Thongchai Thailand

Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning

Posted on: May 31, 2018

salby

 

 

 

 

ASSUME A SPHERICAL COWSphericalCow2

 

 

[LIST OF POSTS ON THIS SITE]

 

 

FIGURE 1: CO2 AIRBORNE FRACTIONRF-FIG1

 

  1. Paleo climate data tell us that prior to the Industrial era the mean annual CO2 concentration of the atmosphere stayed in range 180-290 ppm (IPCCAR5, 2013), a difference of 234 gigatons of carbon equivalent (GTC). The range is equivalent to total global fossil fuel emissions in the 33-year period 1985-2017 but since the Paleo changes occurred prior to the industrial age, these changes are ascribed to volcanic eruptions which inject both aerosols and CO2 into the atmosphere. Changes in solar activity are also considered as they can change the equilibrium partial pressure of CO2 over the oceans in accordance with the Henry’s Law relationship of the temperature dependence of the solubility of carbon dioxide in water (IPCCAR5, 2013).
  2. However, in the postindustrial era, these changes are shown to be much more rapid and are therefore explained in terms of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions with the mathematics of the attribution computed in the context of the carbon cycle that describes the natural flows of carbon dioxide to and from the atmosphere. The IPCC describes the carbon cycle in terms of carbon dioxide flows among multiple sources and sinks. The atmosphere plays a role in nine of these flows. These mean flows, averaged over the decade 2000-2009 (Figure 7) and their standard deviations (SD) as reported by the IPCC are listed below in units of GTC/y (IPCCAR5, 2013). Non availability of data is indicated by N/A.
  3. Natural: Ocean surface to atmosphere:Mean=78.4,SD=N/A.
  4. Natural: Atmosphere to ocean:surface:Mean=80.0,SD=N/A
  5. Human: Fossil fuel emissions:surface to atmosphere:Mean=7.8,SD=0.6
  6. Human: Land use change:surface to atmosphere:Mean=1.1,SD=0.8
  7. Natural: Photosynthesis:atmosphere to surface:Mean=123.0,SD=8.0
  8. Natural: Respiration/fire:surface to atmosphere:Mean=118.7,SD=N/A
  9. Natural: Freshwater to atmosphere:Mean=1.0,SD=N/A
  10. Natural: Volcanic emissions surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.1,SS =N/A
  11. Natural: Rock weathering:surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.3,SD=N/A
  12. A simple flow accounting of the mean values without consideration of uncertainty shows a net CO2 flow from surface to atmosphere of 4.4 GTC/y. The details of this computation are as follows. In the emissions and atmospheric composition data we find that during the decade 2000-2009 total fossil fuel emissions were 78.1 GTC and that over the same period atmospheric CO2 rose from 369.2 to 387.9 ppm for an increase of 18.7 ppm equivalent to 39.6 GTC in atmospheric CO2 or 4.4 GTC/y. The ratio of the observed increase in atmospheric carbon to emitted carbon is thus =39.6/78.2=0.51. This computation is the source of the claim that the so called “Airborne Fractionis about 50%; that is to say that about half of the emitted carbon accumulates in the atmosphere on average and the other half is absorbed by the oceans, by photosynthesis, and by terrestrial soil absorption. The Airborne Fraction of AF=50% later had to be made flexible in light of a range of observed values (Figure 1).
  13. The left frame of Figure 1 above shows that a large range of values of the decadal mean Airborne Fraction of 0<DMAF<4 .5 for decades ending in 1860 to 2017. This sample period includes ice core CO2 data from the Law Dome for years prior to 1958. However, when the sample period is restricted to the more precise Mauna Loa data from 1958, a much smaller range of values are seen in the right frame of Figure 1 with 0.45<DMAF<0.65. These data appear to support the usual assumption in climate science that fossil fuel emissions have contributed about half of the decadal mean increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958; but as demonstrated in a related post [LINK] , without a correlation between emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, airborne fractions can be computed but they have no interpretation in terms of cause and effect in the phenomenon being studied [LINK] .
  14. When uncertainties are not considered, the flow accounting appears to show an exact match of the predicted and computed carbon balance. It is noted, however, that this exact accounting balance is achieved, not with flow measurements, but with estimates of unmeasurable flows constrained by the circular reasoning that assigns flows according to an assumed flow balance.
  15. However, a very different picture emerges when uncertainties are included in the balance. Published uncertainties for three of the nine flows are available in the IPCC reports. Uncertainty for the other six flows are not known. However, we know that they are large because no known method exists for the direct measurement of these flows. They can only be grossly inferred based in assumptions that exclude or minimize geological flows.
  16. Here, we set up a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the highest value of the unknown standard deviations at which we can detect the presence of human emissions in the carbon cycle. For the purpose of this test we propose that an uncertain flow account is in balance as long as the Null Hypothesis that the sum of the flows is zero cannot be rejected. The alpha error rate for the test is set to a high value of alpha=0.10 to ensure that any reasonable ability to discriminate between the flow account WITH Anthropogenic Emissions from a the flow account WITHOUT Anthropogenic Emissions is taken into evidence that the relatively small fossil fuel emissions can be detected in the presence of much larger and uncertain natural flows. The spreadsheet used in this determination is available for download from an online data archive Data Archive Link .
  17. In the simulation we assign different levels of uncertainty to the flows for which no uncertainty data are available and test the null hypothesis that the flows balance with anthropogenic emissions (AE) included and again with AE excluded. If the flows balance when AE are included and they don’t balance when AE are excluded then we conclude that the presence of the AE can be detected at that level of uncertainty. However, if the flows balance with and without AE then we conclude that the stochastic flow account is not sensitive to AE at that level of uncertainty because it is unable to detect their presence. If the presence of AE cannot be detected no role for their effect on climate can be deduced from the data at that level of uncertainty in natural flows.
  18. The balance is computed from the atmospheric perspective as Balance=Input-Output where Input is flow to the atmosphere and Output is flow from the atmosphere. The p-values for hypothesis tests for uncertainties in the natural flows from 1% of mean to 6.5% of mean are presented below both as a tabulation and as a line chart.
  1. In the tabulation the PCT column shows the assumed percent standard deviation in the natural flows for which no uncertainty information is available. In the”base case”, the blanket statement by the IPCC that the uncertainty is 20% is interpreted to mean that the width of the 95% confidence interval is 20% of the mean and the corresponding standard deviation computed as (20/2)/1.96 is almost identical to that in the 5% (5PC) row. The data in each row shows the p-values of two hypothesis tests labeled as WITH and WITHOUT. The WITH column shows p-values when the AE are included in the balance computation. The WITHOUT column shows the p-values when the AE are left out of the balance computation.
  2. We use a critical p-value of alpha=0.1 for the test of the null hypothesis that Balance=0. Balance=0 means that the stochastic flow account is in balance. If the p-value is less than apha we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the stochastic flow account is not in balance. If we fail to reject the null then we conclude the stochastic flow account is in balance.
  3. The p-values for WITH and WITHOUT in each row taken together tell us whether the stochastic flow system is sensitive to AE, that is whether the relatively small AE flow can be detected in the context of uncertainty in much larger natural flows. If we fail to reject the null hypothesis that Balance=0 in both WITH and WITHOUT columns, the stochastic flow account balances with and without the AE flows. In these cases the stochastic flow account is not sensitive to AE, that is it is unable to detect the presence of the AE flows. This is true for the five rows in which the uncertainty in natural flows is 3% of mean or higher.
  4. For the two lower uncertainty levels of 2% and 1% we find that the null hypothesis Balance=0 is not rejected when AE are included (the stochastic flow account is in balance) but rejected when AE are not included (the stochastic flow account is not in balance). Under these uncertainty conditions, the stochastic flow account is sensitive to the presence of AE, that is the flow account can detect the presence of the relatively small AE flows. The chart shows that the crossover uncertainty lies somewhere between 2% and 3% and in fact it is found by trial and error that the crossover occurs at 2.3%.
  5. These results imply that the IPCC carbon cycle stochastic flow balance is not sensitive to the presence of the relatively low flows from human activity involving fossil fuel emissions and land use change. The large natural flows of the carbon cycle cannot be directly measured and they can only be indirectly inferred. These inferred values contain uncertainties much larger than 2.3% of the mean. It is not possible to carry out a balance of the carbon cycle under these conditions.
  6. In the case of the conclusion by climate scientists that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by fossil fuel emissions, natural flows in the carbon cycle that are an order of magnitude larger than fossil fuel emissions and that cannot be directly measured are inferred with the implicit assumption that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuel emissions. The flow balance can then be carried out and it does of course show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 derives from fossil fuel emissions The balance presented by the IPCC with inferred flows thus forces an exact balance by way of circular reasoning. Therefore, the IPCC carbon cycle balance does not contain useful information that may be used to ascertain the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the carbon cycle or on the climate system.
  7. A rationale for the inability to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions is described by Geologist James Edward Kamis in terms of natural geological emissions due to plate tectonics [LINK] . The essential argument is that, in the context of significant geological flows of carbon dioxide and other carbon based compounds, it is a form of circular reasoning to describe changes in atmospheric CO2 only in terms of human activity. It is shown in a related post, that in the context of large uncertainties in natural flows, changes in atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to the rate of emissions [LINK] .
  8. Circular reasoning in this case can be described in terms of the “Assume a spherical cow” fallacy [LINK]  which refers to the use of simplifying assumptions needed to solve a problem that change the context of the problem so that the solution no longer answers the original research question.

 

SphericalCow2

 

The following posts on this site are relevant to this discussion:

  1. Fossil Fuel Emissions and Atmospheric Composition
  2. Will Emission Reduction Change the Rate of Warming?
  3. Ocean Acidification by Fossil Fuel Emissions
  4. Spurious Correlations in Climate Science

 

 

 

 

THE GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT

bandicam 2018-06-26 09-38-07-779

  1. The Global Carbon Project, with a goal to “fully understand the carbon cycle” has instead evolved into the world’s foremost and most trusted accountants of fossil fuel emissions. The Project keeps records of fossil fuel emissions the world over on a country by country and year by year basis and these data are made publicly available and also analyzed for trends as well as implications for future climate change scenarios. According to Wikipedia, “The Global Carbon Project (GCP) was established in 2001. The organisation seeks to quantify global carbon emissions and their sources.”
  2. Their pretension to the study of the carbon cycle is not as useful as their emissions data because it is presented completely in the context of circular reasoning. Observed changes of CO2 concentration in natural systems are assumed to derive wholly from fossil fuel and land use change. The carbon cycle accounting is carried out on that basis. Uncertainties are noted but ignored in the accounting calculations. The procedure is described below for the decade 2008-2017.
  3. The average annual carbon cycle for the decade 2008-2017 is presented here as an example of the reliance of the Global Carbon Project on circular reasoning. The flows used in the flow accounting are provided by the Global Carbon Project as GTY of carbon dioxide. They have been converted to GTY of carbon (GTCY) for ease of comparison with the IPCC figures above.
  4. The use of net flows (net flow to land sink and net flow to ocean sink) insert assumptions and circular reasoning into the carbon cycle flow account. These are differences between very large flows in the order of 100 GTY with large uncertainties in their measurement. These differences therefore contain even larger uncertainties.
  5. In cases where a net flow is a direct measurement, it’s interpretation subsumes that which the flow account is carried out to determine. For example, if the net flow to ocean sink is measured as a change in the average inorganic carbon concentration of the oceans, then the flow account assumes that the change was caused by surface phenomena such as fossil fuel emissions ignoring emissions from plate tectonics, submarine volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, and hydrocarbon seeps.
  6. Carbon cycle flow accounts of this nature are not pure data that can be used to test theory but rather the theory itself expressed in terms of flow account values.

Fossil fuel emissions: mean=9.3545, stdev=0.5454 [IPCC 2000-2009: 7.8]

Land use change emissions: mean=1.485, stdev=0.818 [IPCC 2000-2009: 1.1]

Net flow to land sink: mean=3.054, stdev=0.818 [IPCC 2000-2009: 4.3]

Net flow to ocean sink: mean=2.37, stdev=0.545 [IPCC 2000-2009: 1.6]

Growth in atmospheric CO2: mean=4.718. stdev=0.0545 [IPCC 2000-2009: 4.4]

 

[LIST OF POSTS ON THIS SITE]

57 Responses to "Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning"

If you invite me to buy, for the same investment, one of two businesses – A with an annual profit of one million dollars or B with a profit of two million – I might plump for B. But if due diligence shows me that A’s profit was based on revenues of two million and expenses of one million, while B had revenues of one billion and expenses of nine hundred and ninety-eight million…

I would have some searching questions for B’s accountant.

Along the same lines, there is the old joke about the wealthy but uneducated businessman who explains his success thus:

“I buy things for a dollar and sell them for two dollars. You would be amazed at how that one percent profit builds up!”

To that list of uncertain natural flows, I would add the net transfer of organic carbon from the surface of the ocean to lower parts. That used to be estimated at two billion tons a year. Now the biologists guess it is between six and twelve billion tons – but the climatologists do not even seem to have noticed this discussion!

Talk about settled, joined-up, science!

thank you for your interesting observations

Good one! I tracked down the numbers but baulked at the full statistical analysis. My take away conclusion was that our total industrial addition was about 1% of the mobile CO2. No natural system is critically sensitive to that small degree of change.

You may find interesting the table I put together in:

http://brindabella.id.au/BrindabellaArchives/Science/Climate/IPCC-CO2/IPCC-CO2.pdf

dai

Thank you I will take a look

Thank you. The link did not work on my phone but i will try again on the computer after dinner.

very interesting work indeed. thank you. if i use any of it i will cite you. my work is not as comprehensive. it says simply that an uncertain flow account can’t be balanced without taking the uncertainty into account.

Very nice.

The evidence that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is not due to anthropogenic forcing is compelling. The evidence it is due to anthropogenic forcing is a bunch of hand waving rationalization, downplaying of uncertainty (as you note), and misunderstanding of how feedback dynamics evolve.

A lot of people are going to have egg on their faces when the truth finally wins out.

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning […]

[…] The role of the earth’s internal geothermal heat in climate: The current episode of climate change is understood purely in terms of solar radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere and the proposed role of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuels in leveraging surface temperature. There is no role in this mechanism for the earth itself either in terms of its internal geothermal heat or of natural emissions of carbon from within the earth itself. The PETM is a cautionary tale in this regard because there, the predominant role of the earth’s internal heat and carbon emissions are acknowledged. The possible role of the earth itself in the current event is discussed in three related posts [Ocean Heat Content] ,  [Unprecedented Warming of the Arctic] [Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning] . […]

[…] This work is a further investigation into the relationship between changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and fossil fuel emissions. The failure of the prior study to find a responsiveness of atmospheric CO2 to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale leaves open the possibility that a responsiveness may exist at longer time scales. Five time scales from one year to five years in increments of one year are studied. The data for the five time scales are displayed in Figure 2 which contains five charts one for each time scale. Each chart consists of three frames. The left frame shows emissions at the time scale of the chart in gigatons of carbon equivalent (GTC). The middle frame displays the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2 converted from parts per million in volume (ppmv) to GTC equivalent. The last frame contains the ratio of ΔCO2 to emissions. This ratio, called the “Airborne Fraction (A/F)” is considered to be a constant with a value of approximately 50%. It describes the portion of emissions that end up in the atmosphere. The spread of the Airborne Fraction appears to include the value of A/F = 0.5 and the spread appears to narrow as the time scale is increased. Curiously, a slight downward trend is seen in the A/F at all time scales. The Airborne Fraction concept appears to assume a causal relationship between emissions and change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The results are summarized in Figure 4. The volatility of the Airborne Fraction decreases sharply from Range=0.8 to Range =0.29 as the time scale is increased from T/S=1 to T/S=5 and at the higher time scales the median A/F converges nicely to the original IPCC figure of A/F=0.5. Later claims to reduced figures of A/F=0.42 seems arbitrary and perhaps a case of circular reasoning as explained in a related post [LINK] […]

[…] For example, in the case of the conclusion by climate scientists that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by fossil fuel emissions, natural flows in the carbon cycle that are an order of magnitude larger than fossil fuel emissions and that cannot be directly measured are inferred with the implicit assumption that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuel emissions. The flow balance can then be carried out and it does show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 does indeed derive from fossil fuel emissions  [LINK] . […]

[…] relationship is used to infer the much larger and unmeasurable natural flows of the carbon cycle [CARBON CYCLE LINK] . It is also shown with detrended correlation analysis that atmospheric CO2 concentration is not […]

Dear Jamaal,
I enjoyed reading some of your work. I find your explanations very clear and (to me) convincing. It seems to me that Murry Salby reaches similar conclusions, but with some differences in reasoning. He adopts your line that the variations in the CO2 vs time curve (first and second derivatives) are not matched by the corresponding variations in anthropogenic emmission (which are very much less). But he seems to have other line of evidence leading him to assert that the anthropogenic fraction of the increase of atmospheric CO2 is less than 3% !! But frankly, his exposition is not quite as clear as yours.

I feel lucky to have found your excellent web site (after several years of reading this subject on the web), i wonder if it would be useful for you to also post on WUWT.

Thank you again for all of your hard work. I shall be following your site in the future.
Reed Wickner

[…] CO2 concentration are driven by fossil fuel emissions leads to that very same conclusion [LINK]  [LINK] . The same is true of atmospheric methane [LINK] . Much of the IPCC’s case for […]

[…] Humans burn fossil fuels and release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. This causes the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to rise. This process is explained in two related posts [LINK] [LINK] . […]

[…] Excerpt #5: Increasing levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are key drivers of climate change. Atmospheric concentrations reflect a balance between sources (including emissions due to human activities) and sinks (uptake by the biosphere and oceans). In 2017, GHG concentrations reached new highs, with globally averaged mole fractions of CO2 at 405.5 ppm, CH4 at 1859 ppb and N2O at 329.9 ppb. These values constitute, respectively, 146%, 257% and 122% of pre-industrial levels (before 1750). Accurately assessing CO2 emissions and their redistribution within the atmosphere, oceans, and land – the “global carbon budget” – helps us capture how humans are changing the Earth’s climate, supports the development of climate policies, and improves projections of future climate change. Comment: A research question stated as “how humans are changing the earth’s climate” contains a bias that allows researchers to hunt for human cause perhaps at the expense of circular reasoning as explained in two related posts [LINK] [LINK] . […]

[…] relationship between emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration is studied in four related posts [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] . No evidence is found to relate changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration […]

[…] Fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric composition Part-1: The AGW-CC-CA causation sequence begins with the assumption that the observed changes in atmospheric concentration since pre-industrial times are explained exclusively in terms of fossil fuel emissions. Two arguments are presented by climate as proof of this relationship. The first argument is the flow account of the carbon cycle with and without fossil fuel emissions. The flow accounting presented shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is explained in terms of fossil fuel emissions. There are two problems with the methodology in this argument. First, nature’s carbon cycle flows are not directly measurable but are results of gross estimations with large uncertainties. To balance this flow account, uncertainties are ignored and the much larger natural flows of the carbon cycle are inferred with the implicit assumption that the increase in atmospheric CO2 derives from fossil fuel emissions. The flow accounting thus achieved of course shows that changes in atmospheric CO2 are driven by fossil fuel emissions. However, when uncertainties in natural flows are taken into account, it is shown that fossil fuel emissions cannot even be detected in the context of these uncertainties. The relevant analysis is presented in the post Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning  […]

[…] analysis of emissions and atmospheric CO2 data are presented in related posts [LINK]  [LINK] . These tests of the hypothesis that changes in atmospheric CO2 must be understood in […]

[…] The relationship between emissions and atmospheric CO2 is tested in a related post at this site [LINK] . No evidence is found that atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of emissions. An investigation of the mass balance for this relationship is presented in another related post at this site [LINK] . […]

[…] The “build-up” of energy on the earth is described in climate science in terms of a build up of atmospheric CO2. The higher the CO2 concentration the greater the greenhouse forcing of CO2 through the sensitivity equation that temperature is proportional to ln(CO2). The human cause in this equation is that the industrial economy of humans burning fossil fuels is injecting external CO2 that does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle. It is claimed that the external and previously sequestered CO2 from fossil fuels dug up from under the ground is causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. This relationship between fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration is a critical element of AGW. Yet, there is no empirical evidence in the observational data outside of climate models to support this crucial and necessary relationship between emissions and changes in atmospheric composition [LINK] [LINK] . […]

[…] Atmospheric Scientist Murry Salby had claimed in public presentations that the uncertainty in the carbon cycle of much larger flows of CO2 is such that the much smaller flows from fossil fuel emissions can’t be detected. He was criticized for not providing statistical evidence of the claimed irrelevance of fossil fuel emissions. That evidence is now available online at this link [LINK] . […]

[…] It has long been recognized that the climate sensitivity of surface temperature to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2  (ECS), which lies at the heart of the anthropogenic global warming and climate change (AGW) proposition, was a difficult issue for climate science because of the large range of empirical values reported in the literature and the so called “uncertainty problem” it implies {Caldeira, et al “Climate sensitivity uncertainty and the need for energy without CO2 emission.” Science 299.5615 (2003): 2052-2054}. The ECS uncertainty issue was interpreted in two very different ways. Climate science took the position that ECS uncertainty implies that climate action has to be than that implied by the mean value of ECS in order to ensure that higher values of ECS will be accommodated while skeptics argued that the large range means that we don’t really know. At the same time skeptics had also presented convincing arguments against the assumption that observed changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration can b e attributed to fossil fuel emissions [[LINK] , [LINK] . […]

[…] in the context of the very high uncertainties in carbon cycle flows described in a related post [LINK] and the interpretation of this change must be made in the context of the AGW theoretical framework […]

[…] much larger carbon cycle flows when their large uncertainties are considered. In the related post [LINK] , a Monte Carlo simulation is devised to estimate the highest value of the unknown standard […]

[…] mass balance assumptions are not supported by the data. It is shown in a related post [LINK] that given large uncertainties in nature’s carbon cycle flows, it is not possible to compute […]

Still reading through your posts… I’ve been wary of this ‘increase through natural sources’ argument, because of the matching Mauna Loa CO2 and anthropogenic emissions time series. So thank you for explaining the C budget uncertainties. I also see where you pulled this apart using DCA with up to 5 year periods; interesting, and the first I’ve seen that done. Have you addressed the C14 C12 isotope ratios arguments elsewhere?

Have you addressed the C14 C12 isotope ratios arguments elsewhere?

yes sir, i have,
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/10/14c/

[…] airborne fraction and overlooks uncertainties in carbon cycle flows to carry out the mass balance [LINK] . In the same post it is shown that when the uncertainties in carbon cycle flows declared by the […]

[…] AGW POSTS: [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] […]

[…] fossil fuel emissions because the carbon cycle balances with and without fossil fuel emissions. [LINK] . The carbon cycle mass balance and the detrended correlation analyses taken together show that no […]

[…] flaw is described above. The mathematical flaw is described in some detail a related post [LINK] […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: