Breaking: Astonishing new element in climate fraud uncovered?

Written by Derek Alker

Has a critical new element in the climate fraud been uncovered? Independent British researcher, Derek Alker, attending the UK lecture tour of Australian climatologist, Dr Murry Salby, stumbles on an apparent critical flaw in climate models. Alker finds the models are dependent only on carbon dioxide (CO2) to change temperature. Incredibly, the models seem to be pre-programmed so that no other atmospheric variable is allowed to alter climate. Read Alker’s full analysis below:

How the IPCC models human emissions of CO2
accumulating in earth’s atmosphere

By Derek Alker (November 18, 2013)

Wednesday, 26th May, 2010, 09:03 pm in post ten of this thread at the Global Warming Skeptics.info forum. Dr.Jonathan Drake published one of the most important posts I am aware of thus far in the ongoing climate debate. At the time I did not realise the full significance of it, nor it seems did anyone else. But it is worth noting that Dr. Drake and I had discussed this on a prior occasion without fully ascertaining its import.

Thursday, 7th Nov, 2013, 07.00pm I attended Professor Salby’s lecture at the Links Hotel, Edinburgh, as part of a series of talks sponsored by Ken Coffman (Stairway Press) and Principia Scientific International. The lecture was titled Climate: What we know and what we don’t. The relevant part of his lecture can be viewed in a video from his earlier lecture given in Hamburg on the April 18, 2013 (specifically between 53 minutes to 1 hour and 2 minutes).

Background
Consensus scientists and the IPCC state there is a dominant residence time in excess of 100 years for human emissions of CO2 in earth’s atmosphere. This arises due to a “need” within the “theory” of a greenhouse effect (the scientific underpinning of supposed human-caused global warming) to have the facts fit the emissions data of increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). All such official data is measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO).

Mauna Loa CO2 emissions
 Bern Carbon cycle model

To get the emissions data to fit the MLO observations a summation formula, which is referred to as the Bern 2.5 carbon cycle model, is applied. The Bern 2.5 CC model has essentially two controlling parameters; a time constant term and an absorption factor. These are then adjusted to make the datasets match; and typically they yield a half-life of about 120 years and an absorption factor of about 0.53. In reality, this is simply a mathematical construct.

The Cumulation Maths Process

Almost any dataset of gradually increasing positive values could be as successfully fitted to the MLO CO2 record. Dr Jonathan Drake showed this by example in a paper called “Is the Met Office to Blame for the Rising CO2 Levels?” (located: www.tech-know-group.com/archives/)

Dr. Drake notes that – “the cumulation maths process can make almost any positive data set with an upward trend look like the increase in CO2 within the atmosphere.”

To illustrate this he compared the reported increasing accuracy of the Met Offices forecasts, to the annual change of CO2 in the atmosphere. These are the two datasets to which the same cumulation method will be applied. Each will have a different pair of variables. The variables are a scaling factor and a half-life.

This simple function was used:

CO2 = (Old*EXP(-LN(2)/Half_life))+(New*Scale)

Where:

Old = the amount of CO2 left after the last year

New = quantity of CO2 added this year

It can be seen that both datasets produce a reasonable fit to the MLO CO2 measurements.

For the record, the following values were used:

MetOffice forecast: Scaling = 1.4, Half-life = 9.4 years

Emissions: Scaling = 0.57, Half-life = 125 years

Cumulation Process compared to MLO

The Bern 2.5 Carbon Cycle Model

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in the notes at the bottom of page 34, AR4 WG1 Technical Summary, this explanation is written:

“a The CO2 response function used in this report is based on the revised version of the Bern Carbon cycle model used in Chapter 10 of this report (Bern2.5CC; Joos et al. 2001) using a background CO2 concentration value of 378 ppm. The decay of a pulse of CO2 with time t is given by

equation

 Where a0 = 0.217, a1 = 0.259, a2 = 0.338, a3 = 0.186, τ1 = 172.9 years, τ2 = 18.51 years, and τ3 = 1.186 years.”

(see: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html)

The above equation and values for the parameters, including e-folding times is the Bern 2.5CC model that the IPCC uses. The first term is a constant meaning that CO2 will always go up, never down (the cumulation maths process already described). In fact the Ao term means that atmospheric CO2 can never go down. There is no known proxy or record of atmospheric CO2 concentration that does not show CO2 varies both up and down on any time scale relevant to climate. One of the time constants is also very long ( 172.9 years) when compared to most studies. [1]

If a whole year’s worth of emissions could be dumped instantly into the atmosphere (and no more is added) it would decay as a multi-exponential as described by the Bern2.5CC model of IPCC having the shape shown here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/mhm1_1.htm

Bern Pulse Decay Model

As you can see, it will never go to zero. If further additions are made, each will follow the same decay and add to the remainders from all previous additions.

In simple terms:

The Ao term in the IPCC’s Bern 2.5 carbon cycle model means that 21.7% of our carbon emissions each and every year NEVER leave the atmosphere. THAT is how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are calculated to accumulate in earth’s atmosphere by the IPCC.

Has it been shown that nature can determine between natural-sourced CO2 emissions and human activity-related CO2 emissions? No. Has it been shown that nature remembers what each years 21.7% of human emissions were / are? No. But, nature “must,” if human emissions of CO2 are to accumulate in earth’s atmosphere, as per the IPCC claims, and because of the Bern 2.5 CC model.

Professor Salby’s excellent lecture series also tells us that climate modelling only allows for CO2 to change temperature.

Professor Salby explains that in the global energy budgets, and climate computer modelling –

“a fractional increase in CO2 entirely determines the fractional increase in global temperature”

And:

“changes of global temperature remain in equilibrium with changes of CO2, but nothing else.”

Global Mean Energy Budget

This he explains is because:

“reflected short wave energy which depends on clouds and ice can not change independently (of CO2); mechanical heat transfer from the earth’s surface which depends on the ocean circulation can not change independently (of CO2); and 99% of long wave energy absorbed by the atmosphere and re-emitted back downward to warm the earth’s surface, which depends upon water vapour and cloud can not change independently of (CO2)”

Global Mean Energy Budget Again

He continues that:

“In the model world, that is the part that is consistent between all those two dozen models, changes in the global energy budget are reduced to a highly simplified balance, driven exclusively by CO2.”

Conclusion

As I listened to this lecture it became apparent that because the models are only dependent upon CO2 to change temperature, that the Ao term of the Bern 2.5CC model means all the climate models of the IPCC can only produce warming. Am I alone in this realisation?

After the lecture and during the open ‘question and answer’ session Professor Salby and Lord Monckton discussed the Bern carbon cycle model. At this point I asked them if they were aware of the affect the Ao term of the model has, specifically that 21.7% of each years human emissions of CO2 NEVER leave the atmosphere and that can only produce a supposed (and unphysical) accumulation of human emitted CO2 in earth’s atmosphere. Both men looked astonished and fell silent. After some seconds Professor Salby asked me:

“How do they justify that?”

Thank goodness Ken Coffman (Stairway Press) and PSI so generously sponsored Professor Salby’s tour. They have helped honest scientists to identify where climate modelers must come clean on this apparent statistical fraud.

*************

[1] Tom V. Segalstad, ‘Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the”Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma,’ University of Oslo, Norway.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (20)

  • Avatar

    Squid2112

    |

    Did you completely miss what I said? … let me reiterate … there has NOT been an “exponential” increase in CO2 … period … Even if there were, so freaking what? Doesn’t mean squat. But alas, there hasn’t been .. so, you are wrong.

  • Avatar

    Stephen Apple

    |

    I can’t believe this conversation is still going. The real issue here is with the DATA behind these models. Please explain to me the thermometer you used to measure temperature within 1 degree 100 years ago (let alone 1000). And tell me how many places you were measuring it on the earth. I don’t even want to start on the effects of air conditioning and heat content. And whether you were using a true HEAT (Q) model (temperature is only an indicator of heat content) so you’d have to have wet bulb temperatures as well and calibrated to NIST standards. And what about the temperature you did use- was it the average for the day, or the mean, or the weighted average by using the integrated temperature across thin time slices? Heck with the model- if the data statistically sucks, its GIGO (garbage in garbage out). And don’t even get me started on your methods of measuring CO2- they are even less accurate. There’s liars, Dam_ liars and then there’s statistics- Mark Twain.

  • Avatar

    TomP2

    |

    The Segelstad paper contains a number of misleading statements. Leaving aside any comments on the obvious polemic, I’d to point out a few of the more blatant ones.

    1. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at ground level can vary widely. The reason is that vegetation releases CO2 at night. Under inversion conditions concentrations can reach values far in excess of the averaged well-mixed value. Callendar was well aware of this. He correctly reasoned that unusually high values were outliers. This was one reason for choosing the Mauna Loa site. Volcanic activity at Mauna Loa is monitored, the effect on the CO2 record is very small but it is accounted for in the data record.

    2. Segalstad quotes Revelle&Suess as saying that fossil fuel burning as a cause for CO2 accumulation is “improbable”. However, what the Revelle&Suess 1957 paper actually goes on to say on the next page is-
    “In contemplating the probably large increase in CO2 production by fossil fuel combustion in coming decades we conclude that a total increase of 20 to 40% in atmospheric CO2 can be anticipated”
    And in the abstract they state: “The increase of atmospheric CO2 from this cause [fuel combustion] is at present small but may become significant if industrial fuel consumption continues to rise exponentially”
    source: http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf, page 26

    3. Segalstad spends a large amount of space discussing isotopic residence time and recovery time, but in the end fails to distinguish between the two. The isotopic residence time simply reflects the seasonal growth and decay cycles and has no relevance for the question how long the atmosphere takes to recover from the influx of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

    I could name at least a dozen more misleading statements in this paper, but in essence it cannot be taken seriously as a piece of scientific work.

    • Avatar

      Squid2112

      |

      Sorry TomP2, you assessment of Segelstad is pure sophistry (ie: bullshit).

      Let me point out just one glaring example .. the rest of your comment is merely “pffffttt”.

      [quote]”In contemplating the [b]probably[/b] large increase in CO2 production by fossil fuel combustion in coming decades we conclude that a total increase of 20 to 40% in atmospheric CO2 can be anticipated”

      “The increase of atmospheric CO2 from this cause [fuel combustion] is at present small but [b]may[/b] become significant [b]if[/b] industrial fuel consumption continues to rise [b]exponentially[/b]”
      [/quote]

      See anything wrong with this? Recall that their paper was published in 1957, what has [b]reality[/b] shown us?

      Your assessment of Segelstad’s paper is poor and amateurish. I have no confidence in your assessment what-so-ever. Further, after reviewing all citations and referenced material, Segelstad’s paper appears to be on very solid ground.

      • Avatar

        TomP2

        |

        Squid2112, I have problems following your argument. Fossil fuel consumption has increased exponentially since 1957 as has the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation, and is now 30% higher than the value when Revelle made his prediction. You can check this against the figures from CDIAC. So the answer to your question is yes, Revelle’s prediction is correct.

        • Avatar

          Squid2112

          |

          The problem with that is, there has [b]NOT[/b] been an “exponential” rise in CO2 .. it has been linear .. you do know the difference, don’t you?

          • Avatar

            TomP2

            |

            There is no problem. On the contrary, the rate of accumulation is consistent with the Bern model. You can test this by convoluting the Bern model function with the emission data.

  • Avatar

    TomP2

    |

    The Bern Model does not take account of the removal of carbon from the environment by geological processes that take place over many millenia, and it is meaningless to try to determine this factor by fitting the model to the data. The Bern Model is used to predict the CO2 concentration over a time-scale of a few hundred years at most. Over such a time-scale the effects of the geological processes are insignificant. This means that Alker’s criticism is unwarranted, not to mention that an accusation of fraud is simply absurd.

    • Avatar

      Derek Alker

      |

      TomP2, you write that “The Bern Model does not take account of the removal of carbon from the environment by geological processes that take place over many millenia”
      You then continue that –
      “Alker’s criticism is unwarranted, not to mention that an accusation of fraud is simply absurd.”

      With respect TomP2, I think you should read the article again as the following excerpt from it shows you have not comprehended what was being described. The following quote from the article should help you comprehend what was, remains, and is the criticism I raise actually is.
      “In simple terms:

      The Ao term in the IPCC’s Bern 2.5 carbon cycle model means that 21.7% of our carbon emissions each and every year NEVER leave the atmosphere. THAT is how anthropogenic CO2 emissions are calculated to accumulate in earth’s atmosphere by the IPCC.”

      I would also state that the curve of the plot of decay of the (unphysical) CO2 pulse described by the Bern model is far too slow, but that is a separate matter, that the Bern model also critically fails on.

      • Avatar

        TomP2

        |

        I am sorry to see that you ignored what I wrote. Over a timescale of decades for which the Bern model is intended to be used, the geological processes involved in the removal of carbon from the environment by sedimentation operate far too slowly to be of practical significance.
        I am curious to know, why you think that the other time factors are wrong? Can you cite some research that contradicts the Bern model? I’d like to point out that given the rate of fossil fuel consumption over the past decades, the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is fully consistent with the Bern model.

        • Avatar

          Derek Alker

          |

          TomP2, ditto re “I am sorry to see that you ignored what I wrote.” You have also demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of what I have actually written and raised.

          Do you think the Bern model, or are you suggesting that geological processes are responsible for the removal of 21.7% of our emissions?

          BTW How is NEVER geological????

          • Avatar

            TomP2

            |

            [quote name=”Derek Alker”]TomP2, ditto re “I am sorry to see that you ignored what I wrote.” You have also demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of what I have actually written and raised.

            Do you think the Bern model, or are you suggesting that geological processes are responsible for the removal of 21.7% of our emissions?

            BTW How is NEVER geological????[/quote]

            What it means is that there is a t0 associated with A0, so the term is not simply A0 as a constant but A0.exp(-t/t0). However the t0 is
            so large that for the purposes of predicting CO2 levels over the next century you can ignore it and simply regard A0 as constant. I have read and understood what you wrote. It seems to me you don’t understand that the Bern model is not designed to predict CO2 levels over geological timescales. Let me turn the question round – do you have a model to predict CO2 levels over geological timescales?

          • Avatar

            Derek Alker

            |

            Seeing as how I can not see how a pulse, ie, an instant doubling of atmospheric concentration of CO2 is physical, why both with it at all TomP2???

            To be honest should we try to discuss how many angels you can get on a pin head? It would be about as much use as the Bern model.

            The Bern model is a load of unphysical baloney used as input into the models and their virtually linear CO2 / temperature relationship, and thus the models can be made to produce the desired results, via the inputs “calculated” by the Bern model..
            THAT is the Bern models actual purpose.

          • Avatar

            TomP2

            |

            Derek, perhaps you are unaware of the fact that impulse response is a well-established method of analyzing the behaviour of dynamic systems. If that is the case, try googling “impulse response” for more information, and then consider re-phrasing your response.

  • Avatar

    Stephen Apple

    |

    I wish that 21.7% of the taxes I pay and they spend to produce this crap would stay in my bank account every year. The model for that says I’d be rich, and be able to jet the globe like Al Gore. Then I’d just retire, and I wouldn’t care about this argument. But since that model is not the case, I must continue to work.

  • Avatar

    MC241

    |

    Jim Peden – Greenhouse gases absorb and emit radiation at the same wavelength; the wavelength equal to the molecule’s vibrational bond energy. Absorption and emission are restricted to vibrational energy levels with different dipole moments. The principle that determines that they’re equal is called Kirchhoff’s law. Vibrational bond energy levels are very low, so absorption and emission are at a much lower energy level (long wavelength) than absorption and emission that

  • Avatar

    Jim Peden

    |

    I neglected to mention in my last comment what forces this requirement: The venerable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says there can be no net transfer of energy from a cooler body to a warmer body without the aid of some thermodynamic engine. To presume otherwise would be equivalent to the mechanical analog of suggesting a ball can roll uphill without a kick.

  • Avatar

    Jim Peden

    |

    Please note that the “emitted CO2 radiation” is not of the same wavelength as the radiation that came up from the planet and “heated” it in the first place… and that these “re-emission”, or “feedback” wavelengths all bear the common property that those which return to earth have wavelengths which are totally REFLECTED from the earth’s warmer surface. Thus, the diagram needs to be adjusted to show the “emitted by CO2” arrow reflecting off the earths surface and returning on it’s inevitable journey back up into outer space.

  • Avatar

    Dwight E. Howell

    |

    If those modals do what you say we all need a good tail kicking for not putting this out front a long, long, time ago. Any such modal has to be pure do do.

Comments are closed