Found a very interesting paper thanks to twitter which has to research to show CO2 levels are mostly driven by temperature, and not by human emissions. Through some clever measuring of the C12/C13 isotopes they were able to determine the source of CO2. Seems that most of the rise is due to the current warming rather than human emissions. Not that CO2 doesn't cause warming, but that it doesn't appear to be anthropogenic. Human emissions are around 5Gt per year but natural emissions are around 150Gt. Very interesting to read:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

I still think we should reduce fossil fuel use though - mainly because it's a finite resource.

Paul in Montreal.

I have a feeling that this idea has been around for years and goes on the assumption that climate change is only caused by one of two things, solar radiation at ground levels and atmospheric CO2 levels. Bit like deciding that tree rings are a very good indicator, expect that they did not take animals nibbling them and fungal attacks into account (the fungal one is the latest way to discredit dendrochronology).
As for CO2 and the carbon isotopes, it is a bit like the chicken and the egg.

Do you mean the first true chicken or the first true chicken egg, makes a huge difference to the question.
And people wonder why I abandoned climate science for the much more variable and less predictable study of weather. If I get it wrong it will probably be right tomorrow, but if I get the climate wrong, someone will come and shoot me as they have just spent on some insulation and it has been raining ever since and they really should have bought an umbrella.
In defence of Climate Scientists, it is work in progress, just like Social Economics. The Laws of Thermodynamics and Accountancy are not, anyone spot the difference?

There was a specific reason for mentioning Tony, Bot. Take a look at his profile!


As for us all being pleased? It's just another element to undermine the credibility of science which, as Nick has pointed out to us often enough, doesn't acknowledge end-results, just results. Trouble is, the rest of us expect science to come up with answers not just more questions and these claims raise a bloody big question: So who's right??

"In defence of Climate Scientists, it is work in progress, just like Social Economics. The Laws of Thermodynamics and Accountancy are not, anyone spot the difference? "

Except that we have been told over the last few years that there is no debate, that its a done deal and that anyone who questions the models and forecasts is a flat earther....

the worry is that this highly unscientific stance will almost certainly come back to bite certain scientists on the ass as new research increases our understanding. Science risks taking a huge hit to its credibility once its realized that turning to "belief" based science was very bad idea.

Posted By: bot de pailleworry is that this highly unscientific stance will almost certainly come back to bite certain scientists on the ass

I agree, but this should not lay at the feet of the Climate Scientists, more to do with Social Scientists, another work in progress. They should confine themselves to how groups and individuals respond to news and stimuli rather than set policy, but as we have very few trained scientists in government, but a lot of people that like rhetoric and waffle, we get what we deserve.

Isn't it possible that this is evidence the feedback mechanisim is worse than expected? eg a little man made CO2 raises the temperature so that plant life produces a huge excess, much larger than expected?

oh ffs. Just what the world needs, a scientist hyping up the release of a peer reviewed paper with a series of none peer reviewed statements and articles to be picked up and spread across the internet while the actual data it's based on isn't available.

There are some basic problems with this that I can't see how this paper can overcome though, such as:-

What is the driver for global temperature increases if not CO2, given that none of the other known factors can possibly account for it.

How come global atmospheric CO2 levels were in relative balance, and had been for centuries until the industrial revolution, and only started rising at the point that we started using fossil fuels in large quantities, and the rate of increase has gone up rapidly at the same time as fossil fuel use has also risen rapidly. Is the contention really that this is purely a coincidence.

I suspect this research is merely demonstrating the effect of the many processes involved in maintaining the dynamic equilibrium point of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and as such isn't likely to offer much not already known. ie we already know that natural processes involve annual emissions and absorbtions of CO2 around 20 times bigger than anthropogenic emissions, so it'd be reasonable to expect only around 5% of any increased carbon in the atmosphere to show up as being from fossil fuel origins*.

Similarly, it's the underlying trend in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that's mostly attributable to anthropogenic emissions, not the annual fluctations which are largely related to factors like sea surface temperature - ie whether it's an el nino or la nina year, and land based factors such as soil temperatures, droughts etc. Such factors are capable of multiplying an underlying trend caused by some other factor - ie they're potential feedback mechanisms, but attempting to make the case that they're actually the driving factor here seems a ridiculous position to take IMO.


*actually, I've got this a bit wrong, but the principles there. off out now, so no time to correct it

Gavin, if you listened to to the podcast you would understand that rather than human CO2 being the underlying trend, its natural CO2 which is the basic and primary driver.

Rather than immediately attacking a paper you have not read and understood, you should be keeping you mind open and fingers crossed that the climate might not be under threat from human CO2 emissions!

Gavin - "The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming. Salby says he sat on the results for six months wondering if there was any other interpretation he could arrive at, and then, when he invited scientists he trusted and admired to comment on the paper, they also sat on it for half a year. His speech created waves at the IUGG conference, and word is spreading."

It's worth taking the effort to listen to the podcast first and then re-read the link in Paul's OP.

The subject of natural carbon being way in excess of anthropological emission has been central to the sceptic argument for as long as I can remember. The fact that the carbon fluxes are not fully understood, exhibit large variations, climate being less well understood than we might like and the whole system being highly inertial is all fully admitted. The IPCC 4AR is more loaded with caveats than any document I have ever seen. It remains that human activities have increased the proportion of atmospheric carbon. Identifying what effect that is having relative to the natural background level of variables and the inertia of the climate system is admitted as being the big uncertainty. The risk it could pose is what we need to manage for. As we know how to do thing differently why persist in ignoring the risks.

This is just another extension of the human/natural proportion which sounds really persuasive until you think about it. I remember as kid being told that it did not matter if we poured loads of sewage into the sea because the sea was so big it could accept anything we did to it. I don't hear that one much these days.

Think about this too. This is an Australian. Australia is heavily reliant on its resource extraction industries. It's over there rapidly industrialising nations. Australia, if you can forgive the metaphor, has the mineral industry's hands down its trousers. The vested interests are rich and clever and they want business as usual. Would they lie to you like the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, the insecticide industry? Hmm, let me think.

Posted By: fostertomGo on, bot, ST etc

Did I not explain once to Biff that I thought Sensitivity was not very accurate, this is an example of us not knowing enough. It needs investigating (as it has done for years as it is not a new idea). Climate Science is work in progress, one or two papers do not hold all the answers. In the last few weeks there has been a few papers (must be end of term time) that have questioned modelling and assumptions, this is a good thing if done scientifically, not a good thing if done for self/product/service promotion.

"Go on, bot, ST etc - how do you explain"

If you listen to the podcast, he explains why this notion that CO2 levels being stable before the industrial revolution is a fallacy. In fact C02 levels are in constant flux. If I understand correctly, one of his main arguments is that these very large monthly and yearly changes in atmospheric C2 levels which way over ride anything humans are adding. He has found a direct correlation between temperature and and c02 showing that these fluctuations in c02 follow and are driven by temperature changes, not the other way round.

Posted By: bot de pailleHe has found a direct correlation between temperature and and c02 showing that these fluctuations in c02 follow and are driven by temperature changes, not the other way round.

Posted By: Paul in MontrealNot that CO2 doesn't cause warming

Sounds like the familiar feedback process - what's new?

Tom, if you are interested that you should listen to the podcast, its a complicated subject and Ill probably get it wrong in explaining his argument/findings.

Has anyone except Paul, Bot and me actually LISTENED to the podcast AND read the paper linked to by Paul?