Thongchai Thailand

THE CARBON BUDGET PUZZLE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

Posted on: December 11, 2020

The Carbon Budget — Living Beyond Our Means – Egede-Nissen.com

THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF THE CARBON BUDGET ANOMALIES OF CLIMATE SCIENCE AS A CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED POSTS ON THIS TOPIC.

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

PART-1: ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE ACTION

(1) FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory says that our carbon cycle flows are balanced in nature but that our use of fossil fuels injects external carbon that was removed from the carbon cycle millions of years ago. This external carbon does not belong in the current account of the carbon cycle. It is argued that the injection of this external carbon into the delicately balanced carbon cycle of nature causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. This assumed relationship between fossil fuel emissions and the observed changes in atmospheric composition is the very foundation of AGW climate science. The data do show that atmospheric CO2 has been rising since 1958 and this dataset serves as the foundational evidence that fossil fuel emissions cause atmospheric CO2 concentration to go up at an annual time scale. {It is noted that CO2 absorbs only at 15,000 nanometers such that IR re-radiation at other wavelengths from 700 to a million nanometers are unaffected; but the AGW arguement is not that CO2 re-radiates all IR frequencies but only that GMST is higher at higher levels of CO2}.

(2) GLOBAL WARMING: It is further argued that because of the IR absortion and re-radiation by CO2, global mean surface temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Therefore as fossil fuel emssions drive up atmospheric CO2 concentration year to year, global mean surface temperature rises accordingly from year to year. The sequence of rising GMST from year to year is understood as global warming and because the cause of the sequence of rising GMST has been established as the fossil fuel emissions of humans, the observed global warming is understood as human caused Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

(3) CLIMATE ACTION: CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS DETERMINED THAT BECAUSE THE RISING GMST OF AGW IS HUMAN CAUSED, IT CAN AND MUST BE HUMAN CONTROLLED AND ATTENUATED. CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS DETERMINED THAT WARMING CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO GMST HIGHER THAN 1.5C OF WARMING SINCE PRE-INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE AT HIGHER TEMPERATURES NATURAL FEEDBACK SYSTEMS WILL TAKE OVER AS THE DRIVERS OF GLOBAL WARMING AND HUMANS WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO ATTENUATE THE RATE OF WARMING. THEREFORE, SINCE AGW IS HUMAN CAUSED BY WAY OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, IT CAN AND MUST BE ATTENUATED BY HUMANS WITH THE CLIMATE ACTION OF NOT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS BY CHANGING THEIR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE TO RENEWABLE ENERGY.

(4) CARBON BUDGET: Based on the arguments presented above, climate science has determined that it is imperative that we humans must 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. The tool we must use to ensure this timing is to construct and strictly follow carbon budgets.

(5) CARBON BUDGET CONSTRUCTION: 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. The dependence of the carbon budget on the TCRE raises some statistical issues about the carbon budget and invalidates its assumed climate action implication.

Image result for tcre carbon budget

(6) 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. It has no interpretation in terms of the phenomena that the raw data represent.

(7): DETAILS OF THESE STATISTICAL ISSUES: Details of these statistical issues are provided in related posts on this site where it is shown that the apparent correlation does not derive from responsiveness of temperature to emissions but that it is the creation of a 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: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/ . 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, even UFO sighting, creates just as strong if not a stronger correlation with temperature where temperature is best understood in this context as cumulative annual warming. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/03/tcruparody/ .

ufo2

(8): DEMONSTRATION OF THE TCRE CORRELATION ANOMALY: A demonstration of this statistical fallacy in the TCRE is provided in the Youtube video below. It shows that random numbers with the same sign pattern seen in the climate data produce just as good a correlation as temperature and emissions.

(9) 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 and these two mathematical constructs contain a mathematical inconsistency. In the ECS climate sensitivity construct developed from the theory of infrared absorption by CO2, we find that temperature is proportional to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, in the TCRE used to construct carbon budgets we find that since 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: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/08/26/a-mathematical-inconsistency/ . 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

(10) THE REMAINING CARBON BUDGET PUZZLE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE: As described in related posts on this site: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/13/carbon-budget-mystery/ 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.

(11): STATISTICAL ERRORS CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY TWEAKING EARTH SYSTEM CLIMATE MODELS: 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. Yet, this is what we see in climate science. In an extreme and comical demonstration of circular reasoning and confirmation bias, climate scientists have found ways to tweak their Earth System Models to explain a purely statistical anomaly as seen for example in the Friedlingstein paper: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/09/climate-statistics/

(12): AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE STATISTICAL ISSUES WITH FORCINGS IN CLIMATE MODELS: Climate science has misinterpreted anomalies created by statistical errors as a climate science issue that needs to be resolved with Earth System 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
RETO KNUTTI

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}.

00PIERRE

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

Carbon Budget – LINGO

13 Responses to "THE CARBON BUDGET PUZZLE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE"

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
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/co2AndTempAnom.png
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/co2AndTempAnom.png
But the correlation between change in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is much better
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/netCo2VTempAnom.png
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
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/31/cmip5forcings/

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

cp.earth = 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:

Tmean.earth = 287,74 K or 15°C.

This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured
Tsat.mean.earth = 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:

Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the
Tsat.mean.earth = 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 Tmean.earth = 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.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com

The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) mass balance is always fulfilled. During the industrial era there have been a lot more CO2 added to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion than can be found when analyzing for atmospheric CO2 worldwide. Due to the atmospheric mass balance there is therefore also an ongoing CO2 transfer from the atmosphere to the nature (land and ocean).

The absorbing/emitting components in the atmosphere act as a shield hindering the surface (land and oceans) from radiating with the full black body spectrum to the space. The hindered part of the spectra is radiated from the surface to the shield although being cold at higher altitude, a lot warmer than the space at -270 °C. Compensating for the temperature difference, shield vs space, the surface temperature has to be higher when shielded than when not shielded.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Thank you. I know that these relationships are assumed in climate science but there is no empirical evidence to support the assumed relationship between fossil fuel emissions and atmospheric composition.

chaamjamal, February 8, 2021 at 6:38

The evidence is in the fact that mass can not be destroyed (no nuclear bomb application) as expressed by the mass balance :

At steady state the inlet mass flow to a system equals the outlet mass flow from the system, if not then there is an accumulation in the system, plus or minus.

This is valid in every mass transfer system applications, for instance in chemical process industries, in atmospheric chemistry as well.

For CO2 in the atmosphere, we can express the balance in terms of CO2 mass [chemical reactions can be neglected in this application] :

In + [Reaction=0] = Accumulated + Out

We know the mass of CO2 from the combusted mass of fossil fuels, that have been going into the atmosphere from the start of the industrial era up to now.
From the atmospheric analysis we also know that CO2 have accumulated in the atmosphere, from 280 to 416 ppmv, in the meantime.

From those data the CO2 mass balance tells us that there is a net outlet CO2 mass flowing from the atmosphere to the nature (land and oceans) because the inlet mass flow is bigger than the accumulation :

Outlet = Inlet – Accumulation

That mass balance is valid for any time scale, be it a year or since the start of the industrial era up to now.

The very big, not fully known variable natural flow through the atmosphere generate the fluctuating atmospheric CO2 concentrations as seen at e.g. Mauna Loa analysis, on top of the steadily increasing CO2 concentration.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

I found this online model for the geologic carbon cycle hosted by the University of Chicago. It would be interesting to see how this model handles C-14 from atmospheric nuclear testing to the actual data that has been precisely measured since the tests were ended in the early 1960s.

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/geocarb/

Why wasn’t there a runaway greenhouse warming when CO2 was “out of balance” and increasing during the pre-human paleoclimate?

He human cause argument in anthropogenic global warming is not that humans had evolved but that humans had indulged in the industrial revolution. This is why only the latest of the multiple warm periods of the holocene that came after the industrial revolution is claimed to be human caused.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/

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: