How could anyone “realize, of course” what you don’t even cite? The two articles on www.rocketscientistsjournal.com say nothing to deny the existence of evidence of anthropogenic CO2.
Nor did those articles anywhere disparage the global CO2/carbon cycle. Indeed, they urged that climatologists include that cycle in their models! For the record, the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), Climate Change 2001, notes that only a few of the most advanced models (the AOGCMs) include the carbon cycle, but that none of these has produced useful results. And consequently, none are reported in the TAR. Climatologists themselves have suggested that the carbon cycle must be included in the simulations.
Since the carbon cycle has not been usefully reproduced, how do you know the Keeling curve is “utterly consistent” with those models? A citation here is indicated.
You and some of the other commenters here misunderstand the word feedback as it is used by the climatologists. None of the GCMs or their relatives (e.g., one-dimensional radiative-convective models, models known disparagingly as “toy” models, energy balance models) have closed loops, nonetheless they have feedbacks! That would be quite incongruous to anyone versed in control system theory and modeling. A feedback in a climate model is a parameter whose value is computed by the model, not one that closes a loop. The parameters that are not feedbacks climatologists call forcings. Water vapor, if it is present in these models at all, is a feedback.
Carbon dioxide, though, they mechanize as a forcing. They could do little else absent a carbon cycle. Making CO2 a forcing leaves the models unable to produce the solubility curvature reported in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide. A number of other complications arise as well, but they are too lengthy for this post.
What I disparage includes the climatologists’ naked assumption that carbon dioxide amplifies the proxy temperature record in the Vostok data. Also I disparage that the climatologists make no show of validating their climate models on the paleoclimate record. Nonetheless, they rely on the Vostok record and on their uncorrelated models for their AGW conjecture, and unethically to affect public policy.
What Gavin said about my physics understanding was, “He neither understands the physics of CO2, … ”. What could I have possibly misunderstood about this totally unsupported accusation? You bring up the physics of solar insolation, but Gavin didn’t. And you provide no showing that I misunderstand solar insolation.
You say that I didn’t provide a mechanism for the temperature variations in the ice core data. Consider what you are suggesting! I showed evidence for the first time that the CO2 concentration in the Vostok record is (entirely) represented by the atmosphere-ocean solubility pump, WITHOUT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THE OCEAN TEMPERATURE CHANGES. Conversely, the AGW folk first said the CO2 concentration change causes the temperature change, WITHOUT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THAT CO2 CHANGE. Later they changed this to say the CO2 amplified the temperature change, still NOT SAYING WHAT CAUSED THE CO2 CHANGE. No one is claiming to know what started the sequence.
Why should I be burdened to solve that mystery anyway? We’re a long way from solving the mysteries of global climate. Nevertheless, in the paleo record, temperature change came first. And unless the physics of the earth have changed, an increase in CO2 should be occurring in the modern era as a result of the global warming.
And for the record, no one has accounted for the Keeling base line increase to include the increased outgassing due to warming.
Lastly, kindly provide any specifics for your “tone and attitude” observations, and an operative defintion for what you mean by “pseudoscience”.
The rocket scientist responded, I think it's bumpworthy.
To the extent that the mean residence time of CO2 is less than a century, the build up must be from other sources. Others have claimed the residence time is the order of five years or less, and that appears to be supported by their calculations of the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the flux into the biosphere and especially the ocean. With such short CO2 persistence, the AGW conjecture needs shoring up with a new rationale for the 150 year growth in CO2.
Underlined section interpreted as indicating that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is not primarily due to anthropogenic sources. Yes or no?
The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher, p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the `Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.
Also reference Stuiver and Quay, 1981, Atmospheric C-14 changes resulting from fossil fuel CO2 release and cosmic ray flux variability", _Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 53, 349-362.
"A high-precision tree-ring record of the atmospheric C-14 levels between 1820 and 1954 is presented. Good agreement is obtained between measured and model calculated 19th and 20th century atmospheric delta C-14 levels when both fossil fuel CO2 release and predicted natural variations in C-14 production are taken into account. The best fit is obtained by using a box-diffusion model with an oceanic eddy diffusion coefficient of 3 sq cm/s, a CO2 atmosphere-ocean gas exchange rate of 21 moles/sq m yr and biospheric residence time of 60 years. For trees in the state of Washington the measured 1949-1951 atmospheric delta C-14 level was 20.0 + or - 1.2% below the 1855-1864 level. Model calculations indicate that in 1950 industrial CO2 emissions are responsible for at least 85% of the delta C-14 decline, whereas natural variability accounts for the remaining 15%."
The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?
Bolded sections from http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html ; a resource available on the Web since 1996.
The natural source is dominantly the oceans. CO2 concentration has increased because the oceans are warming, and have been since the Little Ice Age and since the last glacial period.
Please discuss the statement above with regard to the 13C isotope data indicating that increasing atmospheric CO2 is predominantly of anthropogenic origin, not oceanic ("natural").