Posted on 2011/06/23 by Ray Tomes Cycles Research Institute

http://cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/which-causes-which-out-of-atmospheric-temperature-and-co2-content/

Author: AllanMRMacRae
Comment:
Coincidentally, I wrote this note to Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell on July 28, 2011.

Hi Roy and Danny,

Congrats on your recent paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

Roy, you may recall we corresponded in early 2008 on this subject, and we both wrote papers on the subject. Mine is at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/

While I am not certain, I still really wonder if the mainstream debate (human fossil fuel combustion primarily drives atmospheric CO2, which primarily drives temperature – the two camps just argue about how much warming will result) is mostly wrong.

I realize that putting forward such a heretical hypothesis is high-risk, tin-foil hat stuff. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if this becomes the conventional wisdom in less than a decade.

Best, Allan MacRae

Regrettably, I cannot upload the podcase of Dr. Salby’s paper, so cannot comment.

Summary of my paper:

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Carbon Dioxide in Not the Primary Cause of Global Warming: The Future Can Not Cause the Past
Paper by Allan M.R. MacRae, Calgary Alberta Canada

Despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2, no significant global warming occurred in the last decade, as confirmed by both Surface Temperature and satellite measurements in the Lower Troposphere. Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend. Earth Surface Temperature warmed approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius from ~1910 to ~1945, cooled ~0.4 C from ~1945 to ~1975, warmed ~0.6 C from ~1975 to 1997, and has not warmed significantly from 1997 to 2007.

CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.

The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.

There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2″).
—————————————————————————————————————————
CO2 seems to be a retroactive “backforcing”.

I travel light, “Too many public servants that go on strike at the drop of a hat, not enough people actually producing” was in respect to Greece.

“….there have been 3 undeclared wars that broke the bank”

And “stimulus packages”.

“….after all the military are “public servants” and they certainly “strike at the drop of a hat”.

Mike, I find the USA fascinating and dichotomic and have both affinity and aversion myself since reading “The Ugly American” at an early age, watching the “strike[s] at the drop of a hat”, touring there and studying cases of American business, financial markets and their domestic and international affairs etc.

The rest of the world benefit a great deal from USA and take for granted free, ready access to data that their space and science programs accumulate, but I don’t. I’m extremely grateful that the American taxpayer has footed the bill for it and is generous enough to share it with the rest of the world.

The US military-industrial machine is something that boggles my mind (I think military spending is 60% of the budget) and to be honest I don’t know the economic rationale but I get the impression that USA needs wars to sustain it. What seems to have happened is that they have indulged in war overload and are maintaining confrontations that they can’t afford and are out of proportion to the industrial spinoffs that the military generate. NZ company Rakon is one of those that benefit by providing components for cruise missile guidance systems. GPS surveying is another example thanks to Clinton (I think) releasing it from military-only use.

Meanwhile China is quietly building a formidable fighting force. I’m amazed that USA has not slapped tariffs on Chinese imports to make up for their pegged exchange rate advantage that has been the root of their massive investments. The US pings NZ sheep meat and steel I think (probably more) but why? The US professes free market but when it comes to the crunch practices protection.

It also runs on coal and so does China. What sense does it make for USA to inhibit economic growth using their massive natural resource by shutting down coal-fired power stations at a time when they really need the growth and China is all gung-ho with coal. Would it not be more sensible to shutdown old stations but replace them with the latest coal technology (China has stolen a march there)?. Wouldn’t that satisfy all sectors?

Same goes for AU and NZ, there’s no way you can raise steam (dairy industry) from wind. There’s been giant strides in the treatment of flue emissions (think Kinleith) that resource management agencies are happy to see implemented and society trusts will protect them from harm, so why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Not in the slightest, the little problem of USAs maxed out credit card has been in the news lately. Something to do with the need to fund a nonproductive federal system. Similar event occurring in Greece from what I can gather (too many public servants that go on strike at the drop of a hat, not enough people actually producing).

BTW, I see around 29 USA States reclaiming their sovereignty via the courts, why’s that? Doesn’t seem very “United”.

I am jealous of USAs reluctance to impose an unnecessary tax on economic activities (as NZ has and AU is proposing) in order to placate a certain sector’s whims, in economic terms an opportunity cost.

What is the point of imposing an unnecessary tariff on shipping containers carrying our products to overseas markets? Isn’t this the most brain-dead regulation ever devised (leaving aside the “fart” tax for now)?

And who has modified their driving behaviour in response to a carbon tax on fuel (and who actually knows they are paying it and the flawed reasoning behind it?)?

I realize that there is a certain amount of political pragmatism involved, there are benefits to be had from acceding to the wishes of the governing bodies of those overseas markets (Air NZ escapes the long arm of the Euro law) but China? India? USA?

I was born, raised and lived most of my life in the USA – the land of the never-ending tax revolt. It now has the lowest overall tax burden in it’s history. Are you jealous?

Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are not a factory floor.

I didn’t say they were. What I describe is the application of a planned process (AGW theory analogy) and the feedback (KPIs) from operation of it (simulated climate system using theory vs actual climate system using observations) and the reaction of mgt to divergence from what was planned (process mgt vs AGW-based climate science mgt).

The plot (KPI) that Andy put up demonstrates this perfectly:-

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Since20011.jpg

The divergence between the planned process (Multi Model Mean SRES A1B) from actual performance (13 month smoothed data) should ring alarm bells to the operators (AGW-based climate science).

Your expectations for what it takes to recognise and deal with risk are truly extraordinary.

Risk? Now you’ve conflated an entirely different notion (another story that deserves its own thread) with management of a planned process going awry.

If your logic had been applied to earthquake risk in Christchurch, building codes would have never been upgraded and many more lives would have been lost.

Again, my logic in this case has nothing to do with seismic risk. It does however have much to do with economic risk (an unnecessary punitive tax) but that is a topic for a different discussion.

But back to the subject of CO2 in the atmosphere, any reason that changes in the rate of rise seem to track economic activity and the price of oil?

So what? What’s the problem? The overall greenhouse effect remains the same thanks to hydrologic modulation. CO2 is not a pollutant (non toxic) so relax, there’s many other real toxic nasties being emitted by industry that we need to be concerned with (I know, I live and work in an industrial location) but we are fortunate to have a regulatory regime that keeps on top of that, other countries are not so fortunate or concerned.

If you want to talk about the economic risk of unnecessary carbon taxes vs an unsubstantiated application of the precautionary principle Mike P, bring it on.