Breaking: Astonishing new element in climate fraud uncovered?

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

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

 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

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{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} 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{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} 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.”

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{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} 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)”

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{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} 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.