Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Censorship: the usual Brown crap

Censorship: the usual Brown crap.
by Anthony Cox
H/T to Bob Cormack for his observations about the Essenhigh and Cawley papers mentioned in the article.

I placed the following comment at the conversation in response to a typical article by Michael Brown:

Brown is a particularly arrogant and condescending advocate of the lie of AGW; he takes a dim view of ‘underlings’ and those who he considers his inferiors having a say about the despicable lie of AGW. He has had a hand in censoring me before:

Anyway here is the comment which was removed from Brown’s article; I can only assume it was at Brown’s request since there seems to be no other reason for it being removed, at least by the site’s own “community standards”:


Real climate science is critiqued here

A more detailed analysis of some of the papers from the extensive bibliography at Jo's

is here:

The dominant issue remaining is whether human emissions of CO2, ACO2, are the primary or only cause for the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, or whether natural emissions are.

The issue is complex because there is a bulk and flux component.

The bulk component, the change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, was looked at in Knoor's paper.

The Knoor paper is here:

Knoor found the airborne fraction of ACO2 has not changed in 150 years. That must mean that non-ACO2 emissions are contributing to the increase in the bulk CO2 concentration.

The reason for this is the principle of a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2.

Knoor has been supported by the Gloor et al paper:

The other part of the issue of whether ACO2 is contributing to all of the increase in CO2 levels is based on the annual fluxes.
The annual fluxes are shown by Figure 7.3 of AR4:

This shows that of the annual CO2 flux, ACO2 is 8Gt out of the total of 218.2Gt or 3.67%. US Department of Energy [DOE] figures put this % at 2.91% but for argument's sake it does not matter.

DOE shows that approximately 98.5% of the total flux is reabsorbed in sinks, predominantly natural although cropping would add a miniscule amount.

If one assumes that the same proportion of ACO2 of the total flux is NOT reabsorbed but adds to the bulk atmospheric concentration the simple formula of how much ACO2 adds to the atmospheric increase would be annually:

3.67/100 X 1.5/100 = 0.000552

That is one ACO2 has a 1 in 1811.594203 of still being in the atmosphere after 1 year.

After 2 years the probability would be 1 in 120772.9469 chance of remaining.

Clearly on this basis ACO2 would not be contributing to the increase in CO2.

But this is what caught Alan Jones out; it does so because it confuses the residence time of a molecule of ACO2 and the time required for the atmosphere to adjust to the ACO2 emissions adding to the atmospheric bulk.

This issue has been dealt with in 2 papers, one by Essenhigh and the other by Cawley.

The Essenhigh paper is here:

The Cawley paper here:

Cawley asserts that the "one-box model of the carbon cycle used in ES09 [Essenhigh] directly gives rise to (i) a short residence time of ~4 years, (ii) a long adjustment time of ~74 years".

Effectively, this means that while one ACO2 molecule does not remain long the effect of all the ACO2 on the atmospheric bulk is long-lasting and therefore supports the idea that ACO2 is the main reason for the increase in CO2.

However, Essenhigh uses a "one box" model in which flux from the atmosphere has a linear relationship with the concentration [bulk] of CO2. Essenhigh expresses this as:

F=k*C, where F is the flux from the atmosphere to the environment, C is the atmospheric concentration, and k is a proportionality constant.

Cawley changes this to F=k*C +F0, where F0 is a constant flux independent of atmospheric concentration.

This assumption by Cawley contradicts Henrys Law and would mean that when there is zero CO2 in the atmospher (C=0) there would still be a finite flux (f0) of CO2 from the atmosphere!

Essenhigh's model is to be preferred and means that Knoor's bulk analysis is correct; that is most if not all the increase in CO2 is not coming from ACO2.
Even if there were not considerable evidence that AGW science is wrong, if it is the case that the increase in CO2 is not due to ACO2 then humans are not causing AGW.

This comment is obviously relevant to Brown’s topic and raises what is the biggest straw man of all: that the CO2 which is blamed for AGW may in fact not be coming from human emissions.

This basic concept is the Achilles heel of the AGW lie; with the rest of the AGW ‘science’ in tatters the allegation that ACO2 is responsible for the increase in CO2 is all the AGW believers have left.

Whoever censored my comment, Brown, or some other propagandist, is smart enough to know this and obviously wants no discussion about it to occur.