to apply the scientific method to a scientific problem. The Scientific method isn’t even considered in the field of climate science. Consider this:

    1) Instrumental data exists back to 1650, yet the Hockey Stick didn’t incorporate any instrumental data until 1902.
    2) The Hockeystick dog-legs at 1902, yet the trend in CO2 remained unchanged.
    3) The Hockeystick doglegs again in 1980 when it becomes purely instrumental data, CO2 trend remained unchanged.
    4) The Hockeystick did not attempt to control for the UHI or Water Vapor.
    5) The Hockeystick used statistical techniques like “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline.”
    6) Archilogical evidence proves the existence of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, which are erased from the HOckeystick
    7) Al Gore’s chart shows temperature variations BEFORE CO2
    8) All temp peaks on Al Gore’s Chart are higher than today and occurred at lower CO2
    9) Nothing about the GHG Effect can explain why CO2 would increase before temperatures to end an ice age, or decrease before temperatures to start an ice age.
    10) The quantum physics of the CO2 molecule approaches a horizontal asymptote when mapping concentration and W/m^2. There is no way for it to cause CAGW
    11) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and no CAGW
    12) Greenland Ice Core Data shows we are near the low of the temperature range for the Holocene, yet at the peak for CO2
    13) Archiological evidence like Thermoplye, Carthage Harbor, Hannibal, Troy all provide evidence of a much warmer past.

    I could go one and on and on highlighting significant issues, yet you focus on a vortex MIGHT present a problem. In reality, assume a Vortex is like shutting the refrigerator door. That is even better. You close the door, increase CO2, and guess what? The Temperature still didn’t change. Your Vortex issue even strengthens the control for CO2. The Vortex as you describe it is like a natural test tube or insulated lab. Your concerns simply strengthen my case and experiment.

  94. Snape says:

    @Co2isLife

    I dont agree that the flaws in your theory are minor. On the other hand, I admire the attempt to find a controlled experiment. It would be nice to have an identical control planet, with CO2 concentration still at 280 ppm. The science would be a cinch!

    Sceptical Science addresses most of the points you made. You can click on each rebuttal for more detail:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    ******

    The Vortex as you describe it is like a natural test tube or insulated lab. Your concerns simply strengthen my case and experiment.

    That would likely be true if the PV had remained stable throughout the 100 year test period – a constant.

    Instead, research shows it strengthened and moved poleward.

  95. Snape says:

    Sorry, forgot to put brackets around your quote.

  96. CO2isLife says:

    Snape, I listed many serious issues regarding the currently accepted findings in Climate Science, all infinitely more consequential than a vortex possibly someone causing cooling.

    Do you think the hypothetical vortex issue is anywhere near as consequential to the end findings that those issues I listed above?

    Is the impact of a vortex more consequential than the preeminent climate scientists using made up statistical techniques like “Mike’s Nature Trick to Hide the Decline?”

    How about all previous temperature peaks being above today’s temperatures, yet occurred at lower CO2?

    How about the disappearance of the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age?

    Are you fine with all that?

    Dry Deserts, Antarctica, Greenland, and others all show no warming, and not all of them are impacted by a vortex, yet the results are the same. Mother Nature doesn’t draw in straight lines. That isn’t a coincidence. Just look at Central England or the research Dr. Jones did on the long-term instrumental records. They simply don’t show any material warming. You literally have to adjust the data to show warming, and that is what NASA does.

  97. Snape says:

    Let me clear something up first. I can see how you might think the PV issue was just a sneaky trick to throw shade on your test. Not at all!

    I live in the Pacific Northwest. Aside from the diurnal cycle or seasons, the position of the jet stream is by far the biggest influencer of our weather.

    When it moves to the north of us, warm air from the south is allowed to come in to our area. When it moves to the south of us, colder air from the north is allowed in. Temperatures can vary by 50 F from one to the other.

    This should tell you that changes to the jet stream that circles the South Pole (Polar vortex) are also a big deal.

  98. CO2isLife says:

    “This should tell you that changes to the jet stream that circles the South Pole (Polar vortex) are also a big deal.”

    So what you are telling me is the cyclical change in the Jet Stream was able to perfectly offset the warming on the surface of Antarctica by exactly the amount needed result in a net 0.00 degree increase.

    That may be possible, but highly unlikely. The perfect matching is too much of a coincidence. Remember, the impact you are feeling is the jet stream bringing you cold air from the Arctic (which warms the Arctic), or warm air that traps the cold air in the Arctic. The Vortex doesn’t cause cooling, it prevents it from warming. It traps the cold air. It does not however stop the CO2 from increasing from 300 to 410 PPM over the last 100 years. Your theory would have the temperatures spike as warm air rushes into Antarctica as the cold air rushes out, of you would simply trap the cold air. Neither of those scenarios, however, stop the GHG effect. You would still have an uptrend in temperatures, but an oscillation. A similar observation can be found in the Satellite Data with El Ninos and La Ninas. We know those blips are due to the Oceans, not CO2.

    I see you didn’t answer any of my challenges about the existing research.

  99. Snape says:

    So what you are telling me is the cyclical change in the Jet Stream was able to perfectly offset the warming on the surface of Antarctica by exactly the amount needed result in a net 0.00 degree increase.

    Cyclical changes? Of course, but as mentioned, research has also shown longer term, non-cyclical changes as well.

    ******

    But now Im curious, where is the 100 year time-series showing an exact 0.00 degree increase? Source please.

  100. CO2isLife says:

    “But now Im curious, where is the 100 year time-series showing an exact 0.00 degree increase? Source please.”

    Simply look at any long-term temperature charts. Draw a horizontal line, and you will set that there are plenty of periods where recent temperatures are below where they were 100 years ago. The temperatures very way too much to get 0.00. My point is that there is no uptrend which is what CO2 would cause if the theory is correct. There are no uptrends, no matter how hard you look. Only oscillations around a horizontal line.

    • Ball4 says:

      If you don’t do the work to find the influence of added ppm CO2 on global climate, then of course your conclusion will be incorrect “There are no uptrends” just like any other conclusion from anyone else that hasn’t done the work using the scientific method.

  101. CO2isLife says:

    Just by coincidence Tony Heller has a chart similar to what I described above on his blog. Here is the title of his post.

    Scientific Integrity Melting Six Times Faster Than The 1990s

  102. Enginer01 says:

    The data does not convince me that leaf area, only active during night hours overrides the change in solubility of CO2 in the colder oceans in Southern Latitudes. There is a lot more water than land, most of it Down There.

Leave a Reply