I don't believe I mentioned either sports equipment or constant temperatures. But your assertion is interesting. How do you know it (the warmer than today part) to be true (globally that is)?

Missy: "How do you know it (the warmer than today part) to be true (globally that is)?"
//
How do you know it wasn't (globally warmer than today, that is)?

Martin, maybe we are talking at cross purposes here. I may not be the sharpest girl but it is clear to me that removing the hose pipe would result in a gradual decrease etc. But that is what I was trying to get to the bottom of. I wanted to understand Salby's suggestion that the rising level of CO2 is unaffected by human emissions.

In your July 15, 10:38PM you indicated that you believe CO2 levels would still rise after a complete halt to our emissions (removing the hosepipe) as Salby suggests. In response, in my July 16, 2:07PM, I translated that into a bath analogy: "Turning off the red tap will make no difference - the bath will just continue filling. I find that baffling." Your response, did not address this, hence my apparently dumb question in my last post: "... the analysis does not explain how removing the hose pipe (halting CO2 emissions) would make no difference to the rise in the level." (note: _no_ difference). You answered by pointing out that the levels will obviously fall. Yes! but that is not what you implied earlier. Perhaps it is the analogy that is lacking, as there is no temperature element.

The number of 800GtC for atmospheric carbon in your example and the 10 GtC/a (9 GtC/a in my previous link) are indeed not arbitrary. But the 500, 150 and 750 seem to have been just for illustration of the concept of reaching a new equilibrium. The change from 750 to 800, which you say amounts to 6% do not appear to correspond in reality to the 9GtC/a for 60 years of our emissions.

Also you said of the model that, it illustrates how a quantity of CO2 released per year "bigger per year than anything released by civilisation to date" causes only a moderate (~6%) increase in atmospheric CO2. The only large quantity I see is the 150GtC/a, but this is part of the existing equilibrium, cancelled by equivalent outflows - the salient number is just the 10GtC/a (and the 6% does not seem, as I say, to correspond well to reality.

Your model illustrates well how a system returns to equilibrium after a change. One aspect of that reaction is that the speed at which the new equilibrium is reaches decreases the nearer is is. I other words the difference between the source and sink curves should gradually decrease. I am not aware of any such effect in our planetary experiment.

----

The other three comments I should respond to (Dung, Not Banned Yet and MikeH) all relate to climate history. I imagine you have rehearsed these arguments many times and I am unlikely to throw any new light on them But I find it the arguments very odd, so I'll amuse myself with a few thoughts.

Dung tells me what was "generally accepted" of the last few millennia before Mann's paper. He doesn't describe the basis for this acceptance and I don't know when rings and cores became a common research tool. So was it that there were many existing studies of ice cores, mud cores, tree-rings and whatnot and that Mann's study was just another in this series, an outlier getting very different results? Or was it that before Mann there had been no studies reaching back for two millennia and the evidence was just anecdotal - pictures of ice-skating on the Thames, Viking remains in Greenland, etc? Moreover, is Mann's study still an outlier, the only one to flatten the curve, or have there been many subsequent studies that come to similar conclusions? Coming even closer to today, we have thermometer records that tell us of rising temperatures (the blade of the stick). Unless there was more than anecdotes, you are essentially putting your faith in stories over other evidence. Personally, I have no idea whether it was warmer or colder than today in 400AD, how could I (Not Banned Yet)?

Then an interesting thing happens. We move further into the past and the record becomes more reliable. Thermometers and millennial studies are apparently wrong but MikeH jumps us from recent millennia to tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago, to previous interglacials. Lacking any stories to confuse us, we have paleo records that tell us of higher temperatures, lower CO2 (except if you believe Salby that the interglacial peaks in CO2 were as high as today's but are lost from the cores) and higher rates of change. And they are reliable enough to draw firm conclusions!

I hope you'll forgive me for finding this a little amusing :-)

On Polar bears, my point was that if you look at the taxonomy and evolution section of the Wikipedia page, it is not clear at all how old the current species is. So saying that they survived the ice age (in their current form) is a bit like saying, '"I've had this pipe all my life, although I've replaced the bowl three times and the stem twice".

"Personally, I have no idea whether it was warmer or colder than today in 400AD, how could I (Not Banned Yet)?"
//
So how can you know anything about how our current weather/climate compares to what has gone before?

At what point in time do you become able to determine a reliable metric which, in your opinion, meaningfully reflects global weather/climate?

How within that global metric do you establish reasonable and verifiable limits on regional spatial and temporal variations?

Why do you call evidence such as Thames Frost Fairs "just anecdotal"? Do you not believe they happened? Do you believe that the freezing point of water changes with time? Do you believe that they only tell you about the immediate vicinity of the Thames? How do you define "anecdotal"?

Talk to archeologists whose speciality is the last few thousand years. You'll be surprised how much is known about climate variations over that period.

One characteristic of such games is a level of knowledge that seems to vary greatly from moment to moment.

Of course, a lot of blog discussion is a game of one sort or another.

You've only *just* realised?

I remember a long time ago in the early days of the web, someone devised an online IQ test which asked a long series of questions. After a while it became apparent that the questions were just going to go on and on forever. The IQ was calculated by how many pages into the test you went before you abandoned it.

The overflow was not intended to be non-linearity, as I said that before turning on the red tap, water was dribbling from the overflow. I added the overflow to allow for increased outflows when the inflows increased. This was not as elegant as your model where the outflow size changes according to the volume, but I wanted a real physical (as opposed to a conceptual) analogy.

I still don't see what in your description is bigger **per year** than anything released by civilisation to date. The only things bigger than 10GtC per year are the natural flows that, as I said, are part of the existing equilibrium and which cannot be said to contribute to any increase.

---

Others are clearly having trouble reconciling their respect for the accuracy of proxy reconstructions spanning hundreds of thousands of years with their dismissal of those that span just few thousand years (and their distrust of thermometers). Rather than attacking me, you should perhaps first resolve this inner conflict. If you think all short term reconstructions and temperature measurements have been corrupted by warmists then explain why they didn't bother to doctor the longer term results.

Ah, its the 10GtC that is greater than anything released. I understand now what you mean. But the 6% refers to a rise from an apparently arbitrary 750GtC to the actual 800GtC and so seems insignificant to me. On overflows, I did say that water was dribbling from the overflow, so the initial flow was non-zero. It was a contrived analogy I suppose :-)

Dung, you have lost 'patience' with me but still have 'faith' in Salby. Is your position on the subject just driven by emotion, rather than understanding or fact? If so, it is unsurprising that you can accept or reject different evidence obtained using the same methods according to how well it fits your desired result. Perhaps we all do that to some extent.

I'd like to help, but I don't see how to. To me it seems self evident that if concentrations are increasing every year and we are emitting at twice the rate of increase, that our emissions are the cause of the rise. The SkS page essenhigh_rebuttal.html has many comments and explanations. I doubt I can add anything useful :-(

Murry Salby's private and employment history is of no consequence when judging his science. The fact that he has been so violently attacked personally indicate to me just how the vested interests are afraid of his ground breaking science. I have to date not seen any sound scientific rebuttal of his science, as presented, hence the ad homme attacks. I think that one problem that has come to light on this thread is just how diverse the science is. I believe it needs a multi-disciplinary panel to examine and debate it. It is a great pity that Prof. Salby cannot contribute to the debate personally. Finally to attack any scientist personally in an attempt to distroy his SCIENTIFIC credibility is beneath contempt.

Ross, would you be able to judge the soundness of a scientific rebuttal of Salby? Do you understand the science and maths behind it and that behind the rebuttals? If so then you can perhaps explain to Martin what he is missing in the mass balance arguments.

I think Salby probably has very little credibility among climate scientists anyway, but your last sentence is a good sentiment. Does it apply equally to all climate scientists, Mann and Jones for example?

Missy

I think I made the point that no one scientist however qualified can embrace all the science. Personal attackes on scientist are dispicalble from what ever source. I think I have enough experience to judge a scientific argument. To quote Samuel Johnson "You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table" .

Martin A

Sorry I seem to have diverted your discussion threat. I have said my piece and have no more to contribute.