Thongchai Thailand


Posted on: December 11, 2020

The Carbon Budget — Living Beyond Our Means –


Greenhouse gases' effect on climate - U.S. Energy Information  Administration (EIA)


(1) Fossil Fuel Emissions: Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory says that our carbon cycle flows are balanced in nature but our use of fossil fuels injects external carbon that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago, into this delicately balanced carbon cycle of nature and causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. The data do show that atmospheric CO2 has been rising since 1958 and this dataset is presented as evidence that fossil fuels cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up.

(2) The Tyndal Heat Trap: The theory of the equilibrium surface temperature of the earth rests on the heat balance of incident solar radiation, its absorption and re-radiation at infrared frequencies by the surface of the earth, and a recycle loop in infrared radiation implied by their absorption and re-radiation in the atmosphere attributed mostly to water and carbon dioxide. The surface temperature is therefore higher than it would have been without the recycle loop. It is therefore proposed that as fossil fuels cause the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere to go up, the corresponding surface temperature will go up accordingly. Therefore, higher and higher atmospheric CO2 concentration caused by fossil fuel emissions cause higher and higher surface temperature that is understood as global warming and the role of humans in providing the fossil fuel emissions included in the phrase anthropogenic global warming or AGW. This theory of warming implies that global mean temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration and that therefore the rate of warming is proportional to the rate of change in the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The regression coefficient that relates temperature to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration is described in climate science as Climate Sensitivity or ECS.

(3) Climate Action: Climate scientists used climate models to determine that this rate of warming cannot be allowed to continue because it will melt polar ice sheets and cause devastating sea level rise and when the mean global surface temperature reaches a critical value of 2C or perhaps even 1.5C above the reference pre-industrial temperature, positive climate feedbacks will accelerate the rate of warming and and cause the rate of warming to snowball out of control causing a collapse of human civilization, the end of life on earth, and the end of the planet. It is therefore imperative that we take climate action. Climate action means that humans must reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel emissions by switching to renewable energy like wind and solar. It is important that climate action taken reduces emissions to zero before we reach the critical amount of warming since pre-industrial of 1.5C because beyond that climate action will not be effective because the feedback acceleration mechanism will take over from fossil fuel emissions as the main driver of climate change. To ensure this timing is critical and the tool we must use to ensure this timing is to construct and strictly follow carbon budgets.

(4) The Carbon Budget: In climate science, the carbon budget is constructed with the TCRE. The carbon budget is the amount of cumulative global fossil fuel emissions that can be emitted for a given amount of warming. It is derived from the finding by climate science that cumulative annual warming is proportional to cumulative emissions with a near perfect statistically significant linear relationship. This proportionality is called the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions or TCRE, sometimes abbreviated to TCR. Its mean value is estimated to be 1.72C per teratonne of cumulative emissions with a 95% confidence interval of 0.88C to 2.52C. {Reto Knutti Reference cited below}. The dependence of the carbon budget on the TCRE raises some statistical issues about the carbon budget and invalidates its assumed climate action implication.

(5) MATHMATICS OF THE CARBON BUDGET: ISSUE#1: A time series of the cumulative values of another time series has neither time scale nor degrees of freedom. Therefore it does not contain useful information about the variables that it apparently represents. The correlation between cumulative annual warming and cumulative annual emissions is therefore spurious and it has no interpretation in terms of the phenomena that the raw data represent. Details of these statistical issues are provided in related posts on this site where it is shown that the apparent correlation is not responsiveness of temperature to emissions but a creation of a convenient sign pattern. The sign pattern is that emissions are always positive and during a time of warming the annual warming rates are mostly positive. LINK: . The role of the sign pattern in the creation of this spurious correlation is illustrated in another related post where we show that not just emissions but any variable with positive values creates just as strong if not a stronger correlation with temperature where temperature is best understood in this context as cumulative annual warming. LINK: . A demonstration of this statistical fallacy in the TCRE is provided in the Youtube video below.


(5) MATHMATICS OF THE CARBON BUDGET: ISSUE#2: Yet another issue in the TCRE and in carbon budgets constructed with the TCRE is that climate science uses two very different mathematical constructs to relate warming to emissions. In the ECS construct, we find that temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Also we find in climate science theory that atmospheric CO2 concentration is proportional to cumulative emissions. These relationships imply that in the ECS theory of AGW, temperature is a logarithmic function of cumulative emissions. But in the TCRE we find a linear relationship between temperature and cumulative emissions. This contradiction creates a mathematical inconsistency explained in a related post: LINK: . The essential part of this post is reproduced below.

Tip of the Week: What's with all the inconsistency? | Change ...

Scientists confirm confirmation bias rampant in anti-vaccine movement

(6) THE REMAINING CARBON BUDGET PUZZLE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE: As described in related posts on this site: LINK: The use of the TCRE to construct carbon budgets has created a vexing and mysterious anomaly that has frustrated climate scientists. The anomaly, described as the mystery of the remaining carbon budget, is that the carbon budget does not accumulate uniformly through the budget period so that at any time in the middle, the remaining carbon budget computed by subtraction does not equal the carbon budget re-computed with the TCRE. The explanation for that anomaly is described in detail in the related post and it is this. Recall that the TCRE is a creation of sign patterns where emissions are always positive and during a time of warming, annual warming values are mostly positive. The value of the TCRE is a related to the fraction of the annual warming values that are positive. This fraction is unlikely to be the same in the two parts of the climate budget period being compared. That is, the time span of the remaining carbon budget contains a different ratio of positive annual warming values than there was in the full span. However, in climate science what we find is that this anomaly is interpreted as some kind of complexity in the climate system that can be resolved with Earth System Models of greater complexity. However, as we note in the analysis of the Friedlingstein paper: LINK:

“Climate science has misinterpreted anomalies created by statistical errors as a climate science issue that needs to be resolved with climate models of greater complexity. In this context we find that their struggle with the remaining carbon budget puzzle demonstrates a failure of climate science to address statistical issues of the TCRE in terms of statistics. This failure has led them down a complex and confusing path of trying to find a climate science explanation of the remaining carbon budget anomaly that was created by statistical errors. The research paper presented below serves as an example of this kind of climate research. The real solution to the remaining carbon budget puzzle is to understand the statistical flaws in the TCRE correlation and to stop using it.”

Reto Knutti - Home | Facebook

Abstract: An emergent property of most Earth system models is a near-linear relationship between cumulative emission of CO2 and change in global near-surface temperature. This relationship, which has been named the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE), implies a finite budget of fossil fuel carbon that can be burnt over all time consistent with a chosen temperature change target. Carbon budgets are inversely proportional to the value of TCRE and are therefore sensitive to the uncertainty in TCRE. Here the authors have used a perturbed physics approach with an Earth system model of intermediate complexity to assess the uncertainty in the TCRE that arises from uncertainty in the rate of transient temperature change and the effect of this uncertainty on carbon cycle feedbacks. The experiments are conducted using an idealized 1% yr−1 increase in CO2 concentration. Additionally, the authors have emulated the temperature output of 23 models from phase 5 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The experiment yields a mean value for TCRE of 1.72 K EgC−1 with a 5th to 95th percentile range of 0.88 to 2.52 K EgC−1. This range of uncertainty is consistent with the likely range from the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (0.8 to 2.5 K EgC−1) but by construction underestimates the total uncertainty range of TCRE, as the authors’ experiments cannot account for the uncertainty from their models’ imperfect representation of the global carbon cycle. Transient temperature change uncertainty induces a 5th to 95th percentile range in the airborne fraction at the time of doubled atmospheric CO2 of 0.50 to 0.58. Overall the uncertainty in the value of TCRE remains considerable. {[MacDougall, Andrew H., Neil C. Swart, and Reto Knutti. “The uncertainty in the transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions arising from the uncertainty in physical climate parameters.” Journal of Climate 30.2 (2017): 813-827}.


Canada's UFOs: The search for the unknown - Library and Archives Canada

Carbon Budget – LINGO


Regarding the correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, as Murray Salby has pointed out, it is actually quite poor.
Whilst between 1976 and 2004 it was 0.78
between 2004 and 2014 it was only 0.02
and between 1960 and 1976 it was -0.02
But the correlation between change in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is much better
Note here I am talking about total level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The contribution due to fossil fuels is a tiny fraction, which accountants might call not material.
It is hard if not impossible to see how CO2 can drive changes in temperature, much easier to see changes in temperature can drive changes in CO2
Henry’s Law

Thank you for sharing this interesting work. My only comment is that your time scales appear to be rather short. Climate science likes 60 years or longer. See also

Again thank you for this interesting comment.

The short period was due to the period when CO2 data was available from Mauna Loa.

Credit goes to Murray Salby, I just copied his idea.

The problem is that if you are making an empirical test of climate science the time scale must be that of climate science otherwise its meaningless.

Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water

a – is the planet’s average albedo
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
Φ = 0,47 for a smooth spherical surface

Φ(1 – a)S – is the absorbed fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux
S – is the Solar Flux at the top of the atmosphere (W/m²)

Tmean – is the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature (K)

(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability

the mean surface temperature equation:

Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

β = 150 days*gr*oC /rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

N rotations /day, is the planet’s sidereal rotation spin

cp – is the planet’s surface specific heat = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the entire Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC, for dry soil rocky planets, like Moon and Mercury. Mars has an iron oxide F2O3 surface, cp.mars = 0,18 cal/gr*oC

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.361 W/m². With an albedo a = 0,306 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have: = 287,74 K or 15°C.

This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured = 288 K.

We had to answer these two questions:

1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?

It is proven now by the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation calculations. There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Equation. Nevertheless the Equation produces very reasonable results: = 287,74 K,
calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the = 288 K,
measured by satellites.

Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, calculated by the Equation, which is almost identical with the
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

2. What causes the Global Warming then?

The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing.

And… what keeps Earth warm at = 288 K, when Moon is at Tmean.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…

Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.

Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?

No, it does not.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: