There goes another “fingerprint”…
It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper coming soon.
Listen to the speech: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources”
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
CO2 variations do not correlate with man-made emissions. Peaks and falls correlate with hot years (e.g. 1998) and cold years (1991-92). No graphs are available from Salby's speech or paper yet. This graph comes from Tom Quirk's related work (see below).
The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current Australian political climate.
The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2 emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer — about 1%. Plants don’t like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2 from the air.
Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions.
UPDATE Inserted: E.M.Smith covered this point well in 2009
...
“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2.
The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. Take a look at the above chart. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”
Chiefio also found some interesting quotes pointing out that corn (a C4 plant) absorbs more C13, and our mass fields of corn might just muck up the stats… (it’s a good post).
The sources of CO2 don’t seem to be industrialized areas
Suspiciously, when satellites record atmospheric CO2 levels around the globe they find that the sources don’t appear to be concentrated in the places we’d expect — industry or population concentrations like western Europe, the Ohio Valley, or China. Instead the sources appear to be in places like the Amazon Basin, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa — not so much the places with large human emissions of CO2!
But CO2 is a well mixed gas so it’s not possible to definitively sort out the sources or sinks with CO2 measurements around the globe. The differences are only of the order of 5%.
Instead the way to unravel the puzzle is to look at the one long recording we have (at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, going back to 1959) and graph the changes in CO2 and in C13 from year to year. Some years from January to January there may be a rise of 0 ppmv (ie no change), some years up to 3 ppmv. If those changes were due to man-made CO2 then we should see more of those rapid increases in recent times as man-made emissions increased faster.
What Salby found though, was nothing like what was expected
The largest increases year-to-year occurred when the world warmed fastest due to El Nino conditions. The smallest increases correlated with volcanoes which pump dust up into the atmosphere and keep the world cooler for a while. In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time-scale, and according to Salby, man-made emissions have little effect.
The climate models assume that most of the rise in CO2 (from 280 ppmv in1780 to 392 ppmv today) was due to industrialization and fossil fuel use. But the globe has been warming during that period (in fact since the depths of the Little Ice Age around 1680), so warmer conditions could be the reason that CO2 has been rising.
Salby does not dispute that some of the rise in CO2 levels is due to man-made emissions, but found that temperature alone explains about 80% of the variation in CO2 levels.
The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming. Salby says he sat on the results for six months wondering if there was any other interpretation he could arrive at, and then, when he invited scientists he trusted and admired to comment on the paper, they also sat on it for half a year. His speech created waves at the IUGG conference, and word is spreading.
A book will be released later this year: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.
Roy Spencer wrote along similar lines last year
“Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason?” and Part II
”]
“… the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2. Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in accuracy?? I doubt it.”
Roy Spencer
Tom Quirk in Australia has been asking these questions for years
Tom Quirk showed that while most man-made CO2 is released in the Northern Hemisphere, and the southern Hemisphere stations ought to take months to record the rises, instead there did not appear to be any lag… (ie. the major source of the CO2 is global rather than from human activity).
Over 95% of [man-made emissions of] CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…
“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…
“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.
“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.
“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”
Tom has done a lot of work on this:
The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
More info from Tom Quirk: SOURCES AND SINKS OF CARBON DIOXIDE [17 page PDF]
But what about the ice cores?
The Vostok ice core record suggests CO2 levels have not been this high in the last 800,000 years, but if Salby is right, and temperature controls CO2, then CO2 levels ought to have been higher say, 130,000 years ago when the world was 2 – 4 degrees warmer than it is now.
Salby questions the ice core proxy and points out that in the ice cores, as temperature rises, C13 falls, much as it has been in the last 50 years. If it was also responding that way hundreds of thousands of years ago, then the C13 to C12 ratio can hardly be called a fingerprint of human emissions.
On the nature of science
According to Salby, science is about discourse and questioning. He emphasized the importance of debate: “Excluding discourse is not science”. He felt that it was not his position to comment on policy, saying the scientists that do are more activist than scientist.
After speaking in carefully selected phrases, he finished his presentation saying that “anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic, is in fantasia”.
Salby was once an IPCC reviewer, and comments, damningly, that if these results had been available in 2007, “the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did.” I guess he’s also giving them an out.
———————————————————
Prof Murry Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011. [Thanks to Andrew Bolt]
REFRESHING!
When I think back to all the Warmists typing here with such confidence, I wonder what they’ll be doing with this?
50
Looks like this one is going to go viral in the blogosphere. Judith Curry has also picked up on it. Should be interesting to see how the story plays out in the mainstream media, and what the Team response will be.
40
How many times and in how many ways does this zombie theory have to be debunked? And they call us the deniers. Great post Jo, let’s see if these results get any more traction within the scientific community than previous papers.
50
Good to see the evidence getting out there that, not only don’t we control the climate — we don’t even control the atmospheric CO2 concentration (!) — a point I’ve been pushing for some time.
Can’t wait for the “climate scientists” to get defunded, but given the political component (after all they provide cover for political power grabs), it will probably take another election in the US.
Too bad about “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, but there is so much “bath water” (junk science) now in AGW, that it’s best to just start over. All ongoing grants ended, and everyone re-applies — merit to be judged by scientists who have never been on the AGW funding stream. Let’s get the corruption out.
60
“PLANTARY”?? You must have been really excited about this one.
21
To Grumpy Old Man at #5:
When the AGW crowd cannot refute the facts, they turn to ad hominem attacks and glee over something as small as a spelling error! Pretty sad state of the AGW movement at this point in time – and on a track to get even worse.
Nice work Professor Salby!
40
The guv(wo)men’s technicolour promo – a load of ‘crap’ if ever there was – on why we have to tax the biggest ‘car bung polluders’ must have got an update on the above ‘unsettled science’ as it makes no mention that carbon dioxide is the naughty ‘polluder’ as those of us who can think for ourselves clearly no otherwise. As has always been my cynical view, it’s only ever been about so-called tax reform to enable Woine Goose to fill his budget black hole while pandering to that tree-hugging Tazmaniac, the tanned shilling.
20
Sort of explains why high CO2 levels (e.g. 15 times present) predate humanity. And why rate of atmospheric CO2 rise appears to have no relationship to the change in industial intensity 1850 – 2011.
So mother nature can look after herself…Who’d have thought???
50
I went over and checked out Judith Curry’s blog. Some of the comments by the alarmists are bizarre. They seem to think that the conclusions of the study are have no real impact on the ‘science of global warming’. They might be right, seeing as it’s all a fiction anyway.
Murry Salby seems to be pretty clear about the implications of his results in his concluding remarks:
He also gets +10 denier points over feedbacks when answering a question about the IPCC projected temperature rise:
Not sure why the warmistas at JC’s blog are stonewalling discussion on account of not having graphs(data) to view. I thought the speech was articulately delivered. So much so, that I could see in my head what was being described. Great stuff.
30
This takes me back to the original debunking of Gore – when it was shown that warming drives Co2, not the other way around as he claimed. Somehow this got lost along the way, but its good to see real world observations (not models) proving the point.
I cant wait to see how the team will try to deny this one.
AT
30
Hobby scientists have been pointing this out for ages now… If official science is that slow to pick it up, we would be better off without it. No offence to Murry Salby, just criticizing the system.
40
“…for reasons which I’m not going to go into with this audience, there has to be a negative feedback that bridles this positive feedback and holds things in check.”
I listened to the podcast but didn’t catch this reply from Prof Salby. But I don’t see why a negative feedback is required. Can anyone elucidate?
20
Fabian Barbie & Co. will not enjoy this if it cracks the MSM!
20
Getup has raised a complaint to the standards board “or what ever the official title is” complaining about a radio presentor stating this argument. Looks like a copy should be sent to the board to peruse.
10
There can’t be much wood left in the AGW coffin. The nails must be wall-to-wall by now. Only politics keeps it from failing altogether.
40
This study shouldn’t have been published and the authors should be barred from government grants. Don’t they know we are trying to save the planet?
We can’t let facts get into the way of bringing everyone together to save the planet.
20
Jo, this piece shows the quality of your science journalism. I’ve been following the story today and I listened to the podcast, but yours is the first piece that has helped a layman like me understand properly what Salby is saying.
Regardless of which side of the debate one is on (I’m agnostic), one can’t complain about the extraordinary clarity of what you have written. I’m very grateful for that.
51
[…] Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans […]
10
Apologies for going O/T:
It is with deep regret that I must inform you that the meltdown has probably started. Ironic, because I emailed and spoke to a couple colleagues yesterday (Wednesday) saying that it was “about that time”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/wall-st-in-biggest-plunge-since-gfc/story-e6frg91o-1226108755605
In the coming days climate change will seem a very small issue indeed. BTW I have no idea where the smart money is going … this one is different. I am thinking the “D” word, not just a normal recession.
The SMH (haven’t read it yet) seems to be running a comprehensive article on what it all means:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/debt-wrangling-your-guide-to-economic-chaos-20110804-1icr9.html
Good luck everyone.
10
DirkH @10
Exactly.
This “revelation” is simply confirmation of the real science.
When you quantify the “Green House” ( IF I CAN USE THAT TERM) effects we have a major winner in Water, followed by Natural produced CO2 and way behind both in magnitude, Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.
CCS and Carbon Abatement, Carbon Footprint, Responsible Energy and other catchphrases of the Church of AGW may now be consigned to the sin bin where they belong.
20
This IS the death of AGWmowement!
KABOOOOOOM!!!Now the only deasent thing for the AGWmob is to ask for mercy and forgivness!
We WOOOOOOON!
20
Bulldust @15
No need to apologise.
These two disasters ( AGW & Stockmarket Crash GFC ) have ripped a hole in the lives of many older Australians.
Fuzzy politics has created the GFC and the same Fuzziness is behind AGW.
Both are costing us big.
Years of savings vanished down that big hole with the label ” Political Mismanagement “.
10
It is so sad that Australian politicians are unable to listen to the many first class Australian scientists who point out the complete failure of the CAGW meme and instead rely on Flannery etc. to guide suicidal economic and energy policies.
Salby suddenly finds himself in the exalted company of Carter, Plimner, Archibald, Nicol, Tisdale and so many others on the side of science and reason.
Analyses of the recently released CRU temp. data, Spencer’s recent paper plus Salby’s contribution must make any sentient polltician think again.
BTW Best of luck to the Cavalcade to Canberra, but please keep the petition simple and focused and work within the current constitutional rules.
30
The truth will be as it always is, simple, elegant and obvious. It won’t rely on turning a wholly beneficial molecule into banksters poison.
20
Bulldust@15,
But one thing is for sure, until the root causes are addressed ( 3 years on and none have), then the reckoning will just get worse. The longer they delay and stall, the worse the reckoning will be and the more angry people will be. All rent seekers should know by now that their time in the sun is coming to an end.
And yes, this statement applies equally to agw as it does to the global economic situation.
The new world order is collapsing under the weight of it’d beligerant ideals.
30
Jo,
Good go at putting together Salby’s talk in a coherent way from just a podcast.
His work is going to be a cause for bountiful discourse.
His presentation style appeared to be top notch.
John
20
The idea that planetary temperature affects CO2 levels and not vice versa is not new – it’s there in Jo’s Skeptic’s Handbook. However, that does say (based on the Vostok ice core data, I believe) that there is a lag of up to 800 years. This new report seems to agree on what is cause (higher temperature, through whatever means) and what is effect (increased CO2) but that the CO2 response is much more immediate. Or am I reading it wrongly or have missed something? Anyway, it seems there is a healthy ecosystem of climate theories and if nothing else that proves the science is not settled.
10
DirkH re “hobby scientists”. I guess that makes me one. I showed this temperature/CO2 relationship back in April at
Very pleasing to see this getting attention at last.
Ken
20
Why are Gillard & Co taxing us? They are guilty of massive fraud.
30
Jo , I can only say I agree with Mark @ 17 and John @ 20 , extremely well written and easy to understand.
Suggest you see if the West Australian will print it in a weekend edition.
30
This is exactly the argument I have been having with another blogger
, an “international contributor”,
over on the “ Breaking Australian carbon tax …” thread.
10
i wouldn’t hold my CO2 breath waiting for the MSM to cover what Salby has said.
meanwhile, today we have:
5 Aug: Australian: Sid Maher: Land for carbon reforestation to take big cut
But if the carbon price started at $47 a tonne, under a more ambitious scenario, the report estimates more than 60 million tonnes of carbon could be shed through plantation forests and carbon plantings by 2021…
The modelling was released as Resources Minister Martin Ferguson named three leading corporate advisory firms to help the Gillard government negotiate a billion-dollar closure of a brown-coal electricity generator as it seeks to cut carbon emissions.
Mr Ferguson announced Lazzards (sic), KMPG and Baker and McKenzie had been appointed to help the government with negotiations that the government hopes to finalise by the end of the year.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/land-for-carbon-reforestation-to-take-big-cut/story-fn59niix-1226108586239
looking only at Baker & McKenzie: on page 19 of the following 2006 report, note Lihir Gold is listed – Ross Garnaut was Chairman of Lihir until 2010 when it merged with Newcrest.
NAEM Annual Meeting
White Plains, NY
July 26-27, 2006
Carbon Market OverviewLegal Issues and Opportunities
Richard M Saines
Baker & McKenzie LLP is a member of Baker & McKenzie International
http://naem.org/Rick%20Saines.pdf
NAEM – Corporate Members
These highly recognizable companies belong to our Board of Regents. They are committed to advancing environmental, health and safety management excellence, and sharing best practices through our network…
http://www.naem.org/
worth noting the long list of “carbon vultures” in the following for future reference:
2008: AdPartners (Avoided Deforestation Partners): Nobel Laureate Conversation
Featuring Al Gore and Dr. Wangari Maathai
Moderated by Dan Rather
Protecting Rainforests, Communities and our Climate:
How U.S. leadership can make a difference
Richard Saines — AD Partners; Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP
http://adpartners.org/news_ny_event.html
20
Sorry boys and girls, I have been responding on several pages on this blog that it is pretty sure that near all of the increase of CO2 over the past 160 years is caused by human emissions.
Professor Salby is completely wrong on several points, including the 13C/12C ratio.
That humans are the cause is quite sure:
– The mass balance: It is impossible that nature was a net contibutor to the increase, because the measured increase is less than the emissions. Thus nature was a net sink for CO2 over the past at least 50 years. As long as the Law of non-destruction of mass holds. Have a good look at graph A from Tom Quirk: In every year, the emissions were larger than what remains in the atmosphere, the difference must go somewhere (and it’s not escaping to space!), it is absorbed by oceans and vegetation. Thus there were (near) always more natural sinks than sources. Thus all natural emissions were completely absorbed (in mass, not in origin of the molecules) by natural sinks and the natural emissions were just part of the turnover, not contributing to the total mass in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if human emissions were 3% or 0.3% or 0.03% of the turnover, because the human emissions were additional, the natural emissions were not.
– The 13C/12C ratio: Indeed there are two main sources of low 13C: fossil fuels and the decay of vegetation. But the earth is greening, thus there is more CO2 absorbed by vegetation than that organic matter decays. That is confirmed by the oxygen balance: less oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning, thus the biosphere was a net source of oxygen, thus a net absorber of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. But we see a decline of 13CO2 in the atmosphere…
– The process charasteristics: The increase in the atmosphere follows the emissions with an incredible fixed ratio. There is no natural process which is able to follow human emissions in such a way, Natural processes are far more variable.
A few other problems:
– While there is an extremely good correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere, the correlation is less when one looks at the year by year increase, simply because temperature changes have a short term influence (about 4 ppmv/degr.C) on the increase rate, not on the trend! The long term influence, as seen in ice cores, is about 8 ppmv/degr.C. Even an increase of 1 degr.C since the depth of the LIA would not give more than 8 ppmv increase, not the 100+ ppmv as measured. BTW the pCO2 of seawater increases with not more than 16 ppmv/degr.C. And while temperature should decrease the total amount of carbon in the upper layer of the oceans, we see an increase in carbon (and a decrease in 13C/12C ratio)
– Ice cores, tree carbon and coralline sponges all give small 13C/12C variations over the Holocene, but all show a steady and ever faster decline since about 1850. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
Further, Jack Barett and I have reacted in E&E on the article by Tom Quirk: he made a fundamental mistake in his comparison of no lag, because his comparison made no differentiation between no lag or 12 months lag (as the SH does) or 24 months lag,…
See further my take in this discussion:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
12
7.30 Report ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3184258.htm
Juliar Gillard: “I’ve always believed we had to put a price on carbon in order to tackle climate change,absolutely.”
Chris Ulhmann: “And Kevin Rudd says that you didn’t at one stage,that you urged him to abandon the former ETS scheme.”
10
Ferdinand @ 33
I reaffirm all of my previous comments to you..Go back and read them.
You are NO scientist but an incorrigible Warmenista.
I could say you are cunning and sly, but that would be giving you too much credit.
The whirlpool starts with credible comments and then descends into ever more convoluted rubbish as if to say to people, well you just aren’t smart enough for this part, just trust me.
No one should trust you.
Go Away.
10
I tried to listen to the podcast of Salby but found it too painful to make it all the way to the end.
From the summary above, how does the “800 year lag” fit into all this?
I suggest nothing is certain thus far. I also suggest commentors read Ferdinand Engelbeens comment at #32 and click on the links.
Not because I necessarily agree with all of what he shows, but what he shows is that this subject matter is not settled and Salbys Sydney Institute presentation is not the end game.
10
Come on Mary!
I do not agree with him either.But he has been a civil person who make a case for his position.He did so in my old skeptic forum of 3 years ago.And he did give ground on a few details.But still held his main position that most of the increase is from mankind.
He is a skeptic,who differs from many on this one area.
10
Ferdinand @ 33
“That humans are the cause is quite sure.”
Have you ever wondered how the methane gas in the Earths crust is being created?
Now I found this site to be of great interest in relation to your arguement:
http://www.archive.org/details/GMM-10359
“Biological Creation of Methane:NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center”
“Note: Conceptual animation depicting how biological organisms [shown as oval shaped translucent structures] living beneath the surface of Mars may have produced methane…”
Now if organisms can theoretically live beneath the surface of Mars, why would it be impossible to think that it can’t happen on Earth? Some estimate that the bacteria living deep within the Earths crust to be in the thousands of gigatons.
Burning methane in the presence of oxygen produces carbon dioxide and water.
All the factors have to be put in the mix before you can reach a conclusion.
10
Hi sunsettommy:
At one time I would have agreed with you but he has deliberately tried to cover over his incorrect assumption that Natural CO2 is totally fixed and unchanging.
Anyone with even basic science knows that the likelihood of Natural CO2 output being known accurately just not possible.
Maybe he has been caught up in the European Science and not been able to see the wood for the trees.
My only reason for challenging him is to give others the chance to have second thoughts about his central scientific belief; That We cause Atm CO2 increases.
At one time I asked if he and MattB were brothers because MattB has been very caring about his welfare.
10
Kevin a@31
Good point.
The CO2 attributable to organic activity in soil is immense and any scientist who overlooks these sources is being deliberately unscientific.
Such people are called Politicians.
10
I have just re read 33 above.
I say again, tread carefully.
It has the appearance of reasoned science.
It is NOT science.
10
I wish these upstarts would stick to modelling.
Observation of reality causes disturbance in the settlement. (Of science, that is).
How can we have certainty in political agendas if we have to take account of reality?
10
Lol @ ferdinand!
1/ IPPC based the estimates on past CO2 levels on Ice cores, an uncalibrated proxy with problems, where the results just happen to fit the decompression curve. They ignored stomata proxies and direct measurments that showed the CO2 levels to be similar to todays levels at the start the 20th century.
2/ The atmospheric proportion of CO2 represents only 2% of the total in the system. 98% is dissolved in the oceans. The ratio between the two is controlled by Henrys Law, and the ratio is dependant on ocean temp. A small increase in temp (with a 800 year delay for deep ocean cycles) must dramatically increase the concentration in the atmosphere. Strangely enough the current increase in CO2 is most likely caused by the medieval warm period about 800 years ago!
3/ It cant be natural because natural is more variable, what the? 120k year ice ages, 800 year deep ocean cycle, 60 year PDO, you must be on drugs if you can’t see the obvious long term natural cycles. It’s nice to know that you also cant see that increases in atmospheric CO2 have been virtually linear while Human CO2 production has grown exponentially.
10
[…] Fantasyland??? Almost every day now a new piece of evidence arrives debunking the theory that man is changing the climate. Professor Murry Salby’s speech at the Sydney Institute included the statement: “anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic, is in fantasia” I think it’s abundantly clear that Gillard /Brown and co. are all living in fantasyland. How often have you heard the statement that climate sceptics are deniers, in la la land, extremists? As time goes by, more and more evidence points to the reverse. It’s the proponents of AGW who are now on the back foot and about bloody time. My kids are over being scared to death by alarmist bullies especially when the scare is baseless! In the face of increasing distrust of the climate scientific community it would be foolish to implement a tax on Carbon Dioxide when more and more scientists suggest it has less and less to do with causing Climate Change, follows changes in temperature rather than causes them and have little to do with man made emissions. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#m… […]
10
“Salby was once an IPCC reviewer, and comments, damningly, that if these results had been available in 2007, ‘the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did.’ I guess he’s also giving them an out.”
Is it just me or do you notice the timing of this non-orthodox, thinking outside the box, scientific criticism? Salby held off on this for one year, plus six months… And that happened about 18 months ago? Climategate. Did this scandal make climate scientists more courageous?
10
I’ll second that, Mary. Go away Ferdinand.
You lost me on a C14 point on WUWT about 3 years ago where you said something about C14 being rare and so the plants scarfed it all up. Nonsense then and nonsense now.
10
Ah, the devil is indeed in the detail… Assuming the ratio’s are somehow effected by a single source in a complex multi million year old climatic system is surely a sign of madness in the face of reality. Good to see some proper science being done.
10
According to Tim Flannery and Julia and it seems Ferdinand,the Earth is not capable of recycling carbon dioxide of its own accord:that it takes the intervention of the Man-God, Gaia to keep everything in balance. Looking at Julia and Tim’s record doesn’t provide the world with much hope.
10
Ferdinand Engelbeen (@33):
The mass balance argument only works if you assume a long lifetime for atmospheric CO2. However, there is ample empirical evidence that the atmospheric CO2 lifetime is quite short — 5 to 10 years. All “evidence” to the contrary is simply model results, that are incapable of replicating the actual measurements.
The “gold standard” evidence is from the measured lifetime of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This (link) is a classic tracer measurement, where the tracer material (carbon-14) was in equilibrium with all the sources/sinks before the atmospheric a-bomb tests introduced an “impulse” of C-14 that was abruptly ended with the atmospheric test ban treaty of 1963. Because of the prior equilibrium, it is unarguable that the impulse response function thus measured is the same as for carbon 12. All of the arguments I have heard against this result (including from Gavin Schmidt) fail to understand the nature of a tracer experiment, and ignore the long history and experimental validation of such measurements.
Thus, the mass balance argument fails due to the falsification of the basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 largely stays in the atmosphere.
The bomb spike graph also shows clearly that the mixing time between hemispheres (most atmospheric tests were in the Northern Hemisphere) is ~ 3-4 years. Thus, the lack of a similar lag between current CO2 increases (most anthropogenic CO2 is also generated in the N. Hemisphere) as shown in Tom Quirk’s paper is another piece of data indicating that the current CO2 atmospheric concentration increases are mostly due to natural sources.
The mass balance argument is interesting, but it requires assumptions that violate empirical knowledge, so is moot.
10
So for the growth rate to fall by 3 PPM the temperature must dive by about 0.75 Deg C.
Which means you must agree that the global temperatures for April 2010 to April 2011 were 0.75 Deg cooler than nearly thirteen years earlier Sept 1997 to Sept 1998:
April 2010 392.49ppm
April 2011 393.29ppm
Which is an increase over a year of only 0.80ppm
Sept 1997 360.12
Sept 1998 363.84
Which is a huge increase over that year of 3.72ppm.
So the variation in growth between these two years has gone the wrong way for panic by at least 3.72 – 0.80 = 2.92ppm (your 3/4 of a deg C).
Where is the missing heat Ferdinand?
10
Addendum to #49:
Not to mention that the “hockey-stick-like” CO2 data from ice cores + modern measurements is a carefully crafted stalking horse — you have to ignore most pre-industrial measurements (cherry-picking the low ones) and also the bulk of the stomata proxies to believe it.
Also, there is the “80 year” lag that was assumed so that the ice cores and modern measurements fit together nicely. Without this arbitrary and unjustified assumption, you would have to conclude that ice cores seriously under-estimate CO2 concentrations.
10
BobC, thanks. IIRC that was when Ferdinand claimed that the C14 fell quickly because it was rare and so the plants scarfed it all up quickly. Ferdinand goes to a lot of trouble to produce lengthy plausible, sounding articles that fall over. He’s no Chiefio.
10
Ferdinand Engelbeen – Well said, and IMO quite correct. This amount of atmospheric CO2 could not come from the biosphere unless we were losing said biosphere, but we’re actually greening, with the total biomass increasing. CO2 from the oceans has about a 500-800 year lag, due to circulation delays, so it can’t be that. The increase in atmospheric CO2 can only be from our emissions.
Interestingly enough, if you correct that first graph in this post for seasonal effects (you know, plants growing in the spring, dying off in the fall), and the fact that about half (by mass balance) of our emissions are absorbed by ocean and plant sinks, those two lines will track each other very well. See this video for a history of CO2 – it’s not the oceans or the plant biosphere causing the rise in concentrations. Peak CO2 levels over the last million or so years (natural cycles) haven’t exceeded 290 ppm, but current levels are about 393.
Professor Salby is indeed quite demonstrably wrong.
It will be interesting to see whether ongoing responses on this thread are ad hominem’s, or considerations of the evidence.
10
Finding oil, coal, and wood. Burning oil, coal and wood, is just recycling carbon that binds to yet another molecule namely oxygen.
In essence we have not gotten slightly lower oxygen levels but slightly more carbon bound to oxygen molecules. And the the idiots want to put that oxygen down into the ground bound to the carbon that would otherwise be oil, coal and wood again.
I’m not all knowing, but one thing I do know, if one want to save the planet it won’t be done by oxygen depravation just because it is too expensive to separate the oxygens from the carbon. :p
10
Uh, KR: 500-800 years ago puts us in the Medieval Warm Period. So, kindly explain why the current rise can’t be a lagged response to that. Argument by “blatant assertion” is not sufficient.
10
1DandyTroll @ 51
There is a probability that the buried CO2 could convert to dry ice.
10
Quick question that perhaps only reveals my ignorance. I assume that as CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere it’s ‘backradiation’ must be reasonably well averaged across the globe (ie measurements at any one place of backradiation must be similar to measurements elsewhere). Now, the argument is that the backradiation is what is heating the system (or I guess more accurately slowing the cooling of the system), and that heating is measurable in terms of average temperature.
If so, then surely we can directly measure that effect. For example, at large powerstations which are known to emit large quantities of CO2, or perhaps large cities. Sure in time CO2 emissions will mix well, but at the point of source they can’t instantly do that can they? A powerstation running 24 hours a day must have a sort of dome of higher density CO2 over it most of the time.
Has the average temperature of such places been tracked? One would imagine that the locale of a powerstation must be quite hot indeed compared to surrounding areas. Particularly one located where winds or weather extremes are limited.
10
I’m with Ferdy… the key piece of evidence is that atmospheric CO2 conc is rising slower than Anthropogenic CO2 emissions, you can’t argue with that.
Dan F Johnston I simply cannot fathom how you can call Ferdy a Warmanista. Unfathomable.
10
Where is MattB?
This is a really interesting comment – only noticed it today.
10
What it “could” show however is the dire straits academia is in. I’ve observed it myself… say the right thing and you progress… different unis promote different people depending on how they agree with the resident prof… so go fina a Uni where the prof agrees with you etc.
Without writing this Prof off completely it appears to me he has probably gotten where he has today without really having a solid understanding of physics and maths and has panicked and just taken a guess and tried to sound like he knows what he is talking about. It could well be rats deserting a sinking ship… but it seems he is a rat. Watch for “esteemed” professors jumping ship claiming things like “AGW contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics” and you will realise they really don’t have a clue.
I concede that is not a strong argument in favour of AGW… suggesting many profs are morons:) BUt based on experience of 1 – if universities rewarded smarts not brown-nosing I’d be head prof at MIT;)
10
MattB –I note from above that Prof Salby was once an IPCC reviewer. Does that fit in with your assessment ??
10
mattB:”if universities rewarded smarts not brown-nosing I’d be head prof at MIT;)”
a living example of the Dunning – Kruger effect.
10
As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby’s research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team’s science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been “filtered” to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won’t use). The IPCC’s crucial assumptions are getting precious little corroboration from reliable real-world data. Expect the Team and its sycophants, including those in Australia, to become more irrational as dragnet of evidence entraps them. Here at JN, my focus is moving towards establishing whether our resident trolls are more than amateur spoilers and are drawing part of their government pay cheques to proliferate the Team’s costly deceptions in the real world.
10
Assumption is the mother of all …
Some uses of the word from above:
I thought Science was supposed to observe and deduce? Economics is the “assume we have a can opener” discipline.
Should one go with the assumption or go with the (unadjusted) empirical data?
One cannot just assume that chemical measurement of CO2, 150 years ago was wrong, because it does not fit with your other assumptions.
20
No one tell the Labor Party or Bob Brown. They’re in their own world of make believe. Carbon is the problem and must be taxed. The legislation is in. Australian deniers will be labelled as anarchists next.
10
Mike in 61 – did you miss the cheeky wink?
10
49
BobC:
The interhemispheric thing was a great piece of info.
A good way of assessing human CO2 absorption.
20
Jack @ 64
It reminds me…
10
MattB:
@58
I know you’re with Ferdy and I called him a Warmenista
DAN
10
I’m afraid that Ferdinand Englebeen is correct here. The relationships between atmospheric CO2ppmv increase, the del C13 signatures of current atmospheric (and oceanic (dissolved) “CO2”), the del C13 signatures of oil, coal, and wood, and the estimates of anthropogenic CO2 production since 1850, all indicate that the ~ 110ppmv atmospheric CO2 increase since then has a “non-natural”, i.e. anthropogenic source, even though the biosphere is absorbing approximately 55% of the total anthropogenic CO2 production. However, I am not a “warmista” by any means – we do not know how to properly quantify the albedo of aerosols, including clouds, with their consequent negative feedback effects in any of the climate sensitivity models as yet – and all models in the ensemble used by the “warmistas” are indicating the sensitivities (to atmospheric CO2 increase) are too high, by factors ranging from 2 to 4: which could indicate that climate sensitivity to a doubling of current CO2 concentrations will be of the order of 1 degree C or less outside the equatorial regions (none or very little in the equatorial regions)- i.e. an outcome which will likely be beneficial to all of us. I cannot be more certain of these conjectures written here, as the science is so horribly uncertain, although at the moment, observations, and “new science” favour lower climate sensitivities.
10
Interesting reaction of the climate sceptics to this speech. Obviously there are credible and sceptical sceptics 🙂 I would call myself the latter.
10
OT, sorry, but this has got to be the silliest most inane lie I’ve ever heard from the mouth of a politician:
Carbon tax essential to growth, says Treasurer Wayne Swan
This is a comment in response to the market tanking 5%!
Arrrgh, why oh why do we have to have this guy running Australia when the financial markets do an imitation of Lucifer’s firey decent to hell in Paradise Lost?
10
Interesting. I’ll wait until this new paper sees the light of day and decide if it holds water. But its always good to see people trying to get their heads around how things actually work. I hope its not another “2nd law of thermodynamics” debacle.
10
It is probable that a proposition as laid down as a base for this debate is wrong – that “The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants,that ‘plant signature’ means “human via fossilised fuels.”
It is probable that oil existed before plant life – that fossils found in coal are merely plant life enveloped in solidified oil.
Thomas Gold and the Future of Methane as as Fuel
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/yantovski_gold_future.pdf
“The main arguement of biogenic proponents is the existence in crude oil of some molecules that indisputably belong to living matter because they manifest a a chiral effect [predominant rotation of polarised light]. The presence of biogenic molecules is actually an important part of the abiobenic concept as well, but it turns the old logic upside down. It is not that bacteria produced hydrocarbons, but that the primordial hydrocarbon “soup” gave food to bacteria.The total mass of organic substance of these microbes is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of gigatons,much more than the organic mass of surface biota.”
10
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 33:
The mass balance argument doesn’t makes sense at all. We have been increasing our production of C02 at an increasing rate. If this argument held true then atmospheric C02 concentrations would match this. But, C02 increase since 1960 has been largely linear over the long term. This was addressed by Murray but you’ve chosen to ignore this fact. Empirical evidence trumps guesses about C02 sources.
And Mary, why try to shut down the debate? If you’re tired of debating Ferdinand then ignore his posts. I would prefer a debate so that everyone can get their points of view on the table. If you want to shut down the debate, I suggest you join the other camp.
Orson @ 45:
What I find curious is that Chiefio’s 2009 post has a MiB quote and this speech by Murry also contains an MiB quote. Was Murry inspired?
10
BobC @ 55 – “…500-800 years ago puts us in the Medieval Warm Period. So, kindly explain why the current rise can’t be a lagged response to that.”
Good point! I think, though, that since temperatures have been rather higher over the Holocene than now (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png) and CO2 much lower, that the MWP could not have driven CO2 levels to 393 – especially with the LIA in between.
Our emissions certainly explain current levels – otherwise we have to both figure out why our emissions don’t have the expected effect and why something else would.
10
Hi Curious Bystander: @ 57
You are probably aware that you have already answered your own question..
The Urban Heat Island Effect at a power station would make it a bit difficult to make sense of any data.
I read somewhere that if you took the land area of every city and town in the world and put them together side by side you could see something interesting. The entire mass of habitation would fit neatly inside the borders of Spain.
The point of this comment is that there are plenty of locations away from urban areas that can give us more useful readings than at hot spots.
regards
Dan
10
The thing i find most interesting about all this is that we have 1 drive by and two usual suspects debunking a paper they have not seen nor read.
They tell us the science is settled, they tell us there is a consensus but yet when they are faced with the science they reject it.
They have all attempted to debunk this paper based on what would seem at face value as legitimate reasons but if you look a little deeper at what they have said you see it just a veneer thin piss poor attempt.
So far they have all failed to explain how Antarctic measurements of ATM CO2 can lead the Nth Hemisphere, how can this be possible if the total increase in CO2 is from man?
They fail to explain how CO2 levels can increase and decrease from year to year even though CO2 has a very long life in the ATM.
They will not acknowledge the MWP even though there is a warehouse full of studies showing it existed therefore they will not entertain the idea of the 800 year lag playing a role in CO2 increases.
Their responses to the imminent release of this paper and their reasons for debunking it shows only one thing, that is they have this idea fixed in their head and no matter what happens or what is said that idea cannot be changed. There are numerous words that can be used to describe this…..one that springs to mind is FAITH.
Do you think they realise just how sad they look?
10
I also wonder about the story behind the lag between completing the work and publishing (I wonder what journal?). A cynic might suggest that he was holding off to time the release to use publicity generated in the media to maximally contribute to sales of a forthcoming book. I’d say not as peer reviewal is unpredictable – when and if you get published- and could ruin such plans. You’d need a compliant and complicit publisher.
20
Siliggy @ 50
Sounds good but I’m going to have to sit down and work that out with a pencil.
10
Waffle.
Like you apparently, I thought that Ferdinand was debating.
If you have seen the extreme exchanges on the other thread you would understand that debate has been well and truly attempted.
Graphs he links to may look professional but do you understand where the data came from that made them?
Fig 4 for example I commented on a few days ago. I think we are supposed to be impressed by the fact that all curves seem to line up. Junk.
The other item on sinks and sources is nicely coloured in but again what is the accuracy of the work?
The certain point is that man made CO2 is inconsequential compared with natural CO2 and he wants to convince people of the EXACT OPPOSITE.
10
Hi CB: The backradiation (or at least the total IR coming from the sky, known as downwelling radiation) can indeed be directly measured, and CO2 should have a similar effect (adjusted for lattitude) nearly anywhere on the globe, due to mixing. Here is a study that did that over a 14 year period over the Great Plains (US) and found that back radiation decreased at the same time that CO2 concentrations increased (discussion here )
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that either A) The calculations of the CO2 GH effect are in serious error, or B) There exist negative feedbacks (or natural variation) that easily overwhelms the effect of CO2. Either way, the ability of the climate models (which don’t account for either possibility) to predict climate is shown to be nil. Since the only crisis in climate science is the one predicted by the models (which the IPCC has admitted can’t predict climate) pretty much all the air has been let out of the alarmist balloon.
30
Our emissions don’t have the effect you expect because of the short CO2 atmospheric lifetime. No, we don’t have to figure out what is causing CO2 to increase to know it is not us. The “argument from ignorance” (we dont’ know what else is causing it, so it must be us) is not even slightly compelling (besides being fallacious).
30
I have been requested to debate:
IF
Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:
a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.
b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.
c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.
d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.
It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control two systems:
1. The oceans
and
2. Natural CO2 emissions.
Logically the Atmosphere and Human CO2 emissions are rendered impotent by the shear weight of the other two factors.
Any comment?
30
Thank you Jo, this is doing no end of good for my mental well being.
10
5 Aug: BusinessGreen: EU carbon price plunges to record low as focus returns to Greece
Analysts forecast poor outlook for third quarter after benchmark carbon price drops to 29-month low of €11.05
Gray added that almost all movement lately has been associated with sovereign debt problems in the EU and the US, which have created significant downside risk for carbon in terms of low economic growth prompting waning demand for carbon, but also “a costly and cagey” credit market which could potentially drag EUAs lower as utilities seek to boost cash flows.
The analyst forecast a “very poor” outlook for the third quarter because of the absence of utilities hedging their exposures for phase III of the ETS, which starts in 2013.
“We expect to see an uptick in 2012 when utilities start to enter the market to cover their phase III obligations,” he said…
More broadly, the market has been deflated by security concerns prompted by cyber attacks in January, as well as European Commission energy efficiency plans, which mean that companies need fewer credits to achieve their reduction targets.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2099572/eu-carbon-price-plunges-record-low-focus-returns-greece
2 Aug: GreenWiseBusiness: Carbon price floor to cost manufacturing £1.2bn, says EEF
“UK Industry was already facing energy bills which made them uncompetitive before the substantial additional burden of the unilateral carbon price floor. We have now reached a tipping point where the cumulative burden of UK climate change policy will make it uncompetitive for some sectors to invest and create jobs in the UK,” EEF director of Policy, Steve Radley, said…
According to Government figures, climate policies could add up to 52 per cent to electricity prices paid by energy intensive industry by 2020…
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/carbon-price-floor-to-cost-manufacturing-12bn-says-eef-2509.aspx
and the following is the standard of writing in Australia:
4 Aug: Crikey: Ellen Sandell: Abbott’s European holiday might make him hot and bothered
Abbott seems to still be confused about the science of climate change, moving between “climate change is absolute crap” and aligning himself with the climate deniers, and at other times accepting that climate change is a problem, but just not one worth acting efficiently on…
All of this will be news to most Europeans, who have long accepted the science of climate change and have been measuring their CO2 emissions in tonnes through the trading scheme, and are benefiting from climate change solutions…
Studies predict an increase of up to 6.1 million jobs in 2050, and the EU-wide emissions trading scheme is expected to generate between $143 billion and $296 billion over the next six years…
Maybe on the plane on the way home to Australia, Abbott could use the time to catch up on some reading.
We could recommend the eminent economist Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on climate change commissioned by the British Government, which found the economic impact of climate change to be greater than the Great Depression and World War Two combined.
Or perhaps he could start with the basics: Global Warming for Dummies.
Ellen Sandell is national director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/08/04/abbotts-european-holiday-might-make-him-hot-and-bothered/
20
If anyone doubts the importance of Global Warming just look at this.
Re 85
Stated;
“”EU-wide emissions trading scheme is expected to generate between $143 billion and $296 billion over the next six years…””
At a commission rate of 0.1% the banks handling these transactions will make somewhere between $143 million and $296 million.
10
Dan all I’d say is that “Logically the Atmosphere and Human CO2 emissions are rendered impotent by the shear weight of the other two factors.” does not match with the observed data on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the fact that human emissions < annual increase in atmospheric concentration.
The problem is your use of "logically"… as even if you were correct on the general situation, simply reading your post the conclusion is not a "logical" consequence of the preceding statements.
10
If we simply add the reasonable assumption that the atmosphere and oceans are in rough equilibrium, over the long run, then it is clear that only 2% of anthropogenic CO2 will remain in the atmosphere long term (the rest going into the oceans). This means that, at current emission rates, we might be able to double CO2 concentration in ~4000 years.
The Warmistas try to slide past this by publishing hundreds of papers on Carbon models that “show” CO2 residence time in the atmosphere of 100s to 1000s of years, thus extending the transient effects into the distant future. These papers uniformly reference only other papers on models that agree with them (such as the much-hyped paper of Susan Solomon’s 3 years ago). They never address the actual measured data.
It’s a perfectly hermetically sealed virtual reality.
Back in the real world, however, CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is 5-10 years, and equilibrium is largely reached in a few decades, not a few thousand years.
When I was a kid at the Grand Canyon on vacation, my Mom told me not to throw rocks because “if everybody did it, the canyon would be filled up”. Filling up the Grand Canyon is, however, something that we could do (with great difficulty), but controlling the natural flux of CO2 is not. It’s a fool’s errand to try.
40
This is off topic, but, gee, once you see the video, I just know you’ll all forgive me.
I see Bob Brown has got his wish to have a study into high speed rail.
Just that study alone will cost $20 Million.
This is for a MagLev and this is Magnetic Levitation, which requires some explanation.
The two main electrical ‘spinning things’ are generators and motors, (electrical Motors that is) and while the two items look similar in nature, the principle is the opposite.
Generators use an magnetic field to induce a flow of electrons in a wire, or many wires hence current flow, hence electrical power.
An electric motor has magnet for the rotor (similar) and an electromagnet for the stator.
In the generator a drive mechanism spins the rotor which induces power in the Stator.
In the electric Motor current flow in the stator induces a large magnetic field in that stator, and the reaction between the magnetic field causes the rotor to rotate.
Typical applications are windshield wipers, and while the power is applied the rotor rotates in the one direction, and limit switches at the limit of wiper movement reverse the direction of the wiper blades while the rotor is still moving in the same direction.
Or a starter Motor which uses more powerful stator windings to provide a greater magnetic field, hence more torque as, instead of driving much lesser wiper blades it has to turn over an engine.
OK, now having laid the base, lets explain a MagLev Train.
The Stator, wrapped as it is around the rotor in an electric motor is now laid out flat in lengths, and expended, and from ‘stator’ to ‘stator, (now wrapped flat) tey are added along the length of the ‘train track’, if you can visualise that.
The ‘rotor’ now becomes the Train.
As soon as the power is turned on, the interplay of magnetic fields lifts the train slightly off the track, hence the magnetic levitation.
Then as the power is applied the rotor (train) now moves, as the magnetic fiels interplay with each other.
Vastly huge speeds can be attained in this manner.
BUT, and isn’t there always a BUT.
These are huge consumers of electrical power.
Bob Brown wants these to reduce the emissions from air travel, and the speeds attainable are comparable to air travel, making this MagLev train attractive.
However, this will be a user of immense amounts of EXTRA electrical power, and 24/7/365 power at that.
No wind towers or solar plants operating for 6 hours a day with this.
So dear old Bob, have you thought about this?
$20 million just for the study alone, and Billions for implementation.
This is absolute madness.
Great idea, and I can’t wait for them to come in, because I just love new technology, er, which has been around since the early 70’s no less.
However, there is an absolutely wonderful alternative, and that is explained ever so neatly at this following video.
You’ll be rolling around the floor, trust me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzlqNp8R90A
Tony.
10
BobC @88
Very interesting;
“”If we simply add the reasonable assumption that the atmosphere and oceans are in rough equilibrium, over the long run, then it is clear that only 2% of anthropogenic CO2 will remain in the atmosphere long term.””
Someone put up the 98 / 2 breakdown in an earlier post.
This of course ignores CO2 held geologically in the mantle which is another factor entirely. We don’t need to get too complicated as the geo factor just adds to our case.
“”It’s a perfectly hermetically sealed virtual reality.”” I like that, can I use it??
“”my Mom told me not to throw rocks”” As a kid in the scouts we were told: never throw rocks over a cliff — there may be somebody down there.
“‘controlling the natural flux of CO2 is not. It’s a fool’s errand to try””
How do we get this message into the public domain after so many years of “scientific” indoctrination in schools??
21
Tony @89
Thanks for that moment Levity.
Sorry bad joke.
Hilarious – loved the $40 plastic nose attachments for the buses.
10
Pat @ 85
Sir Nicholas nearly got that one right- he forgot to insert the words “mitigating against” before the words “climate change” in the above quote. If he would have done so, I think he would have reached a complete consensus with skeptics on his conclusions.
10
KR @ 53, you realise that Ferdinand Engelbeen is, nonetheless, a warming skeptic don’t you? Also, you forgot to mention the role played by phytoplankton in atmospheric CO2 levels. Could it be that atmospheric CO2 levels have partially increased due to a decrease in phytoplankton, perhaps as a result of oceanic pollution such as oil slicks, etc? As you say, “considerations of the evidence” . .!
20
Codish @ 12:
I just spotted your post following another thread of conversation. Think about it for a while. If the feedbacks in the climate system are positive then the planet would have entered a death-spiral billions of years ago. Either, completely frozen(more so than the snowball earth scenario) or completely vapourised. But it hasn’t. Run-away global warming is a fallacy becaue C02 concentrations have been more than 20 times their present levels in the past. If C02 feedback was positive we would not be here having this discussion and this planet would more closely resemble Venus.
Lucky for us the Earth’s climate system has negative feedbacks which means, stability. That has allowed life to evolve and prosper.
10
MattB @87
Can’t Really Accept your Post.
The numbers are solid and the logic is solid.
Any other attempts ??
10
The entire idea of a closed “carbon cycle” is absolute nonsense. It assumes (without any empirical evidence) that negligible carbon (CO2, methane etc) is released by geological processes into the atmosphere.
10
I’ll wait for the paper. But it sounds okay. I’ve never been happy with the vagaries of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere and the lack of any lag between the industrialized northern hemisphere and the southern when charting anticipated Anthropogenic CO2 warming effects…… The AGW hypothesis is full of inconsistencies and problems that were never even address or explained, just hand waved away or ad hoc-ed with another hypothesis. From lack of Tropical Tropospheric warming to unrealistic CO2 residence times to cooling Sea Surface Temperatures to exaggerated sea level rise, etc… The AGW hypothesis is a mess. A rich alphabet soup of politics, funding opportunities and bias.
….Now we MAY find that not even the observed CO2 rise can be attributed to Humans….. This is going to go down as a period of infamy for science.
20
Mary/Dan sorry this is twice int he last week you’ve used the word “logically” as though it is a magic wand to cover deficiencies in your argument. The fact you can’t accept my argument doesn’t make you right.
10
@Waffle:
August 5th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Comment 94
I have often used the same argument myself. If CO2 feedbacks are positive the Earth would either be frozen completely solid or boiled dry. Either way we wouldn’t be here to discuss it.
The only other (rational and correct) alternative is that CO2 has essentially zero effect.
10
What argument was that MattB?
We’ve already had the science-is-settled ‘argument’. Doesn’t this just confirm that anthropogenic emissions are not significant to atmospheric concentrations of C02?
Actually, this is Ferdinand’s argument. I can’t remember the last time you’ve put an argument forward on this blog. It would years ago. But, if you want to go ahead and attempt to construct an argument for the good readers here, we could all get that nostalgic feeling back by tearing it the shreds.
10
I’d love to see his presentation…. You miss all the graphs and stuff with the podcast….Bummer.
10
JH @ 101
I understand a video will be released in the next few days.
10
waffle74-“What I find curious is that Chiefio’s 2009 post has a MiB quote and this speech by Murry also contains an MiB quote. Was Murry inspired?”
I caught that too. Is suspect so.
First, Salby starts out as an “agnostic” on the issue of the carbon cycle. Then he takes maybe 18 months to step forward. Now, he declares himself. And unlike the AGW establishment, he has no press office
Salby does all this detailed analysis while awaiting “resources” – funding, one suspects. Thus he does the book – revised? – plus this boldly anti-establishment paper. What does he have to lose?
That’s how I read him.
10
thanx Memoryvault.
10
Waffle and others… excuse ignorance, what’s MiB?
10
MiB = Holllywood movie “Men In Black” from 1997
10
Orson…. Yep, I too noted that he said he was going to write a book and said that one doesn’t realize the extent of ones lack of specificity on a subject until you put pen to paper, or words to that effect.
It would seem that his immersment in Australia’s more skeptical environment may have been beneficial to him?…
10
Whoa!
This is scary.
The Department of Education is using SpongeBob SquarePants in the U.S. as an educational ‘tool’ to warn young students about global CO2 emissions.
There was a recent seminar about the efficacy of doing this, (not sponsored by the DOE) and it was jokingly referred to as Global Warming Math, but the title of the course that stuck the most was Al Gore ithms, and just say it slowly.
This is becoming a little frightening.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/04/al-gore-ithms-and-global-warming/
The video at the bottom of the Post is about ‘Nanny Statism’ in the Education process.
Tony.
10
Sigh.. Immersion.
10
[…] Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans Judging by the speech Murry Salby gave at the Sydney Institute, there’s a blockbuster paper […]
10
Following the General Law of Stuff:
AirChange = HumanSource + NaturalSources – NaturalSinks – HumanSinks.
The first two terms are the only known quantities. The last one is mostly estimated to be so small as to be negligible (ie agriculture has both a source and sink component which are small compared to the rest of the biosphere).
Some people here are claiming that…
1) the HumanSource term is less than the NaturalSources term.
2) the HumanSource term is more than 50% of the final AirChange result.
3) the temperature causes more than 50% of the final AirChange result.
My analysis of this chart….
In the last 5 years of this chart the ratio of final carbon content increase net of all processes compared to anthropogenic emission component is approximately (5.5+4.8+3.25+5.5+3.9)÷(8.5+8.25+7.9+7.5+7.25) = 60%.
In the 5 years 1974-1979 the same ratio was about (1.9+2.7+2+3.8+2.9)÷(4.6+4.6+4.8+5+5.1) = 55%
Therefore, flipping it round the other way, humans have been emitting carbon at 166% to 180% of the final rate of atmospheric increase. So neglecting the small HumanSinks component, in air-relative terms the formula is now…
100% = 180% + NaturalSources% – NaturalSinks%
…so…
-80% = NaturalSources% – NaturalSinks%
The only conclusion one can draw from the above data is that for the LHS to be negative the NaturalSinks% must be larger than NaturalSources%, so clearly nature has been a net carbon sink from the atmosphere over this period and by a factor of around 80% of net annual carbon change. This is the essence of the “mass balance” argument.
The truth of Claim 1 is ambiguous, because to show 180% > NaturalSources% you have to know either the NaturalSources% directly or calculate it via the NaturalSinks%, which we also don’t know. At a guess, the numbers could be…
-80% = 200% – 280%
…or maybe…
-80% = 1900% – 1980%
The size of the natural sinks and sources must be estimated to put limits on the relative contributions.
By most reports the natural flux is around 30 times larger than the human flux (3% versus 97%), so the second guess is probably closer to the truth…
NaturalSources% = 30*HumanSource% = 30*180% = 5400%
… and from earlier…
-80% = NaturalSources% – NaturalSinks%
NaturalSinks% = 30*180% + 80% = 5480%
The truth of Claim 2 is known by the above formula and data, and it is trivially true the HumanSource component is vastly more than 50% of the final rate of carbon accumulation, since 180% > 50%. This does not by itself tell us whether “humans dunnit” because that would require comparing the net effect of the two main components (Humans and Nature).
Let’s look at Claim 3, which on the surface sounds plausible just based on the much greater amount of CO2 flux from the ocean than from human activity. Since CO2 from coal-generated electricity used for air conditioning would be tiny compared to ocean CO2 flux, the temperature influences CO2 as only a Natural mechanism and will affect both sources and sinks of carbon. So again in final AirChange relative quantities this claim is…
NaturalSources% – NaturalSinks% > 50%
…which is incompatible with the earlier conclusion of NaturalSources% – NaturalSinks% = -80% which was based only on the chart data. Well -80% > 50% is false and moreover the sign is totally wrong. This is due to the error in reasoning that because human flux is so much smaller than ocean flux we must surely make little difference compared to nature in the final trend. This neglects that a comparison of two sources does not tell you how the comparison between the net effects of one component versus another will turn out inclusive of sinks. In other words, humans are only a source and don’t do much sinking. (This was what Schneider called the bathtub analogy.)
The CO2 trend would have been equal to the human emissions without Nature acting as a sink. Le Chatelier’s principle from physical chemistry guarantees that the oceans will always absorb around 50% of human emissions even without the help of the biosphere. The change in trend from 55% to 60% of emissions between 1979 and 2004 is probably due to ocean warming reducing it’s capacity to absorb CO2.
So by the above reasoning basically all the recent increase in CO2 has been due to human activity. I can’t see much room for error in the reasoning process, but if I have made a mistake then please provide a correction. I have never heard any skeptics doubt this point until I read Jo’s headline today. Say all you want about the C13 isotope method being a furphy with regards to attribution, but the carbon accounting method is still believable.
Which is all very good news because it means we are very helpfully returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it originally came and thereby being good citizens in the carbon cycle… unlike the the greedy and stupid plants which sucked most the CO2 out of the atmosphere over the last 175 million years without giving any thought to the sustainability of what they were doing. Typical! Never let a plant plan anything.
And CAGW is still a load of rubbish because the climate sensitivity isn’t high enough and the cosmically-influenced cloud subsystem operates as an IR thermostat anyway.
20
Tell the freakin’ physicists to get the hell out of “climate science” and let the chemists take over. They will tell immediately you that:
a) The Greenhouse Effect is non-existent.
b) CO2 concentration has no effect at all on temperature.
c) The oceans warm the atmosphere.
d) Atmospheric CO2 is controlled almost entirely by the temperature of the oceans.
e) Ocean Acidification is unscientific and totally impossible.
f) The closed Carbon Cycle is total BS.
30
TonyfromOz:
August 5th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Comment 108
Very Fast Trains use considerably more energy per passenger kilometre than aircraft. This is because planes operate at altitudes where air pressure is only ~1/3rd that of ground level which massively reduces aerodynamic drag.
20
Andrew McRae,
I just looked at the second last paragraph and reckoned it needed a semi-light-hearted response.
I think you may be blaming the wrong life form for selfishly sucking up all the CO2. You blamed plants. But I suspect it may be animals (e.g. corals) that suck the CO2 out of the oceans and form limestone that are mostly responsible for reducing the atmospherinc CO2 concentration. I don’t know, I am just guessing.
20
A laxative may be safer.
If you are impling that someone pulled this out of their ..er ,well made it up. It is a very small look at things. I am suggesting that Ferdinands 4ppm/deg C is a little too high and the idea that
is going to fall apart if there are many short term increases or decreases in a row as has happened with the past high solar activity and now lower solar activity.
10
[…] […]
10
BobC:
I did a back of the envelope calculation yesterday and got similar results to yours.
A sudden doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would, after equilibrium with the oceans is attained, leave a residual 2% increase only in atmospheric CO2.
20
Andrew@110, for an alternative view see my comment 17 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/breaking-australian-carbon-tax-legislation-released/comment-page-1/#comment-409941
10
Mary@83 and elsewhere; there really is no necessity for comparing natural and anthropogenic CO2 because neither has more than a statistically minor correlation and causal relationship with GAT.
The oceans and the Sun, however, are all we need to explain variations in GAT. David Stockwell has put his new paper up for comment:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf
Stockwell shows that CO2’s limited heating is downwards and therefore limited and not accumulative because it does not involve the ocean. Solar heating does involve the ocean and heats upwards. Figures 4-7 are fairly conclusive but the proof of the pudding is Figure 12. The models assume that ‘deep’ heating is by CO2; it is not; it is shallow and emphemeral. Likewise the models assume that small variations in TSI are too small to impact; but they ignore the accumulative nature of solar heating which to heat or cool only needs to rise or fall below the average TSI of a period.
20
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Even if we could discriminate between human-originated CO2 and natural CO2 isotopically with reliability I don’t see how carbon isotope measurements could prove we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% anyway (or 110ppm) because, problematically, CO2 has a very short atmospheric residence time. According to Wikipedia the residence time of a particle in a reservoir has a universal mathematical equation. This equation is as follows: T = M/S. Where T is the residence time, M is the atmospheric mass and S is the rate of removal (or creation/destruction). According to the IPCC’s figures (as presented in 2007 AR4) anthropogenic emissions amount to 29gtons/year while natural CO2 emissions amount to 771gtons/year and the atmospheric mass currently stands at about 3000gtons.
Therefore if we slot the IPCC’s own figures into that equation we get a residence time for a CO2 molecule of 3.8 years (i.e. 3000/771). Let’s be generous and call it 4 years. Since the sinks should not significantly discriminate between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2 that residence time holds for all CO2 (except CO2 with C14 which takes longer due to kinetic absorption and dissolution differences). This means that the maximum amount of anthropogenic CO2 that can accumulate in the atmosphere before absorption is 116gtons/14.5ppm (i.e. 29*4) which is 3.8% of the total atmospheric resident CO2-greenhouse. Therefore 96.4% of atmospheric CO2 now residing in the atmosphere should be isotopically indistinguishable from naturally-occurring CO2 which is why atmospheric carbon isotope measurements are useless when trying to prove humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40%. It simply cannot be done.
Interestingly, Tom Segalstad has confirmed this with C12/C13 isotope measurements, showing that only 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere could be anthropogenic in origin (that includes other natural sources as well). There are so many sources that can account for the decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere, such as vegetation decay (I remember you and Spencer had a long-winded discussion about this and he pointed out that increased phytoplankton decay could result in the same signature), as well as increased bacteriogenic activity which when oxidises into CO2 is even more depleted in C13 than anthropogenic CO2. I dare say there are others that I haven’t thought of. But this is all irrelevant anyway, because CO2’s short residence time means it can only accumulate in the atmosphere for about 4 years before it is absorbed, principally by the ocean. This eliminates the possibility that humans can control the atmospheric CO2 level to any significant extent.
Another problem, as has been mentioned before, is that about 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans in order to preserve the 1:50 partitioning ratio of CO2 between air and water at earth’s average surface temperature that is governed by Henry’s law.
After considering all of your arguments, I have to say, that I remain unconvinced.
20
bananabender @112
I’d like to see the detailed numbers on fast trains vs aircraft. I take the point about air density but the drag to hold the train up is only that of steel wheels on steel rails which is very low. Aircraft create profile drag (skin friction + shape drag) plus Induced drag also called lift dependent drag. Typically at cruise in a modern jet airliner these are approximately equal which minimises total drag. So the drag on an airliner is around twice what you might think(trust me on this, I’ve spent 45 years flying sailplanes and 36 years designing and manufacturing instruments for them. Lift and drag are vital considerations in this activity.)
The economics of any transport mode are determined by the propulsive efficiency and the lift /drag ratio. The propulsive efficiency of an aircraft is lower than that of a wheel driven train and the the train drag due to lift is much lower.
There are other considerations. Aircraft can go anywhere you build a runway. This is easier than building many kilometers of rail track. Given my druthers I’d rather spend only 30 seconds at each end of a flight at high speed in contact with the ground rather than the whole trip. It is easier to ensure no wombats, kangaroos, cars or trucks on crossings on a runway than on hundreds of kilometers of track.
10
Chip@118; Ferdinand is here? He should listen to Professor Salby’s talk; it should be front-page news just like TonyOz and Peter Lang’s work on energy should be. Unfortunately, we are working within a corrupt system where the msm, mainly, is not interested in the now overwhelming evidence against AGW.
10
Lambert’s post on Salby’s talk is revealing and worthy of discussion here;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/murray_salby_and_conservation.php#comments
Lambert says Salby’s analysis is faulty because he falls into the same trap that McLean fell into [will they ever let that go]; namely first differencing to [inadvertently] remove the trend. Lambert uses this graph from his mate Tamino:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dco21.jpg
The immediate comparison to be made is with Tom Qurik’s graph above which is not differenced but simply plots the yearly values of human emissions [ACO2] against annual variations in total atmospheric CO2 [TACO2]. This clearly shows that ACO2 has little bearing on or relationship with TACO2; no further statistical fiddling including differencing is required.
We haven’t seen Salby’s graph but it is evident from his talk that he has something similar to Quirk’s graph; if so then Lambert has misrepresented Salby and gone of on his usual toad hunting expedition. Anything but accept the obvious.
10
It is a pitty that the Aussie and UK politicians will not be able to understand any of this so their stupid rules will remain.
10
Mike Borgelt at comment 119,
I’m not sure if I got the point across at my original comment 89.
This MagLev train does not run on rails.
It is levitated a few inches or so from the main central core, the only way to explain it.
The interplay of magnetic fields provides the propulsion.
Tony.
10
Got this response at CCG to Joanne’s post:-
I’m not up to speed on this, not having expertise on the Earth’s carbon cycle either but I can’t see that Mike Palin’s (an NZ AGW proponent and vocal identity) comment is relevant to what Salby is expounding in view of Tom Quirk’s work (seems to be in the “so what?” category of argument to me).
I invite anyone with a high level of expertise (Bob C ?) to reply to this comment either here at JoNova (I’ll copy it across) or at the link in the quote (thnx).
10
Wow, already over 100 comments in less than a day… Impossible to react on all of them (sometimes I have another life than Internet, especially since we have at last a few nice days here…). I will respond to the most important ones.
The last one by CHIP at 118 is a good start:
CO2 has a very short atmospheric residence time
That is true, but completely unimportant. The residence time only shows how long a certain molecule of CO2 (whatever the origin) resides in the atmosphere, before being captured by a tree or the oceans. That is about 5 years in average and is based on the exchange rate of about 150 GtC/year of inflows and outflows for 800 GtC present in the atmosphere. That doesn’t tell you anything about how long it takes to remove an excess amount of CO2 (whatever the origin) from the atmosphere. If the inputs and outputs are in equilibrium, that doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever the real amount that circulates. Only the difference at the end of the year is important. And that is about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year) sink capacity. Thus the real speed that removes the extra 200 GtC currently in the atmosphere is only 4 GtC per year. That makes that it takes a lot more than 5 years to remove the excess, about 38 years half life time. Peter Dietze has explained that much better than I at the website of the late John Daly:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Interestingly, Tom Segalstad has confirmed this with C12/C13 isotope measurements, showing that only 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere could be anthropogenic in origin
Again that is true, but irrelevant. The moment that a fossil CO2 is released, it may be captured within a minute by the next tree or 10 years later in the oceans. The average is 5 years residence time. But when a fossil CO2 is captured, that prevented a natural CO2 to be captured at the same place and moment. The net result is that the total amount of CO2 increased with one molecule CO2, no matter if all fossil CO2 was replaced by natural CO2 within minutes. To make that visible, here a plot of the fate of a one-time shot of CO2 added to the atmosphere: while the total increase is 100% caused by the addition, the exchange rate replaces most of the anthro CO2 with natural CO2 in a short time. But still the slowly decaying excess amount in total CO2 is caused by the one-shot aCO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
where FA is the fraction of aCO2 in the atmosphere, FL the same in the upper ocean level, tCA total CO2 in the atmosphere and nCA natural CO2 in the atmosphere. All based on realistic exchange and sink rates…
Another problem, as has been mentioned before, is that about 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the oceans in order to preserve the 1:50 partitioning ratio of CO2 between air and water at earth’s average surface temperature that is governed by Henry’s law.
Henry’s law only says something about the ratio between free CO2 in the water surface and CO2 in the atmosphere. That ratio is not 1:50 for CO2, because CO2 in the deep oceans plays no (immediate) role at the surface (except for deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges, but that is a different topic). In reality, a 100% increase in the atmosphere is followed by only a 10% increase of CO2 (in mass) in the upper layer of the oceans, because of chemical equilibrium reactions which happens in the oceans. Henry’s Law still holds, as the amount of free CO2 in the water follows the increase in the atmosphere, but free CO2 is less than 1% of the total amount of carbon in the oceans surface layer, the bulk are bicarbonates and carbonates, which don’t follow Henry’s Law, but influence the amount of free CO2.
10
RichardC@124; I used to have some stuff on C14 but all I could find is this paper which is a bit long in the tooth but which addresses the point:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5725/abs/280826a0.html
10
I heard Tim Fisher talking about fast trains, when he mentioned ”carbon footprint” I switched off completely.
10
Sunsettommy at 37:
Long time ago that discussion on your blog. The positions indeed didn’t change, the emotions still going skyhigh…
MaryFJohnston at 35:
I have tried to explain in many different ways, why it is pretty sure that humans are the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. If you don’t understand what I say, that may be in part my fault. If you don’t want to understand what I say (because you don’t like the result), then it is entirely your problem…
10
Salby’s research seems to have described the tip of the ice berg, since the carbon cycle diagram above is quite incomplete – it omits:
1. Carbon emissions (CH4, CO2) from volcanic eruptions,
2. ocean spreading ridges, petroleum seeps on the ocean floor,
3. emission of CH4 from fractures associated with coal mines, \
4. exhalation of CH4 via crustal fractures emission of CH4 from Archaean cratonic areas,
5. CH4 being emitted from the artesian water around the world,
6. methane being emitted prior to earthquakes –
Too many sources are being ignored, and most are not being measured, so any “firm” statements that we absolutely know what the human component is, are based on an incomplete appreciation of the geochemistry of carbon. Natural variability of C12 and C13 sources seem to be an order of magnitude larger than that inferred from the limited data produced from human emissions. If so, then the human emissions can be, for all intents and purposes, practically ignored.
And I’ve quickly scanned some arguments from the usual suspects – the point I make, yet again, is that C12/13 ratios cannot uniquely discriminate between natural and biospheric sources of Carbon. Just because a hydrocarbon is C13 depleted does not mean it was sourced from a biogenic process. Crustal abiogenic processes also produce C12 enrichment.
This argument is the logical fallacy of arguing the consequent, that as my cat has 4 legs, as does my dog, then my dog must be a cat.
In this case as this hydrocarbon is C12 enriched, as is vegetation likewise depleted, then the hydrocarbon has been sourced from a vegetation source.
Unfortunately geology is dominated by this line of reasoning, the outcome of lawyer Charles Lyell’s influence on the science during the early 19th century; we haven’t unshackled geology from his influence yet, but the chains are starting to corrode and break.
10
Kevin Moore at 38:
Have you ever wondered how the methane gas in the Earths crust is being created?
I have some knowledge of biological processes and indeed, bacteria are at work even somewhere at the most harsh places on earth: from boiling geisirs to deep freezing ice cores…
But that doesn’t play much role in the current mass balance. 130,000 years ago temperatures near the poles were higher than today, forests growing up to the Arctic Ocean, all permafrost melted, ice free North Pole at least in summer. Despite that, CH4 levels in the atmosphere were around 700 ppbv (thawing permafrost gives a lot of CH4 by bacteria), while now CH4 is around 1900 ppbv, again mostly from human emissions, which are visible in ice cores with the same hockeystick (a real one this time) than of CO2. Any increase of CH4 from bacteria is completely dwarfed by human (livestock) emissions…
10
Jo,
What happened to carbon in the past?
By following the salt trail, it shows that we have had vastly more water on this planet.
In doing so, the volcanic activity of the past was underwater at extremely high pounds per square inch.
This would hinder escaping gases to stay in a liquid or semi-solid state.
Due to the lack of solar penetration.
The water would be extremely cold and dense at those depths preventing escaping gases to form which would be under sediments over time.
10
And before any of the usual suspects start to pontificate on my comment, please consider the genesis of the widespread sedimentary rock called dolomite – a Calcium Magnesium Carbonate rock. This rock is not being formed today and despite all the research, no one knows how this rock was formed. Biogenic? Chemogenic? No one knows, and until a satisfactory explanation is offered here, and to the scientific community in general, I would suggest that those of you who are certain of their “position” on the carbon cycle consider the possibility that, as Oliver Cromwell appealed during his time, “ye might be mistaken”.
Put more bluntly, true scientists are not dogmatic because their own understanding of science is such that because the more they study a particular topic, the greater the realisation of their scientific ignorance.
It’s the scientific ignorati who are sure that they have the physics and chemistry solved.
10
cohenite #126
Yes I saw that paper but quantification of fossil fuel CO2 by using C14 to determine the recently added CO2ff mole fraction seems to be the accepted method nevertheless going by this paper:-
From the abstract:-
10
Ferdinand, @ #130
” 130,000 years ago temperatures near the poles were higher than today, forests growing up to the Arctic Ocean, all permafrost melted”
Now please tell me what the climate state of the rest of the earth was at 130,000 years ago, and the evidence for this – you cannot invoke continental drift by the way.
10
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
August 5th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Comment 130
What makes you think most methane is biogenic?
A near-infinite source of methane is available via the reaction of limestone and water using an iron oxide catalyst. This can occur under the high pressures and temperatures found in the mantle. It has been proven in laboratory experiments at Harvard.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/rocks-into-gas.html
10
Thanks BB 🙂
10
I’ve noticed that “mass balance” is invoked to support an argument. This is an interesting side issue, and depends, partly, on the understanding of the difference between intensive and extensive variables.
It’s pretty easy to dismiss arguments based on this line of reasoning when studying the use of maths on the variables. Those who simply aggregate intensive variables in isolation, don’t understand the difference.
:-0
10
Richard C (NZ):
August 5th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Comment 124
The assumption here is that hydrocarbon fuels are millions of years old and of biological origin. The Russian-Ukrainian Oil Theory essentially states that all hydrocarbon fuels (except brown coal) are of non-biological origin and are created continuously in the mantle before migrating upwards into the crust. If correct this totally destroys the entire carbon 12/13 ratio argument.
20
Richard C @124
I suppose that there is an assumption that 14C production is roughly constant. It comes from cosmic rays interacting with nitrogen in the atmosphere. Is the constant rate assumption a good one in the light of the solar magnetic field shielding us from cosmic rays when it is stronger?
Seems the 12C/13C thing is a bust and we’ve moved to 14C. Best to examine all the assumptions.
Ferdinand seems to think all methane is biogenic. Fail.
10
Tony, I’m aware of maglev trains. Doesn’t change the argument vs aircraft though.
Anyone got any hard numbers on this?
10
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 125:
Here lies the basic assumption or your argument. This is contestable, as Murry Salby points out in his lecture. There are studies both ways but, I can direct you to Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? by Wolfgang Knorr, the abstract is as follows:
If what you claim is true, then the airborne fraction would be increasing. I’m not saying this is definitive but, the premise of your argument is shaky indeed.
The truth is, we don’t know what the earth’s capacity for sequestering carbon is. What Salby does observe from the two-year carbon cycles is that absorption capacity and rate are as highly variable as the emission rate and volume. These are unknown at this point in time.
10
Is it possible that C12 & C13 ratio is influenced by the different plant physilogy pathways such as C4 or C3 and their ability to use C12 or C13? Do the models include grasses (dominant species) which mainly utilise the CAM pathway along with many succulents – that seem not to be affected by temperature. So seasonal adjustments may have to be made in this regard.
What if CO2 is totally irrelevant in temperature change and we find that sun spot cycle length is the dominant factor? There is too much unknown to formulate economic solutions that cannot and will not change the result.
P.S. High Speed Trains – how many Kilowatts (or Joules) per passanger is used compared to Air travel?
Will the ETS encompass the different CO2 sequestration schemes in use currently and validate the storage of C12 or C13?
10
MaryFJohnston at 39:
but he has deliberately tried to cover over his incorrect assumption that Natural CO2 is totally fixed and unchanging.
Anyone with even basic science knows that the likelihood of Natural CO2 output being known accurately just not possible.
Again, you are accusing me of what I never said or implied. I have repeatedly said that you don’t need any detailed knowledge of the amounts of natural CO2 going in or out the atmosphere or their natural variability. What we know quite exactly is the difference between natural sources and sinks at the end of the year: a net sink over the past 50 years at about half the height of human emissions. And we know quite exactly the variability of the net natural sink. Again about halve the human emissions around the trend. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
10
it looks as though Professor Salby is simply repeating many of the same arguments we see on numerous blogs.
We know atmospheric CO2 concentration responds to temperature. When it’s warmer CO2 concentration increases – BUT WHEN IT’S COOLER IT SHOULD DECREASE. Not once in the past 50 years has there been a year on year fall.
There was an increase of ~100 ppm (180ppm -> 280 ppm) following the last ice age but this was in response to a 5-6 deg increase in global temperature. The temperature increase since ~1850 has only been about 0.7 deg yet there has been another 100+ ppm increase in CO2 concentrations.
According to many sceptics, we’ve had no warming since 1998. In 1998 CO2 concentrations were ~366 ppm. In 2010 CO2 concentrations were ~390 ppm. According to UAH, 2010 and 1998 pretty much tied for warmest year. Why was there ~24 ppm more CO2 in 2010 than in 1998?
Human emissions are causing the increase in CO2. Temperature simply determines the rate of that increase.
10
Dave: @ #142
Good point and well put! 🙂
10
Andrew McCrae @110
You ask
“‘So by the above reasoning basically all the recent increase in CO2 has been due to human activity. I can’t see much room for error in the reasoning process, but if I have made a mistake then please provide a correction.”
Andrew I can confirm that: Yes you have made a mistake.
Sorry try again or ask Ferdinand to help you.
It was a long piece but as usual, size is not always important
10
Waffle at 141:
I have not the slightest problem with the notion that the airborne fraction of human emissions remains constant, but one shouldn’t misinterprete the result: What remains in the atmosphere is a rather fixed percentage of the emissions in mass not of the original molecules. I did find the same, up to 2006 (need some update for the last years), be it that it is 55% if you don’t include land use changes (which are quite unsure) or 45% if you include land use changes. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg
It is quite simple: oceans and vegetation react in proportion to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the emissions increase over time, so does the increase in the atmosphere and so does the sink rate. With a slightly exponential increase in emissions, the increase in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially too at a surprisingly fixed ratio with the emissions. Thus nature reacts to a disturbance like a simple linear first order process…
10
Louis Hissink: Thank you for @ 130.
10
Andrew McCrae @110
Andrew I can confirm that: Yes you have made a mistake.
Sorry try again or ask Ferdinand to help you.
It was a long piece but as usual, size is not always important
10
Ferdinand @
Just in case anyone else reads that post where you say:
“”What we know quite exactly is the difference between natural sources and sinks at the end of the year:””
That should read:
What we know quite exactly is the difference between Natural sources plus Human sources and Total sinks at the end of the year.
As Louis has pointed out, the top statement is not going to give anything useful because it is incomplete .
10
It’s pretty easy to dismiss arguments based on this line of reasoning when studying the use of maths on the variables. Those who simply aggregate intensive variables in isolation, don’t understand the difference.
:-0
Liked it? 2 3
And your problems are ?
10
Congrats for making it to prisonplanet.com, Jo. That’s a huge web site. 🙂
10
Ferdinand @128
“”MaryFJohnston at 35:
I have tried to explain in many different ways, why it is pretty sure that humans are the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. If you don’t understand what I say, that may be in part my fault. If you don’t want to understand what I say (because you don’t like the result), then it is entirely your problem…””
Ferdinand; I do want understand and have been learning much over the last few years as aresult of comments and postings.
Unfortunately in your carbon dioxide mass balance there are inconsistencies that I have pointed to in 149 above.
The contention that residual (after sinks) man made CO2 can be quantified by your calculations is not correct.
It is just basic algebra.
10
Louis @ 150
Could you, perhaps give a bit of an idea of the difference between intensive and extensive variables?
Thanks
10
Don’t tell me that ‘observations’ have been getting in the way of computer models again..!
There really is no justice…..
10
RobJM at 43
IPPC based the estimates on past CO2 levels on Ice cores, an uncalibrated proxy with problems, where the results just happen to fit the decompression curve. They ignored stomata proxies and direct measurments that showed the CO2 levels to be similar to todays levels at the start the 20th century.
Your objections against ice cores (from Jaworowski/Segalstad?) were refuted already in 1998 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three Law Dome ice cores. Because of the high accumulation rate (1.2 m ice equivalent per year), they could make a detailed history of gas behaviour in firn and ice. 2 out of three ice cores had a resolution of about a decade for CO2 and a 20 year overlap with atmospheric composition at the South Pole. Quite a nice match. Direct measurements as collected and interpreted by the late Ernst Beck suffer from hugh local disturbances, if taken over land. Taken over the oceans, the levels are around the ice core values over the same period.
Further, stomata index data are corrected for local bias (because taken over land) against direct measurements and… ice cores. They are matched over the full 20th century, and conflict with the “peak” value of CO2 around 1942 found by Ernst Beck.
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
2/ The atmospheric proportion of CO2 represents only 2% of the total in the system. 98% is dissolved in the oceans. The ratio between the two is controlled by Henrys Law, and the ratio is dependant on ocean temp.
Quantities are not important, as long as there is no flow. Flows are not important, as long as there are no differences between inflows and outflows. Henry’s Law is only important for the oceans surface layer (the “mixed” layer), not for what resides in the deep oceans. The amount in the surface layer is about 1000 GtC, in the atmosphere about 800 GtC. Any increase in temperature of the surface layer of 1 degr.C will increase the CO2 pressure of the oceans in equilibrium with the atmosphere with about 16 microatm. Thus an increase of 16 microatm (about 16 ppmv) or 32 GtC in the atmosphere is enough to fully compensate for the temperature increase, so that no more CO2 is released from the oceans. But the increase in the atmosphere is over 100 microatm. That means that more CO2 is going into the oceans than is coming out… That is observed by regular ships measurements and buoys and by a few longer term series.
3/ It cant be natural because natural is more variable, what the? 120k year ice ages, 800 year deep ocean cycle, 60 year PDO, you must be on drugs if you can’t see the obvious long term natural cycles. It’s nice to know that you also cant see that increases in atmospheric CO2 have been virtually linear while Human CO2 production has grown exponentially.
That is exactly what I said: natural means lots of variability on short and on long term. The increase in the atmosphere is very constant, by far not looking like any natural process. Or do you know of any natural process that can or does follow human emissions at such a constant rate?
The increase in the atmosphere is not linear, it is a near fixed percentage of the emissions and a fixed percentage of a non-linear increase is a non-linear increase. Even if it was linear for increasing emissions, that only shows that the process parameters for the absorption rate are a little different. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
10
Mary… ummm…. you say:
““”What we know quite exactly is the difference between natural sources and sinks at the end of the year:””
That should read:
What we know quite exactly is the difference between Natural sources plus Human sources and Total sinks at the end of the year.”
we know human sources… if we know the difference between Natural +human and sinks…. and we know human, then we know the difference between natural sources and sinks….
It’s called algebra… I have a junior school text book here if you want to borrow it.
10
This exact experiment has been done (using C-14 as a tracer), see HERE. The equilibrium level of C_14 – containing CO2 is marked by the horizontal blue line on the graph. C_14 levels were nearly doubled by the time the test ban treaty stopped atmospheric testing on Oct 10, 1963.
(Note that the peak in the Southern Hemisphere is delayed by ~2 years, and the two curves merge by ~4 years.)
By 1993, levels had decayed back to ~6% higher than equilibrium. More recent data shows that there is <4% of the excess C-14 left in the atmosphere, and it is most probably heading for a "permanent" increase of ~2%. (Not really permanent, as C-14 decays radioactively with a 5000 year half life.)
This graph shows a CO2 residence half life in the atmosphere of ~ 8 years. Since the tracer was in equilibrium at the start of the "experiment", linear systems theory tells that this curve is the characteristic curve for ALL CO2. Hence anthropogenic CO2 will also follow this curve, as will any increase in atmospheric CO2. There is NO "long tail" or long term effects beyond the 2% residual.
Ferdinand claims (@146) that:
And, linear systems theory tells that ALL CO2 behaves just like the C-14 tracer CO2.
(There may be a slight difference because of the mass difference, but if that were significant then Carbon-14 dating wouldn’t work — and Carbon-14 dating is extremely well validated.)
10
Mary: “Ferdinand; I do want understand and have been learning much over the last few years as aresult of comments and postings.”
Have you tried any science literature…. if your learning is comments and postings on a blog… ummm…. but you go Dan, graduate of the university of Blogoland.
10
CHIP: @ 120
great comment.
10
Get a college introductory text on Linear Systems Theory and really educate yourself.
Ferdinand invokes linear system theory (in 146), not “junior school algebra”.
I think Mary is way ahead of you…
10
MaryFJohnston:
Feel free to use anything I post — I’ve been beating this drum for several years now and would appreciate any and all help!
10
Cohenite @ 119
“”Mary@83 and elsewhere; there really is no necessity for comparing natural and anthropogenic CO2 because neither has more than a statistically minor correlation and causal relationship with GAT.
The oceans and the Sun, however, are all we need to explain variations in GAT.””
I agree with your statement and believe I have indicated that myself in a couple of posts to Ferdinand on another thread.
10
Louis @ 150
Could you, perhaps give a bit of an idea of the difference between intensive and extensive variables?
1. An intensive variable describes the physical state some system is, temperature, for example.
2. An extensive variable describes a countable physical quantity.
10
Hi Silligy @115
“”A laxative may be safer.
If you are impling that someone pulled this out of their ..er ,well made it up. It is a very small look at things. I am suggesting that Ferdinands 4ppm/deg C is a little too high and the idea that””
No! I found your work genuinely interesting but at my age new stuff like that needs a lot of concentration. Sorry couldn’t help myself with that old accountants joke.
10
If the Vostok ice cores are considered in terms of the traumatic microfracturing that occurs during extraction, the Vostok data shows much more familiar values.
Z. Jaworowski, one of the one core experts considers there to be about a 40% loss (20-60%) of CO2 during extraction. Back calculating using these losses, we find that the CO2 concentrations then are the same or a bit higher than now. So, it’s pretty much right on and a tempest in a teapot.
The IPCC likes ice cores as they provide low CO2 readings and, as we all know, indirect measurements are superior to direct measurements every time. [Ignore the picture they took of the bank robber, as the witnesses a year later to describe him—always better.]
10
MattyB
Did you loan this same textbook to the IPCC?
10
BobC at 49:
As explained before to CHIP in 127: the residence time like from the 14C outfall from nuclear weapens testing doesn’t tell you anything about the time needed to remove an excess amount of CO2. If the residence time was leading, then any addition (whatever the source) of CO2 would be removed in 5 years, or with the current continuous addition, the increase in the atmosphere wouldn’t be more than (the notorious) 3% as claimed for human inputs. Thus not more than 300 ppmv. But we are over 390 ppmv nowadays, where only halve the human emissions are removed (as mass) each year, not 80% nor 97%.
Further, Tom Quirk was completely wrong about the lags: both CO2 levels and d13C decrease show lags of 1 and more years of the SH compared to the NH, which shows that the source of d13C decline and CO2 increase is in the NH. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
10
By the way, people love to talk about what would happen if atmospheric CO2 doubled, but they never also mention that it is impossible to occur from human activities. This leads the average person the false impression that it is a possibility.
As CO2 partitions 50 to 1 into the oceans, we would have to release 50 times more CO2 than it would take to physically double the atmospheric CO2. We simply do not have enough available carbon to burn to do this, ignoring that photosynthetic organisms and calcium carbonate deposition would fight us every step of the way. The best we could do, if we tried, would be about 20%. [Darn! At least it would be a goal.]
10
I find it interesting that when there are years with high volcanic activity, the amount of CO2 increase is not as much, because of cooler temperatures. Don’t volcanoes pump CO2 into the atmosphere, though?
10
BobC @ 82
Individual molecular lifetimes are fairly short, ~5 years, cycling in and out of the atmosphere/ocean/biosphere, swapping with carbon there. But total concentration adjustment times for CO2 levels are on the order of hundreds of years. And that’s the important issue.
—
Raredog @ 93
I do know that. I’ve also read his blog postings, and although I disagree about the impact of CO2, his mass balance discussions are quite good. I try not to reject a persons arguments based upon a label – each point deserves consideration.
That might be a contributor in the future. Right now, though, half of the amount of CO2 we emit is matched in the atmosphere as a concentration increase, thus the other half must be going elsewhere, such as in ocean acidification. Nature is acting as a net ‘sink’, or we would see atmospheric concentrations rising as fast or faster than our emissions.
00
Ferdinand between here and Climate Etc you indeed are a voice of reason! Any chance of a guest post on why you think CAGW is not the issue the IPPC would conclude? May actually be worth reading. Seriously kudos to you for a Herculean effort.
00
Louis @ 134
That’s right – the more you know, the more you know that you don’t know.
I think this was also the basis of Socrate’s Paradox – that someone’s wisdom is limited only by their understanding of their own ignorance.
Ignorance is “very likely” associated with overconfidence.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
Dave @169
Doesn’t matter if he gave the text book to the IPCC.
I don’t need it and he wouldn’t be able to understand it.
00
Siliggy at 50:
Temperature variability is largely a matter of volcanoes and ENSO. Both are short living and the average temperature doesn’t change that fast. If it changes over a longer period, then the change in CO2 level will be higher over that period, from 4 ppmv/degr.C to 8 ppmv/degr.C over (very) long periods. For the full period since the depth of the LIA, that is about 6 ppmv for an increase of 0.8 degr.C.
That doesn’t say anything about the influence of CO2 on temperature, that is a complete separate debate.
00
Ferdinand,
And we wait for your opinion on the climate state of the planet 130,000 years ago.
00
Louis @166
Thanks for that.
May have known that 45 years ago but only the concept remains; the labels were lost.
So Intensive describes the quality (T, P,)of an item
Extensive describes the quantity (Vol, Mass).
00
Correct.
00
Cost per ton mile for freight on a train is miniscule compared to an aircraft. Cost per passenger per mile not so good on trains. Cost per passenger on a very fast Maglev not a profitable venture. The chinese have given up on them. The fast trains in Europe seem to run at a loss. Slow rail good very fast no good.
The case for high quality rail at a good speed for freight is profitable, add some passenger cars and your in business. Very high speed rail is a money pit.
I have to thank the good Professor for his candid research and fearless openness against the consensus.
Perhaps the true Australian spirit of telling it like it is will break the back of this warming BS.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 149:
I can see your your point about mass within the cycle increasing. This would mean that your position is that approximately 2% of human emissions remain in the atmosphere. Do you have data which confirms this exponential trend? I’ve seen Tamino’s analysis and it was weak. If you do, I think it would be a good line of correlation evidence to support this mass view. However, I’m not sure any proof can be established until the volumes of exchange in C02 are more precisely known.
00
In fact, it’s a critical issue for maintaining that Human emissions are responsible for most (if not all) of the CO2 concentration increases of the last century. This is why all of the carbon cycle models proposed by government-funded climate scientists assume adjustment times of hundreds (at least) of years. You are simply repeating the conclusions of these invalidated models, none of which are capable of reproducing the measurement data.
Unfortunately for the AGW hypothesis, the best measurement we have of CO2 adjustment time (the C-14 bomb spike) shows that the adjustment half-life is ~8 years.
To avoid the inescapable conclusion that the AGW hypothesis is flat wrong, appologists resort to illogical handwaving (like Ferdinand Engelbeen @170), or just “argument by blatant assertion” as you do above.
To repeat what I said in @49:
(And, I might add, ignore Linear Systems theory.)
Linear systems theory and tracer measurements are not new subjects, both having been around for the better part of a century. It is clear from your argument that you have no working knowledge of either, and do not know how they apply to this measurement.
00
KR: A valid argument against the adjustment time as measured by the bomb spike experiment would be to argue that, while the atmospheric/sink CO2 system is linear at the ppb level, it is non-linear at the ppm level.
Good luck finding evidence of that.
00
Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans
You mean — just like in the ice core data? Who would have thought?
00
Waffle at 181:
I have a logistics problem at this moment, as the power supply of my regular computer blew up yesterday, I am responding via a reserve laptop by now, but I miss all references I have in the other one (needs 4-5 days repair…).
The emission data can be obtained (if I remember well) from the US department of energy, the Mauna Loa data are available from the NOAA website.
I have made a Excel sheet where all more or less known emissions and flows were incorporated, inclusive the possibility to change the emissions between one-shot, steady state and real emissions. That was compared to real world observations of quantities and isotope changes in atmosphere and the oceans mixed layer. With some experimentation (the main problem is in the partitioning of the sinks between oceans and vegetation), the result is not bad:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
The fraction of aCO2 in the atmosphere is already about 9%, partly because the human fraction of the inputs did grow to 5% (8/150 GtC) over time, partly because it accumulates over 5 years, as only 20% of all CO2 is exchanged per year, thus also only 20% of the aCO2, but only the deep oceans exchange it with aCO2 free fresh deep ocean natural CO2, while ocean surface and vegetation give some aCO2 back in the next season.
That leads to estimates of 13C/12C ratio changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_calc_obs.jpg
where the L’s are in the oceans mixed layer and the A’s in the atmosphere.
Not bad for a first attempt…
00
When it is convenient, Ferdinand argues that the atmospheric CO2 system is highly non-linear:
Or, he argues that it is linear:
You need to pick one and stick with it Ferdinand.
00
Louis Hissink at 178:
Ferdinand,
And we wait for your opinion on the climate state of the planet 130,000 years ago.
Have a look at the ice core record:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
The dD record is directly related to the temperature of most of the SH oceans, where the pecipitation of the Vostok ice core originated. That shows a temperature 2-3 degr.C higher than today, thus only for the SH, but most of the SH.
The CH4 level was about 700 ppbv, which reflects CH4 levels for the whole planet, wherever their origin was, as these are readily mixed within about a year, but destroyed in about 10 years.
For Alaskan and Siberian temperatures, I need my broken computer for the references, but here a few I found on the web:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian (not bad this time)
and from a well known Spanish sceptic, Anton Uriarte:
http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/6._The_Eemian.html
about Siberia:
http://permafrost.gi.alaska.edu/content/late-saalian-and-eemian-palaeoenvironmental-history-bol%E2%80%99shoy-lyakhovsky-island-laptev-sea-re
and so on…
00
BobC @ 183
You are once again confusing (a) the time required for individual molecules of CO2 (including a particular isotope release/tracer experiment) to swap in the carbon cycle, with (b) the time required for a total concentration change. Individual molecule lifespan is a red herring in this regard – they just get swapped for another CO2 molecule. Your bomb spike example simply shows the spike getting mixed into the full carbon cycle – not a decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels.
I’m always saddened when someone makes this ~5yr assertion, as it’s so completely wrong.
—
Given the current ‘sink’ rates of ~2 ppm of our emissions not staying in the atmosphere, if constant, if we stopped emitting CO2 it would take 50-60 years to absorb the 100 ppm over pre-industrial levels. But that absorption rate must be relative to the imbalance (otherwise we wouldn’t have had any pre-industrial CO2), and if it declines at a rate relative to the imbalance the minimum adjustment time to absorb the imbalance goes to hundreds of years.
That’s not “argument by blatant assertion”, BobC – that’s basic math.
00
BobC at 187:
The first part is what is NOT observed (but what you propose), the second part is what is observed…
00
Coldish:
August 5th, 2011 at 4:49 am
“…for reasons which I’m not going to go into with this audience, there has to be a negative feedback that bridles this positive feedback and holds things in check.”
I listened to the podcast but didn’t catch this reply from Prof Salby. But I don’t see why a negative feedback is required. Can anyone elucidate?
I’m not a scientist – but I would think that the reason for assuming a negative feedback is that the world has had myriad opportunities in the past to spiral out of control along a heating trend and boil away – but it never has. If the climate really were that fragile (as suggested by the positive-feedback scenario) then it’d be a bloody miracle we ever got this far.
00
The edifice is crumbling. Proper skeptical science wins the day. Please feel free to visit my names’ weblink.
00
i remember arguing with BobC about CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere. I still think your wrong Bob…
00
The edifice is crumbling. Proper skeptical science wins the day.
00
Curious Bystander (@57):
August 5th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Quick question that perhaps only reveals my ignorance. I assume that as CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere it’s ‘backradiation’ must be reasonably well averaged across the globe (ie measurements at any one place of backradiation must be similar to measurements elsewhere). Now, the argument is that the backradiation is what is heating the system (or I guess more accurately slowing the cooling of the system), and that heating is measurable in terms of average temperature.
If so, then surely we can directly measure that effect. For example, at large powerstations which are known to emit large quantities of CO2, or perhaps large cities.
I must admit I’m a little taken aback by your naivete! But anyway, there IS a fingerprint we can definitely detect over powerstations and cities. It’s called the Urban Heat Island effect.
00
BobC at 51:
Not to mention that the “hockey-stick-like” CO2 data from ice cores + modern measurements is a carefully crafted stalking horse — you have to ignore most pre-industrial measurements (cherry-picking the low ones) and also the bulk of the stomata proxies to believe it.
See my take on the historical data by Ernst Beck. Many of the historical data were taken near huge sources and sinks. The 1942 “peak” doesn’t show up in ice cores, stomata data or coralline sponges (or any other proxy you can think of):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Also, there is the “80 year” lag that was assumed so that the ice cores and modern measurements fit together nicely. Without this arbitrary and unjustified assumption, you would have to conclude that ice cores seriously under-estimate CO2 concentrations.
So, you believe Jaworoski, an ice core specialist who ended his knowledge in 1991. In 1996, Etheridge e.a. refuted most of the objections against ice cores by drilling three ice cores at Law Dome, measuring CO2 in firn and still open pores and closed bubbles in ice at closing depth. Both measured in different ways (direct and by crushing the ice core) showed the same CO2 levels. Further there was an overlap of about 20 years between CO2 in the ice core and CO2 measured at the South Pole. All in the same range:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
If Jaworowski was an up to date ice core specialist, then he should know that cracks in the ice always give too high values, not too low. Or how do you think that one can measure 200 ppmv in the ice, while the surrounding air is currently at 390 ppmv?
And about the 80 year “assumed” lag, he has never heard that there is a diffence in age of the ice layers and the average age of the enclosed gas bubbles at the same depth in an ice core? Something that was clearly indicated in the work of Neftel, Jaworowski used the wrong column (for ice age) of the tabel. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
00
Solar variation has nothing to do with it? I think ENSO is a symptom and not a cause.
“Volcanic eruptions caused major weather and climatic changes on timescales ranging from hours to centuries ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/30/1104923108.abstract
“In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degree Centigrade on the average.”
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Volcano1883Krakatoa.html
The temps remained noticably down for alt least five years. Does the official record show the CO2 levels falling by 5ppm for the first year because of Krakatoa and some for the following years or did they forget to fudge that in?
Henry’s law is a two speed thing now?
Where do these numbers come from?
Volcanoes as shown above can cause effects that last for centuries. The ash will stimulate plants on the land to sequester more CO2 and with phytoplankton able to double in population every day how many days does it take a significant volcanic fertilisation of the oceans to sequester most all the available CO2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOJ9vBdHZGM
00
While the 0.8 degrees C seems like an untrustable low number. Lets look at the short term CO2 growth rate change due to temperature change and notice that the fudged record does not track growth rate change as well as the charts do here:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
When I try to understand why the CO2 levels may have been kept low by the LONG effects of volcanic activity as well as Krakatoa in 1883 I see a VE6 in 1902 and another in 1912 but then none that large until 1991 and I do not remember it being anything like the descriptions of Krakatoa.
So there seems to have been plenty of overlapping short events that would have had multiple cooling and CO2 reducing effects a century ago.
“In addition we demonstrate that the binary H2SO4 – H2O nucleation scheme, as it is usually considered in modeling studies, underestimates by 7 to 8 orders of magnitude the observed particle formation rate and, therefore, should not be applied in tropospheric conditions.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/11/new-study-suggests-that-the-volcanic-impact-on-climate-may-be-significantly-underestimated/
Agreed. It is obvious the enhanced endothermic photosynthesis and chemosynthesis would be causing global cooling. The increased effective radiating surface area of atmospheric CO2 would also act like a stepping stone for heat to leave the planet but how much cooling these effects have is anyones guess.
00
Apply your own 4ppmv/degc to the global temperature record of “the 1940s blip” and use that!
00
Crakar24 at 77:
So far they have all failed to explain how Antarctic measurements of ATM CO2 can lead the Nth Hemisphere, how can this be possible if the total increase in CO2 is from man?
That is an error: the increase in the NH leads the SH with 1-2 years for CO2 levels and 2-3 years for d13C levels. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
They fail to explain how CO2 levels can increase and decrease from year to year even though CO2 has a very long life in the ATM.
CO2 levels are steady increasing, never decreased, at least not in the past 50+ years, but the increase rate goes up and down, as the natural sink capacity is influenced by temperature…
They will not acknowledge the MWP even though there is a warehouse full of studies showing it existed therefore they will not entertain the idea of the 800 year lag playing a role in CO2 increases.
I am pretty sure that the MWP was at least as warm and maybe even warmer than today, as good as the Roman WP was warmer and the Holocene Climate optimum of 6,000 years ago was warmer…
The MWP had a CO2 level about 6 ppmv higher than the LIA, that is all you can expect as increase in the atmosphere from the current warm period. The 800 year lag is not that fixed, the lag is 800 years at the end of a cold period, but several thousands of years at the end of a warm interglacial.
00
Better still notice that Ernst George Becks 1940s blip on his chart shows the level going up from about 320ppm to about 380 ppm over about 18 years. That is a long period and thus qualifies for your:
320 to 380 over 18 years is a growth rate of 60/18 = 3.33/yr.
3.33/8ppmv = 0.41 deg C
Do not forget this:
Why the blip? how about solar activity was high and volcanic activity was low.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen said: The 800 year lag is not that fixed, the lag is 800 years at the end of a cold period, but several thousands of years at the end of a warm interglacial.
Then why all the discussion and angst about human trace addition to the level of a trace atmospheric gas: CO2? Since CO2 concentration LAGS temperature, it is an effect of temperature and not the cause of it. It would seem that should settle the discussion about CO2 levels and what to do about them. We should do NOTHING and get down to the business of making sure we can create and maintain a sufficiently high level of technology and economic productivity so that humans can continue to live, prosper, and thrive. How to do this should be the central topic of conversation.
My argument is that because humans must chose to think, know, and act consistent with that knowledge in order to live and thrive, anything that goes against thinking, knowing, and acting must be prohibited. There is only one external thing that can prevent a living human from doing that. It is the initiation of force by others – especially, but not only, by governments. Hence, a proper government must refrain from the initiation of force and must protect its citizens from the initiation of force by others as well as each citizen must also refrain. By this standard, EVERY government on earth is 180 degrees (plus or minus a degree or so) out of phase with what a proper government. The risk of a trace addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere pales to insignificance by comparison to the damage done to individuals by governments.
00
Looking at Salby again, sparked by a discussion at RealClimate:
Temperature increase since pre-industrial times = 0.8 C
CO2 increase since pre-industrial = 393 – 285 = ~107 ppm
Salby claims 80% of the increase is CO2 released due to temperature = 80% * 107 = ~85 ppm, so call it about 100 ppm / degree C sensitivity, more or less.
—
Degrees colder at the last glacial maximum = 8 C
CO2 at last glacial maximum = ~ 190 ppm
CO2 predicted by Salby’s regression/sensitivity = -500 ppm. That’s negative 500, folks.
—
Salby should take up new hobbies – this one isn’t working out.
00
Lionell Griffith @ 202
That’s an 800 year lag for CO2 to change due to a temperature change – as feedback. In 150 years we’ve put >100 ppm into the atmosphere, by burning things, which is a cause for temperature change, not a feedback to it. Your claims otherwise are really astounding.
Sorry, I don’t like the do nothing, “burying my head in the sand” option. I prefer to deal with the facts.
00
Snowlover @172
That’s interesting.
00
Siliggy at 197:
Solar variation has nothing to do with it? I think ENSO is a symptom and not a cause.
We were talking about the variability of the CO2 increase over the past 50 years. That had 2 episodes with a huge influence on temperature: the 1992 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Nino. Both show the influence of a short term relative large temperature change on the CO2 sink rate. The solar influence during that period was high, leading to an increase of a few tenths of a degr.C until 1998, since then there is little change in the average temperature. That may have given a permanent increase of a few ppmv, but that hasn’t much influence on the variability of the CO2 sink rate.
It takes about 1.5 years to bring the oceans surface layer in equilibrium with the atmosphere. If the temperature rise or drop doesn’t change in the meantime, the 8 ppmv/degr.C may be reached, but that also depends of what vegetation does, and that is more difficult to know (dry, wet, scattering of sunlight,…). All we know is that the long term change, as measured in ice cores, is about that high over the past 800,000 years. It may be 6 or 10 ppmv/degr.C, but that doesn’t make a lot of difference.
The 0.8 degr.C is the maximum variability between MWP and LIA (and LIA-current) from reconstructions (bore holes, glaciers, trees, sediments,…). If you prefer the smaller ones: Mann’s HS has only a difference of 0.1 degr.C between the MWP and LIA… Both figures include a fixed maximum 0.1 degr.C temperature drop caused by volcanoes.
The effect on CO2 levels was about 6 ppmv, with a lag of about 50 years after the temperature drop:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
The resolution of this Law Dome ice core is about 40 years. I don’t see the influence of the Krakatau eruption, but if the drop was 1.2 degr.C the first year, that would give a drop of 5 ppmv, increasing to 7-8 ppmv the next year and dropping again after that as the temperature increases again. Even a 10 ppmv drop during 5 years would be within the error margins of the ice core CO2 measurements…
The temperature record shows a peak of about 0.2 degr.C around 1942. That translates to about 1.6 ppmv maximum, because it lasts several years. Borderline measurable in the high resolution Law Dome (1 & 2) ice cores. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_co2.jpg
The ice cores even show a small dip in the period 1940-1945.
Neither do stomata data show any unnormal behaviour around 1942:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/van_Hoof.jpg
Neither do coralline sponges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Coralline sponges show d13C levels, not CO2 levels, but any huge supply of CO2 from the oceans should increase the d13C level while a huge supply from vegetation would show a spectacular drop…
00
Hi Silligy
When I first read your earlier post I was caught by the unusual way you presented the data.
It was interesting and I thought I understood what you were getting at.
Were you saying that for two periods with the same temperature Difference, there were corresponding CO2 differences that didn’t make sense?
When I looked at it again I could see that I had been puzzled by something that was missin, a bit more explanation or background.
00
KR said: I prefer to deal with the facts.
Then how about dealing with the fact that, in the real world, causes LEAD effects and not the other way around? Thus, CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of temperature it is a consequence of temperature.
By lowering our output of CO2, we cannot change the temperature. We won’t even be able to have an effect on the level of CO2 to any significant degree. Even then, the effect will be only local and for a very short period of time. Hence, the global drive to control the sources of energy and to limit consumption of energy will have NO effect on global temperature.
The global drive to control such things will have a profound negative global effect upon the quality of life and the freedom to act of every individual on earth. This, I contend, is the real purpose behind all the fake angst about catastrophic global warming or whatever the current PC phrase for it. The drive has NOTHING at all to do with global temperature and has every thing to reducing every individual on earth to the level of a surf (aka slave).
Why do you wish to own slaves or be one yourself?
00
Siliggy at 201:
320 to 380 over 18 years is a growth rate of 60/18 = 3.33/yr.
3.33/8ppmv = 0.41 deg C
Be aware that the effect of temperature on CO2 levels is 8 ppmv/degr.C in (dynamic) equilibrium, NOT 8 ppmv/degr.C/year!
Thus if the temperature changes 1 degr.C, CO2 levels will change with 8 ppmv over time and there it ends.
00
BobC @183
Again a very readable post.
The speed of adjustment of the sink syetm is as you say critical to the whole AGW thing.
Someone earlier described CO2 meaasurements taken near growing crops and the image I have of that post is that the experimenter could a lsmost see the CO2 being absorbed by the vegetation iit was that rapid.
A simple experiment would be to take ambient CO2 readings near such a field over 24 hours and compare night and day values.
A suitable control field (empty ) some distance off would also give some basis for assessing speed of CO2 sink adaptation.
I don’t think Ferdinands method of measuring Atm CO2 levels is useful in detailing adaptation rate of sinks. It’s a circular argument. Maybe he just doesn’t want to see that.
The sink adaptation rate seems to be reasonably rapid given the half life estimates I have seen of 5 years or so.
00
Lionell Griffith at 202:
Then why all the discussion and angst about human trace addition to the level of a trace atmospheric gas: CO2? Since CO2 concentration LAGS temperature, it is an effect of temperature and not the cause of it.
A little careful here: it is not because CO2 lags temperature changes, that that excludes the possibility of a feedback the other way round. The effects in both directions may be small or huge, in the latter case you may have a runaway effect. But it is perfectly possible that an effect in one direction leads to a small response back, without much problems.
The basic effect of temperature on CO2 levels is about 8 ppmv/degr.C.
The basic effect of 2xCO2 on temperature is about 0.9 degr.C, based on radiation properties.
Both effects can mutually exist, without problems (the second one even beneficial in my opinion). If there are lots of positive feedbacks (which most models assume) then we may run in trouble, if there are negative feedbacks (which I expect), then the effect is hardly measurable.
00
Lional Griffith at various
“”We should do NOTHING and get down to the business of making sure we can create and maintain a sufficiently high level of technology and economic productivity so that humans can continue to live, prosper, and thrive. How to do this should be the central topic of conversation.””
I totally agree.
Despite my posts I feel that, as a scientist, we should be investing money into the development or exploration of alternative energy sources. I would like that, but only if done propertly.
Government should dismantle the green empires currently sucking money out of our taxes and put it towards real alternates research. More money would be available because the middle man is cut out.
the current system of roof top solar power and heaters is uneconomic and wasteful (see I can be very green when pushed) and the money saved there could be put to research.
This (AGW) is not about renewables or being Green, it is about VOTES from the misled, the oppressed and the gullible.
Votes are about access to the Nations (or States or Local Govts ) coffers.
00
Bravo! Well Said.
The main problem with the rank and file warmists is that they aren’t dealing with facts — they’re living in a fantasy world, where the “reward” is that they get to feel morally superior to everyone who doesn’t agree with them. The people at the top know what they’re doing (or, at least, they know what they want). The Useful Idiots follow.
(And no, KR — I don’t know where you fit in, and I’m not hypothesizing, so don’t get all huffy-breath about ad homimen.)
00
As I posted at Judith Curry’s web apage, I firstly became concerned about AGW in the early ’80s. But, then when I explored the carbon cycle, I realized it was a qualative cycle … not understood quantatively (which is important for a engineer 🙂
Also, being a history buff, I knew temperatures have changed before, over periods of centuries and millenia. So, in the end, I stopped buying the BS.
I liked this guys presentation (only heard in pod-cast) he was very persuasive.
00
Lionell Griffith @ 208
Ah, nothing like seeing false motives being ascribed. I have said nothing of the sort, and my motivation is all about avoiding/mitigating/correcting the rather significant costs of our actions (you know, that whole ‘being responsible’ thing).
—
Your political views have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical facts of increasing CO2 due to our emissions, the warming that will cause (~1.1C / doubling), the feedbacks that will occur (to a total of about 3C / doubling), crop movements, sea level rise, ocean acidification, precipitation changes, etc.
I know you don’t agree with those points, but a question for you, Lionell – if you were to believe (just as a what-if) that our CO2 emissions were going to cause these problems, what, in your political framework, would be the right way to approach the issue? Would you have some approach you were happy with that could/would reduce the impacts, or would it be an anarchistic “every man for himself” situation, where the cost to the commons was just not your problem or responsibility?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer – What, if any, mitigation of oncoming costs (of whatever sort) would be acceptable under your political views?
00
Ferdinand, comment #211
You cannot be that precise. We are just hand-waving as to the quantities. The only true measurements are over the past 30 years, with satellites giving us global data. This proves ….. Forget the hand-waving junk you spew ….. GET WITH THE DATA!
00
Lionell
Yep, causes lead effects.
CO2 feedback to temperature: Temperatures change ->> CO2 changes solubility in the oceans and hence atmospheric concentration by about 8-10 ppm per degree.
Temperature from CO2: We burn stuff (most effectively) that’s been buried for hundreds of millions of years, CO2 levels rise, slowing energy loss to space ->> temperature goes up.
Politics: Costs of our actions to everyone become apparent, folks quite reasonably consider passing those costs back to those who are causing them ->> people and corporations get upset over losing what had been up to that point a free lunch for them…
00
MaryFJohnston at 210:
A simple experiment would be to take ambient CO2 readings near such a field over 24 hours and compare night and day values.
There are lots of such experiments in use, even available online. Early research in the 1940’s used CO2 measurements in glasshouses and even in sacks bound around leaves to see how much CO2 was absorbed at different initial CO2 levels.
Here the CO2 data from an open air experiment in Giessen, Germany:
http://fss.plone.uni-giessen.de/fss/fbz/fb08/biologie/pflanzenoek/alte_homepage/forschung/Foeinr/UKL/projekte/GiFACE/GiFACE/CO2regimes/file/CO2regimes.pdf
00
Lionell
I really liked your 202 comment.
00
What is coming out in many of the posts now is a new phenomenon.
The Summary post.
These summaries are now looking past the science of AGW, which is almost finished, to the world as we would see it if things were done well for the benefit of all.
We must quantify the outrageous costs of roof top solar, windmills, Departments of Climate Change (??), paid advocates (Tim the plant Biologist), University Law Deparments specialising in Climate Change, departments of Climate Change Ethics, AGW propaganda in schools which is damaging our scientific future, the Tax Sucking UN and its hangers on and so on.
We are not rich enough to afford all this waste and it is dispiriting to see our our hard work and tax money P***ed up against the proverbial.
The Public will react IF they are made aware of the outrageous waste of their taxes.
The job now is to make the message understandable scientifically and financially so that people can vote to create real government for themselves.
00
Robert of Ottawa at 216:
The 8 ppmv/degr.C comes from ice cores, where the ratio between a temperature proxy (deuterium against hydogen or 18O/16O) and CO2 level is quite linear over 800,000 years. It may be that the temperature proxy is not that good, and the temperature is only for the SH oceans. But even so, it will not be far off. Even if the ratio in reality is double the value, that doesn’t explain the 100+ increase of the last 150 years. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
The 0.9 degr.C for 2xCO2 is from the Modtran program, carefully composed from laboratory measurements, where line by line absorption characteristics were measured and implemented for different air pressures (heights), water, CO2 and CH4 levels, for different parts of the globe and with or without clouds, rain,… That is a basic “model”, without any real life feedbacks (except water vapor, which may be included in different ways).
satellites in this case may be helpfull to show where the real feedbacks are and how they behave…
00
I suppose I should also be saddened that you are so completely ignorant of Linear Systems Theory and tracer measurements of the IRF — but I’m just frustrated by your stubborn refusal to educate yourself.
Like I said KR, you can look this up. It’s not new stuff — much of it was developed in the 1920s.
Here it is in a nutshell:
It is an absolutely incontrovertable result of LST (when applied to tracer measurements) that, when you start with a tracer that is in equilibrium throughout a system, and you apply an impulse to that tracer, the Impulse Response Function you measure with the tracer is exactly the same IRF that you would measure if you applied the impulse to the general system.
In other words, the decay rate of the C-14 is exactly the same decay rate you would measure if you added a much larger impulse to the CO2 concentrations as a whole. It is exactly what happens to all anthropogenic CO2 additions.
This is not something you can wave away with facile arguments — it has been experimentally verified thousands of times in virtually every field of engineering and science.
Your ‘argument’ above relies on the contra-factual assumption that there is no C-14 in the sinks before adding the bomb impulse to the atmosphere (which would mean that the C-14 system wasn’t a scale model of the C-12 system, and hence the IRFs would be different) — but C-14 is well mixed in all parts of the carbon system: That’s why carbon dating works. Look at the graph I linked — the blue line is the equilibrium level of C-14 before the bomb spike.
***************************
Let’s be more specific: A ‘linear system’ is one for which, if input A gets you output B — and input C gets you output D; Then input (A+C) will result in output (B+D). Currently, there is no empirical evidence that the CO2 atmosphere/sink system is not linear by this definition.
The Impulse Response Function (IRF) is a convenient way of completely characterizing the input/output characteristics of a Linear System (LS). Since any possible input function can be decomposed into a (possibly infinite) sum of input impulses, you can calculate the output of any arbitrary input by simply summing the IRFs for each constitute input impulse. The application here is: If “A” is an impulse of concentration of C-14 and “B” is an inpulse of C-12 (meaning CO2 containing these isotopes), then the IRF you measure by input “A” is exactly the same IRF that you would get with input “B” (by burning fossil fuel, for instance).
We pause to consider why the CO2 atmosphere/sink system appears to be linear. The answer is that the transfer between the atmosphere and oceans dominates the system and that is controlled by a linear law — Henry’s law. (If there is some nonlinearity in the system, most probably it is due to biological transfers.) Henry’s law tells us (and again, it is well verified experimentally) that, for instance, the rate that a gas diffuses from air to water is dependent ONLY on a (temperature-dependent) constant and the concentration of that gas in air; The concentration of the gas in the water does not enter. Likewise for the rate of diffusing from water to air — it depends only on the constant and the concentration of the gas in the water.
Also, the diffusion rates of each type of gas is completely independent of the concentrations of every other type of gas. In particular, the rate at which C14-containing CO2 (which I’ll abbreviate (C_14)O2) is independent of the rates and concentrations of (C_12)O2.
Hence, when you start with (C_12)O2 and (C_14)O2 both in equilibrium in the system and with each other — then add an impulse of concentration to the (C_14)O2, the decay rate (IFR) that you measure with the (C_14)O2 is exactly the same as the decay rate you would measure if you added a concentration impulse (say anthropogenicily generated) to the (C_12)O2. The two are independent inputs with independent responses, as mandated by Henry’s law.
If you want to deny this, you have 90 years of theory and experiment to falsfify (better get cracking!) — facile, handwaving arguments, blatant assertions, and non-verifiable models don’t do it.
00
KR: I will also mention that your argument above (@189) is a violation of Henry’s law, as it requires the rate of diffusion of C12-containing molecules to be dependent on the concentration of C14-containing molecules.
Henry’s law is quite clear (and well verified) that the diffusion rate of a molecular species is ONLY proportional to the concentration of THAT species alone.
00
BobC @ 222
As it happens, I am quite familiar with linear systems theory, impulse responses, and the like. I work with them on a daily basis.
What we are discussing in the climate, however, is not an open-ended one directional linear system response, but rather a multi-directional diffusion process between multiple containers (biosphere, ocean, atmosphere, etc.). Much as a drop of dye in a set of connected containers will diffuse between them until reaching some equilibrium concentration, at rates dependent upon exchange rates, bomb-spiked C14 CO2 will reduce its level in the atmosphere at a fairly quick rate, replaced by other isotopes in relation to their concentration, because quite frankly there is more C14 at the spike point (atmosphere) than in the oceans.
And you continue to miss the point. Regardless of the exchange rates (5-8 years half-life) between containers, this exchange is bidirectional. Sequestration rates, on the other hand, changing the total of CO2 in the atmosphere, and hence the ppm concentration, has another timeframe entirely (regulated primarily by ocean circulation exposing water that can absorb CO2), which you seem strangely unaware of.
Yeesh. You are completely ignoring the carbon cycle exchanges. Enough – read up on that. Until you do, it’s just not worth my while to discuss the topic with you.
00
Re 224
If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard stuff like;
“”As it happens, I am quite familiar with linear systems theory, impulse responses, and the like. I work with them on a daily basis.””
Yeeeeesh!!!
????????????
Also this wondrous piece of RealClimate University Science: “”(regulated primarily by ocean circulation exposing water that can absorb CO2), which you seem strangely unaware of.””
If you were any kind of scientist you would know that it is normal procedure to investigate one factor at a time before reassembling the whole answer in any analysis.
The only group that doesn’t put ALL factors together is the UN IPCC which curiously left MM CO2 out on its own to cop all the blame for Global Warming. They forgot Water (how could that happen) and so on……
00
KR said: Ah, nothing like seeing false motives being ascribed. I have said nothing of the sort, and my motivation is all about avoiding/mitigating/correcting the rather significant costs of our actions (you know, that whole ‘being responsible’ thing).
Your wanting to establish a top down global control over the use of energy and the lives of everyone on earth will achieve the end I state. That you did not say that is what you wanted is irrelevant.
To use your “logic”, suppose I picked up a fully loaded and armed gun, pointed at your head, and pulled the trigger. Suppose also, I didn’t say I intended to kill you. Then I could say, I didn’t kill you, the bullet did. Or more exactly, that the bullet killed you was YOUR fault because you let your brains splatter on the wall behind you. No, the one who advocates and supports the means is part of all of the CAUSE of the consequence. That you did not expect the consequence or did not intend it to happen or did not say that it was your goal is irrelevant and immaterial.
00
KR: the CO2 lag is a myth: Frank Lansner’s simple anlysis shows there is no correlation between temperature and CO2:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
Over the 20thC the r2 between CO2 movements and temperature is 0.44; in the 21stC it is negative.
Your reference to Salby and the RC ‘treatment’ of his talk is a bit funny; comparing the less than predicted by AGW temperature increase over the 20thC with the rise in CO2 [ie the temperature increase should have been ~1.3C] with the supposed sensitivity to do with a drop in CO2 is grotesque; even AGW theory recognises a log relation with temperature with temperature response and climate sensitivity greatest with increases of CO2 from a small base or 0; so naturally that relation would be reversed with a decline in CO2 with the greatest temperature response being manifest when CO2 starts to reach low levels.
But, as we know, CO2 and temeprature don’t have any correlation.
00
KR @ 224
I fully agree that AT EQUILIBRIUM individual molecules of CO2 will exchange between two phases (e.g. ocean and atmosphere)with no net mass transfer. But if the system is not at equilibrium, then the net mass transfer will be in the direction that brings the system into equilibrium. BobC is quite right in his comments.
If, as I suspect you are, talking about kinetic effects due to mixing of the oceans, then you seem to have ignored them in your discussion of ocean acidification. You can’t have it both ways, sorry. You can’t have the same CO2 molecule acidifying the oceans while it’s cooking the atmosphere – if either of those were possible. CO2 molecules don’t multi-task.
And at the risk of being pedantic, ocean acidification, like acidification anywhere, occurs when the pH is less than 7. My guess is that the oceans are about pH 7.6 (+/- 0.2 pH) so this means that the hydrogen ion concentration has to increase by a factor of 4 before the oceans become acidic.
If we assume that the bicarbonate ion is the predominant specie at pH 7, then we only get one proton per CO2 molecule in forming carbonic acid. (CO2 + H2O => HCO3- + H+). This would require the ocean’s CO2 content to be about 4 times it’s existing concentration before it was even possible (at the simplest theoretical level) for the oceans to be acidic. The fact that marine life has fluorished when atmospheric CO2 has been significantly higher than now indicates that the above is a conservative approximation.
Please be nice to BobC in the future.
Regards,
Speedy.
00
Thank you. Nevertheless, I am sure that many will deny the statistics and deny the data.
The assumptive among us, assume that long term data is wrong and the only valid data is satellite measurements. And then extrapolate cherry picked/adjusted satellite data into the past. That is getting desperate.
What does it take for them to drop the assumptions?
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen said: A little careful here: it is not because CO2 lags temperature changes, that that excludes the possibility of a feedback the other way round. The effects in both directions may be small or huge, in the latter case you may have a runaway effect. But it is perfectly possible that an effect in one direction leads to a small response back, without much problems.
The measured lag INCLUDES any and all feedback from increasing CO2 concentration upon temperature. Hence, the feedback must not be very profound if it exists at all. To prove your point, you would have to hold ALL other causes of temperature change constant and show that the temperature increase was more with a free to increase CO2 level than not. Your experiment would last several thousand years and have to be repeated several times.
We do have another experiment, an approximately 4.5 billion year one, that already gives us useful information. Since we are not living on a burning globe after billions of years of possibility of the runaway happening, I suggest the feedback of CO2 on temperature is more the product of too many fevered imaginations rather than a real physical effect with any real consequence.
The mere assertion that “it” is happening backed up by the words “it is possible” is not a sufficient bases to justify the proposed global takeover of energy production and use by unaccountable government thugs. Nor are bogus computer simulations that do not correctly include ALL the causal links in the weather system to a sufficiently fine granularity to predict the weather more than a few days into the future.
Like I said: the focus on CO2 concentration and control is totally and absolutely a bogus focus. Our focus should be on how to create a society in which real people can live real lives without them being used, abused, and consumed for purposes not of their own choosing. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is the last thing we need to worry about or even discuss.
00
Guys, am I missing something but from some comments on this blog.. it is assumed that CO2 is the only gas which is dissolved in the planets oceans..If indeed the ocean were to warm wouldnt these gases all be released at the same proportions.
So how could the oceans getting warmer increase the concentration of gases in the atmosphere. Wouldn’t the proportions be the same?
Hence there is only one way for a gas to be more prevalent. That would be to release more of that particular gas or do I have this assumption wrong?
Say YES to an election now !!
00
KR @ 173, thanks for your reply though I’m not sure why a decrease in phytoplankton might be a “contributor in the future”, rather than right now.
I am also not sure that, “half of the amount of CO2 we emit is matched in the atmosphere as a concentration increase, thus the other half must be going elsewhere, such as in ocean acidification”, is also correct. This presupposes that all of the atmospheric CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin without regard to increases from non-anthropogenic sources such as changes in phytoplankton, volcanic eruptions, breakdown of methane emissions, deep ocean turnover, etc. This is an assumption that relies on the mass balance equation or notion of equilibrium and while in useful in understanding flux changes at any point in time it may mask longer-term natural flux changes. In other words rather than CO2 levels returning to equilibrium, based on the mass balance equation (a la Flannery’s “thousand years” statement), perhaps it might be better to consider atmospheric CO2 fluxes as oscillating, or continually “falling towards” equilibrium.
Of course Ferdinand is right not to project catastrophism onto anthropogenic CO2 levels for as you likely know there is a inverse logarithmic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 levels such that without the assumed positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming, tipping points or whatever. Needless to say this aspect of the science is certainly not settled. Therefore I do not agree when you say, “total concentration adjustment times for CO2 levels are on the order of hundreds of years. And that’s the important issue.”
00
A timely “It’s the economy, stupid!” piece in The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/pollies-wake-up-to-the-economic-reality/story-e6frg9if-1226109414412
The question needs to be asked once again… why introduce two massive taxes to the Australian economy when the world economy is on the brink of the precipice? It is pure lunacy to pursue the MRRT and “carbon price” when the rest of the world is on the verge of collapsing.
Time for Labor to show some leadership and admit that despite believing these taxes are the right thing (in their opinion) the timing is not. Greens can go &*^*# themselves… we cannot be held hostage to political ideology when the economy is about to tank. It would be gross political negligence of the highest order.
00
Ya sure, ya betcha. Then why do you seem to be unable to grasp its application here?
What you’re saying is total nonsense. Tracer measurements (and LST) are not in any way limited to “one directional” systems, but are completely capable of measuring and describing multi-dimensional equilibrium and perturbed systems. That’s what they are used for in the real world, duh — measuring systems that are too complex to deal with other ways.
However special you think the climate is, when you have two species of molecule that are distinguishable from each other, but follow the same laws while traversing the system, AND are in equilibrium with each other throughout the system, it is a denomstratable fact that the response of each to an impulse will be the same. That you are completely ignorant of this, does not make it false, just makes you ignorant.
No, you idiot — we’re measuring them by the tracer method. Reality is determined by measurements, KR — not by unverified models and theorizing. This is really pretty basic.
I quite agree — because you’re dumber than a sack of hammers.
00
Deltoid’s Tim Lambert is at it again – he has already rubbished Murry Salby’s work. I’m dumbfounded.
Here we have a scientist who is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University and has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado and has a long list of publications in field yet a lecturer (Note, not even a senior lecturer) in computer graphics at the UNSW has the hide to pretend he has the right to be critical of his science.
That’s what’s wrong with climate science commentary in a nutshell IMO.
00
I remember about 3 or 4 years ago when I first discovered Global Warming blogs. The first one I found was Real Climate. I made the mistake of asking if the rise in CO2 seen in the recent past was in fact caused by the MWP 800 years ago. I was shot down in flames. I must heve relased a ton oc CO2 in the process.
00
This is refreshing. Even though many sceptics seem to have accepted it, I never couldn’t see how man’s tiny contribution, to the the emissions of CO2, could cause a massive increase of that gas in the atmosphere. I have heard the tap and leaking bath argument but found it very unconvincing. It would require that the earth has relied on a loss of CO2 that just happened to match its output and that man has upset that fine balance by adding a further tiny percentage. This seems unlikely. Aside from fortuitous coincidence, it would need remarkable uniformity. But we know that the earth is very dynamic in its processes and by much more so than a few percent. Far more likely is that the earth eventually regulates itself by adjusting the expenditure of CO2 in accordance with the production.
00
Jimmy @ 236. I’ve read a number of comments on various blogs lately saying a similar thing about RC. People went on there and asked what they thought was reasonable question , in a polite way but got treated like an idiot
( because the question suggested the person was not an AGW believer even though at the time the person either had not made up their mind or in some cases were inclinded to belive in AGW. ). Most have said that after a couple of attempts they just got put off RC and they went else where to learn more and made up their mind accordingly.
00
MaryFJohnston @ 255
The only reason I brought those factors up was in response to BobC, who had just filled several posts with such wonders as:
I really prefer to speak to the issues, rather than insult others knowledge as BobC did. But I will not give such insults a free pass – they are a combination of the Ad Hominen and Appeal to Authority logical fallacies.
That, MaryFJohnston, would be a completely incorrect statement. Please look at the table of contents for the Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, where all of those factors are listed as major sections. Oceans are Chapter 5, water vapor is in Chapter 2 and other sections.
In fact, that’s a good reference for everyone. A lot of statements are made about what the IPCC did and did not consider – there’s the table of contents for you to check.
—
Speedy @ 228
The base of the mass balance discussion is that we’re emitting 28-29 GT/year of CO2, into the otherwise closed carbon cycle. The yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 is just over 15 GT/year, so 14 GT or so is being absorbed somewhere. The pH change in the ocean (standard terminology, acidification means moving towards acid, just as taking 10 steps from the South Pole means I’m moving North) matches up with much of that.
Yes, you’re absolutely right, the system is out of equilibrium, with CO2 moving into the oceans. But treating the climate as an open ended linear system (as BobC seems to indicate), rather than a closed system with multiple transfers in different directions, is an incorrect mental and mathematical model. His ‘bomb spike’ example seems to require an open ended system with one-directional transfer of CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is simply wrong.
The phrase carbon cycle includes the very important word “cycle”.
“Please be nice to BobC in the future.”
Let’s see how he does with his attitude.
—
Raredog @ 232
See the previous paragraphs about mass balance. We emit about 130x the CO2 volcanoes do, 0.2 GT, incidentally.
That’s actually not a bad way to look at things. The yearly vegetation cycle in the NH as reflected in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements shows a great deal of oscillation, albeit superimposed on a rather trend of rising values.
To the extent that CO2 affects climate, the “hundreds of years” number is critical.
—
Lionell
My question still stands. Say an asteroid is spotted heading towards Earth. It’s going to wipe out an entire quarter of the planet, with unpleasant effects over the rest. Would you consider an effort to work together, to combine resources to deflect the asteroid, “a top down global control over the use of energy and the lives of everyone on earth” that you would oppose with every fiber of your being? The way you seem to oppose dealing with global warming?
00
Ferdinand is too dismissive of Jaworowski and too accepting of the official ice core measurement of CO2 levels; he should read comments 17 and 87 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/#more-14022
In respect of Lambert’s response to Salby, Lambert is wrong as I noted at comment 123 above.
00
I was unfairly mean to you. Sorry!
Bits of the explanation you seek are in my posts after that one. That post was bait intended to get Ferdinand to more clearly state his position. I should have pointed out that despite the supposedly increased human output of CO2 and the supposed positive feedback from it the CO2 growth rate can still fall to near zero after a mildy cooler year and this means that the growth rate could go negative. If it were to go negative then postive feedbacks that the warmists promote should act to drive CO2 down even more. I have not drifted too far from the topic. The general gist of it is that the ERNST GEORGE BECK CO2 plots make more sense if temp follows CO2 (That is the question behind this whole page) and since this:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
only goes back to 1958 what happens now should agree with what happened in the past. Warmists need this to work one way in the past and a different way in the future. The 1940s blip is the smoking gun that shows the effort to hide the real CO2 behaviour! Also volcanic activity is being blamed for the lack of global temperature rise yet it is not accepted as part of the reason for the cold a century ago.
Have a look at the 1940 blip in Sweden:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/making_sweden_warmer/
Compare how many US records were set in the 30s and still stand to the puny number set in the last decade.
Note the more extreme weather then also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes
00
Janama “Deltoid’s Tim Lambert is at it again – he has already rubbished Murry Salby’s work. I’m dumbfounded.
Here we have a scientist who is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University and has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado and has a long list of publications in field yet a lecturer (Note, not even a senior lecturer) in computer graphics at the UNSW has the hide to pretend he has the right to be critical of his science.
That’s what’s wrong with climate science commentary in a nutshell IMO”
And yet you are happy to follow commentary from Jo who is critical of the majority of such scientists? Is appeal to authority valid when you are appealing to a view you agree with?
00
KR, I want to appologize — I went too far. I should have stayed with observable facts such as “you don’t seem to be able to understand this issue”.
To wit:
Nowhere, in anything I said, did I limit myself to an “open ended” linear system. Wherever did you get that from? Perhaps the carbon system is open ended at a long enough time scale, if you consider, e.g., subduction and contintental drift. However, it should have been perfectly clear that I was talking about a system in perturbed equilibrium — the Atmospheric CO2 / sink system with extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. Your statement above indicates that you completely failed to follow what I was talking about.
It’s not as if I’m trying to convince you of some crazy idea I just had — I’ve been trying to explain a 90 year old scientific technique that you could easily learn about yourself. Instead, you continue to make inane statements about it, while refusing to do any research on it and claiming knowledge you obviously don’t have.
Hence, my conclusion in the first paragraph.
00
KR @ 239
I would suggest to you, KR, that the fixation on the non problem of CAGW by our scientists, with government funding exclusivity to what should be a minor backwater of science, combined with governmental incompetence and avarice with determination to fleece the populace of every last red cent in the process, are exactly the reasons why the world would not pull together to even detect, let alone react to the threat of an asteroid bearing down on the earth. NASA is now in the Climate Science business, and so it is certainly not going to be able to be in a position to respond in such an instance if time was of the essence. The best way to defeat an enemy is to distract their full and focussed attention from the tasks at hand with diversionary tactics and then striking when they are not looking. This pseudo-religious zealotry has distracted us from any progressive thinking in other areas of science, and as such is counterproductive to finding solutions to extraneous problems (such as the asteroid scenario, space exploration, better understanding of astrophysical phenomenon, etc), plus I would argue it detracts from proper environmental management (which it is meant to be all about- CO2 is not pollution IMO but many other toxic pollutants go unchecked because we are fixated on this harmless gas), as well as limiting technological advancement across the spectrum of humankind’s fields of endeavour (dumbing down science and analytical thought at an education level as a deliberate government policy- very clever). So, we need to stop fudging data to ventilate the corpse of CAGW, and stop offering life support to it’s terminally ill cousin AGW, and instead pool our resources to REAL problems that DO exist rather than waste time and energy focussing on a “problem” that at worst we must adapt to, and at best we can just ignore.
00
KR @ 239
” The way you seem to oppose dealing with global warming? ”
So in real practical terms how do you think we should be dealing with Global Warming ??
00
KR @ 239:
This is an unsupported assumption. We don’t know whether increases in C02 levels in the cycle will increase sequestration rates. Given the large variations in C02 levels over the earth’s history, not to mention the amount of coal in the ground, it would be fair to say that the rate of carbon entering and exiting the cycle is variable.
This is the important point of quantifying the carbon cycle. Without knowing how much carbon is circulating through the biosphere we can’t says whether measured increases of C02 are man-made or not.
In the mean time, I’ll await Fredinand’s 1st derivative analysis of C02 levels for more clarity about man’s contribution. So far, I’ve been highly suspicious that I’ve yet to come across peer-reviewed work that accurately maps C02 rise against industrial growth. All we see from the alarmists is the flat Mauna Loa chart. Strikingly absent is China and India’s last 20 years of economic and industrial growth.
00
Ferdinand
@218
I had a look but the graph of daily stuff (Giessen) were interesting they don’t tell much without crop details and info on the experiment.
Not useful at this point.
00
You should all scroll back to Lionell Griffith @ 230 and see what he had to say about there being more important things to worry about.
00
KR: I seem to have overlooked a correct statement you made:
You are quite correct: To assume that tracer measurements and linear system theory only work with “one-directional transfer” systems is not only wrong, it is completely without logical or empirical foundation and demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge about the subject.
Perhaps you have been misled by 1) A poor understanding of Linear Systems Theory, and 2) Never having applied it to to anything but feed-forward electronic systems? This could describe a number of EEs I know.
00
KR @239
Can’t Really Accept your Post.
is water in the executive summary as a bigger factor than CO2 and then man made CO2???? Haaa??
00
MattB @242.
Expect nothing less from Deltoid, it’s only a comic to keep the students amused. Full of Jolly Japes, student pranks & pseudo-scientific noise, where the presumption is to ‘debunk’ all and everything that threatens the the cosy CAGW meme.
And to your point, likening what Jo does to this intellectual hooliganism: Jo goes to great lengths to identify and communicate the essence of the science for those less familiar with it, while Lambert is intent on simply making mischief for the sake of it from nitpicking trivialities.
You must have a strong stomach for bothering to try reading that.
00
BobC @ 249
What I am having issues with (and I’ll admit, that may be my error) is in statements like:
That would be a Strawman argument, as I have certainly not stated that. An individual molecule of human emitted CO2 has the same atmospheric half-life as anything else – 5 to 8 years, much as C14 concentrations drop off rapidly. That’s due to basic diffusion/solution chemistry/biosphere exchanges. I have no argument with that whatsoever – trace analysis certainly shows the speed of diffusion of a particular chemical through the various climate compartments.
The total concentration of atmospheric CO2, however, is increasing at ~2+ ppm/year. Our emissions are sufficient (in total) to cause ~4 ppm increase, which means that the rest of the carbon cycle is shifting ~2 ppm into other climate containers. This is driven, not by diffusion exchange rates, but rather by the difference in diffusion rates between the various containers – diffusion imbalance. Tracer analysis does not show this – measuring total concentration changes in the various containers does.
So yes, anthropogenic CO2 has a 5-8 year half-life, no argument there. But a concentration change in a particular compartment of the climate (in particular, into sequestration) has a different time frame. The oceans and biosphere are taking up ~2 ppm/year, which indicates a roughly 35-40 year half-life for the 100 ppm imbalance over pre-industrial levels, or ~125 years at minimum to a 10% imbalance (sorry, don’t have the detailed calculations ready to hand). That’s the rate to be concerned about, the difference in inter-compartment rates, not the base inter-compartment rates measured by tracer analysis.
—
Winston @ 244
My (unanswered) question stands. If you see a danger approaching, one that requires considerable effort from everyone to address – what kind of solution is acceptable to people like Lionell, who consider group action to be “slavery”? What level of social action, and to some extent personal sacrifice from those who may have contributed to the problem, is acceptable to address a threat? The answer I seem to get is “Uh, none”…
—
My sincere apologies, but tomorrow AM I’m heading off into the hinterlands for a week+, where the InterTubes will not be available. Hence I won’t be able to reply to anything until the 14th or so – I’ll be back then. But in regards to the question I asked Lionell and Winston – What level of social cooperation is acceptable to address a perceived threat? I would love to know, because pretty much all of the ‘skeptics’ I’ve discussed global warming with seem to indicate that the answer is zero. And that would really leave us hanging out to dry, wouldn’t it?
00
MaryFJohnston @ 250
In terms of GHG effect, water vapor is a considerably larger factor, much more powerful than CO2. In terms of causation, water vapor responds to temperature with a delay of 9-10 days, and is strictly a feedback, whereas CO2 (as a non-precipitable gas) stays around for hundreds of years, and hence CO2 is a far bigger causal factor.
But those are rather obvious points… and if you read the chapters involved, the IPCC notes them.
00
Speedy:
August 5th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
Louis @ 134
This has been formalised as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
00
Whilst this all looks very exciting, and I look forward to seeing the paper with graphs etc, I fear that it may all come to nought. The problem is that most politicians and certain “experts“, like Karoly, Flannery, MSM, and alarmist elements in the ABC, appear to have very fixed simplistic minds. It seems to me that intuitively, they could not accept the hypothesis that human emissions may not be responsible for an apparent increase in atmospheric CO2, no matter how good the correlation to natural sources might be. And, of course, there will be plenty of loud team members and the IPCC eager to trash it. (or maybe the IPCC will ignore it)
I already feel that the evidence against CAGW is overwhelming, but those that rule our lives and fund CAGW are not interested. Also, the “Complaints Rejection Unit” in the ABC is determined to deny proof that some of the stuff put out by the Science Show etc is junk, and they give strange interpretations of their Editorial Policies. (So far in the complaints I’ve laid) Maybe we need another few years of continued cooling, greater public scepticism, and worsening World economy before things start to change?
00
Ross @ 245
Personal opinion? Phase a straightforward carbon tax in on all producers over a few years. Invest those monies into CO2 reduction, renewable resources, energy efficiency. The actual estimates I’ve seen indicate somewhere between $80 and $170 cost for this per household in the US, I don’t have numbers for the rest of the world. Extremely conservative cost/benefit analysis (no costing of ocean acidification, for example, no consideration of reef loss) indicates that this would be better than break-even, we would make (some, not a lot) money doing so, from new industries and investments.
I don’t agree with analyses such as Monckton’s, which over-estimate costs and completely ignore benefits of these strategies.
00
KR @ 252
The problem you refer to comes down to a lack of trust. Pure and simple. For 1000’s of years, those in power (the Church, Religious Leaders, Prophets, Cultists, Dictators, Governments of all persuasions, Monarchs, Despots, Druids, Arms Dealers, Drug Lords, Bankers, Capitalist Scumbags…. You Name It) have successfully controlled the population by providing a myriad of perceived “threats” to our safety and security, prophesying certain annihilation or impending doom. Most, if not all, have been grossly exaggerated or imaginary, in order to gain various political, financial, sexual or other advantage over the general population- in other words control by the few and disempowerment of the many. These various threats have weakened our resolve and our collective accomplishments as a species. This is not the fault of those intelligent enough not to believe every bit of cow pat served up to us on a plate at the whim of the powers that be. It is the very behaviour of the proponents of CAGW that makes it unbelievable, by shutting off proper discourse, marginalising all non-believers and then applying character assassination techniques upon any one who dares question them. The blogosphere emphasises this point, with behaviour at RC and (un)Skeptical Science enough to convince any unbiased commentator that you are on extremely tenuous and shaky grounds with your CAGW assertions. Modern people have become expert at identifying spin and propaganda techniques (from over exposure over the last 30-40 years) from vested and corrupt influences within the political spectrum so that a lie or attempted deceit is immediately noted and the case for “action” is weakened further.
To answer your question directly, what it would take for collective action is HONESTY (possibly initially in this debate, but now long gone), HUMILITY (in severe short supply), ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENTIAL OPINION (never had it from the vey beginning), TRANSPARENCY (sorely lacking- even FOI requests fall on deaf ears or are avoided, sidestepped,etc); plus the removal of elitists, bankers and various other parasites from the CAGW payroll is required to convince us that a “threat”, as you put it, is worthy of a collective social response on such a scale that is proposed. And finally, the response has to MAKE SENSE, which an ETS and Carbon tax certainly does not!
00
MattB: @ 242
Joanne Nova is a professional science communicator with a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication. This blog is an extension of that.
Tim Lambert is a lecturer in computer graphics – chalk and cheese.
Additionally Joanne is married to Dr David Evans who I’m sure vets all she presents. 😉
00
KR @ 239, thank you again though your reply appears limited – volcanoes are never a good example but possible CO2 sources from deep oceanic turnover, bacteria, soils, methane breakdown, reduced phytoplankton might be quite significant if we assume the mass balance equation to cover a range of variables and a range of fluxes over a period of time. The fact is we still do not know the values of these variables; also the various throughputs within the carbon cycle are subject to large margins of error as well. Therefore we cannot assume that natural inputs always equal natural outputs except perhaps over long time scales. By “falling towards equilibrium” I mean that equilibrium is never achieved but always oscillates around an equilibrium point, with each variable presumably operating on a number of different time scales.
For instance, deep water replacement varies from around 250 years for the Indian Ocean up to around 500 years for the Pacific. For example, over a century 100/250th of the Indian Ocean volume is that oceanic volume capable of absorbing CO2. This would suggest that the oceans’ capacity to absorb CO2 is greater than the Revelle effect suggests and that, perhaps, the rate of ocean acidification is much less than that currently postulated, bearing in mind other factors are at play. Does modelling of CO2 uptake of oceans include a similar proportion of total ocean circulation of the period being modelled?
Nonetheless we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere and atmospheric CO2 (both natural and anthropogenic) levels are rising. However, you have avoided my last comment that without a positive feedback from water vapour there is no chance of runaway global warming arising from increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
00
For a bit of light relief, there are some brilliant videos going around. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOEUFKh-SU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGHiJF4TWw8
00
Bob_FJ:
August 6th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
The ABC had a story claimed that bees were disappearing and that humanity would starve as a result. They dragged out a scientist who even claimed that cereal crops were pollinated by bees.
I complained that the story was blatantly false eg grain crops are wind pollinated and bee numbers are dropping mainly because honey production has shifted to low wage countries. I got a generic email brush-off letter in reply.
00
Bananabender (#261)…
At the risk of going way off topic – there are some very nasty and difficult to combat bee diseases going around, that are affecting the viability of bee-keeping in a lot of places.
00
The ABC reported yesterday that water has been discovered on Mars.It has been known for some time that it is probable that organisms living below the surface of mars are producing methane.Burning methane in the presence of oxygen produces carbon dioxide and water.But anyhow –
With the Greens converting everything from coal to gas will that factor alter any of the previous CO2 and water vapour calculations?
00
Dear Jo Nova;
Just thought you may be interested in this.
Yesterday, I started a topic at the ABC’s Dr Karl’s, Self Serve Science Forum (SSSF)on this subject & used this webpage of yours to initiate it. See http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/5191/topic5191618.shtm
This morning I had a look back at SSSF to check for any new responses.
I got one directly from ‘The Lab Moderator’, which is highly irregular.
It reads;
From: The Lab (moderator) 5/08/2011 10:47:31 PM
Subject: re: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not hu post id: 5191940
Dear The_observer,
If there is a blockbuster research paper coming that disproves the past 100 years of accumulated science about CO2, why not wait until it is published and everyone can see it?
In the meantime, it is completely insincere to pretend that links to self-reinforcing climate denier websites somehow amount to a scientific argument.
To pretend otherwise is spam.
– – – – – –
Talk about gagging debate.
I found this insulting, & very unusual for the Mod to directly address a member participant in such a way.
I’ve sinced replied to the Mod, but how long it remains posted, who knows.
00
Well writ, Winston #257:
KR throws in the other golden oldie (ocean acidification) for good measure after equating CAGW with an imminent asteroid impact. Ridiculous analogy. Wonder he didn’t bring up the cancer canard as well.
Not only does he not believe that he has to falsify the hypothesis but he can’t or won’t even state in his own words what might change his mind.
Then again, I suppose he’d just tell us all to keep waiting…and waiting… and more importantly, keep sending the money.
00
KR: you are being mischievious when you say this:
“In terms of GHG effect, water vapor is a considerably larger factor, much more powerful than CO2. In terms of causation, water vapor responds to temperature with a delay of 9-10 days, and is strictly a feedback, whereas CO2 (as a non-precipitable gas) stays around for hundreds of years, and hence CO2 is a far bigger causal factor.”
WV is not strictly a feedback; when it phase changes to clouds or precipitation it is a forcing. Also, in the overlapping spectrum extra water reduces the combined emissivity of the total CO2/WV content [as does CO2].
Your comment about CO2 being a “far bigger causal factor” is straight out of the Lacis bag of tricks:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
It is demonstrably false to say CO2 is a bigger ‘causal factor’ than WV when there is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature as I point out at comment 227 above.
00
Cohenite @ 266
Sounds as though Tony Abbott gave KR: a science lesson. Non precipitable means that CO2 can go up but can’t come down. Where does plant life get find the necessary CO2 for growth then?
00
Following intensive/extensive variables further, we have this simple example:
Eq 1 : 3 + 3 = 6 makes these extensive variables – say mass, length, or volume.
However if we are dealing with in intensive variable then
Eq 2: 3 + 3 = 3, such as temperature, percentage composition, density, etc, parts per million, (ppm) etc.
Intensive variables are normally used to factor extensive ones to yield countable quantities. Doing maths on intensive variables without linking those to some physical object is simply meaningless numerology – a number is produced but it’s physically meaningless.
00
No GHGs..Kevin Moore: @263 Mars has ~97% CO2 same as Venus and about 2% N2. Surface temp ~ -55C
00
Excellent point Kevin. In addition it staggers me that KR, Ferdinand and others have argued against Salby without addressing the manifest evidence Salby brings forward to support his claim.
Basically Salby shows that CO2 does not affect climate. In fact, it is changes in the climate, in particular temperature and to a much lesser extent, soil moisture, which controls CO2 levels. Man’s minute contribution to CO2 has no impact on climate whatsoever. That being the case this means that the Greenhouse theory is debunked. This research therefore destroys the concept of AGW and the need for a carbon tax, a CPRS or the huge cost of alternative energy programs.
The research reveals that CO2 varies randomly from year to year from 0% up to 3%ppmv with a mean of 1.5%ppmv/yr. This has been observed over 30 years by satellites. And this is a crucial point; Salby’s conclusions are based on the best measurements; his critics are rabbiting on about ice core data and other proxies which are up there with how’s your mother in terms of evidence.
Net deviations of CO2 can exceed 100% so this proves it changes independently of human contribution. Even a minor change in natural emissions of CO2 can dwarf human emissions as natural sources are 2 orders of magnitude (100times) larger. During 1991/92 net emissions decreased by 70% and then recovered within 3 years [so much for extended, long-lived CO2 and its impact on climate sensitivity!]. This coincided with the eruption of Mt Pinatabo which decreased global temperature over the same timeframe. During 1997/98 net emission increased by 200%. This coincided with the El Nino which increased global temperature. CO2 has a strong sensitivity to temperature and this is enhanced over continents by precipitation and therefore the average level of moisture in soil. An increase of either temperature or soil moisture leads to increased emissions of CO2 from most natural sources. This accounts for nearly all (90%) of net global emission; temperature being 80% responsible.
Natural sinks absorb CO2 and these approximately balance sources of emission.
As well as primary measurement of temperature and CO2, modern global distribution of CO2 is also obtained from satellites. Source regions for CO2 are NOT found in the industrialized centres. They appear over tropical regions that have little human population let alone industrialization such as the Amazon Basin, tropical Africa and SE Asia. Even in these source areas, CO2 only deviates from its global mean by less than 5%.
End of bloody story! Again!
00
And I’ll mention this again, given that it has been overlooked by Salby’s brave work; David Stockwell has a new paper which relies on the variations of TSI above and below a period average to determine GAT, with the oceans acting as heat reservoirs; see his comment here:
http://landshape.org/enm/accumulation-theory-of-solar-influence/
AGW is a plucked goose.
00
Louis @268
Thanks — more bells ringing
00
I should point out that my comment at 270 draws substantially on a summary Gregg Thompson made after being at Murry Salby’s lecture.
00
KR,
You are welcome to expend all your wealth, time, and energy on fighting perceived threats. However, simply because you think you perceive a real threat does not give you the right to FORCE me to do a damn thing about it. I have the right, the self responsibility, AND the technical ability to make up my own mind on the topic and I have stated my reasoning and conclusions repeatedly.
There is NO threat from CAGW except from those who want to FORCE me to do something about a fantasy threat and I am not to have a choice in the matter. To that I say NO! I will continue to say NO in as many ways I can and for as long as I can. There are many things that take higher priority. If you need an example, I suggest clipping my toenails is at least as important to the fate of humanity and the earth than anything that man’s puny addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere could possibly do. Meaning zero, zip, nada, nothing, no way, no how, and never.
You can take your psychotic fear of ghosts, goblins, and things that go bump in the night and stuff them where the sun don’t shine! You can also stuff the entire dogma of CAGW there as well.
00
The Real Universe @ 269
http://www.archive.org/details/GMM-10359
Mars – Methane
Biological Creation of Methane:NASA/Goddard
00
Lionel (#274)…
Don’t beat around the bush, Mate. Why don’t you tell us what you really think. LOL!
00
Andrew Bolt has a very funny clip here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/panic_panic_panic/P20/
The sad thing is this is what they are teaching our children.
00
@KR
“Your political views have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical facts of increasing CO2 due to our emissions, the warming that will cause (~1.1C / doubling), the feedbacks that will occur (to a total of about 3C / doubling)”.
Really? What physical facts is this based on, exactly? It doesn’t appear to be based on any physical facts as far as I can see. In fact, if anything, it conflicts with them. A radiative forcing increment of 3.7W/sq.m (that’s the computer-predicted radiative forcing on a doubling of atmospheric CO2) is only enough to increase the mean global surface temperature by 0.68 degC at a baseline temperature of 288K according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Furthermore considering that the IPCC’s feedback-inclusive equation (expressed simplistically as ΔT = 0.8/ΔRF) takes the initial amount of radiative forcing produced by the CO2-greenhouse and multiples it by the constant 0.8 to get the answer in degC then that temperature-increase of 0.68C automatically includes all the hypothesized positive feedbacks inherent in the climate-system as well. That’s hardly the stuff of which the eco-cult’s doomsday scenario is made, is it? You appear to have got your green knickers in a twist over this.
00
Ferdinand @ #188
Globally the Eemian was warmer and moister – NH 5 degrees warmer according to Greenland ice cores, and 2-3 degrees warmer from Vostock ice cores.
So both Greenland and Antartica were still repositories of snow buildup (had to be otherwise no ice core record) and this isn’t a problem? Yet the arctic is interpreted to have been ice free at this time.
So much for a global rise of temperature of 5 degrees producing catastrophic ice cap melting.
00
Thanks Albert @ 277
Thinking themselves wise they became fools – they are so stupid that you can’t help laughing – but then you have to come back to the fact that they in control of parliament – the lunatics are in charge of the assylum.
00
I’ve just noticed another gross error in the carbon Cycle cartoon at the head of this post by Jo – where is the fossil fuel cycle portrayed, the one in which vegetation is subducted into the earth to produce coal etc – that is the way it’s supposed to work, isn’t it? And where are all the proto coal deposits ready to be subducted in the oceans, come to think of it.
Big flaw in the fossil fuel cycle model I would contend.
And petroleum – there aren’t any oil shales on the ocean floors, the precursors of petroleum, so where is the carbon for this coming from? And why not include it in the carbon cycle as well?
It rather seems that the carbon cycle has been created by scientists with a complete ignorance of geology.
00
Louis @ 281
What size would the fossil mass have to be to equal the oil and coal mass in the ground?
How is Methane gas created?
00
MaryFJohnston@148
I didn’t ask anybody to confirm anything, plus confirmation tells us nothing new.
I asked for people to provide a correction to any error they find in my comment #111.
It’s been 26 hours and 170 comments since then and I’m still waiting for someone to identify a mistake.
00
That seems so very simple. Yet it is very simply wrong!
It would be the case if every place on earth had average temperature all day every day but that is not what happens. The warmer years will have more offgassing hours the cooler years more ingassing hours but equilibrium required by Henry’s Law may take many many years to be appoximately reached and each change means it never happens. The changes include the seasons. Thus the annual CO2 variation and the reason both years mentioned in post 50 were full years.
There will be a per year rate of growth or decline change proportional to the earths thermal time constant rate of change.
00
The point made by Lionell Griffith:
“We do have another experiment, an approximately 4.5 billion year one, that already gives us useful information. Since we are not living on a burning globe after billions of years of possibility of the runaway happening, I suggest the feedback of CO2 on temperature is more the product of too many fevered imaginations rather than a real physical effect with any real consequence.”
Is *necessarily* the most important point that can be made in this discussion. I have made it repeatedly over at DotEarth and directed it to the consideration of the Team members who occasionally post their garbage there. They cannot answer it.
“AGW” is a model-based fantasy. We are supposed to be concerned over some possible “catastrophic” effects. Hansen’s idea is that we risk a “Venus Syndrome” as a result of “positive feedbacks.” “Runaway global warming.”
But as Lionell states so concisely, the experiment has been run for *billions* of years. And the answer is this: there is no possibility whatever of any “runaway global warming” due to the effects of carbon dioxide on temperature.
Period. Sorry, human-haters.
00
Kevin Moore @ #282
Thanks for the question – I’ll do my best 🙂
1. Fossil mass = coal and oil
I don’t know, to be frank. You might be able to calculate it chemically by working out the carbon mass of each and every living organism, and then from an independently derived estimate of petroleum and coal reserves, then estimate what the mass of the biosphere would be if all of it were converted to petroleum and coal.
There are problems with this model since we don’t know what proportion of the biosphere ends up as a fossil. Can’t be all since then life becomes extinct.
2. Origin of Methane gas, aka natural gas. (Ferdinand would be better asked)
Methane (CH4) is a hydrocarbon, a member of the H-C system. It is the stable molecule of the H-C system at the earth’s surface. It can be produced by the surface biosphere from the chemical reduction of carbohydrates (bovine flatulence etc).
It can also be produced from non biogenic materials as mentioned by Banana previously, which fact has been confirmed by at least two labs using diamond anvil experiments. Depending on the Pressure and Temperature (P-T) domain, hydrogen and carbon spontaneously form compounds characteristic for that P-T domain.
So not only can methane be produced biogenically, but also abiogenially, from, what we suppose, from the earth’s mantle. The existence of methane on the outer planets in our solar system, (assuming existing scientific assumptions) implies that biology is a minor source of methane.
Do these explanations answer your questions? If not, say so 🙂
00
Piffel. ‘forcing’ = BS. backradiation = BS. GHS = BS. No calculations to determine the so called average average temperature of a rotating tilted planet.
At any one time the surface temp range in a season is of order 100C! -50 to +50.
The LTE applies, conservation of energy applies. Conservation of mass applies. Ice ages probably formed because of lack of thermal input. If the heat leaves the atmosphere its gets cold if it heats nothing will stop it i.e. if the sun cooks us it cooks us. If it freezes us it freezes us. Theres mo magic.
00
The really sad thing is, that before this AGW hype exploded – where the ice cores were cited as the data that proved it, I got a hold of the ice core data, and it showed very concisely that First temperature increases, and Then some 800 years later CO2 goes up..
Anyone who knows about causality and science, knows that this indicates that temperature drives CO2, and gives no indication of CO2 driving temperature – though it does not exclude the possibility that CO2 can have an effect on Temperatur…
Shortly after this became common knowledge then suddenly the ice cores were irrelevant, though they were what started all this hype.
Yes sure we have an affect, but no one knows what the effect is, we only have very artificial models that make some predictions based on assumptions, all indications are that we don’t really know the atmospheres sensitivity to CO2, and the sensitivity seems to be highly exaggerated.
It seems reasonable to assume the reason that this has been blown up to this degree, is that there is a severe economic interest in AGW, both from governments (carbon taxes), and big businesses – carbon trade, and so forth, all of these are potentially multi-billion dollar industries, who has a very large interest in at AGW is promoted, and proven true.
00
RE post 264 (mine) – http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/5191/topic5191618.shtm
If anyone has attempted to post at the ABC SSSF on this topic, your post will not appear for a couple of days unless you become a registered member. That’s easy; just hit the ‘Reply’ button at the bottom of any message, the Login name -Password page will appear, scroll down to ‘Become a member’ & away you go.
Plenty of pro warmers there to argue with. 😉
00
TRU @286
I agree that the concept of “” backradiation = BS. “”
Any energy increase enjoyed by CO2 molecules is immediately transferred to surrounding N2, O2 molecules in the parcel of air and they all get hot and sweaty.
Then of course they do what all hot air does, it rises until that parcels temp is indistinguishable from the new surrounds.
Just gases doing what gases do.
00
Steve Schapel:
August 6th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Bananabender (#261)…
Scientists now know that honeybees are extremely poor pollinators. They also outcompete many other useful species and attack native fauna. Other insect species are now being widely used to pollinate field crops and greenhouses. Many scientists consider honeybees to be feral pests that should be eliminated.
00
the RealUniverse @ 286
You mentioned a rotating tilted planet. If the Earth wasn’t tilted at 22.5 degrees from the upright so to speak as it circles the Sun there would be no seasons and the equatorial regions would be super hot while the Arctic regions would be much colder.It is the thickness of the atmosphere above any given part of the Earth in relation to the direction of the Sun that matters.The Suns rays pass through more atmosphere and are dissipated over a greater area at the Poles than at the equator.
00
Andrew McRae: @ 283
Yes again I can confirm a mistake. @111
Actually two.
1. You made it too long which gave away the fact that you didn’t know what you were talking about.
and
2. You claimed that “” So by the above reasoning basically all the recent increase in CO2 has
been due to human activity.””
Conclusion: You Have No Clue.
00
cohenite at 240:
Ferdinand is too dismissive of Jaworowski and too accepting of the official ice core measurement of CO2 levels; he should read comments 17 and 87 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/#more-14022
I have read the comments: while the (small) fractionation at closing time is of concern for oxygen levels, it is not observed for CO2 (maybe the effect is too small, less than 1.2/290 ppmv), as the 20 year overlap of the Law Dome cores with South Pole measurements shows. The second comment is not relevant, as the fractionation only takes place at closing time, not further when the bubbles are near to fully closed.
Further, there is firm evidence that migration of CO2 isn’t important in the Vostok and Dome C ice cores over the past 800,000 years: each glacial/interglacial period shows the same ratio between temperature and CO2 changes: about 8 ppmv/degr.C. If there was any migration, the difference between high and low levels of CO2 would fade over time, decreasing over each 100,000 year period. That is not observed.
But the “arbitrary” shift of ice core data to match the Mauna Loa data is a horrible mistake of Jaworowski. No real ice core specialist would take the ice age as base for a comparison of CO2 levels, the more that the gas age range is in the next data column of Neftel’s table.
The same for the possibility that CO2 escapes from ice cores via cracks, while the outside world has CO2 levels 100-200 ppmv higher than measured in the core.
It seems that Jaworowski is a nice person, but what he says is impossible to take serious.
00
Kevin Moore, earlier we talked about abiogenic oil etc including methane. Do your self a favour and read Tommy Gold’s “Hot deep Biosphere”. Available in Kindle on Amazon and they have a free Kindle for PC reader. $10 US.
Sorry I no longer believe in life on Mars or elsewhere until someone shows me a living organism or something that is indispuatbly a fossil of one or a dead body. The very small amounts of methane on Mars are just outgassing of methane left over when Mars was formed. Methane volcanos or seeps. There are far more hydrocarbons in the rest of the solar system than there are on Earth and no swamps or dead dinosaurs or trees on Titan.
00
@ 279 was magic!!!
More.
00
Well Mars has a tilt of 25deg. Temp range -55 to -170C ish. (dont quote me Im looking into it!)
00
Cohenite
Re: #270 where you say
The research reveals that CO2 varies randomly from year to year from 0% up to 3%ppmv with a mean of 1.5%ppmv/yr. This has been observed over 30 years by satellites.
Firstly, I would suggest that you don’t really mean to include the “%” in your statement. The numbers refer to Parts Per Million (ppm). Secondly, any annual change since 1958 has never been as low as 0, i.e. it’s never been negative. Is this important? YES –IT IS.
Even in a generally warming world, temperatures don’t increase year on year. Factors such as ENSO mean that some years will be cooler than the previous year.
However, this is not the case with CO2. Every year has seen an increase – regardless of Sea Surface or atmospheric temperatures.
Following a transition from La Nina to El Nino, say, SST may rise by 0.5 deg and more. According to Ferdinand’s figures, this is enough to cause a ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
We know there are fluctuations but they cannot explain the long term underlying trend in CO2 data. If you were to remove the 1.5 ppmv trend (your claim) from the data the resultant graph would track ENSO pretty closely.
In a nutshell: Human activity is increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1.5 ppm per year (I think it’s now nearer 2 ppm per year) but this increase will be amplified in warmer (e.g. El Nino) years and dampened in cooler (e.g. La Nina) years. As a result we might see a ~3 ppm increase in a strong El Nino year (e.g. 1998) but only a ~1 ppm increase in a La Nina year (e.g. 1999).
Points To Consider:
1. According to UAH, global temperatures (include SST) during 1998 and 2010 were pretty similar. There were no warmer years in between. Yet the CO2 concentration in 2010 was ~24 ppm higher than at the end of 1998. That’s an average increase of ~2 ppm per year. How on earth does this support Professor Salby’s claims.
2. In 1958 CO2 levels were 315 ppm; In 1975 they were 331 ppm. This was a La Nina dominated period characterised by a lack of warming yet we still had an increase of 16 ppm.
I am not a “warmer”, by the way (well not much)
00
John Finn @ # 296
Prempting Cohenite,
The facts you point to, increases in atmospheric CO2, despite contradictory temperature numbers, leads to, at least,
That our present model of the earth climate is wrong.
If the observation that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years is accurate, then debating short term variations of atmospheric CO2 when compared to short term temperature variations of that atmosphere seems pointless.
00
Bob C
Having read some of your comments I take it that you believe that CO2 levels could return to 300 ppm within about 5 years.
Under what circumstances would you expect this to happen.
I, like a number of others, feel you may be confusing the average life-time of a single CO2 molecule with the time taken to remove a pulse of CO2 from the atmosphere.
You talk about a residence time of 5-8 years which implies you expect the ~100 ppm excess to be removed in that time. This implies a removal rate of 12-20 ppm per year.
Ok then, 2011 looks like being considerably cooler than 2010. The average CO2 concentration for 2010 was ~390 ppm. Humans emit about 8GtC (~29 GtCO2) which is good for a ~4 ppm increase, but your removal rate should more than offset the increase.
Can we assume you expect average CO2 levels for 2011 to be 8-16 ppm lower than for 2010?
00
John; I don’t know what a ‘warmer’ is.
And: “Secondly, any annual change since 1958 has never been as low as 0, i.e. it’s never been negative. Is this important? YES –IT IS.”
Well, its gone close; look at Tom Quirk’s graph above and this one:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960.5/every:12/derivative
It’s a warming world; or at least it has been since 1850. How did CO2 levels go during the LIA?
00
Mike Borgelt @ 293
Re Thomas Gold:
This site gave me plenty of information,
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/yantovski_gold_future.pdf
00
1. Louis Hissink:
August 6th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
John Finn @ # 296
Prempting Cohenite,
The facts you point to, increases in atmospheric CO2, despite contradictory temperature numbers, leads to, at least,
That our present model of the earth climate is wrong.
I believe that Professor Salby’s understanding is wrong. I believe that the data strongly supports the fact that the underlying trend in CO2 is caused by human emissions. I do believe that temperature fluctuations do influence the rate at which CO2 rises in the short term
If the observation that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years is accurate, then debating short term variations of atmospheric CO2 when compared to short term temperature variations of that atmosphere seems pointless.
Incredible. This again does nothing to support any of Professor Salby’s assertions – but is not really relevant anyway.
The 800 year lag is observed in ice core records following (and prior to) Glacial Minima (Gm). The whole transition process from GM to interglacial involves gradual warming and CO2 feedback over thousands of years. The lag is due to ocean circulation ‘digging’ out CO2 from the depths of the ocean to the surface. It is a continual process. The warmer SST (due to the warming world) means that more CO2 can be periodically released into the atmosphere.
However the key point in this continuing process is that the temperatures are warmer than they were ~800 years previously. The whole thing takes about 5000 years and results in a 5-6 degree increase in temperature and a ~100 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The 800 year lag is irrelevant to the last 150 years or the MWP, LIA or any other relatively (compared to when ice sheets extended down to the A4 in England) small temperature shift.
00
John Finn @ # 301
You start your comment with “I believe….”
I’m a physical scientist, and belief has nothing to do with science.
Ball in your court.
00
Louis @ 302 hear hear!
The cause of the IAs are most likely extraterrestrial.
Worth a look – http://www.landscheidt.info/.
00
Kevin Moore @ #300 &
theRealUniverse @ #303
interesting links but I’m into this so study that, and then catch up.
00
I have no clue as to how you made that deduction. I do not know what is driving current CO2 levels upwards, except I have made my case (based on actual measurements) that anthropogenic CO2 probably accounts for less than 5% of the last century’s increase. Hence, that is also the limit to which we could effect it by controlling our emissions.
Since I don’t know what drivers are behind the current increase, I also don’t know what to expect in the near future.
*****************
You have made the comment that the 800 year lag is irrelevant to the present. I think that what it tells us about CO2’s effect on the climate is very relevant:
A) I find the argument that increased temperatures (eventually) result in increased CO2 reasonable (Henry’s law and other theoretical arguments).
B) Hence, whatever positive pressure on temperatures that CO2 generates will operate as a positive feedback — increased temperatures produce increased CO2 which drives temperatures even higher, etc. Hence the positive feedback of CO2 argument is also reasonable.
C) However, since the ice core record shows many instances where temperatures reverse and drop while CO2 is still increasing and vice versa, it is evident that there are other (largely unknown) climate drivers that routinely overwhelm whatever effect CO2 has on temperatures (positive feedback included).
Current climate models (which consider CO2 the major climate driver) obviously do not include the unknown (hence unpredictible) and more potent drivers that the ice core record tells us must exist. Hence, these models have virtually nothing to say about future climate.
Since the only climate crisis is a predicted one, and the current models have no predictive skill (either theoretically, by the above argument, or demonstrated), there is no crisis and the current alarmism is bogus.
00
BobC: @ #305
Given a petrie dish with some bacteria, energy and food, and time, we notice that there is a proliferation of those bacteria, and, surprise, surprise, heat from metabolism.
The process is – increase the thermal state of the bio-environment and life proliferates, which when based on carbon, emits carbon dioxide.
The alternative is to lower the temperature, or thermal state of the bio-environment and life diminsishes, or if you are a bear, hibernate. Emissions of CO2 decrease as a consequence.
So experience informs us that higher temperatures allows life to proliferate, while lower temperatures, not.
So, go figure.
00
KR @254:
What I’m trying to get you to see is that the C-14 tracer measurements are measuring residence time. I agree that exchange time is not nearly as interesting as residence time. It is informative to examine why:
The basic question we want the answer to is: If CO2 is added to the atmosphere, how long does the concentration remain increased, and what, if any, parts of that are semi-permanent? This question would be answered if we engineered a very large impulse increase of CO2 to the atmosphere, then measured the CO2 concentration changes over time.
(Note that what I have been calling an “input” is a disturbance of a system in near equilibrium, and the “output” is the system’s response to that disturbance. This use of “input” and “output” has absolutely nothing to do with “one way”, “one dimensional”, or “feed-forward” systems, as it routinely does in electronic system characterization. Perhaps this has been a sticking point in our communications.)
Some large part of the carbon cycle system is dependent on Henry’s law (the exchange with the oceans). I realize that there are other parts of the system that may or may not be linear, but let’s focus on Henry’s law for a moment:
The diffusion rate of every gas species (by Henry’s law) is independent of the concentration of every other gas species. Thus the diffusion rates of C13-CO2 depend only on the concentrations of C13-CO2. The same with C12-CO2 and C14-CO2. Since these isotopes are all in the same chemical (CO2) the diffusion constants of each are nearly equal and they accordingly act nearly identically.
If we were to engineer as sudden increase in C12 and C13 – containing CO2 in the atmosphere, then measure the decrease of the atmospheric concentration of these two isotopes over time, we would have answered the basic question above by direct measurement. (Presumably no one would try to claim that C14 CO2 was being subsituted by the system to replace them — that would be absurd and would violate the linearity assumption anyway.)
Because of the great amounts of C12 and C13 containing CO2 in the atmosphere, the above experiment is impractical. However, the relative rareness of C14 allows the exact experiment to be done with it.
This experiment has been done, and the result is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a concentration increase that decays with a ~8 year half life. The experiment is ongoing, and the residual fraction is still to be determined, but current data limits it to < 4% of the increase.
00
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 think there is more real-world data to suggest that temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, although it is possible that humanmade CO2 emissions have a significant influence (or not).
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”).
00
BobC
Que?
00
Jan 1964 319.57
Jan 1965 319.44
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
or May 1964 322.25
May 1965 322.16
or
Sept 1973 327.51
Sept 1974 327.41
00
Still waiting, Mary.
Confirmation bias and ad hominems aren’t going to get you anywhere.
00
Since all three species (of CO2) follow the same laws while in the system, and are independent of each other (in a linear system — say one that largely goes by Henry’s law), then injecting a concentration impulse of any one of them, and measureing the subsequent concentration decrease with time will give the same decay function.
Also, increasing ALL of them will also give the same concentration vs. time response, thus answering the question of “how long will atmospheric CO2 concentrations remain elevated after an input?”
The atmospheric bomb tests doubled the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, thus performing this test. We have no ability to double (or even come close) either of the other isotopes, since the total amount in the atmosphere is so large.
00
33
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
August 5th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Oooo! A new bundle of laughs that still never answers the basic questions!
1. Show empirical proof..not models that prove CO2 is responsible.
2. Show us the Hotspot.
Seems simple enough!
00
Waffle at 246:
What data do you like to see exactly?
00
BobC at 309:
What I’m trying to get you to see is that the C-14 tracer measurements are measuring residence time. I agree that exchange time is not nearly as interesting as residence time.
I think that I am starting to see the misunderstanding between us: residence time is used by me (and others I suppose) as the time an individual molecule is residing in the atmosphere, before being exchanged by another molecule of one of the other reservoirs. I know it is confusing, as even the IPCC uses it in both ways: as “exchange” time (turnover) and as “decay” time for some excess amount over the dynamic equilibrium.
Next problem: is 14C suitable as tracer to measure the excess decay time (to avoid the confusion)?
The answer is no, because the amounts of extra 14CO2 from the nuclear tests are too small (10^-10) to have any influence on the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus that doesn’t help for testing the effect of an extra mass of CO2 on the sink rate.
14C is exchanged with the other reservoirs at a rate of 20% per year, but part of it returns from rotting vegetation and from the oceans surface in other seasons. Only the deep oceans give a one-way exit. Reason why the half life is some 8 years and not a few years as to be expected from the exchange rate.
Thus how then can we calculate the excess decay time? Peter Dietze has an elegant solution, including comments on the very long decay times of the IPCC:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
He shows a half life time of about 38 years.
00
It’s interesting that people dismiss the lag in temperature-CO2 out of hand… And say the lag is irrelevant.
We widely define the industrialisation to have started in 1940, and AGW to have started somewhere around that time.
notice the MWP was in 950–1250.
Which oddly enough that is between 690-990 years ago. The interesting thing is that CO2 is lagging behind temperature (in the ice cores) seems to be 800 +/- 200 years – due to obvious problems with reading scales, that are low resolution, giving up to a 25% error… However nearly the entire range of the lag falls within the 690-990 year range..
(Lol this actually surprised me that I’d find the time intervals to be THIS close)
I’m *NOT* saying this is *THE* reason for our current increase in CO2, but the time intervals magically seems to be in the right intervals which is observed in CO2-temperature relation from the ice cores.
It then follows that we *MIGHT* actually be seeing the after effects of the Medieval warm period… Though I’ve read this wasn’t a worldwide phenomena, though, it is likely that ocean current would have circulated the effect, and after 800 years, a localised heating of this type, might have an effect in all the deep ocean areas.
This was then followed by the little ice age 1400 to 1700, which would indicate that we should expect to see a a decrease (or flattening of the curve) in CO2, starting in the interval 2000-2400 (depending on how accurate the 800 year estimate is).. IF temperature is driving CO2, and not vice versa.
If we presume that the MWP gives an indication of the true lag, with the lower bound being around 690 years, we could make an estimate of when a significant decrease/flattening should appear, which is approximately in 2090 – beyond my lifetime.
However, given the fact that we *ARE* putting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, this may not be observable. But it would be a grand proof whether, CO2 or Temperatur is driving the atmosphere. (hopefully we know by then).
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Source of the CO2 aside — where is the damned problem?
You ain’t got one! But even if you did, Bulldust at post 19 has nailed the real one. CO2 won’t be worth bothering with. The problem has hit the fan and there’s no stopping it now. It’s going to play out. There’s not a government I can name that understands it, much less can deal with it. Even mitigation is impossible when you’re part of the problem and want to continue in that roll (they are and they do).
So as Bulldust said, good luck to all! For myself, I have just three bits of hope:
1. Become as much more self sufficient as possible as fast as possible.
2. Figure out which of my friends and neighbors I can actually count on if things get really bad and which fall in the other group. Then plan accordingly.
3. Pray that Italy doesn’t fail (if they haven’t already).
I was never, ever worried about CO2. The case against it never stood up to examination.
My apology for being so blunt. But the time fo plain speaking has arrived. 🙂
00
Bob C
I have no clue as to how you made that deduction. I do not know what is driving current CO2 levels upwards, except I have made my case (based on actual measurements) that anthropogenic CO2 probably accounts for less than 5% of the last century’s increase.
Could you provide a link to the “actual measurements” the human produced CO2 is less than 5% of the total.
00
“if these results had been available in 2007, “the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did.” ”
Err.. the IPCC concluded the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 15 years, despite all evidence to the contrary. I believe they can draw any insane conclusions they want about anything.
00
John Flynn at post 320 writes:
The IPCC themselves show it is that low.
LOL
00
Roy Hogue at 319:
Source of the CO2 aside — where is the damned problem?
I have no problems with CO2 either. My only problem is to make as much trips in the world I still can do with my wife (including Australia, but Antarctica is high on my wish list) as long as our health and money allows. The latter is the main problem until now (especially for Antarctica).
But as I am always been interested in science, I have difficulties if someone tries to convince others with arguments which are at least discutable. For me that goes both ways: I don’t trust climate models for one cent (I have some experience with models in chemical processes). And I don’t trust scientists who say things which are simply impossible like diffussion of CO2 out of ice cores, while the outside world is 100-200 ppmv higher…
That is why I defend sound science, here as well as in other places. I only did give up to react on RealClimate since over halve my comments disappeared in cyberspace, despite always on topic…
00
In all the arguements about CO2 levels,to my knowledge nobody has yet mentioned what the optimum or normal level is.
00
Years ago I read an article in “Scientific American” called “Goldilocks and the Three Planets”
“This is the complete carbon cycle: rainwater removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts it in the crust, and volcanic action releases CO2 from the crust and puts it back in the atmosphere.” The article went on to argue that the earth has a natural thermostat: When temperatures are warm, there is more rain, which removes CO2 from the atmosphere. When temperatures are cool there is less rain. CO2 builds up, warming the planet until there is a rough balance.
Your description of Salby’s paper and my familiarity with the Goldilocks argument made me think of another analogy. I admit I’m a layman. I know nothing of atmospheric chemistry or equilibria, but I AM familiar with getting older, getting less exercise, and putting on weight. The CO2 naturally occurring in the atmosphere is my body weight. At one point my body is in balance- I consume and burn the same amount of calories each day and maintain a steady weight. I then discover blueberry pie-fossil fuel, and consume an additional 150 kCAL slice of pie each day. Since 3000 additional kiloCalories puts on a pound, A CAGWer would assume that I would gain 1 additional pound every 20 days, or 18 pounds a year, or 720 pounds in 40 years. I DID run that experiment over 40 years. Needless to say I didn’t gain 720 pounds between the age of 20 and my current age of 60- more like 30 pounds – from 190 to 220. Carrying that extra weight burned additional calories and my body quickly reached an equilibrium at a somewhat higher weight.
The same argument will work with our atmosphere. If we were able to continue burning the same amount of fossil fuel each year, atmospheric CO2 would not increase indefinitely, but would reach a somewhat higher equilibrium. The question to be answered is, what fraction of earth’s calorie intake is CO2? CAGWers would argue that we’re currently a 97 pound inactive weakling, burning only 1200 kCAL a day- in that case consuming that 150 kCAL pie will result in a significant weight increase.
Salby is arguing that the earth is a 250 pound pro football player during the regular season – consuming 3000 kilocalories a day. That additional slice of blueberry pie will have a negligible effect on his weight.
00
Very interesting but the Alarmists claim to have heard it all before. See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/murray_salby_and_conservation.php
It would be good to sweep up the warmists objections to this this idea especially if it has been around for a few years.
00
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=97&&n=224
00
Thanks for responding Ferdinand @294; I found the Jaworowski/Oeschger dispute interesting; Oeschger, while he was alive, was also dismissive of Jaworowski; the basic dispute here is whether trapped CO2, sealed in ice under high pressure maintains a contemperaneous atmospheric correlation. J says it doesn’t.
Even if you accept that the ice core data is fine there are still surprises in past levels of CO2 as the Luthi paper shows:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
But there still remains the potential problem between the ice and CO2 gas age differences as Drake outlines:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf
Some commentators, notably the formidable DeWitt Payne, suggest Drake gets it wrong because a simpler explanation is that snow accumulation during the deepest part of the ice age is slower than it is during interglacial periods. However, DeWitt did not know about the Luthi paper which confounds that explanation.
What do you think Ferdinand?
At 33 Fredinand, you say to the “boys and girls”:
“It is impossible that nature was a net contibutor to the increase, because the measured increase is less than the emissions. Thus nature was a net sink for CO2 over the past at least 50 years.”
This does not necesarily follow; nature could be putting out more and taking in more. The Knorr paper proves that sinks are expanding but that does not preclude natural CO2 being capable of increasing CO2 levels; if natural CO2 was not capable of exceeding natural sinks how could CO2 levels ever increase, as they did between 15000 and 12000 years ago when they went from below 200 ppm to 270 ppm and enabled modern agriculture to begin; or when, as shown in the Luthi paper, they went from as low as 172 ppm to 300ppm during the late Quaternary?
00
Michael Nielsen: @ 318
An interesting piece and an idea that is worth following.
One thing that is possible is the nominal lag between applying heat and the presence of increased CO2 (and vice-verse ) may vary with conditions.
Conditions that existed way back when the lag was 800 years +/- may not be exactly the same and so lag may also be different.
Looking at Jo’s re-plots of the ice core records for the last 400,000 years requires a lot of patience. Some parts of the plots show very clear lag and others seem to be contrary. Perhaps the most convincing things were temperature spikes that were followed by very clearly defined CO2 spikes.
00
[…] related to this peer reviewed audio artice on planetary temperature controlling CO2, not humans: Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans « JoNova: Science, ca… __________________ Red to red and black to black, or it's ashes to ashes and dust to dust. […]
00
This question may be off topic for this thread, but I’d like to ask anyway:
Even if the planet does warm as the alarmists project, does it matter? If so why? What is so bad about warming?
I’d point out that the planet is in an unusually cold phase. There have been only three such cold phases in the past 500 million years (that is, since animal life began to flourish). So why is warming so bad?
This schematic chart – “Ice House of Hot House” http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
– shows the three cold phases (since the start of the Cambrian Period).
Figure 6.1 in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 shows the temperature and CO2 concentration over the past 400 million years. http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1
– Notice the two cold phases. (The earlier one was about 425 million years ago which is just before the start of the chart.
– Notice that our planet had polar ice caps only twice in the past 400 million years (the blue bars hanging from the top of the chart).
– Notice, during the current cold phase, there has been permanent ice caps in Antarctica for only 10 million years and at the North Pole for less than 5 million years (demonstrating that ice caps are a rare event in Earth’s history, which shows we are in a cold phase)
– Notice that the planet has had no ice caps – therefore it has been much warmer than now – for about 80% of the past 500 million years. Therefore, the planet is normally significantly warmer than now.
– Notice how the planet has been in a long-term cooling trend for the past 50 million years (that’s what we should be concerned about).
IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 also says (buried in the text) life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder (we all know that anyway but it’s nice to see IPCC admit it).
So, I repeat my question, why is warming so bad? Has the assessment of the consequences of warming been impartial? Or is it scaremongering?
00
Cohenite @325
Found your post very interesting, especially the intuitively obvious but previously unstated;
“”if natural CO2 was not capable of exceeding natural sinks how could CO2 levels ever increase”.
One of the things that bothered me with Ferdinand has been his “blind spot” with regards to Human related CO2 sinks and in particular their size and rate of response. His assumption is that “natural” origin CO2 is in perfect equilibrium give or take annual seasonal fluctuations.
“Human” CO2 is treated as an add on to this perfectly stable base and therefore any changes ( currently up) are the “fault” of people.
When I suggested an experiment to measure the capacity of crops to increase the rate of uptake and quantify it Ferdinand responded.
The response was a pdf that showed daily CO2 readings (24 hrs) but strangely NO other detail and I was none the wiser.
He seems smart enough not to have misunderstood what I was after, which was a comparison of CO2 readings near two fields, one left empty and one planted with a crop.
Over time as the crop grew it would be possible to build up a picture of a possible “sink response rate”.
I know lab experiments have been done with varying CO2 levels which give this data anyhow but Greenies will just say – that was in a lab.
Anyone who has the unpleasant job of mowing the lawn knows the rate of sequestration anyhow (as Ferdinand says, this material will quickly decay and recycle) but the point is the assumption of a fixed sink rate for human CO2 is wrong and nature will escalate human associated sinks to meet rising CO2.
After all that, in reality both Human and Natural CO2 is mixed together and the same sinks handle both lots.
If nature provide 97% of all CO2 and Humans 3% then after the sinks have done their job the final proportions remain unchanged.
And after all that CO2 is only a bit player in all this and Human CO2 is an even smaller part of that.
As Ferdinand says : it’s just about being seen to be accurate with our science. I wonder.
00
Peter @327
Your post, like many others, quotes good reliable science from sections of the IPCC reports.
That is the sad thing about this whole AGW mess. Good science is there but has been obscured deliberately for personal gain.
It is the executive summaries which not only ignore but contradict the “good science” in the basic reporting.
It is the nature of politics and human greed that prevents this Wrong from being Righted.
00
Louis Hissink: @308
Hi, found your Petri dish analogy interesting..
Just one thing; we could also look at the accumulation of mass in the living material in the dish.
This would include some “sequestrated” carbon and consequently reduce the amount vailable to the atmosphere.
00
TRU @305
After reading :
“”The cause of the IAs are most likely extraterrestrial.”” thought I was going to find something crazy on extra Ts.
Had a quick look;; Reeaaaly interesting – will go back there.
Thanks for the link.
00
kevin @302, Looks like a good article. Thanks. I’ll read it later.
00
MaryFJohnson,
You might find this interesting.Especially these two presentations:
Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases
by Alan Siddons and Joe D’Aleo
and,
Proof that anthropogenic CO2 is not accumulating
by Alan Siddons
Total CO2 amount in the atmosphere have grown much faster than what mankind’s speed of CO2 emission growth rate adds to that total.It is obvious that Nature itself has a growing emission rate over the decades too.The chart in the second link shows that well.
More related articles HERE at my forum.
00
Yep, Siddons is right; he confirms Knorr; as I have said before, the principle is 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 and sinks must be expanding more than the 4GTPA.
00
You appear to be assuming a non-linear model (not specified well enough for me to understand, however) that behaves differently depending on the total mass in the atmosphere. I am assuming a linear model that operates according to linear laws (e.g., Henry’s law). In such a model, each carbon isotope will behave according to the same laws, regardless of the relative abundance.
An absorption law that became non-linear between ratios of 10^-10 and 10^-2 would be very unusual — I would like to see such a proposed law specified well enough to test. It seems very improbable that simply hypothesizing such a law for convenience would be correct. (If this is what you’re doing — perhaps you have a specific law in mind and can apprise me of it and any supporting empirical data you’re aware of?)
For a linear model if you, say, increase all three CO2 isotope variants by 50%, you could then measure what you call the ‘excess decay time’ (what I meant by ‘residence time’ as opposed to ‘exchange time’) by watching the excess CO2 concentrations decay with time back to (or near to) the original amount.
Since the system is linear (we are assuming — I’m open to empirical data showing it is not, but I currently don’t know of any), the above decay time will be measured for each isotopic species individually and independently from the others. Thus, if you were to engineer a 50% increase in C12 (leaving the C13 and C14 alone) and measured the decay of the excess C12 you would get the same decay curve as if you had increased and measured all together.
It is impractical to engineer large increases in C12 or C13 in the atmosphere, since there is such large quantities already there. However, it is practical (and has been done) to engineer a 100% increase in the C14 CO2 variant. The Bomb Spike is just that “experiment” and the measurements of the excess C14 decay curve give us an 8 year half life for the atmosphere’s recovery time from excess CO2.
00
Mining some old comments to see if I can spot a theme in this frustrating argument.
KR, at post #189 you said:
What you’re just described is the differential definition of an exponential decay curve: If a quantity (“the imbalance” of CO2) declines at a rate that is proportional to the size of the quantity (“the imbalance” again), then, when integrated over time, this definition gives an exponential decay curve: c = C*exp(-a*t), where a is the time for the value of c to reduce to 1/e of the initial value, ‘C’ (about 37%).
When you say that “the minimum adjustment time to absorb the imbalance goes to hundreds of years” you are completely wrong. Regardless of the value of the decay constant, ‘a’, be it millions of years or millionths of a second, the time for an exponential curve to go to zero is infinity. This is why it is common to refer to ‘lifetime’, or ‘decay time’ in an exponential decay as either the time it takes to go from 100% to 37% (t = a), or sometimes the time to halve the initial value (t ~= 0.7a) — which is also called “half-life”.
Interestingly, you give this definition apparently as a rebuttal to my assertion that “the system is linear” — but a system that decays exponentially IS linear.
I agree — the system is linear (as far as we can measure) and thus follows linear laws. Why do you agree with the first half of this statement and not the second?
00
BobC @335
The patience of job??
Or alternatively building the case?
00
Cohenite @334
Would it be possible to clarify this “” as I have said before, the principle is a constant in an increasing total””.
Not sure what is meant by “constant’? Is that percentage or mass?
It seems that it should read percentage the way you have done the calcs but is that reality??
Ferdinand would probably agree with you.
00
Correction to #336:
If ‘a’ has the units of time (as I implied), then the equation would be c=C*exp(-t/a)
00
Mary, the Knorr paper uses %’s:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
00
Just trying to bring the focus onto science and math, rather than hand-waving. I’m going to have to sit in on some climatology classes next fall — honestly, if I tried to pass off the kind of BS I hear from warmists about CO2 lifetimes in an engineering class I would be reprimanded or dismissed (after my students intellectually lynched me in class first).
I suspect these people aren’t leaning this from actual science classes (I hope!), but are picking it up from appologist sites like RealClimate. I have a friend who’s a climatology professor at Univ of Colo (Rich Keen) — I think I’ll have coffee with him soon and get his opinion.
(Rich is infamous for his sarcastic put-downs of AGW. CU takes some of his posts off his CU site (for being “too controversal” — e.g., likely to offend funding agencies), but they are archived on ICECAP. Here’s a quiz he gives in his classes.)
00
BoBC; that p/p is very good; I hadn’t heard of this Keen chap till now.
00
I should have added that the usual ratbags have got hold of it:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/climate-change-and-picking-cherries-with-richard-keen/
00
BobC @341
An interesting thing to do is look at the course outlines for Climate Change type degrees in the US and compare them with Basic Science or in my case Metallurgy courses from Australia.
Climate change courses are basically Environmental Awareness degrees with no basic maths. physics or chemistry associated with the work.
It’s hard to call that science and it’s hard to blame people who have been taught that Algores movie is real science.
In Australia our universities now have separate “Climate Science” faculties and Law Departments have specialization in Climate Change Ethics” (in itself something of an anomaly).
The Climate Change faculty of a NSW university was very active in the media just prior to our Prime Ministers attendance at an overseas Climate Conference recently, which says a lot for their job descriptions.
00
Thanks, Tommy — Siddons article is very good. It makes it very clear the slight of hand being used to claim long CO2 lifetimes:
On the one hand, warmists are OK with assuming linear models of the Carbon cycle when they are using isotope ratios to “prove” anthropogenic origins of CO2.
In the next breath, however, they invoke fantastically non-linear (also non-physical and non-verified) models to claim that anthropogenic CO2 has extrordinary lifetimes.
Siddons points out with devastating clarity that the AGW proponents have incorporated a magical absorption into their models, whereby 50% of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed — but only the current year’s emissions — previous years get a free pass. Apparently this absorption method can distinguish between this year’s and last year’s emissions!
One reason these models get so bizarrely disconnected from reality is that they are never tested, except against other models. This is easy to see by simply reading a selection of the model papers. Here, for example, is a classic by Susan Solomon that proportedly shows that “climate change (due to CO2) is irreversible” by exclusively referencing other models, which themselves never reference actual data. One wonders if Dr. Solomon has ever seen the Vostok ice core graphs.
Climate modelers live in a hermetically sealed virtual reality — the way the “pal-review” process works in climate science also.
00
MaryFJohnston (@344):
Good idea, thanks. I’ll check out our course catalog.
00
BoBC
We have a local climate change expert here in our city but he is different from your usual Climate Change professor.
Stewart Franks is attached to the University Engineering Department and his expertise is in the real world of Hydro-Climatology. His is strongly outspoken on the unreality of man made global warming and would be a good match for Rich Keen (scanned his test paper).
00
Thanks for the link, cohenite — it’s hilarious. Rich would have a field day with this.
I’ve always thought greenfyre was an idiot, and this does nothing to dispell that.
For example: Greenfyre thinks that Keen’s comparing old IPCC predictions to today’s climate is cherry-picking and unfair — he should use current up-to-date predictions, which are much more accurate!
Does Greenfyre ever listen to himself? Apparently, IPCC predictions can be trusted only right after they’re made — later they become out of date and can’t be used.
Strangely, I’m OK with that.
00
“where a is the time for the value of c to reduce to 1/e of the initial value, ‘C’ (about 37%).”
Are we confusing “Half life” with “Time constant” or have i lost the plot?
I alway understod half to be 50 percent.
Time constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
Half life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life
00
Ooops sorry. i did lose the plot.
“or sometimes the time to halve the initial value (t ~= 0.7a) — which is also called “half-life”.”
00
Salby’s speech at the Sydney Institute is worth listening to
00
Kevin..there just isnt one!
00
theRealUniverse @ 356
Next question,
What amount of “carbon pollution” in the atmosphere would be low enough for Julia?
You would think there would be an optimum level similar to what doctors assume when measuring blood pressure.
00
MaryFJohnston @ 329
I agree the lag does not appear to be constant, and does vary, and may not explain everything, however, someone earlier dismissed the lag between temperature and CO2 as irrelevant, so I made some simple calculations, and surprised myself, in that (possibly) co-incidentally the lag of roughly 800 years +/- 200 (my own estimate), matched the time between the MWP and the start of Industrialisation, where CO2 levels are said to start rising, of course it’s a very rough estimate.
The lag is very obvious when we look at the endings of the interglacial periods, because the changes are so distinct, they are much harder to detect in the noise, of the interglacial period it self, however, it would seem logical that if it exists at the end of the interglacial periods, that it might also be present in the interglacial period itself. But trying to detect a correlation in data that is fluctuating wildly is hard to do by inspection.
However, the more I look at it, the more interesting I find the idea of lag, as I’ve rarely heard people talk about that lag, and not in any meaningful way.
00
Hi MichaelN @358
“”so I made some simple calculations, and surprised myself, in that (possibly) co-incidentally the lag of roughly 800 years +/- 200 (my own estimate), matched the time between the MWP and the start of Industrialisation, where CO2 levels are said to start rising, of course it’s a very rough estimate.”‘
I was impressed by this!
Just taking a horizontal line across from the CO2 line to the Temp line should give the lag value provided you are in a zone which started with a defined lag event.
As I mentioned, I saw a couple of temp spikes which seemed to have corresponding delayed CO2 lifts so that helps clear up any doubt about whether lag occurs.
There is some talk of the accuracy of the absolute CO2 values, in ice cores, but I think the main thing is we are looking at some good data showing at least accurate Relative values.
00
Kevin and TRU @ 357
Have heard mention that under 200 ppm v CO2 plants don’t grow too well so there may be a minimum.
There are experimental details available for vegetative growth rates under different CO2 concentrations but don’t have any refs.
Greater pp CO2 does give more rapid growth which in itself indicates that veg can very quickly respond to increased atm CO2 and provide Quick Sink Increase.
00
MaryFJohnston:
August 7th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
One of my friends is an extremely sceptical retired geologist. A few weeks ago he was talking to a University of Queensland marine biology student. He asked her whatt she thought the pH of seawater was. She replied ‘around 7’.
If a marine biology student doesn’t know that seawater has a pH range of 7.5-8.4 we are in deep trouble.
10
Michael Nielsen:
August 7th, 2011 at 1:57 am
Yep. The rise in CO2 is due to the MWP. Henry’s Law in action.
00
Hi bananabender: @ 361
“”If a marine biology student doesn’t know that seawater has a pH range of 7.5-8.4 we are in deep trouble.””
It illustrates the point, then I think back to my student days and recal how dumb I must have seemed to my lecturers and that it takes time and work to build up a reliable accurate picture of any system. At least she didn’t say 2 or even worse 15 ha ha.
On another post someone asked why engineers didn’t blow the whistle on CCS schemes which received quite a lot of money.
Any metallurgist could do a quick outline of factors and say the idea of CCS was Idiotic.
But if you have a chance of a good salary for a couple of years you might hold off on telling the truth.
Lots of people have.
00
Michael N from earlier
The main point was that lag rate may vary depending on the period.
Lag may have been 800 years at one point but could become more or less if physical conditions change.
Small point but the fact that you have pegged current rise in CO2 to events about 800 years ago means that the same heat transfer mechanisms could still be at work.
00
The _observer @ 264:
Talk about a double standard, the catastrophists have been doing science by press release for the last 20 years. Most of the papers which are reported on turn out to be junk long after the headlines fade.
Mark @ 265:
KR really needs to stick with scientifically correct terminology, which is, ocean neutralization. Doesn’t sound so scary, does it?
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I’d like to see the C02 levels plotted against known C02 emissions. I know you’ve supplied something, but I can’t make heads or tails of the labeling. This means I don’t know what I’m looking at or where the data has come from so, ultimately, the graphs aren’t useful. If there is a correlation between man’s C02 output and global C02 levels then we could have something to go on. Specifically, the data needs to show and increase in atmospheric C02 at an increasing rate in line with industrial growth.
I’m not a climate scientist but, I can analyze data. I know Tamino has done the very thing I’m discussing here but, his 1st differential analysis of of atmospheric C02 levels did not show an increase at an increasing rate outside a margin of error caused by the smoothing he applied. Nor did he show any correlation with man’s industrial emissions of C02. Additionally, I expect the Chinese spike of the last 10 years to be clear as day.
If your mass balance hypothesis is correct then that data should already be well developed and properly presented as one of your main lines of evidence.
00
sunsettommy at 337:
Allan Siddons is completely wrong in his approach: the sink rate doesn’t depend on the emissions in one year of about 4 ppmv, but of the total increase over the years, which nowadays is over 30% (100 ppmv)higher than expected from the current temperature. The emissions simply are going directly in the atmosphere and spread over the world. The sinks capture any CO2, man made or not, at 2 ppmv/year, because of the increased atmospheric pressure of CO2. By coincident (in fact not by coincident, it reflects the process dynamics) that is about halve the amount of the emissions. What is seen over time is that the increase in the atmosphere follows the emissions with an incredible fixed ratio, until today. Thus any natural process that may be the cause must be aware of the human emissions…
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen: @366
Again figures from assumptions.
Ferdinand why don’t you get big sheet of paper.
Take step back.
Sketch out the problem.
List the factors.
Quantify as many as you can.
Look at it afresh.
00
BobC at 339:
Since the system is linear (we are assuming — I’m open to empirical data showing it is not, but I currently don’t know of any), the above decay time will be measured for each isotopic species individually and independently from the others.
I agree that the system is linear, but Henry’s Law makes a differentiation for different species, but far less for different isotopes of the same species, as these follow the same chemical and solubility laws. Only the difference in molecular weight and resulting differences in kinetics play a role. See:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x653585vq7833876/
Thus applying 14CO2 as tracer simply follows the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere which is 12CO2 and 13CO2. As the extra 14CO2 didn’t contribute to the total mass of CO2, it doesn’t offer any insight in the fate of an increase of total CO2.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen (@368):
You’re missing my point, and your arguments do not support your conclusion:
We agree on this. The conclusion is that the three carbon isotopes (when in CO2 molecules) follow very (but not exactly) similar solubility and diffusion laws. This is a requirement if one of them is to act as a tracer for the others. So far, so good.
Again, agreed. This is simply a restatement of the above.
Here’s where you’ve taken an unmarked turn. Who cares what the total mass of CO2 is, or how much it is increased by a particular injection of excess CO2 (or whatever isotope)? Did I miss some statement where you show that the solubility and diffusion laws (e.g., Henry’s law + others) are different depending on the “total mass of CO2” in the atmosphere? As you have already admitted, these are linear laws hence don’t change due to concentration levels.
Here’s a more proper conclusion: Since the three isotopics of Carbon (in CO2) follow almost exactly the same laws, the response of any of them (or all of them together) to an injected excess in the atmosphere will be almost exactly the same. Because the laws are linear, we know that the response of each isotope is independent of the concentrations of the other isotopes.
If we inject excess amounts of all isotopes of CO2, then measure the recovery time of the atmosphere (as the excess amount is removed) we will have directly measured the item of interest: How long does it take the atmosphere to remove an excess of CO2?
If we inject an excess amount of any one of the three isotopes, and measure the decay time of that isotope, we will measure the same decay time.
Hence, the C14 Bomb Spike tracer experiment, that injected excess C14 in to the atmosphere and is measuring the removal time, does give (by your argument above, minus the wrong conclusion) the recovery time of the atmosphere to injected CO2.
00
MaryFJohnston at 367:
Again figures from assumptions.
Ferdinand why don’t you get big sheet of paper.
Take step back.
Sketch out the problem.
Already done:
Form Siddons work:
What Siddons does is looking at the emissions, and as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emisions, the other halve is removed in sinks. He takes that literally: halve the emissions and nothing else is removed. Thus the second year, the other halve is removed (if the sink rate remains the same) or a quarter if it was a linear reduction.
But nature doesn’t make any differentiation between natural or human CO2. Thus what is removed is not 50% of the human emissions of 4 ppmv only, but 0.5% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere of 400 ppmv. Thus for every year that humans add 4 ppmv, about halve of the same amount is removed out of the total mass, not from the original human emitted molecules.
Because about halve the added CO2 as mass remains in the atmosphere, the total mass increases, which pushes more CO2 into the oceans and vegetation. Thus over time, while the emissions increase, the sinks increase too. But what rests in the atmosphere also increases. The net result is that the increase in the atmosphere remained quite constant at about 50% of the human emissions (again as mass, no matter the origin). That is also what Knorr found…
I suppose that BobC will agree with me on this point…
00
BobC at 369
Here’s a more proper conclusion: Since the three isotopics of Carbon (in CO2) follow almost exactly the same laws, the response of any of them (or all of them together) to an injected excess in the atmosphere will be almost exactly the same. Because the laws are linear, we know that the response of each isotope is independent of the concentrations of the other isotopes.
There it goes wrong: for the same species but different isotopes, you can’t say that the response for each isotope is independent of the other isotopes, because the solubility coefficients are near equal. That means that it is the partial pressure difference between air and water of all isotopes together which governs the co2 exchanges, not that of the individual isotopes.
00
Given the required assumptions, I would agree.
One of those assumptions is that the current natural CO2 sources are insufficient (by about 0.5%) to maintain a constant CO2 level. If anthropogenic sources went to zero, CO2 concentrations would decline. Hence it is only anthropogenic sources that are creating the rise.
If that were true, I would expect to see stronger correlation between CO2 increases and anthropogenic sources. One would also expect to see an effect of rare natural events that release enormous amounts of CO2, like the artic tundra fires, on CO2 rates. No correlation is evident above the noise level of the measurement.
I also think that this scenario is precluded by the measurement of the CO2 cycle’s Impulse Response Function to extra CO2 added to the atmosphere (as I have argued before). For a half-life of 8 years, this requires >8% of the atmosphere’s CO2 to be removed per year. Thus I think it highly unlikely that the current situation results from a delicate natural balance upset by Mankind, but rather is due to robust natural CO2 sources that are slightly augmented by Human emissions. This would explain the lack of detectable correlation.
No, I don’t know what those natural sources are, but I would place outgassing from the oceans high on the suspect list.
00
You are misrepresenting Henry’s Law, which implies no such thing. Here is the statement of it by William Henry himself:
Note that is does not say “…the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas and any other gas with a similar (or even equal) proportionality constant ….” That would constitute a non linear modification of the law. To make this specific, you would have to specify (and experimentally verify) the interaction strength as a function of concentrations and difference in proportionality constants. I don’t suppose you have a proposed modification like that?
It is experimentally well verified that Henry’s Law holds for each gas independently of the concentration state of any other gas. This is why tracer measurements work (which have also been experimentally verified).
00
Ferdinand: I would also note that Henry’s Law can be derived from the kinetic theory of gases. Your non-linear proposed modification cannot.
00
I agree that Dietze’s calculation is simple and elegant. One of the inputs, however, is the assumption that the excess atmosphere concentration decays by ~2.4 Gt/year. He gets this from the assumption that Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current increases of CO2, and half of that (the 2.4 Gt) is removed each year. He then puts a 33% fudge factor in to cover other sinks than the oceans, and calculates his 38 year half-life.
His rate assumption suffers from the same problem I noted in post #372: Lack of any observed correlation between CO2 concentration rates and changes in emissions.
If you do the calculation backwards, and insert the (tracer) measured half-life of 8 years, the calculated (net) rate at which the atmosphere dumps CO2 to the oceans becomes ~12Gt/yr. This solution has the advantage of being based on measurements instead of guesses, and also explains the lack of correlation.
00
BobC at 373:
Henry’s Law:
Isotopic different versions of a molecule are the same gas (I was not alluding at a different molecule). The different versions have near the same chemical, physical and solubility parameters. The differences in these parameters are small, but may give some fractionation if passing physical borders (gas-liquid) or reaction speed for chemical reactions (but larger for biological reactions).
For e.g. 13CO2 vs. 12CO2, the fractionation gas – liquid is 2 per mil less 13CO2 (the opposite way it is 10 per mil), that gives a reduction in total 13CO2 of about 0.2%. Thus for Henry’s Law, there is little difference between 12CO2 and 13CO2 and the effects are from the sum of both.
00
BobC at 372:
If that were true, I would expect to see stronger correlation between CO2 increases and anthropogenic sources.
Most of the problems I have met in these discussions is that one is overfocused on the year by year increases. These show far more variability than the emissions. But that simply is noise, of which the cause is largely known: temperature variations. The effect can be calculated and is around 4 ppmv/degr.C around the trend. See e.g. the work of Pieter Tans (mid his speech for 50 years Mauna Loa measurements):
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Others also have made the same calculations.
But besides the variability caused by temperature (which largely levels out over a few years), we have the trend. And that one is caused by the emissions. Have a look at the correlation between the accumulation in the atmosphere and the accummulated emissions:
ftp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
That is a near fit…
and compare that with the influence of temperature on the CO2 increase:
ftp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
It is clear that temperature is not the driver of the trend: temperature changes of halve the scale have little effect on CO2 levels. Moreover, the global seasonal variability is good for 5-6 ppmv/degr.C and the ice cores show a ratio of 8 ppmv/degr.C on century to millenium scales.
It would be quite strange that CO2 would have a much higher sensitivity for temperature at decade to century scales as Salby now proposes.
00
Waffle at 365:
I’d like to see the C02 levels plotted against known C02 emissions. I know you’ve supplied something, but I can’t make heads or tails of the labeling. This means I don’t know what I’m looking at or where the data has come from so, ultimately, the graphs aren’t useful. If there is a correlation between man’s C02 output and global C02 levels then we could have something to go on. Specifically, the data needs to show and increase in atmospheric C02 at an increasing rate in line with industrial growth.
OK, need a few days for the repair of my computer, where most of the data and references are. Currently I can only access the graphs on the Net that I uploaded before for other discussions…
00
Ferdinand
You are too close to the topic.
Back off and start again from scratch.
You continue to use data, models and support material based on fudge factors and ASSUMPTIONS.
NOBODY knows that 50% of human CO2 remains active….. Nobody!
I have said this over many threads and posts; because IT IS ONLY A GUESS.
Guessing is not science.
00
Waffle at 365
Found a few data series in another discussion:
CO2 emissions:
fossil fuels: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
deforestation: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation_country.html
cement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Cement_Production.JPG
CO2 measurements at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_data
00
MaryFJohnston at 379
You continue to use data, models and support material based on fudge factors and ASSUMPTIONS.
NOBODY knows that 50% of human CO2 remains active….. Nobody!
The emissions are known (calculated from fossil fuel sales)
The increase in the atmosphere is measured
I never said or assumed that 50% of the human CO2 remains active.
Where are the fudge factors and assumptions?
00
Ferdinand,Mary F and Bob C @ above
Does the John Nicol analysis come into play here?
Nicol claims that extra CO2 cannot increase temperature. So in that sense it doesn’t really matter where it comes from?
00
I’m going to put on my alter ego and just ask this…
Is the argument that CO2 levels relate to temperature, and in fact if there were no human emissions then the “environment” would not be a sink and in fact would be a source… as the atmospheric concs are driven by temps and it is just a coincidence that the anthropogenic emissions are greater than the increase in atmospheric concentrations? Just a coincidence that can easily be ignorantly interpreted as anthrop emissions causing the rise?
00
Ferdinand in 381,
I am going to turn the tables on you here, what are your qualifications? Are you qualified to critique
Salby’s paper?
I dare the answer is no, therefore you are a denier of science go get a tattoo.
MattB in 383,
The argument is that man is virtually the sole contributer to the increase in CO2 and this is the cause of a modest rise in temps over the past 100 odd years or so say the IPCC. This study casts doubt on that theory by suggesting mans contribution to the increase in CO2 is almost immeasurable. Now you can still maintain the faith that the world is headed towards climmaggeddon but by us stopping our CO2 emissions will do absolutely nothing or as Flannery put it, it will be thousands of years before any difference is felt.
Any more stupid questions?
00
Crackar – I’ll just leave it at the one stupid question and see if anyone has a polite answer thanks.
00
Sorry if i bruised your alter ego MattB (not hard to get someones name right is it) but it is a stupid question.
You have a number of religious barriers in front of you that you need to discard before you can begin to understand the concept. The barriers include:
1, Al Gore lied to you in his movie when he said CO2 drives the temp
2, The hockey stick was nothing more than scientific fraud
3, The life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is not thousands of years (or whatever the IPCC have told you)
Once you have reconciled your self with this “NEW” religion you can start asking questions.
By the way in your religion my answer was not polite the reason being is because you see me as a heathen, an unbeliever, a devil worshipper etc but in the reality most people live in my response was perfectly acceptable. Once again you show yourself to be nothing but a preening faux intellectual.
00
“1, Al Gore lied to you in his movie when he said CO2 drives the temp”
Not seen the movie sorry.
“2, The hockey stick was nothing more than scientific fraud”
blah blah blah
“3, The life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is not thousands of years (or whatever the IPCC have told you)”
no one has said it is, especially not the IPCC.
00
Like i said
“You have a number of religious barriers in front of you that you need to discard before you can begin to understand the concept”
00
John Watt: @ 382
Of course the matter of whether CO2 is potent enough to do any harm is something I mention accasionally.
If we can use the GHG term.
The big daddy of GHGs is Water.
Followed by Natural CO2
and
Way back is man made CO2, if it can get a look in.
I have only been responding to Ferdinands comments which need to be put in perspective in case someone reads them who might be taken in by his mantra of “Man’s CO2 did it”.
We could fart, belch, burn coal and oil till we get tired of it. There would be no climate change resulting from our actions.
Chemical pollution is another matter and is a very serious issue which has been sidelined by the CO2 thing.
Now isn’t that curious? Wonder who benefits?
00
Re the Algorithym movie:
“”Not seen the movie sorry.”
Get it out, they’ve moved it to the comedy section now where I live.
Watch it with a few beers.
Heaps funny.
00
Doesn’t look right
May be Algorythm or Algorithm ??
Who cares He’s done for.
00
I shouldn’t get involved when I’m about to rush off to work but I can’t let my mate Matts polite request go unanswered at #383
Hi Matt
The simple answer is this.
The environment (oceans, biosphere etc) is both a sink and a source of atmospheric CO2. Almost always one is greater than the other.
The thing is, not a single person on this god given Earth yet knows about the CO2 cycle in detail. Not enough detail to be able to say if a 50,100 or even 200 year rise and or fall in atmospheric CO2 is the result of this that or the other.
We know generalities; yes. Details; definately no.
00
Re 382
Sorry, didn’t answer the question.
The density of CO2 concentration in the atm means that re-radiated IR energy from the ground, at the main CO2 absorption frequencies, can all be absorbed in the first 10 metres of air above ground.
Adding more CO2 simply allows this same amount of heat energy to be absorbed in maybe 9.5 metres.
There is no extra heat, it just concentrates a little quicker, expands the local parcel of air it’s in and rises to lose energy and blend with air higher up.
It makes no difference.
The only way we can get Catastrophic Global Warming is if the Sun pumps out more heat.
If the Earth tilts a bit differently to change total heat entry there could also be temperature consequences..
00
Bah in 392. Cheers but more specifically… as Ferdinand points out repeatedly, for all the unknowns in the cycle we KNOW the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and we KNOW the human emissions… thus we KNOW that the rise in concentration is less than human emissions and it is in that context that human emissions “look” like much more than a minor player. I’m trying to figure the sceptical argument here… hence wondering if the atmospheric concentration would be the same even if there were no Anthropogenic emissions.
00
MattB @ 394
Amazed.
You actually said something!!!!
“”hence wondering if the atmospheric concentration would be the same even if there were no Anthropogenic emissions””
00
MattyB; we DON’T know the human emissions; we don’t know how much is coming from land clearing; I’ve seen no studies which compare the CO2 uptake of new crops compared to established forest, or anything conclusive about cyanobacteria which are potentially one of the biggest and most living fluctuating sinks and which extent seems to be correlated with ACO2 emissions; and as Louis Hissinck noted, perhaps the biggest sink, ocean/mantle recycling is not considered in any discussion on CO2/ACO2 flux.
Ferdinand, as Mary notes, has a case based on assumptions.
00
What do you mean we don’t know how much is coming from land clearing. Our very own rocket scientist did the maths!
00
MattB
All we can do is get rough estimates of these CO2 related quantities.
As Ferdinand says, Human attributable CO2 is found by totaling all fossil fuel sales.
This is just one item and while it may be acceptable it mainly gives a Relative amount compared with previous years usage.
There are many billions of people whose sole means of cooking is scavenge and burn what’s available. That probably doesn’t get counted.
Still, when rough estimaytes are compared Natural CO2 is huge compared with MM CO2. 97 to 3 approx.
00
? Who’s measured crops compared with established forest?
00
MattB,
And after doing the math what did the rocket scientist conclude?
00
Mary @ 398
Animal flatulence produces Methane [natural gas].Is it counted as a fossil fuel and human attributable to CO2 levels?
00
“And after doing the math what did the rocket scientist conclude?”
The same as most of us… avoid an argument and just agree with the wife.
00
Kevin @ 401
Ha That’s a lawyer problem.
Some people use cow dung in small clay ovens to produce gas to cook from – just how well it works I don’t know but have seen it on TV.
In the end it doesn’t make much diff what the answer is.
H
Human activity pales compared with natures production of CO2 and H-C-H
H
00
CH4
00
[…] a full explanation and significance at Joanne Nova’s excellent blog. August 9th, 2011 […]
00
MattB: Pretending to be dumb (I assume you’re pretending?) is not a very effective argument. As you should know (indeed, anyone who can read should know), the issue is not the lifetime of a specific molecule, but how long an added amount of CO2 elevates the atmospheric concentration. The IPCC indeed does say that is hundreds to thousands of years. AGW scientists routinely publish unverified models as “proof”. ( Link )
When confronted with actual measurements demonstrating the models are wrong, AGW proponents routinely claim that scientific methodology and laws accepted for ~100 years either doesn’t exist or is wrong, because it contradicts their models.
Either this is the “big lie” technique, depending on the public’s ignorance of science, or they actually are astoundingly ignorant. (Or, perhaps, they are just desperate to maintain their sinecures during a recession.)
00
Yes Bob – you know that, I know that, Crakar doesn’t seem to. I’m more than happy with the IPCC, or rather the accepted scientific, version of events
00
Obviously, it would be different — since the inputs to the atmosphere would be different.
The interesting question is; How different?
My opinion (based on empirical evidence) is that Humans can affect the total atmospheric CO2 concentration by < 5%.
00
But if temp drives Atmospheric CO2 conc, then is it obvious? You are assuming things Mary would be critical of.
00
So just to confirm BobC you think that based on observation human emissions are only responsible for 5% of the post industrial rise, despite all the emissions. Emissions which are far in excess of the rise, have all been sunk in to the sink which has then via unrelated factors chosen to release a whole heap back… it’s a real stretch.
00
Crakar24 at 384
Ferdinand in 381,
I am going to turn the tables on you here, what are your qualifications? Are you qualified to critique
Salby’s paper?
Wow, a sceptic who appeals to authority? I am not that impressed by authority, even if one has 20 titles before and after his/hers name. Heard too many idiotic statements about a different subject (dioxin…) by professor Dr. X…
But if you are interested, here is my short CV:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/en_aut.html
00
Gosh, that’s a tightly-knit, logical argument. Perhaps you should hire yourself out to solve scientific problems based on your gut feel 🙂
Here it is, if you’re interested:
1)Recovery time of the atmosphere (to added CO2) is measured to be 8 years (half-life). See posts # 49, 309, 314, 339, etc.
2) Given this, it takes much more than human emissions can supply simply to keep CO2 concentrations from dropping. Hence, human emissions are only augmenting a much larger source of CO2. (See post #375 for a rough estimate that this source is at least 12Gt/y.)
3) 5% is a very rough estimate, based on a discrete simulation that adds the human contribution (from Wikipedia — don’t know how accurate that is) each year, and discounts by the yearly rate determined by the 8 year half life (about 8%/year). (I’m presuming you don’t want the Matlab code.)
PS I don’t know why you would think it strange that inputs to the atmosphere should be “far in excess” of the concentration rise — the IPCC estimates ~100Gt/y is input into the atmosphere, from the other reservoirs.
00
Ferdinand:
I have been making statements about Henry’s Law like:
I base these statements on the logical and mathematical statements of Henry’s Law.
You have been countering with statements like:
So,
Here’s a thought experiment (it could be done, though):
Expose water to a concentration of 13CO2 (no 12C), until it reaches equilibrium. Then quickly change the atmosphere over the water (this is in a closed system, obviously) to exactly the same concentration, but of 12CO2 only. What do you think happens?
Do you think that, because “12CO2 and 13CO2 are the same gas”, that nothing happens? That the isotopic concentrations remain fixed? That, somehow, the 12CO2 in the air prevents the 13CO2 in the water from leaving?
Here’s what Henry’s law says would happen:
1) The differential form of Henry’s Law says that the diffusion rate of a gas from water into the air is a function only of the concentration of the gas in the water (given the diffustion coefficient, which is constant for a constant temperature). Likewise, the rate at which the gas diffuses from the air into the water is a function of the concentration of the gas only in the air.
2) Hence, at time = 0 (atmosphere just exchanged) there will be diffusion of the 13CO2 from the water to the air, and diffusion of the 12CO2 from the air to the water.
3) As time progresses, a concentration of 13CO2 will build up in the air, producing (by Henry’s Law) a diffusion rate back into the water. Eventually, when the concentrations are equal in the water and the air, these two opposing rates will equal and the concentrations will remain fixed.
4) Precisely the opposite thing will happen to the 12CO2: Initially, the diffusion will be all from the air to the water. Eventually 12CO2 concentration in the water will equal that in the air and equilibrium will be reached.
NOTE: If you trace the concentration vs. time for 12CO2 and 13CO2 they will be the exact opposite of each other.
Each gas follows Henry’s Law independently of the other.
That’s what Henry’s Law says. Comments?
00
411Ferdinand Engelbeen:
August 9th, 2011 at 2:02 am
The KGB obviously believed “Dr. X” also — when they tried to assassinate Viktor Yushchenko (3rd president of Ukraine) with a massive dose of it, they only succeeded in giving him the world’s worst case of acne.
00
For a substance that decays exponentially, from initial value A0, according to the formula A = A0*exp(-t/a), then:
a is called the ‘time constant’. When t = a, the value of A is A0/e = ~0.37*A0
When t = ~0.7*a, then A = ~A0/2 — (since exp(-0.7) ~ 1/2) — so 0.7*a would be the “half-life”.
So, for example, if the time constant, a=11.4 years, then the half-life would be 0.7*11.4 = 8 years.
00
Siliggy:
Oops! Didn’t read your next post.
00
MattB
Asking :””But if temp drives Atmospheric CO2 conc”‘
Temp is not the only driver; but it is best to isolate effects when assessing them otherwise some people might get confused, or even misled.
But remember isolated effects (eg human co2) cannot have the entire effect attributed to them as
happens with CAGW themes (like forgetting water as a greenhouse gas, and forgetting that natural
CO2 is 30 times larger than human effect).
00
In the Church of AGW repeat this prayer:
“5% of the post industrial rise, “”
The important bit is the accumulation we humans are guilty of since we lit our first blast furnace
on the first of January 1850 at 8.00 am.
Sorry for the sarcasm but every scientist knows that the max half life of CO2 in the air
is 5 years which means that any CO2 from that blast furnace would have been gone in
10 years. Possibly absorbed within 12 months if the new analysis is relevant.
00
Ferdinand 411
An intersesting item & link.
Put my first green tick on your post.
I still think that deep inside your armory of weapons regarding understanding of
CO2 and global warming there are some things taken as “holy writ” which are based
on assumptions made by other people and presented as real.
The main problem I have is with the assumption made by others (and adopted by you) that 50% of human CO2, by subtraction and ignoring other possible factors, remains in air after absorption by sinks.
00
MattB @ 407:
I’m happier going with nature’s (not the magazine’s) version of events.
00
This is blasphemy and you are all climate infidels. What part of “the debate is OVER” didn’t you understand?
00
Al Gore is infallible in matters of faith.
00
Ferdinand in 411,
Now i have seen it all thanks for the laugh Ferdinand, where you gave the game away was when you debunked a paper you have not read that my friend is nothing more than faith.
I have debated your kind before (MattB here for example)but there are many others who claim to have an indepth knowledge of things to the point where they consider themselves to be the experts.
Salby makes claims in his brief podcast that you have failed to respond to, you wont respond to them because you have no answer so you just ignore them and continue to repeat the mantra “All CO2 is from man”.
I will acknowledge one thing Ferdinand you are a more pleasent believer than most.
Cheers
Crakar
00
Spencer actually commented on this two and a half years ago (jan 2008) … so is this really new research ?
00
Mary in 419 you say “The main problem I have is with the assumption made by others (and adopted by you) that 50% of human CO2, by subtraction and ignoring other possible factors, remains in air after absorption by sinks.”
But Ferdy isn’t saying it does remain in the air… what remains in the air is an amound of CO2 equivalent to about 50% of human CO2 emissions. We know that as we know human emissions and we know the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We are back to my beans in a bowl analogy.
00
Mary “Sorry for the sarcasm but every scientist knows that the max half life of CO2 in the air is 5 years which means that any CO2 from that blast furnace would have been gone in 10 years.”
Indeed – but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand which is increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
00
“But remember isolated effects (eg human co2) cannot have the entire effect attributed to them as
happens with CAGW themes (like forgetting water as a greenhouse gas, and forgetting that natural
CO2 is 30 times larger than human effect).”
lies lies lies lies lies, and more lies… is that all you have Mary. Oh yes and strawmen.
00
Hang on a second MattB lets not get ahead of ourselves, the IPCC and its followers (thats you) have created pretty graphs which show CO2 levels have not changed one iota for many, many years because the planet or as some call it Gaia was in perfect equilibrium. Then man began burning fossil fuels and the CO2 levels began to rise ergo man was increasing the CO2 content.
This CO2 will last in the ATM for hundreds upon hundreds of years which is why Flannery made the claim that even if we stopped emitting CO2 the temp would not begin to fall for a thousand years and whats more the temp would continue to rise until equilibrium is reached again.
There is another pretty little graph called MBH98 AKA the hockey stick, this shows us the temp going back about one thousand years and it shows us the temp had not changed one iota until man started to burn fossil fuel, this graph coupled with the CO2 graph clearly showed how mans CO2 emissions where drivng the temps. Throw in a mislabelled out of date ice core data graph from AL Gore and the science was/is settled.
Your only evidence to support this claim is a simple math equation of A – B = C, A being total global emissions, B being man made emissions and C being the difference. However when asked to provide material support for these assumptions you are left a mumbling and a fumbling. In other words the values for A and B are nothing but a guess therefore C is noting more than an arse pluck.
Enter the science
Salby has found it is impossible to distinguish between CO2 derived from plants, oceans and FF and the amount of co2 increase from year to year is less than your simple math equation, he has also found the largest sources of CO2 are NOT from industrialised areas of the globe. These two facts alone suggest your simplified version of events are wrong, but lets continue.
TQ has shown that the Sth Pole leads ML in CO2 rise but how can this be when a vast majority of CO2 emission is from the Nth Hemisphere? How can CO2 from the NH appear in the SH before it is emitted? Spencer chimes in with a similar opinion.
Now Mattb if you attempted to debate these points people would listen, people would appreciate your posts and more importantly for your ego you would recieve less thumbs down but you dont do this. You ignore these points and accuse people of lies and strawmen and people wonder why and conclude you ignore these points because it falsifies your position. So prove me and countless others wrong and address the issues presented by Jo, Salby, TQ and Spencer or continue to be known as a mindless warmbot, the choice is yours.
Crakar
00
MattB @427
I was going to something but I’m going to follow BobC’s example and be moderate.
So Matt, thank you for the comment.
00
To the IPCC followers on this blog logical thought would prohibit the CO2 in the atmosphere from having any effect at all. The misnomer of the green house effect is at odds with reality, take a ride through our solar system and you will find that the heat of a planet has diddly squat to do with the composition of the atmosphere but its depth. The atmosphere acts not as a green house but as a blanket, put on more blankets and you are warmer. The atmosphere inhibits the loss of heat in the hours of darkness, toss in a liquid water ocean and you have a heat bank, throw in the latent heat from ice to water to vapour and mixed with the circulatory atmosphere you have.
The largest unplumbed chaotic heat pump in the world that gives us climate and weather in all its glory.
CO2 is irrelevant for climate but essential for life, our body holds in our lungs artificially much higher concentration than the atmosphere for our well being. Plants in all their glory revel in a much higher level of CO2. Logic would have us believe we all evolved in a much higher level of CO2 and we have all been deprived.
00
MaryFJohnston:
August 9th, 2011 at 8:58 am
….
Sorry for the sarcasm but every scientist knows that the max half life of CO2 in the air
is 5 years which means that any CO2 from that blast furnace would have been gone in
10 years. Possibly absorbed within 12 months if the new analysis is relevant.
Oh dear – this takes the usual confusion over the half-life of a pulse of CO2 and the average life-time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to a new level.
To illustrate the difference let’s imagine a pre-industrial time where there are 600 units of CO2 in the atmosphere. During the annual carbon cycle, 120 units are emitted from the biosphere…and 120 units are absorbed. First thing(s) to notice here are:
1. Co2 in the atmosphere doesn’t change – it remains in equilibrium at 600 units.
2. The average life-time of a unit in the atmosphere is 5 years.
Suppose we now introduce a new (non-naural) source of CO2 which adds 2 units a year (less than 2% of the natural emissions). The carbon cycle continues whereby 120 units are emitted and 120 units are absorbed but the atmospheric level has increased to 602 units. After 10 years the level is 620 units and after 100 years it’s 800 units. Second thing to notice:
Even though the non-natural source is less than 2% of the natural source, it has, over time, increased the atmospheric concentration by 33%.
Things are a bit more complicted than I’ve just described but that’s the basic concept in a nutshell.
The 2 things you are confusing are:
1. The average time an individual ‘unit’ spends in the atmosphere which is still only a few years and
2. The time taken to remove the excess 200 units (800-600) from the atmosphere.
I haven’t discussed (2) but this will depend on observed decay rates. Using available data I reckon the ‘half-life’ of the excess is 35-40 years. This doesn’t necessarily mean all 200 units will be gone in 70-80 years (though most will be) – the decay curve has a long tail. Theoretically it could take a couple of hundred years for complete removal but to all intents and purposes we’d be back to within a few ppm of pre-industrial levels long before then.
00
Wayne, s. Job: @ 430
Liked that.
00
John Finn: @ 431
I noticed your first comment where you seemed a little distressed:
“”Oh dear – this takes the usual confusion over the half-life of a pulse of CO2 and the average life-time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to a new level. “”
Please , please don’t worry , it’s all OK.
The half life I was using, 5 years, it may be 8 who cares, refers to the capacity of nature to Develop and Build a Sink for the annual Additional CO2 from human sources.
It has been variously reported as about 5 yeas.
New work indicates it may be much more rapid, who cares , we don’t need to rush things since extra CO2 is good for us and plants.
So, what happens is that each year we sum up the new CO2 input and track it through as it is absorbed.
After about 10 years it is gone, finished, no more.
But we do have the next years CO2 to deal with and likewise this decays to nothing in 10 years.
Yes, there is a buildup of CO2 but even this would attract a new sink to deal with that excess.
The sinks (soil bacteria, Coca Cola factories, vegetation and trees ) do respond rather quickly
to increases in CO2 so the residual Human CO2 from the industrial revolution accumulation
is about or very close to ZERO or NIL.
So: No Worries mate.
00
John Finn @ 431
After reading the rest of the comments I must admit the I Can’t Really Accept that Post.
The collection of cliches might seem scientific to someone without science training but it really fails abysmally.
My sincere advice would be to find a good science tutor who could help you gain entry to a University science degree course where, in a few years, your skills could be improved out of sight.
Good luck.
00
UNIPCC Draft Report 564d Aug 2011 New York.
The New Glass and Tin Can Sink
The UN IPCC has authorised the supply of free carbonated beverages in all developing countries in a desperate attempt to tie up 3.5 GtC over the next year.
It is known that the CO2 tied up in the bottles and cans prior to use represents a sink of enormous magnitude that can’t be ignored.
It is suggested that in wealthy countries people could assist by storing half a dozen cans in the kitchen as a permanent sink.
00
KR asks the correct question finally, as to what we would do if human CO2 production was the cause of significant global warming with significant adverse effects. We would act to limit production to the extent that it would negate the adverse effects subject to a proper risk assessment and subsequent cost/benefit analysis.
Firstly, the risk analysis would require certainty not only of warming, but to what extent. As such, the positive feedbacks claimed would require the same level of scrutiny as the principle of global warming via human CO2 production, in order to ascertain the impact. This leads into the benefit of mitigating action, to be compared against the cost of doing so.
All costs and benefits can be quantified to some extent, so no matter how bad global warming may be at a given extent, any cost is comparable. A trillion $ of benefit still ain’t worth it if it costs 2 trillion $ to achieve it, no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel inside. That said, it’s easy to feel warm and fuzzy inside with other people’s money.
00
A bit more complicated? Mate, your model is completely aphysical and impossible in the real world. I would say quite a bit more complicated.
To wit: It is impossible to increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 without also increasing most (if not all) sink rates. Henry’s law would mandate that absorption rates by the ocean would be linearly related to atmospheric concentration, and biosphere growth would also increase absorption, perhaps not linearly.
Your assumption of stability of a delicate balance is highly unlikely, given our knowledge of past climate and CO2 concentrations. Why make such an assumption?
But, you don’t need to make up fictional, impossible models to know how this works — it can be directly measured — see posts # 49, 309, 314, 339, among others. The result is that atmospheric concentration of CO2 recovers from an input pulse with a half-life of ~8 years.
00
BobC at 413:
Sorry for the delay, indeed still have (sometimes) another life besides reacting on three blogs on the same subject…
But thanks for your example, that is very clear and gives a good insight of what happens with different isotopes when the pressure differences ar zero. I agree that what you wrote is what will happen when enough time is given for the exchange. There I was wrong.
The problem is in the time frame. If the pressure difference is zero, there is no extra driving force and any exchange is purely by diffusion (which is very slow for CO2 in water).
But let us consider the same example, where you start with 100% 13CO2 in the water and 100% 12CO2 in air, but the p12CO2 in air is twice the p13CO2 in water. That drives 12CO2 at double speed into the water, compared to 13CO2 getting out. Thus the increase of 13CO2 in the atmosphere is halve the speed of the increase of 12CO2 in the water, until the equilibrium for 12CO2 is reached. After a (much) longer period, the 13CO2 will also reach equilibrium.
I am not sure in how far 14CO2 follows the throughput, compared to the real sink rate (hope that KR will give a better explanation when he is back), but there are two additional problems for the 14CO2 life time:
1. The total amount of 12/13CO2 increased over time, concurrent with the decrease in 14CO2. That dilutes the 14C/12C ratio and substantially shortens the real half life time. The increase since 1960 is about 36%.
2. The 14CO2 content of the added fossil fuels CO2 is virtually zero. Even if it is only 3% of the inflows, the accumulation in the atmosphere is substantial (around 9% nowadays), thus again shortens the real half life time.
I am computer handicapped for the moment, can you calculate how the real half life time lengthens because of these two points?
00
Presumably, the warmists will look to discredit him as a scientist now. He is obviously a tool of _________ (the Republican Party, oil companies, OPEC, Zionists) in denying the truth of carbon dioxide causing global warming. How can he possibly deny carbon dioxide causing gloabl warming when _____________ (all real scientists accept man-made global warming, the hot weather in the U.S. this summer proves man-made global warming, increased snowfall in the Northern U.S. proves global warming, lack of snowfall in the U.S. and Britain proves global warming).
00
Crakar24 at 423:
Salby makes claims in his brief podcast that you have failed to respond to, you wont respond to them because you have no answer so you just ignore them and continue to repeat the mantra “All CO2 is from man”.
and from 424:
Salby has found it is impossible to distinguish between CO2 derived from plants, oceans and FF and the amount of co2 increase from year to year is less than your simple math equation, he has also found the largest sources of CO2 are NOT from industrialised areas of the globe. These two facts alone suggest your simplified version of events are wrong, but lets continue.
Well Salby is right and wrong: it is impossible to distinguish between fossil fuels and vegetation decay based on the 13C/12C ratio (the oceans can be excluded, these have a quite different ratio). But it is possible to distinguish between the two on the 14C/12C ratio: fossil fuels don’t contain 14C, new vegetation does. Further, it is possible to know if the biosphere is a net sink or source of CO2, based on the oxygen use. That shows that the biosphere is a net source of oxygen, thus more CO2 uptake than decay (the “greening earth”), preferably more 12CO2, thus leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. But we see a decline in 13C/12C in the atmosphere, thus only fossil fuel burning is responsible.
If Salby had read the literature over the last decade, he should have known that. You even don’t need a title of professor to do that, a computer with Internet connection and Google is sufficient:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.abstract (free abstract) and
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/25_Partition.pdf
But as we didn’t see the article/book or graphs by Salby yet, I am very interested where his knowledge is based on…
TQ has shown that the Sth Pole leads ML in CO2 rise but how can this be when a vast majority of CO2 emission is from the Nth Hemisphere? How can CO2 from the NH appear in the SH before it is emitted? Spencer chimes in with a similar opinion.
TQ had a serious problem to show the lag (graphs 18 and 19 in his article): he finds a lag of the NH after the SH, but his method doesn’t distinguish between zero lag, or any multiple of 12 months lag. In reality, the SH lags the NH with 12-24 months for CO2 levels and 5-10 years for d13C levels, as we (Jack Barrett and I) wrote in E&E, based on the real world data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
Dr. Spencer (who I respect on other matters) made the same mistake…
00
BobC at 437:
But, you don’t need to make up fictional, impossible models to know how this works — it can be directly measured — see posts # 49, 309, 314, 339, among others. The result is that atmospheric concentration of CO2 recovers from an input pulse with a half-life of ~8 years.
Whatever the supposed half-life deduced from the fate of 14C is, the real sink rate can be directly calculated from the emissions and the increase in the atmosphere. That is currently about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv per year) at the current difference between what is found in the atmosphere and what the equilibrium level is/was. If we should stop all emissions today, that would give a 4 GtC sink or about 0.5% of the atmospheric CO2 (or 2% of the extra input) in the first year, etc… Anyway that takes a lot longer than 8 years to halve the extra CO2…
00
I would say that both isotopes would decay with the same half-life (~8 years). Since the p12CO2 starts out twice the p13CO2, it will always remain twice, as the two decay. So, wherever the p13CO2 is today, the p12CO2 will be there 8 years from now (and the p13CO2 will then be half as much).
Although the absolute rates will always be different, the time constant of the decay will be (almost) the same.
To do justice to the calculations you suggest, I think one would need to know what the historical concentrations of C14 were (it’s not totally constant, but varies with cosmic ray intensities, etc.) Right now, I’m playing hookey from work and have to get back.
00
MattB @ 425:
MattB, how do you know what is the percentage of CO2, in the air, that is due to humans?
That does not tell us the percentage.
00
mattB
Thru 443
“”But Ferdy isn’t saying it does remain in the air… what remains in the air is an amound of CO2 equivalent to about 50% of human CO2 emissions.””
Matt that deceptiveness of that statement can best be illustrated by analogy.
OK Analogy;
MattB weighs as much as one one hundredth of an average elephant.
You could reinforce the message by saying ” One average elephant weighs about as much as 100 MattBs.
Naturally you would say “that is ridiculous”, the two things have nothing to do with each other.
You would be correct.
Likewise, measuring global atmos CO2 increase in “Human CO2 Emission Units’ is equally flawed.
And then you wonder why this happens, what is the motive or intention???
Is there an answer Matt?
00
No Mary… the analogy is:
If that elephant walks on some scales and scales read “1 elephant unit”.
Then I stand on the scales as well and they read “1.01 elephant units”
Then I am responsible for 100% of the 0.01, I am not responsible for 1/101 of the 0.01.
If we were standing on a bridge that had an upper capacity of “1 elephant”, and it broke, then I would be entirely responsible for the collapse of the bridge, even though I was only contributing 1/101th of the load on the bridge.
00
“You could reinforce the message by saying ” One average elephant weighs about as much as 100 MattBs.
Naturally you would say “that is ridiculous”, the two things have nothing to do with each other.
You would be correct.”
I can’t be the only person here who thinks that saying “One average elephant weighs about as much as 100 MattBs” would be perfectly appropriate way of discussing the weight of an elephant. I would absolutely not even for one second consider saying “that is ridiculous”. I’d say “good description, that means a lot more to me than just saying “elephant ways X tonnes”.
00
ways… oh dear.
00
Re Matts Efluent analogy
“”If we were standing on a bridge that had an upper capacity of “1 elephant”, and it broke, then I would be entirely responsible for the collapse of the bridge, even though I was only contributing 1/101th of the load on the bridge.””
Spoken like a true warmer, well done.
00
If
You are under 30 you have a problem.
If you are over 55 it’s OK it happens to all of us.
The brain detects the sound and has two option: mass equivalent or a pathway.
Just a little plaque blocking the nervous system but its normal.
“”ways… oh dear.””
00
Mary in 448… the elephant can’t read the warning sign… it’s just crossing a bridge as it has done so for years. Are you saying it’s the elephant’s fault?
I’m looking forward to being 55 so I can just blame it on age:)
00
MattB @450
The good news for all of us is that the brain keeps repairing pathways well into old age and just builds around the plaques associated with ALZ 🙂
The only condition to that is we need to keep our brain active and doing New things.
I’ll have to check with BobC on that warning sign business – I’m not sure we can accept that, but it was funny.
00
MattB in 445 and various other posts,
If said elephant weighed 1 unit and you weighed 0.01 unit you might have a case but what if you had your head stuck up the elephants arse? You would then together weigh 1.01 units and you would cause the bridge to collapse….correct?
00
FE in 440,
TQ has shown using the 14C isotope that there is a delay of up to 6 months in the mixing of co2, am i reading this right?
Why do you say in 440
Please explain
Cheers
Crakar
00
@ 452
Hi Crakar24:
I didn’t think Americans were that expressive Crackar.
Now if the elephant was full of CO2 it wouldn’t blow the bridge.
00
I am not American which may explain your confusion.
By the way i have a joke for Kevin Moore if he is watching
Q, Why does Israel refuse to become the 51st state?
A, Because then they would only have two Senators
00
Isn’t the elephant in the room; how much of the elephant’s weight caused by humans?
I aweight your replies…….
00
MFJ,
I beg to differ on the elephant, they are after all full of methane and as we all know methane is 20,000 odd times more powerful than CO2……………
00
Mark D,
Correct the elephant is in the room but nobody likes to talk about it and yes you are correct again when you say the elephants weight is caused by humans as weight is a human construct….mass however is another thing so what is the mass of MattB’s elephant?
00
I aweight your replies…….
Come on , enough of the “weigh” jokes
How many senators do they have now?
00
Crakar, weight a minute are you saying that without human thought we’d be weightless?
Heavy man, really heavy……..
00
MFJ 459,
All but one.
00
Mark D,
The correct phrase is Massive man, really massive but as MFJ says enough with the whey jokes.
00
curds to you man….
00
Crakar24
Pleased to see that you got that weight of numbers off Mary’s mind.
00
Re 461
It must be a heavy weight on the shoulders of that one man out?
How does he cope.
00
Mary @ 465
The elephant lets him ride.
00
And the peer-reviewed paper on this “science” is found … where ???? In order for Salby to be right he’ll need to overturn a lot of science.
From the podcast it seems like he’s highlighting natural variability and saying “hey, manmade emmissions are smooth therefore we can’t be to blame”. Fooled by his own dumb expectations I expect. Time will tell.
Plenty of science from many sources already show CO2 is now at levels not seen for more than 800,000 years. Coincidence?
I’m skeptical of Salby’s claims, but hey Nova, others, go ahead and swallow it all without question if that’s your idea of being “skeptical”.
00
Crakar24 at 453:
More explanation of the error by TQ:
He correctly shows that the 14C spike of the nuclear bomb tests needed 6 months to reach the SH from te tests in the NH.
He then looks at the variability of CO2 and d13C between the hemispheres, but he doesn’t do that on the real figures, but on the yearly variation in measurements. There is no need to do that as the question of what leads what is about the real data, not their variation. That is the first point.
Then, the method he used looks over a year, but can’t make a differentiation between a lag of zero or 12 month or 24 months,… Neither if a lag was 3 months or 15 months or 27 months…
Thus a real lag of the SH of 21 months may show up as a negative lag of 3 months, which gives the false conclusion that the SH leads the NH.
00
I’m looking forward to being 55, as soon as I get my time machine to work. (Don’t tell Lionell!)
Are you talking about the warning signs of ALZ? Why would you ask me, anyway?
Wait … what was the question again?
00
[…] seems poor Al can’t win the propaganda war and he’s a bad loser to boot. But in the face of stuff like this, no […]
00
Anybody who believes that CO2 is a pollutant has a moral obligation to stop breathing. With every exhalation s/he is destroying the planet.
00
BobC,
I think that I have found again another source of the discrepancy between the fate of 14CO2 as turnover tracer and/or as excess decay tracer.
Some time ago, I made an estimate of the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges to explain the difference in 13C isotope drop in the atmosphere between what was expected from fossil fuel burning and what was observed. Part is in what really sinks in the ocean surface and vegetation, but a large part of what is absorbed there comes back in another season. Not so for the deep oceans: what sinks in the NE Atlantic, comes back hundreds of years later (probably mixed with other waters) in the Pacific equator. Thus the current 14C/12C ratio goes down in the deep, while the pre-bomb ratio (slightly depleted by the time frame) comes back now.
Here the chart of the calculations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
That should mean that some 40 GtC on 800 GtC in the atmosphere is exchanged with 14CO2, from the pre-bomb tests, or a throughput of 5% per year, again diluting the 14CO2 signal…
00
I must apologise to BobC as during your absence the debate stooped
to a discussion about elephants , bridges, weight, elephants with human induced
hemorrhoids, and very PC warning signs about bridge capacity.
Sorry I’ll try to not let it happen again.
00
FE in 468,
Ok lets both agree on this, but then…..
Let me explain how figure 18 works as you seem a little confused by what it represents. Firstly lets look at the seasonal variation of CO2. The amount of CO2 measured at ML for example waxes and wanes over the course of one year primarily due to the changes of the seasons lets assume this CO2 is a natural occurence but the overall total (PPM)rise is due to an addition of CO2 to the system.
We know that over 95% of CO2 is released in the NH so this 95% should dominate global measurements let us also assume that during the summer months in the NH CO2 levels drop and during the winter months they rise see fig 12 of TQ’s pdf. Therefore we can assume that NH CO2 measurements will drop in JAN, FEB and say MAR but begin to rise for the next 6 months and then begin to fall again as the NH approaches its next winter.
If there was a 6 month lag in NH CO2 reaching the SH as we both agree on then (in theory) when the NH CO2 measurements are low and beginning to rise (JAN thru APR say) the SH CO2 measurements should be high and dropping over the same period, or to put it another way out of phase by 180 degrees. TQ has found this is not the case and in fact it would appear as though the NH and SH CO2 levels are in phase.
Possible conclusions could be that the delay is 12 months but even you yourself accept it is only 6 months so that is not the case, also if there was a delay of 12 months, 24 months, 36 months etc then you would see a discrepency between the two measurements ie the SH would continually record a lower level of CO2 than the NH once again i do not believe this to be the case. The other possibility is that as TQ has said CO2 is being released naturally on a global scale.
I see no reason why TQ was in error by using year to year data as opposed to your preferred method of total figures do you agree?
00
Crakar24 at 474:
Crakar, one can’t deduce the lag of a variable by looking at the variability of a variable.
Especially not in this case, as the seasonal variation in the NH and the SH are more or less opposite of each other. Here a few years of seasonal variation as seen in the real data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
The South Pole and Samoa (SH near the equator) clearly lag the NH stations in average CO2 level, and to catch the same CO2 level, the variability need to be shifted for some 12 months lag for Samoa (which receives some NH air in the seasons when the ITCZ is in southern positions) and 18 months lag for the South Pole.
00
Crakar at 474:
In addition, look again at the graphs in #440, the South Pole data show a continuous lag vs. the NH stations, as well as for the CO2 data as for the d13C decline. Different stations, even within one hemisphere, show different lags, because of mixing speed of air layers and altitude differences. But the ITCZ forms a relative strong barrier for the exchange of air between the NH and the SH.
00
Sean McHugh at 443:
MattB, how do you know what is the percentage of CO2, in the air, that is due to humans?
One can calculate that from the exchange rate and year by year emissions, but that is not that easy, because what is absorbed by the oceans surface and vegetation in one season comes in part back in another season. One can measure the decline in 13C/12C ratio, and that gives a better idea of how much of original aCO2 is left in the atmosphere, I thought that currently it was about 9%.
00
C14 is interesting. Five minute thought:
other source of > 6000 year carbon
how about co2 out of the ocean, dissolution and the hydration of
carbonates.
Over all this debate there is the notion that more co2 is actually good.
A big alarmist push is Antarctica melting, as heating is not so bad 75m sea
rise is!
But have you ever thought about how and when Antarctica melts?
Google Antarctica and find out about the seasonal surface temperatures
and how ice leaves the continent.
00
That mass balance argument is hogwash.
You don’t do mass balances when you don’t know he processes involved
5 gt human emission versus 160 gt each side of sink/source.
5 gt represents a 3 per cent deviation in this process.
And you think this net zeros all the time, despite el ninos, al ninas, volcanos,
mass forest fires etc, soil environments.
What about the idea that C4 photosynthesis vacuums a scarce resource out of the
atmosphere. Thus what we see as a 300ppmv trace gas just shows the efficiency
of the co2 removal (plant food) of the environment. That is a new 5 gt source is quicky
countered with a new sink (the planet thanks you very much).
00
Ferdinand
What year did this accumulation commence?
“””I thought that currently it was about 9%”””
00
MaryFJohnston at 478:
Ferdinand
What year did this accumulation commence?
Until about 1850, there was some natural variability, as can be seen in coralline sponges (following the changes in the upper ocean layer) and ice cores (for the atmosphere). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The calculation, based on 13C/12C ratio is here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
where FA is the % human CO2 in the atmosphere, FL in the oceans surface and TCA total CO2 in the atmosphere.
00
Interesting idea, Chris. I’ve have read (but can’t find the reference, currently) that the CO2 concentrations plummeted (and haven’t recovered) coincident with the evolution and widespread dispersal of grasses. The idea is that grasses account for the vast majority of leaf area on the planet, and are responsible for the evolution of C4 photosynthesis — any plants that didn’t shift, went extinct as the competition for CO2 exploded.
00
Ferdinand @481
I would agree with you that: “” the % human CO2 in the atmosphere” “is FA “.
As you have probably noticed I have not become involved in the Isotope discussion for a couple of reasons.
It would take too much effort to sort it out. Also I am looking at the “gross” aspects of the problem first and while the isotope issue is no doubt interesting my time is best spent in areas I am better equipped to understand and where I feel there is more payoff.
00
chris price CHCH NZ:
@479
Yep.
The error limits automatically put the human 5 GtC in the “too small to be important factor” basket.
I’ve been pushing this back at FE for what now seems like forever.
Still no self appraisal of analysis there.
00
I discovered a new factoid the other day. C4 is only 2 per cent of all photosynthesisors
and yet it eats most of the carbon in the air. WOW
What we have here is a reaction whose equilibrium is right at the sugar in plant side.
An analogy would be the best vacuum apparatus.
The 300 ppmv figure is just the residual what cannot be grabbed from the C4 stegmata
biological mechanism. Here nature uses some precious sunlight energy to concentate
c02 for the plant’s photosynthesis apparatus.
So this 300 ppmv figure just blows in the wind, its probably being going up as the
bounce from the little ice age.
Such thoughts are so NOT PC.
Again mass balance arguments are nonsense when the product reactants are consumed
100 per cent. The five year resident time in the atmosphere is probably dispersal time
from carbon source to sink.
00
Folks do you realise the implications of deviations in the net balance of 160 giga tonne
carbon cycle?
What if we have 5 percent deviate both sides opposite.
That’s a 16 gt net gain/loss for a year!!!
As the planet’s co2 ppmv curve goes along without so much as a up to 3 ppmv increment
out of 300 ppmv maxium as Salby noted.
That is a at maximum 1 per cent net gain in residual co2 conc.
Does that not hammer home the idea that co2 is a scarce resource that the planet sucks
up, and that 5 gt new addition is nothing to the planet.
These sorts of self analyses should tell you something.
Those that don’t are not equipped to debate. Go back to your liberal readings.
00
The arguement about sources and sinks of CO2 began with NASA expostulating a conundrum that CO2 causes global warming.
It’s a joke!
00
An Earlier post to John Finn: @ 431
Comment – “”Oh dear – this takes the usual confusion over the half-life of a pulse of CO2 and the average life-time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to a new level. “”
Reply: – Please , don’t worry , it’s all OK.
The half life I was using, 5 years, it may be 8 who cares, refers to the capacity of nature to Develop and Build a Sink for the annual Additional CO2 from human sources.
It has been variously reported as about 5 years.
New work indicates it may be much more rapid, who cares , we don’t need to rush things since extra CO2 is good for us and plants.
So, what happens is that each year we sum up the new CO2 input and track it through as it is absorbed.
After about 10 years it is gone, finished, no more.
But we do have the next years CO2 to deal with and likewise this decays to nothing in 10 years.
Yes, there is a buildup of CO2 but even this would attract a new sink to deal with that excess.
The sinks (soil bacteria, Coca Cola factories, vegetation and trees ) do respond rather quickly
to increases in CO2 so the residual Human CO2 from the industrial revolution accumulation
is about or very close to ZERO or NIL.
So: No Worries mate.
Passed thru CH CH in about 1970
00
chris price CHCH NZ: @ 486
yep again
Debating the side issues is interesting but any analysis must begin by out lining all possible factors and attempting to quantify them.
An earlier comment from FE in relation to the amt of residual human CO2 was this :
“””I thought that currently it was about 9%”””
How on earth do you get this?????
I am not going to get involved with FE in a discussion over tracing isotopes when you cant even be sure you have all the isotopic sources tagged properly.
Knowing a little bit about CO2 sources and sinks is the same as knowing a little about isotope sources and sinks. Indefinite guesstimates.
CO2 uptake by plant and soil microbial activity will respond very rapidly with sufficient heat and solar. ie a self limiting system.
00
Hi Chris
“So this 300 ppmv figure just blows in the wind, its probably being going up as the
bounce from the little ice age””
Also on a slightly wider perspective going back to the last ice out max about 18,000 years ago we can see the current situation as the final tail-out of the big melt.
The fact that this process was violently dynamic was illustrated by the local sea level having a temporary max about 1.5 metres above present. That flux occurred between abt 6,000 and 4,500 years ago.
The biosphere is an acytive, violent place chemically and physically.
Nit picking by IPCC and AGW followers over man made CO2 is so stupid; unless you stand to benefit in some way from maintenance of the misinformation.
00
The ratio of the three isotopes rapidly change seasonally due to the C4 crops, Sugar Cane, Maize etc during harvest – and the data Ferdinand Engelbeen supplies doesn’t take into account the 1950’s, 1960,s and 1970,s when sugar cane was burnt off. Using this data to justify the % human CO2 in the atmosphere is flawed as the C4 and CAM pathways of plants are capble of rapid isotope absorption campared to C3 plants. (also C4 plants can survive on less water and higher temperatures)
CO2 (doesn’t matter which isoptope) is a molecule in high demand – and we need as much as we can get for all the earth – especially Australia. C4 plants started their rise approx 6 million years ago when they now utilise some 30% of the earths (plant use) CO2 – yet only are approximately 3% of the total number of plant species on earth.
More CO2 needed NOW!
00
Dave
I have been trying to get someone to quantify the capacity of VEG to create new/ additional sinks.
This stuff is on target and helps demolish FEs ideas of residual human CO2.
00
MaryFJohnston
The assumption by John Finn on no increase in CO2 sinks (correctly squashed by BobC at 442) is totally wrong with an increase globally of C4 & CAM plants of between 2% and 3% per annum. The ability for these to respond to the CO2 concentrations is rapid (esp when competing with C3 plants). And as to FE correlating 12,13,&14 CO2 isotope ratios in justifing residual human CO2 %, with NH and SH is flawed totally as these 1/2 lives are variable depending on the major food group harvesting world wide (maize, sugar cane etc) as it is totally seasonal in the NH & SH. Residual human CO2 percentages would be absorbed through increased C4 plant densities.
As chris price CHCH NZ says at 479
00
Dave
It is intuitively obvious, for all those who mow lawns, that vegetation can grow rapidly under the right conditions: access to sunlight and water and now in the shadow of the AGW controversy: CO2.
Now to have comment on “12,13,&14 CO2 isotope ratios” in relation to plants growth and the info that “these 1/2 lives are variable depending on the major food group harvesting ” makes FEs assumptions unsustainable.
Good stuff.
00
Of course Mary – the enlightned lawnmowers amogst us. Well I’ve been moving lawns for the best part of 30 years and I can assure you there is no observation from lawnmowing that has any relevence about the merits and cons of AGW science.
00
MattB @ 495
It is no surprise that you would confirm your understanding of the scientific process by saying:
“”I can assure you there is no observation””.
This is to be expected of AGW advocats.
00
Lawns new C4 species increase CO2 absorption by 30%
The C4 plant cycle increase (in western world) has been driven by economics – most of the lawns now are C4 plants species (Sir Walter – buffalo etc) because they thrive on low CO2 and minimal water. This includes commercial food crops (sugar cane, maize etc) being cheaper to produce. The residual CO2 % from human emmissions (so small a joke) is still being investigated by the IPCC. And above MattyB’s comment
shows the ignorance in understanding of plant physiology pathways in this subject. Don’t even mention CAM plants (pineapples, Aloe’s and probably the majority of weed species) – yet the CAM pathway plant absorbs CO2 at night without sunlight. The change alone world wide from C3 to C4 lawns has had hugh influence in climate – yet the above Bus Conductor is suddenly and expert in the Carbon pathway in the plant world. An average lawn (100 square meters) provides enough O2 to support 4 humans over 24 hours. Guess what lawn needs to produce O2? The cooling effect of grasses I’ll leave for later.
30 years of lawnmowing and now an expert in Climate Science – Yes?
00
chris price CHCH NZ at 486:
Chris, the 5% (actually not more than 2%) variability around the trend indeed is variability around the trend, nothing to do with the cause of the trend itself. The variations up and down largely cancel each other if you look at the trend over 2-3 years and longer. The trend simply follows the emissions with an incredible fixed ratio of about half the emissions. The emissions nowadays are twice the increase rate in the atmosphere and twice the variability around the increase rate.
Thus whatever the natural processes involved, nature only follows the increase rate of the emissions at 50%, not 100%.
To give a comparison, why the variability of a variable is not important at all: the increase or decrease in sealevel needs some 25 years to statistically separate the few mm change from the meters of variability caused by waves, tides, storm surges,…
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 498
.
Over what time period and data to support this please? Especially the NATURE part of your comment?
00
MaryFJohnston at 492/
I have been trying to get someone to quantify the capacity of VEG to create new/ additional sinks.
Try CO2 science, they have a good overview of a lot of tests of different crops/trees with elevated CO2. Average increase in ideal circumstances (nutrition, water,…) some 50% more yield for 2xCO2. In the real world, the circumstances are mostly not ideal, thus less yield. Thus a 100% increase in CO2 doesn’t give a 100% increase in the biosphere sink capacity. The real sink rate, based on oxygen decline measurements is about 20% of the emissions in mass.
No matter which type of crops do the job, both C3 and C4 plants prefer 12CO2, but there is a difference in preference (-25 vs. -15 per mil d13C). Thus anyway, the total biosphere removes more 12CO2 out of the atmosphere (which is at -8 per mil d13C), while fossil fuel burning enriches the atmosphere with 12CO2. The latter is observed. That makes that the biosphere is not the source of the increase in the atmosphere (it is a net sink), neither of the d13C decline.
Neither are the oceans (d13C level from zero to +5 per mil), because that would increase the d13C level, but we observe a decrease.
00
Dave at 499:
At least over the past 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
Look at the green part: the variability (mostly a rapid response to -ocean- temperature changes) in sink capacity levels off in a few years. The largest influences are from the 1992 Pinatubo eruption and the 1988 El Nino, but there is no visible increase or decrease in natural variability over 50 years. The trend in emissions, increase in the atmosphere and increase in sink capacity follow each other at a near constant ratio.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Data source please!
Data source please!
Data source please!
And for MattyB
No data required from you on this outstanding observation!
And to add more – MattyB this is not good – are you sure you’re not over 55 yet
“the enlightned lawnmowers amogst us. Well I’ve been moving lawns
Moving lawns? Amogst? Not good mate – seek help!
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen
where is the data source? Your conclusions are based on all ocean temperature variables – wrong – I need the data numbers that produced this graph please!
The data you have provided on sinks is from John Finn @ 431 maybe?
This is amazing stuff Ferdinand – your data excels what is available currently on CO2 sinks worldwide!
00
Dave at 502:
Sorry, normally I do add the references to what I say, but the power supply of my regular PC blew up last week (not yet repaired), so I am computer handicapped for the moment, as all my references are on that one. For the moment I help myself with one of my daughter’s laptop, with a lot of trouble, because of a different keyboard (azerty instead of querty)…
But nevertheless, with some help from the Internet:
– C3 and C4 plants:
The pages of Anton Uriarte, a well known Spanish sceptic:
http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html
– The total biosphere removes more CO2 than it adds:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/287/5462/2467.pdf
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/25_Partition.pdf
and thus, because of the previous point, more 12CO2.
– Fossil fuels all are depleted in 12C, as mostly old plants/organic matter/methanogenic bacteria at work. See Uriarte and lots of info on the Internet.
– Look at the green part…
Emissions data on the website of the US DOE if I remember wel.
CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa at the NOAA web site.
Sea surface temperature from Hadley HadSS?
And have a look at the speech of Pieter Tans about the variability of the CO2 uptake (about mid-speech):
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
He also has a list of average 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratios (BobC, have a look!).
The human emissions are quite well known, because based on fuel sales (taxes!), CO2 measurements are very accurate and the difference is what is removed by nature…
00
Dave @ 497
Another great comment.
Where do you get this stuff? O2 production for 4 people from specific area of grass.
What do the CAM plants do in the daytime?
What has always ticked me off with the AGW movement has been the emphasis on one mechanism eg CO2 in the atmosphere and its UV IR interaction and the deliberate dismissal of all other quantifiable effects.
It would seem that all the info is available to totally discredit CO2 / AGW but it needs to be Assembled and especially all components quantified to highlight CO2s place in the scheme.
Plant and soil biology are areas I’m not competent to deal with, isotope discussions on interhemispheric transfer of CO2 I could work on but can’t see the payoff.
00
Dave
If you look at FEs latest comment, the last para, he’s still subtracting knowns
from unknowns to get a real ? number.
Again he assumes that natural CO2 input to atm is totally, completely and immutably
for all time and forever permanently
CONSTANT.
00
FE #498
the 5% (actually not more than 2%) variability around the trend indeed is variability around the trend, nothing to do with the cause of the trend itself. The variations up and down largely cancel each other if you look at the trend over 2-3 years and longer
This is your mistaken assumption. If you have data on the levels each side of the best guess
160 gigatonne sink/source, please write a paper. Did you listen to the podcast, prof Salby tells
us they have no real idea.
The fact that the C02 ppmv curve is not 100 times its vertical scatter (the global seasonal wiggle),
does not prove < 2% percent annual net balance.
Your assumption ridiculously ignores the rapid sugar production photosynthesis reaction.
There is such a reality as a v large atmosphere (5%) and ocean (95%), call it a process tank where we have a rapid c02 removal reaction, and what ever annual imbalance of sinks and sources.
00
FE
I am sorry by I don’t believe in biological global systems that are one per cent flat
constants.
00
MaryFJohnston 506 and
chris price CHCH NZ at 507:
If you look at FEs latest comment, the last para, he’s still subtracting knowns from unknowns to get a real ? number.
The human emissions are known, the increase in the atmosphere is known. All I have down is substract two knowns from each other. That makes that the sink capacity of each year is known. The absolute height of the natural sources and sinks is only roughly known, but that isn’t of the slightest interest, as we know the difference at the end of the year:
atmospheric change = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
That gives:
atmospheric chabge – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks
Thus as the left terms both are known, the difference in the right terms is known too, whatever the real height of the natural sinks and sources.
A numeric example: The current anthro emissions are around 8 GtC/year; the increase in the atmosphere is around 4 GtC/year. The difference then is also about 4 GtC/year. That means that the difference between natural sources and sinks also is 4 GtC/year more sink than source.
If the natural sources are:
100 GtC/year, the natural sinks are 104 GtC/year
1000 GtC/year, the natural sinks are 1004 GtC/year
etc.
You see, it doesn’t matter how much the natural sources are, because the natural sinks are always 4 GtC/year larger.
In other years, the difference in C going into natural sinks may be 1 to 7 GtC, but it was never zero or negative (more source than sink) in the past 50 years.
The fact that the C02 ppmv curve is not 100 times its vertical scatter (the global seasonal wiggle), does not prove < 2% percent annual net balance.
The seasonal wiggle is the main cause of the flows in and out the atmosphere. Again its height has not the slightest influence on CO2 levels, as long as what is going in is equal to what is going out. Only the difference at the end of the year is important. And that is known: more sink than source over the past 50 years. No matter the height of the individual or combined inputs or outputs or their variability.
00
MaryFJohnston
Work has taken over – hence late reply.
CAM plants basically open all there stomata at night – absorb CO2 and convert it into Malate (maleic acid) and then during the day (stomata shut – and no water loss) use the CO2 from the maleic acid and use it in photosynthesis. Very dought resistant adaption – and even some of these can in good water supply revert back to C3.
FE – you quoted C3 and C4 plants: The pages of Anton Uriarte, a well known Spanish sceptic: http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html
This paper by Uriarte has nothing to do with C3 / C4 and isotope ratio’s preferences – the question was to site the source of your statement
Too many guesses for your left hand right hand theory – and the acceptance of a global biological sink that is uniform. (atmospheric change – human emissions – natural sources = natural sinks)
Current studies underway involving C14 and C12 ratios in C4 (Maize in China) and C3 (Rice in China) plants show a very different story so far.
00
FE
Nearly 1/3 of the 8 GtC/year is absorbed by just forests worldwide currently http://www.csiro.au/news/Forests-absorb-one-third-our-fossil-fuel-emissions.html
Which leaves a miserly 1.333 GtC/year for the rest of the biological sinks (and oceans) to absorb leaving the atmosphere CO2 at 4 GtC/year increase = the CO2 levels are still to low and this shows the CO2 global pathway as definitely unknown.
Another question – what increase of temperature per year do evaluate from the 8 Gtc/year human emissions?
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
August 13th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“atmospheric change = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
That gives:
atmospheric chabge – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks”
Changing that into an algebraic equation where A = increase, B= natural sources, C= human sources, we get
A = B + C -(1)
and C > A -(2)
Then rearranging (1) and substituting (2) we get:
A – B > A which rearranges to B < 0. -(3)
Now, let's call A the increase in atmospheric CO2, B is the net amount
added from natural sources and C is the man-made component. We don't
know what B is, but we know the values for A and C fairly accurately,
and we know that C is greater than A – in fact about twice as large.
Then equation (3) tells us that B < 0, meaning that natural sources
are
negative – in other words a net sink. "
For the period prior to human existence, which is 99.9+% of earth's
history, C= 0, so if A < B, the amount of CO2 has been decreasing
lately, highly unlikely with a supposedly warming climate.
A less simplistic equation would be A = B+C – P(B+C) where P is a fraction removed from the atmosphere/ocean system over the course of a year, due to fish excreting calcium carbonates, shellfish dieing and not having their shells recycled immediately into the biosphere, etc.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090115164607.htm
For a numerical example, let B = 100, C= 5, and P = 99/100.
Then A = 100 + 5 – (99/100)*(105) = 105- 103,95= 1.05.
Since human activity produces 5, your equation erroneously assumes that without humans there would be a carbon sink since 5-1.05 = 3.95.
Remove human CO2 from the equation and you get
A = 100 + 0 – (99/100)*(100) = 100 – 99, or an increase of 1 rather than 1.05
– A. McIntire
00
Dave at 510:
Please read the references I gave more careful. On the web page of Anton Uriarte:
Most plants (85%) (e.g. trees and crops) follow the C3 photosynthesis pathway and have lower values of d13C, between -22‰ and -30‰.
The remaining 15% of the plants are of type C4. The majority are tropical herbs and have high values of d13C, between –10 ‰ and –14 ‰.
The atmosphere is at -8 per mil, the C4 plants take more 12CO2 out of the atmosphere than 13CO2, therefore they end with lower 13C in the plants than what is in the atmosphere. C3 plants go down even further. But both prefer 12CO2 over 13CO2. The “high values” in the second paragraph is in comparison to C3 plants, not to air.
Thus even if more C4 plants are grown, that changes the amounts of 12CO2 which is absorbed vs. 13CO2, but as long as the O2 levels show that the biosphere is a net sink for CO2 (whatever the type), more 12CO2 leaves the atmosphere than 13CO2, compared to the atmospheric isotope ratio.
Nothing is uniform in the sink rate, the sink rate is influenced by temperature, but in opposite ways for oceans and vegetation. That compensates to a certain extent each other. Which may be the reason why the variability is smaller than expected from a natural process.
00
Dave at 511:
It is not known in detail where the main sinks are. Based on oxygen use and the changes in 13C/12C ratio, some come to about 1/3rd in vegetation, 2/3rd in the (deep) oceans.
But have a look at the end of the CSIRO article: the net absorption of forests, taken into account forest clearing by humans is 1.1 GtC, which fits the above findings.
00
Alan D McIntire at 512:
Assuming that B is the net difference between natural sources and sinks (and not the sources only), then we can agree until equation (3).
It goes wrong at:
For the period prior to human existence, which is 99.9+% of earth’s history, C = 0, so if A < B, the amount of CO2 has been decreasing lately, highly unlikely with a supposedly warming climate.
If C = 0, then it follows that A = B for every change in B.
Further in:
For a numerical example, let B = 100, C= 5, and P = 99/100.
Here you use B as the natural sources only, and forget the constraint that B, as net difference between natural sources and sinks is negative.
00
Dave at 510:
I forgot to respond to your latest question:
Another question – what increase of temperature per year do evaluate from the 8 Gtc/year human emissions?
Pure theoretically, based on absorption rates of CO2 as measured in laboratory circumstances (translated to real world in the Hitran and Modtran programs), the increase in temperature is 0.9 degr.C for a CO2 doubling. Including water vapor feedback, that increases to 1.2 degr.C. All the rest of the 1.5-4.5 degr.C increase is based on models and assumed feedbacks like clouds and forcings like aerosols, which are highly uncertain. Even the sign may be wrong (clouds) or the effect may be largely overestimated (aerosols).
Thus I expect a moderate, mostly beneficial, effect from a doubling of CO2. Less than the minimum of the models/IPCC.
The effect of one year of CO2 increase simply is unmeasurable in the year by year noise…
00
FE 516
“”Including water vapor feedback,””
Er am I missing something? Have you not worked out that this is a self limiting system.
How much water can the atm carry..
In case the AGW crowd and IPCC were unaware there is science.
The air does eventually saturate with water and this pus areal big DAMPER on things.
Water can only absorb redirected IR if it first gets to ground???
00
“”All the rest of the 1.5-4.5 degr.C increase is based on models and assumed feedbacks like clouds and forcings like aerosols, which are highly uncertain. Even the sign may be wrong (clouds) or the effect may be largely overestimated (aerosols).””
Speculation based on assumption piled on top of original unsound speculative science.
Yes MAYBE!
00
Con UN drum
00
MaryFJohnston at 517:
“Including water vapor feedback”
Er am I missing something? Have you not worked out that this is a self limiting system.
How much water can the atm carry…
If the temperature increases (a little, due to more CO2 in the atmosphere or something else), the atmosphere can hold more water, whatever the cause of the temperature increase. Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, thus more water vapour pushes the original 0.9 degr.C increase to 1.2 degr.C. Not much to worry about.
That is based on real (be it upscaled) measurements, and measurements of how much more water warmer air can hold. Nothing to do with climate models.
Based on this, the climate models go a lot further, taking everything else as positive feedback. But have a look at clouds. More water vapour means also more clouds, which in the models are used as positive feedback. But ask it at any cloud specialist, he/she sees clouds as a negative feedback.
Thus in my opinion, the influence of 2xCO2 on temperature will be modest and largely beneficial.
00
Increased water vapour means clouds. This is a vast negative feed back.
Have you seen earth from space??
00
Negative feedback in that daytime heating is reduced. That is the original input source.
Cosmic rays have been proven to run this bus.
AGW suppress this knowledge. They do this by blocking any paper
on this topic for approved through the sick peer grouped processes, thus leading
for the ‘validity’ of the consensus rhetoric.
00
FE
no comment on the one per cent constant global bio system????
This gross error on your part will not go away.
Have you had a math education? If you did you would be familiar with
equations that have irrelevant terms. You remove the term to simplify without consequence
to further analysis.
00
Hi FE above
Again another quote without error estimates.
You quote CSIRO
“”But have a look at the end of the CSIRO article: the net absorption of forests, taken into account forest clearing by humans is 1.1 GtC,””
Surely, you dont really believe that it is exactly that figure??
Or are the implications of that estimate being out by maybe 10% (who knows) just too much reality to face??
00
Hi FE
“”Nothing is uniform in the sink rate, the sink rate is influenced by temperature,
but in opposite ways for oceans and vegetation.
That compensates to a certain extent each other. Which may be the reason why the variability is smaller than expected from a natural process.””
It’s great to see some solid science.
00
Water vapour/Cloud feedbacks various.
Something really strange about the climate science debate is that everyone seems to concentrate on radiative effects, but according to Kevin Trenberth/IPCC, the greatest NET cooling effect from the surface is from evapotranspiration, see per AR4:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/3064545467_198ded20b9.jpg
I’m puzzled why it is that people don’t get excited by the apparent probability that the evaporative cooling/latent heat transfer should provide a major negative feedback with any T increase/increased water vapour.
In discussion with Roy Spencer a year or so ago he agreed that this plus plain old thermal convection was very important, but it seems that everyone is competing on the radiative effects, last I looked.
00
Hi Bob _ FJ at 526
“”the greatest NET cooling effect from the surface is from evapotranspiration,””
Good point and why I have continually called for full disclosure of the entire process.
It has been included in some of those energy balance diagrams used by the AGW groupies but doesn’t get much airplay because it is so obvious.
It’s only on the difficult to understand items that they can push their BS.
As you say, convection uses up a lot of energy too and also counters the idea of radiative heat transfer as a big ticket item because “hot” CO2 molecules only remain so for a brief fraction of a second before they collide with N2 or O2 to warm that localised parcel of air; which then rises to attain equilibrium T somewhere higher and at a COLDER temp so no rad Transf!!!
00
MaryFJohnston & Bob_FJ
Most of the IPCC climate models don’t include this cooling effect of evapotranspiration. Plants response to higher CO2 levels result in less water utilation for photosynthesis (esp C4) which results in large gains of leaf growth (more growth for same water) – forcing evapotranspiration to increase. This heightened effect of increased CO2 levels is actually forcing cooling that no climate scienists are factoring in. The temperature forcing up CO2 levels will result in eventual cooling. The role of vegetation in climate change is massive – and the above evapotranspiration is a major player with some reports of minus 0.6C per year?
Concentrating on CO2 ppm gain causing (positive feedback) increased temperature is wrong – and they can’t understand (using their same reasoning) the negative feedback of CO2 enrichment – a large part of this evapotranspiration.
00
MaryFJohnston & Dave @ 527/528
Actually, Travesty Kev’ has more recently teamed-up with others to update their cartoon in glorious colour and new numbers, (versus IPCC 2007), and perhaps the most convenient source to see it is here at alarmist Chris Colose‘s discontinued (?) website:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/
Surface net global cooling is given as;
Thermal convection: 10.6 %
Evapotranspiration: 49.7%
Total NET radiative: 39.1%, of which 11.2% is directly to space or non-greenhouse.
Oh, and 0.9 W/m^2 is allegedly absorbed, no can escape, resulting in warming of the planet
Chris Colose, ran a good site at the time, and I had none of my comments deleted. (unlike RealClimate)
00
MaryFJohnston @ 527;
Oh, and yes the nano-second thermalization (collisions)and to-and-froing between photons and whotnot between molecules raises all sorts of interesting questions within quantum THEORY
00
Dave @ 528
I really want to read the imminent Salby paper with the supporting data and graphs before getting too excited about all this.
I’m intuitively inclined to agree with BobC that probably the most important aspect of CO2 flux is from the ocean surface. (I think he suggested that above somewhere).
That is NOT to dismiss the important biology that you elaborate, but let’s face it, that is largely in the NH, yet it might help to explain the Salby hypothesis if local CO2 is rapidly biologically absorbed up there in the NH.
The SH has a lot more ocean, and if the Salby response is globally rapid and hemispherically equal then that is rather interesting. (despite that the NH and SH parameters are different)
The published T data particularly Hadcrut3 gives that the SH is warming less than the NH. (putting aside the travesty of no warming since 1998)
Hmmm…
00
Dave @528
An excellent outline of what appears to be a very significant item.
Obviously more work is needed on the biosphere wrt to heat balance.
00
Bob_FJ
The data confirming differences between NH & SH is interesting – but there is the massive influence of phytoplankton that may be responding to increased CO2 levels also aiding in cooling (iron is also essential for this). Agree with BobC that the oceans are probably the most important aspect of CO2 flux – but the adaptability of the global vegetation and photosynthesis is largely not included in the workout sheets of many.
00
chris price CHCH NZ:
August 13th, 2011 at 8:29 am
I am sorry by I don’t believe in biological global systems that are one per cent flat constants.
Neither do I. The point is that in the year by year variability of sink capacity, the biosphere and the oceans work countercurrent. That is already seen in the variability over the seasons: The biosphere takes out some 60 (or 120, depending of the estimates) GtC from the atmosphere in spring-summer-fall, and largely gives that back in fall-winter-spring. The oceans do the reverse with 90 GtC out in spring-summer-fall and about the same amount back into the oceans in fall-winter-spring.
60 or 90 or 120 GtC is equivalent to 30, 45 or 60 ppmv in the atmosphere. But we see only a variability of maximum +/- 8 ppmv at the NH ground level (even less in the SH), due to the fact that vegetation wins the contest in the NH (more land than ocean). The variability over the years even is less, as global temperature changes over the years are smaller than the global seasonal temperature changes.
Thus while vegetation and oceans each may show much variability, the combined variability is modest.
00
MaryFJohnston:
August 14th, 2011 at 10:12 am
You quote CSIRO
“”But have a look at the end of the CSIRO article: the net absorption of forests, taken into account forest clearing by humans is 1.1 GtC,””
Surely, you dont really believe that it is exactly that figure??
No, I don’t beleive that is an exact figure. I was only quoting that, because Dave quoted the same article to show that the absorption by the biosphere was about 1/3rd of the human emissions, leaving few sinks into the oceans. But if you read the whole article, the absorbed amounts are less, because humans also cause land use changes.
More exact for the partitioning between oceans and vegetation are found in the oxygen balance, but with large margins of error, as oxygen change measurements (a few ppmv in 200,000 ppmv) are extremely difficult, at the edge of the accuracy of the methods used.
00
FE
Yet in 509 you say
These figures are not adding up?
Also the effect of cooling of the biosphere is not anywhere in your calculations – only carbon Gt equations!
00
Dave at 536:
Yet in 509 you say
because the natural sinks are always 4 GtC/year larger.
These figures are not adding up?
Yes they ad up: the natural flows in and out are huge and only rough estimates, but the difference between the natural inflows and outflows (for oceans and vegetation and all other processes together) is well known, as that is the difference between increase in the atmosphere and the human emissions. Thus all natural sinks together are 4 GtC larger than all natural inflows together.
The influence of temperature on the combined oceans + vegetation is about 4 ppmv (8 GtC) / degr.C.
It should be possible to calculate the influence of temperature on vegetation alone, based on oxygen use, but I haven’t seen any figures yet.
00
FE
“but the difference between the natural inflows and outflows (for oceans and vegetation and all other processes together) is well known,”
You have never demonstrated How this is known
00
FE
What was the land doing before??
“because humans also cause land use changes. “
00
FE
Your 534 is starting to be useful in outlining all the factors.
This is what must be done before ascribing relevance to any one small factor such as Man Made CO2 wrt Atmospheric heating.
00
Re Evaporation, Evapotranspiration
Downwelling long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation (DLR) is supposed to increase evaporation and evapotranspiration according to AGW due to increasing GHG effect from CO2 levels. DLR penetrates 10 microns into the ocean so to find out if it causes evaporation (and it’s increasing) a study of night-time ocean evaporation would be required, has anyone come across such a study?
The significance of NH land (greater landmass vs SH) evapotranspiration can be seen in the following link where column water vapour levels are highest when NH rates are highest:-
http://climate4you.com/ (click “Greenhouse Gasses)
But does DLR play any part in evapotranspiration (or ocean evaporation)?
See:
“Nighttime, Wet Canopy Evaporation Rates and the Water Balance of an Evergreen Mixed Forest”
Pearce FRI, Christchurch, NZ, Rowe, FRI,
Christchurch, NZ, Stewart, Inst of Hydrology,
Oxon, UK.
“The similarity of daytime and nighttime evaporation rates indicates that evaporation from the wet canopy is driven by advected energy not by radiation”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1980/WR016i005p00955.shtml
And:
“Night-time evaporation from a short-rotation willow stand”
Iritz and Landroth, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences.
“Night-time evaporation was controlled mainly by vapour pressure deficit and ventilation whereas net radiation had only a minor influence.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022169494901074
I.e. DLR from GHGs (or any other radiation) was not the evapotranspiration driver.
If anyone is intested, I’m investigating the heating effect of DLR on ocean and land (including evaporation as above) from a medical science and engineering science perspective (climate science doesn’t do heating effect) at Climate Conversation Group (NZ) here:-
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/08/just-one-fact/#comment-64413
Chris Price CHCH NZ, It would be good if you checked in there (or elsewhere in blog comments).
I’m starting with Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl’s Earth Energy Budget and their 333 W.m2 DLR in particular. This power flux is best described I think using an electrical analogy so that DLR is apparent power in comparison to the heating effect of the solar SW real power flux i.e. there’s a power factor involved that isn’t taken into account by TF&K. The heating effect being dependent upon intensity, wavelength and penetration (track length). I’m checking out the heat transfer and absorbency properties of various geologic materials (ocean, granite, basalt, clay, snow etc) and the respective effect that DLR may have on each.
Dr John Nicol comes as close as anyone I’ve seen in the climate arena to actually making an excursion outside of climate science in regard to heating effect with a couple of paragraphs on precision laser cutting of hard metals but doesn’t go far enough with it I don’t think.
http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc
00
Richard C @541
I don’t have any references, but since IR only penetrates the nano-skin of ocean water and absorption and reemission is a VERY rapid process, then as I understand it, there is very little heating of the water, and hence not much in the way of increased evaporation.
I would have thought that fairly straight forward lab testing involving varying IR intensity with the other relevant variables fixed, might be a better way to go.
Good luck with the Trenberth et al cartoon. I don’t think that they and other CAGW fans understand that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a different form of energy to HEAT, and yes the electrical analogy is a good one.
BTW, I was wanting to read your penultimate link, but I get: Page not found
00
Bob_FJ 542
I checked the Climate Conversation Group link and it works for me. You could try copying the link into the browser window or Google “Climate Conversation Group” and go to comments under the “Just One Fact” post.
Meantime here’s a snippet
Medical physics and radiology have a different terminology than climate science when it comes to radiation (and a vastly better understanding of it I’m sure). They are concerned with ionizing radiation whereas solar SW (UV) and DLR (LWIR) is non-ionizing but the principles are the same when it comes to heating effect. The medical science term for UV and LWIR is: “low” linear energy transfer (LET) radiation. See this medical physics ppt dealing with the interaction of ionizing radiation with matter on a molecular level.
I’m reasonably sure that LWIR (DLR) is a “lower” form of LET than UV (solar SW) i.e that (using the analogy) LWIR has a lessor “power factor” than UV and that it should be designated as such on TF&K Figure 1
BTW, a quick and dirty power factor for DLR falling on the ocean using track length (penetration) would be 10 microns/100 metres, a ridiculous number to even consider. Thus the global average 333 W.m2 is reduced by removing the 70% planetary area of the ocean leaving 100 W.m2 global average.
Or putting it another way, the 333 W.m2 is only effective on land and then only commensurate with the properties of geologic materials (reflectance, penetration etc) i.e. different power factors (in respect to solar) for each material determine the actual energy transfer and heating that will occur.
00
MaryFJohnston at 538
Come on, that was repeadetly said:
atmospheric increase = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
thus
atmospheric increase – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks
The two left terms are well known (with some margins of error, not that bad), thus the difference of the right terms is known too, whatever the real height of the natural sinks and sources or their variability.
In the past 50 years the human emissions were always larger than the atmospheric increase, thus the natural sinks were always larger than the natural sources and nature thus was a net sink for CO2.
00
I don’t get it Ferdinand;
atmospheric increase = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
thus
atmospheric increase – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks
Plug in known numbers:
1.5[~] = 8 + NS – ns
1.5[~] – 8 = NS – ns.
NS and ns are assumptions.
00
NS and ns are assumptions, but (Ns-ns) is known, and all tht is needed to be known for this issue.
00
Yeah right matty; so are natural emissions increasing but sinks also increasing; is one increasing more than the other; are emiissions static but sinks increasing [the AGW line]; what?
00
cohenite at 547:
Yeah right matty; so are natural emissions increasing but sinks also increasing; is one increasing more than the other; are emiissions static but sinks increasing [the AGW line]; what?
Both natural sinks and sources are variable, but as said before, oceans and vegetation act in opposite ways for temperature changes, thus an increase in temperature causes more CO2 release from the oceans, but at the same time more CO2 intake by vegetation. The net result is app. 4 GtC (2 pmv) more CO2 in the atmosphere for an increase with 1 degr.C. Thus the oceans are a little stronger in CO2 release for increased temperature than that vegetation is in more uptake.
The observed variability around the trend is about +/- 1 ppmv or +/- 2 GtC over the past 50 years, with the 1992 Pinatubo and 1998 El Nino at maximum – and + amplitude.
00
MaryFJohnston at 539
What was the land doing before??
“because humans also cause land use changes. “
The oxygen measurements are more or less reliable since about 1990, because the methods used need an extreme high accuracy. A few flask samples of older air were used to extent the record back in the past, and that indicated that the biosphere probably was a net source of CO2 before 1990, but within the margins of error of the method. After 1990, the biosphere is a net (and increasing) sink for CO2 beyond the margins of error of the method.
Human land use changes are only roughly known, based on cleared area at one side and reforestration at the other side, and the difference betzeen CO2 capturing between tropical forests and replacement by crops, or the uptake by planting new forests. The difference is estimated as about 2 GtC (1 ppmv) extra emissions due to human changes in land use.
I never use human land use changes in my calculations, as these are by far not accurate, compared to emissions from fossil fuel use, even if it is certain that land use changes add to the emissions. The difference is that in my calculations, the airborne fraction is about 55% of the human emissions, while if you take into account land use changes, the airborne fraction is 45% of the emissions.
00
Ferdinand; this is not right: “oceans and vegetation act in opposite ways for temperature changes, thus an increase in temperature causes more CO2 release from the oceans, but at the same time more CO2 intake by vegetation”.
Cynaobacteria stock, despite the erronous Boyce paper, paper to be increasing and they represent a huge oceanic sink for CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/25/the-ocean-wins-again/#more-38673
00
FE
understanding some of the crop CO2 absorption is important – as even reforestration is far less CO2 t/ha than even Caulifower? The excuse
is wrong as the BIG picture needs a lot more understanding. The research to date is minimal, and often concentrated too much on CO2 instead of value – for people and real environmentalism – not equations with A = B + C – D – the CO2 con has gone on for long enough.
.
PLEASE EXPLAIN?
00
cohenite at 550:
Plankton is at the base of the food chain, thus if it increases, the whole food chain is thriving, except for overfishing of the oceans. The net total result is known: oceans + the whole biosphere (including oceanic life) is a net sink for CO2. Based on oxygen (and d13C) measurements, we have a rough indication which one takes the most: about 1/3rd of the total sink is going into the biosphere, 2/3rd into the oceans.
00
Dave at 551:
understanding some of the crop CO2 absorption is important – as even reforestration is far less CO2 t/ha than even Caulifower? The excuse is wrong as the BIG picture needs a lot more understanding. The research to date is minimal, and often concentrated too much on CO2 instead of value – for people and real environmentalism – not equations with A = B + C – D – the CO2 con has gone on for long enough.
The big picture is that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. Whatever the partial distribution of natural sinks and sources. The distribution is interesting, but doesn’t change the big picture.
The difference in carbon sequestering between forests and crops is in the more permanent storage of carbon in the soils. If land is cleared, a lot of CO2 is released from semi-permanent storage. Crops rotation gives far less permanent storage, as what is stored as carbon is eaten by humans and animals, only the rests are composted (or even burned), and the storage in soils is far less than for forests.
Anyway, while the absolute value of the effect of land use changes is a matter of debate, it is certainly more source than sinks. Thus only adds to the human emissions. If you add that to the emissions, then the measured increase in the atmosphere is about 45% of the total emissions (fossil fuels + land use changes), while without land use changes the increase is about 55% of the emissions (fossil fuels only).
00
Thanks Cohenite
and
When MattB confirms something you know it’s not correct.
00
Man made CO2 about 3 to 5 units say error +/- 10% about 0.4 units
Natural CO2 97 to 95 units error/unknown is huge but say 10% about 9.6 units
Ability to isolate effect of Human CO2 About NIL !!!
Come on –Get real.
00
Have you guys checked out Judith Curry’s new entry… some guy very confused about back radiation, but he does demonstrate why ferdy and I are correct on this issue, and why if skeptics are to be taken seriously they should be more discerning.
00
MaryFJohnston at 555:
The real stuf is:
If natural CO2 in is:
10 thenn natural CO2 out is 14
100 then natural CO2 out is 104
1000 then natural CO2 out is 1004
Thus it doesn’t make any damn difference if the natural inflows are 10 or 100 or 1000 units, as we know that the natural outflows are 4 units larger than the natural inflows, while the human inflows are 8 units. Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, whatever the natural inflows involved.
When will sceptics get real sceptics and accept that the increase in the atmosphere is caused by humans? And that insisting on a non-human cause makes the whole sceptic movement ridiculous, because that is a completely lost argument. There are much better arguments on other items where (C)AGW is on thin ice: climate models which fail on a lot of items like cloud cover, overestimate the influence of aerosols, can’t cope with natural variability and therefore fail in their temperature forecasts.
00
Ferdinand “The big picture is that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. Whatever the partial distribution of natural sinks and sources. The distribution is interesting, but doesn’t change the big picture.”
No one is listening Ferdinand. Sad but true.
00
This thread should be closed at #557. Jo I think you need to challenge your readers and have a thread not dissimilar to your 2nd law threads.
00
The problem, Ferdinand, is that this is a rather remarkable claim to know the natural in and outflows to this degree of certainty — much less to claim that the particular arithmetic balance (-4 units) is somehow a constant of nature. To know requires empirical measurements (many that back each other up, in fact) — theoretical arguments don’t suffice.
Also, this claim gives rise to conclusions that are not supported by the data: Let’s assume you are right, and natural outflows are always 4 units larger than natural inflows (i.e., “nature is a net sink for CO2, whatever the natural inflows involved”), and only human inflows cause CO2 to rise.
The inescapable conclusion from these assumptions is that, before humans, CO2 concentration only went down. This is not what is observed in, e.g., the ice core record, hence your assumptions are wrong.
00
BobC
560
Nicely put.
thanks.
00
BobC at 560:
BobC, I never said that the sink rate is always 4 GtC. I always said, again and again, that the sink rate is known for the past 50 years. That shows that nature was a net sink for the full 50 years (with one year borderline zero witin the margins of error). The example with 4 GtC (which is the current average sink rate) was only an illustration that the real height of the natural in and outflows is not of the slightest interest to know if humans are the cause of the increase or not. If nature was a net source, then the increase would be higher than the human emissions alone. Now that the increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions, it is clear that these emissions are the sole cause of the increase.
Further, the sinkrate increases over time, as response to the increase in the atmosphere. That is a normal reaction of any system in steady state. Thus if we could stop today with all emissions, nature still would be a net sink, but the (average) sink rate would decrease to zero over time when the basic equilibrium setpoint is reached, about 290 ppmv for the current temperature.
Here (again) the graph of the human emissions, the increase in the atmosphere and what the net sink rate of nature was over the period 1960-2006 (needs some update for the past years). The green area is what year by year was absorbed by nature (also showing its variability over the years):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
00
BobC @ 309
Exactly! The individual molecular residence time is on the order of 5 years, where pH changes occur – but we have to ask what rates apply to CO2 entering or leaving the carbon cycle.
There’s an excellent article, Archer 2005, that looks at this. He examines air/ocean equilibrium (plankton binding CO2, sinking it into the water), temperature feedback (warmer water holds less CO2), CaCO3 cycle equilibrium (calcium carbonate binding), and silicate weathering. He then examines the responses to various ‘slugs’ of carbon entering the carbon cycle due to emissions and feedbacks.
Archer’s work points to 17-33% of fossil fuel carbon remaining in the atmosphere after 1000 years (1 kyr), 10-15% at 10 kyr, 7% at 100 kyr. He notes that a single exponential decay of 300 years is a better approximation than a single 30 kyr exponential, as it’s biased by the quicker reactions removing excess CO2, but that misses the details of the multiple mechanisms with multiple timeframes.
Equilibrium time between carbon cycle compartments (5 years half-life) is one thing – natural changes in the equilibrium amount of carbon in the carbon cycle (~300 years half-life) is another entirely.
Archer argues (in my opinion, quite reasonably) that we need to treat CO2 emissions much the same way as nuclear waste, as the timeframes for those emissions to be negated are quite similar from a policy standpoint.
—
BobC @ 560
One thing that I find quite annoying in this discussion is the claim that because we don’t know the total mass of carbon in any particular part of the carbon cycle, we cannot see the effect of our emissions. As Ferdinand has clearly pointed out, we know the amount of CO2 we are producing. We know the changing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is about half of those emissions. Without us, nature is a net sink for CO2. Otherwise, if nature was the source as per Salby, the change in atmospheric CO2 would be larger than our emission total – that is flatly not the case.
We’ve put more CO2 into the atmosphere than equilibrium, which for the last 800,000 years has gone between ~185 and 290 with the glacial cycle. The absorption we see is due to the climate attempting to return to that equilibrium, with the absorption rate related to how far out of balance things are, not a fixed rate. Your quote above is a Straw Man argument.
00
BobC @ 340
I’m quite aware of that, BobC – by time of decay I’m talking about the time for the imbalance to reach a miniscule level (which I’ll admit I did not define, but I consider an imbalance of 10-15%, or 10-15 ppm, pretty miniscule).
Please see Archer 2005 or similar works – what he’s examining is removal of carbon from the carbon cycle, or to be much clearer, movement of carbon from the ocean/atmosphere/biosphere compartments into rocks, reversing the movement we’ve made turning rocks/underground liquids into CO2.
Have you any tracer analysis showing the movement of isotopic carbon varieties into buried sediment? Calcium carbonate? Rock? Those are just some of the response times shaping how long CO2 excess will stay in place in the atmosphere and oceans.
00
KR at 563:
Archer’s work points to 17-33% of fossil fuel carbon remaining in the atmosphere after 1000 years (1 kyr), 10-15% at 10 kyr, 7% at 100 kyr. He notes that a single exponential decay of 300 years is a better approximation than a single 30 kyr exponential, as it’s biased by the quicker reactions removing excess CO2, but that misses the details of the multiple mechanisms with multiple timeframes.
You forget to mention one important point: these figures may be true, if humans emit 3,000 or 5,000 GtC (from memory, I didn’t lookup the exact figures). That means that humans need to burn all available oil and a lot of coal to reach such quantities.
With the current emieeions and totals (~400 GtC since 1850), the real sink speed gives a half life time of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 40 years, mainly stored in the deep oceans. And a residual amount of CO2 of about 1% in the atmosphere which has much longer decay rates.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 565
I’ll agree, Archer is looking at a total bolus of CO2 which has not occurred yet, but which cover a range of what’s possible. Even the minimal emission case has a much longer timeframe.
We’ve released already about 300 GTn of carbon, business as usual estimates are about 1600 GTn of carbon released by 2100 with business-as-usual emission trajectories and some feedbacks.
Archer’s work covers 300 Gtn (what we’ve already released) up to 5000 Gtn (which would require considerable permafrost and clathrate feedbacks) – and with 300 GTn (by his numbers) we’ll still have 14-17% of that carbon in the atmosphere at 1 kyr. 40 years as half-life does not match his numbers at all.
00
FE
I’m not as you say : “”insisting on a non-human cause””.
I do not know all of the sources and quantities of CO2.
It is a very complicated system and anyone who tells you they have done an “energy balance or a CO2 mass balance” on the atmosphere is telling a preposterous untruth.
What I am insisting on is a reasonable, scientific assessment.
It really is no use going through pages of scientific argument if it is based on a false foundation.
Go through each factor, check out its accuracy, give equations to a statistician and have them do an error analysis. You may be surprised.
00
Quoted
“Without us, nature is a net sink for CO2″
This is an amazing piece of ” science “.
It tells us that nature Only Recognises Natural Origin CO2 but will , under instructions from
somewhere, (God?) deal with a set fraction of human origin CO2 or something like that.
Wow.
How about some real science: Nature is ALWAYS striving for equilibrium regardless of the origin of CO2.
00
Glad you agree. The next step is to realize that, if the atmosphere-sink cycle is a linear system (or, even a mostly linear system), then engineering a large impulse input to any one of the three CO2 isotopes, then measuring the decay curve of that isotope gives you nearly the same decay curve as increasing all CO2 and measuring the decay of all CO2 concentrations. For a linear system, the decay of all the isotopes as a group (responding to a group impulse) is the sum of the decay curve for each individual isotope.
This is the essence of a tracer measurement — this is what the C14 bomb spike “experiment” did. The answer is the system returns to equilibrium (the “adjustment time”) with a half life of 8 years. (And with a possible long-lived residual of < 4% of the impulse.)
The bomb spike decay is the adjustment decay, not the residence decay — since the system is linear, each isotope adjusts at the same rate as the whole system.
Archer is modeling the carbon cycle. The bomb spike decay measures a single parameter of the system — the adjustment time of atmospheric concentrations to an imput impulse. (A very important parameter, however — short adjustment times implies a small anthropogenic contribution to the recent increase.)
To the extent Archer’s models disagree with this empirically measured parameter, they are wrong.
00
It would help if Ferdinand and KR, if he wishes, could explain how, if nature is a net sink for CO2, how CO2 levels have increased in the past; and these increases contrary to KR’s statement @563, have exceeded 185-290; see Luthi for the ‘official’ view where ranges from 170-300ppm are discussed:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
Noting this in Luthi:
“At the beginning of MIS 16, CO2 remains below 180 p.p.m.v. for 3 kyr, most probably reflecting more pronounced glacial carbon storage in the ocean. During this period, CO2 falls to its lowest value ever found in ice cores, 172 p.p.m.v. (667 kyr bp), redefining the natural range of CO2 of the late Quaternary to about 170 to 300 p.p.m.v., before it rises at a rate of 8 p.p.m.v. kyr–1 to 190 p.p.m.v. at 665 kyr bp.”
Drake estimates higher values for CO2 and a lessor range of 300-380:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_2.pdf
While Sage bases his work on a range of 200-270ppm which occurred WITHIN a period from 12000-15000 years ago:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x/abstract
00
MaryFJohnston @ 568
A reasonable statement. Let’s throw some nuance into the statement.
We’ve thrown the climate into imbalance by burning (over 150 years) carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. Without us, nature is a net sink for CO2 – absorbing that excess. But those processes are slow – it’s going to take quite a while…
00
You are misreading me. I’m making no arguments based on mass balance — I was arguing that Ferdinand’s assumptions (Nature always is a net carbon sink) resulted in a contradiction.
00
Read some unsubstantiated Greenbile Logic:
“”We’ve thrown the climate into imbalance by burning (over 150 years) carbon that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. Without us, nature is a net sink for CO2 – absorbing that excess. But those processes are slow – it’s going to take quite a while…””
That is LOGIC not Science.
You are making ASSumptions
00
Quoted
“”But those processes are slow – it’s going to take quite a while…””
Yes if you use a small focus. Sedimentation IS slow ,
geosequestration is slow but There Are Other Processes as
I keep reminding the eager and green subscribers here.
00
Should this factor enter the equation?
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/HAARPbg.html
00
Correct me if I’m wrong Cohers, but in relation to your comment “It would help if Ferdinand and KR, if he wishes, could explain how, if nature is a net sink for CO2, how CO2 levels have increased in the past;”, I have never seen Ferdinand or KR claim that nature has always been a net sink… It just is now, as demonstrated by the fact that:
Growth in Atmospheric CO2 nature acting as a sink.
00
“I was arguing that Ferdinand’s assumptions (Nature always is a net carbon sink) resulted in a contradiction.”
You are a liar. That is clearly not what Ferdinand assumes.
00
BobC @ 569
The Earth is an essentially closed system in terms of total carbon (neglecting meteor infalls). Carbon moves from compartment to compartment – atmosphere, biosphere, oceans, etc. And the bomb-spike measurements indicate that pretty well.
However – there are other compartments, primarily fossil fuels, calcium carbonate, and weathering fixation of CO2, that have extremely slow transfer rates. Once the ocean has equilibrated to an impulse of CO2 with a half-life of ~5 years, both the ocean and the atmosphere have a higher level of carbon than they did before.
There are multiple compartments, multiple transfer rates – every single statement you have made about bomb-spikes has referred to equilibration between a few compartments, atmosphere/ocean/biosphere (I believe you or someone else may have mentioned something about soil carbon, that’s certainly detectable with bomb-spike tracers now). You have not addressed, or recognized, the transfers back into burial.
You have not recognized that the movement of carbon into other compartments – calcium carbonate fixation, weathering, burial, etc., those are the transfer rates that determine concentration in the atmosphere, soil, and oceans, the things we care about.
Given the considerable difference between the 5 year half-life water absorption and (for example) the 30 kyr weathering half-life, a rate 3-4 orders of magnitude slower, your attempts to model the system with a single parameter are quite simply wrong. Yes, an impulse change into the atmosphere, or the water, or the biosphere (quick, grow a forest!) will have a fairly short half-life for air/water/plant equilibrium. But movements between the various burial compartments just don’t go that fast – unless you burn something.
So far, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve moved about 300 Gtn of carbon into the atmosphere from buried, fixed compartments. It’s been equilibrating with the ocean, there’s been carbon fixation in forests as the Northern Hemisphere has had considerable replanting – but it hasn’t returned to coal or oil. It’s up where it affects the climate.
—
And if you think Archer is wrong, address what he wrote. Don’t just handwave, don’t throw out strawman arguments – you have quite frankly done a lot of that. Tell us what Archer did wrong in considering various carbon fixation processes. Show the bomb-spike data indicating short term movement into carbon fixation.
—
Back to the original post – Salby is quite frankly wrong. Given his numbers, by the middle of the last glaciation we would have exactly zero CO2 in the air, and the world would have gone into an irreversible iceball state. Happily, Salby is incorrect, and hence we’re still here.
00
MaryFJohnston @ 574
That would be great! Um, care to name them? And show the transfer rates of those other processes? And perhaps point out why these fast “Other Processes” have managed not to keep up with our CO2 production over the last 150 years?
Because, until you do, I have to consider that, well, just handwaving…
00
Matty, have a look at Ferdinand’s comment @557 where he says: “Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, whatever the natural inflows involved.”
00
Hello K.R.@189
Consider two major sinks,plants and water.
Plants grow better with more CO2.
At a water interface, some of the outward travelling molecules have enough velocity to overcome van der waal’s forces or polar attraction and escape. hence coke fizzes and water evaporates. Incoming polar molecules are captured. When incoming equal outgoing we have Henrie’s Law.
Neither plants nor water have a mechanism to limit CO2 absorbtion.Your picture of a human sourced CO2 molecule being captured allowing a lucky natural molecule to remain freeeee!! is bollocks.
“they just get swapped for another CO2 molecule”…… You made it up.
“But that absorption rate must be relative to the imbalance (otherwise we wouldn’t have had any pre-industrial CO2), and if it declines at a rate relative to the imbalance the minimum adjustment time to absorb the imbalance goes to hundreds of years”
You use “relative” not “proportional” to an undefined “imbalance”….fuzzy and Confusing.
“(otherwise we wouldn’t have had any pre-industrial CO2)” vague, untrue and irrelevant
Deliberately confusing.
“I’m always saddened when someone makes this ~5yr assertion, as it’s so completely wrong.”
Deliberately supercilious and provocative, thrown in to engage our emotions and reduce our clarity of thought.
You are a professional Warmist.
00
Cohers: Ferdinand in 557
” Thus nature is a net sink for CO2, whatever the natural inflows involved.”
Cannot be read in isolation from the thread conversation. He is clearly talking about the present day and recent history. I know you’ve read the thread so can only assume you are wilfully lying.
FE in #33: “it is pretty sure that near all of the increase of CO2 over the past 160 years is caused by human emissions.”
FE in #145: “What we know quite exactly is the difference between natural sources and sinks at the end of the year: a net sink over the past 50 years at about half the height of human emissions. And we know quite exactly the variability of the net natural sink.”
FE in #188 references his website “http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html” clerly showing CO2 variability and periods where nature has been a source of CO2 (as it is rising with no humans around do make it”
FE in #294: referencing Vostok Ice cores and happily discussing natural variability in CO2 levels in atmosphere => nature sometimes a source sometimes a sink. “Further, there is firm evidence that migration of CO2 isn’t important in the Vostok and Dome C ice cores over the past 800,000 years: each glacial/interglacial period shows the same ratio between temperature and CO2 changes: about 8 ppmv/degr.C. If there was any migration, the difference between high and low levels of CO2 would fade over time, decreasing over each 100,000 year period. That is not observed.”
FE in #481 responding to Mary “What year did this accumulation commence?
Until about 1850, there was some natural variability,” See that “natural variability” means sometimes a source, sometimes a sink.
FE in #510: referencing discussion on nature as a sink to last 50 years “there is no visible increase or decrease in natural variability over 50 years.”
further “In other years, the difference in C going into natural sinks may be 1 to 7 GtC, but it was never zero or negative (more source than sink) in the past 50 years.”
FE in #544 “In the past 50 years the human emissions were always larger than the atmospheric increase, thus the natural sinks were always larger than the natural sources and nature thus was a net sink for CO2.” PAST 50 YEARS!
FE in #548 “The observed variability around the trend is about +/- 1 ppmv or +/- 2 GtC over the past 50 years, with the 1992 Pinatubo and 1998 El Nino at maximum – and + amplitude.” PAST 50 YEARS!
00
FE
I don’t believe in flat constants nor coupled counterpoints.
Note that an efficient co2 vacuum cleaner could be seen as the means of
providing the counterpoint.
But no, those sources and sinks are not teleconnected (an el Nino term referring to
weather events on a global scale).
I see the atmosphere as a large process tank wherein any spikes in the difference between them shows itself as a 0 to 3 ppmv co2 variation. The overall co2 removal mechanism dominates.
We don’t know the size of the net as we can only quess, and these vary widely.
Your and the AGW data collector collective’s view is that the planet is a finely tuned thing. (yet how the hell does biota talk to the volcanos?)
I say the planet is a mean machine co2 vacuum cleaner. Any 5gt additional input
is sucked up no problem at all. The planet has had bigger burgers before. Sure there is a bit more fat (sugars and cellulose) than before and this will get burned off or deposited in the ground, and in the end this is only a one per cent increase in the carbon flow rate.
00
Exactly. (Well, except that the adjustment has a half-life of ~8 years — 5 years is the exchange time, not the adjustment time.) Hence the existance of the “long-lived residual” I mentioned. Between the atmosphere and oceans alone, the split would be about 1:50, implying that ~2% of the input would remain in the atmosphere for a long time.
The bomb spike data has something to say about this, as well — current data limit the residual to <=4% of the input. Perhaps in 8 years we can say <=2%, but the measurement by then will be sinking into the noise and such precision is unlikely.
Now that is a strict requirement! Apparently, one cannot say anything against a model unless you reproduce it (and improve it). Strictly enforced, this would eliminate most peer review. After all, the observation that I made — that a correct model of the physical world must be able to reproduce physical measurements within its domain — is so commonplace as to be nearly a tautology.
Your proposed requirement is absurd, and I will ignore it — however I look forward to the future dearth of posts by you as you atttempt to meet your own standards. (You didn’t just propose them for the rest of us, did you?)
00
Harsh words, MattyB — perhaps you should read what Ferdinand wrote before shooting your mouth off:
(Yeah, I know — when pigs fly, etc.)
00
Bob C you need to read my post #582. There is a clear context to FE’s comment that is crystal clear from this thread. To suggest FE thinks that nature can only ever and has only ever been a sink of carbon is so far off the mark that you could only get there by being extremely stupid, or malicious. In this case I can’t help but think that you and Cohers are in the latter category.
00
Sherlock matty; ok, if Ferdinand only means the last 160 years nature has been a net sink and there has been natural variation before I’ll go with that but he still has 2 dominant unknowns in natural emissions and sinks; you can’t deduce them from the increase or human emissions; and I may have missed his attitude towards Knorr which shows the airborne fraction of ACO2 constant; I must confess I have had my ups and downs with interpreting Knorr but I still think it shows that natural CO2, not ACO2, is contributing the bulk of the increase in CO2.
00
“but he still has 2 dominant unknowns in natural emissions and sinks; you can’t deduce them from the increase or human emissions;”
no but you CAN deduce the DIFFERENCE between those two unknowns. And it is known that annual ACO2 emissions > the known difference between those two unknowns over the recent timeframe where we have reliable records.
As for Knorr… nothing in there changes the above to me.
00
KR @ 578
“by the middle of the last glaciation we would have exactly zero CO2 in the air, and the world would have gone into an irreversible iceball state. ”
I think you’re doing something with your hands too but it aint waving.
Iceball earth! anti-hell! I suspect (sorry no data, just your average venting blogger)
our beloved trace molecule is not doing a 300 ppmv world saving act here.
Look around for the main suspect. Do you know the sun’s core where the fusion energy creating reaction products have to travel to the surface. Guess how long that takes! One million years (whatever error bars).
That 500 million year ago hickup may indicate possible farts too.
Just reading A. C. Clarks’ and S. Baxter’s Sunstorm.
00
So, deduce away matty: “no but you CAN deduce the DIFFERENCE between those two unknowns.” Show all your workings!
And your second part: “And it is known that annual ACO2 emissions > the known difference between those two unknowns over the recent timeframe where we have reliable records.” Is wrong for reasons noted by Mary @555: “Man made CO2 about 3 to 5 units say error +/- 10% about 0.4 units. Natural CO2 97 to 95 units error/unknown is huge but say 10% about 9.6 units.” The error bars in the CO2 emissions/sinks are greater than ACO2 emissions!
I’ll play my ace later.
00
From above
“”That would be great! Um, care to name them?””
Only too happy to oblige.
Both are much more rapid response sinks than Geoseq.
1. Oceans.
2 Vegetation.
There are more rapid response sinks but these should do for now.
00
Hi Cohenite:
“I must confess I have had my ups and downs with interpreting Knorr”
I also found the Knorr paper a little light weight and didn’t get much out of it.
Actually it annoyed me.
00
“Is wrong for reasons noted by Mary @555: “Man made CO2 about 3 to 5 units say error +/- 10% about 0.4 units. Natural CO2 97 to 95 units error/unknown is huge but say 10% about 9.6 units.” The error bars in the CO2 emissions/sinks are greater than ACO2 emissions!”
you need the error bars in the difference between natural emissions/sinks, not the error of the emissions or the error of the sinks. If we are 0.4 units error in the man made CO2, and the error in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is known quite accurately (source)
then it is simple to deduce the difference between natural sources and sinks to the same level of accuracy as we know the human emissions, as opposed to orders of magnitude larger than those emissions.
00
“Man made CO2 about 3 to 5 units say error +/- 10% about 0.4 units. Natural CO2 97 to 95 units error/unknown is huge but say 10% about 9.6 units.””
The clear indication that this way of thinking is flawed is by realising it would lead us to thinking we can’t know the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as accurately as our measurements allow given we don’t know the sources and sinks.
As I like to have analogies.
Imagine a situation where I threw 4 handfulls of nuts in to a bowl, and then took out 2 handfulls. A “handfull” may be 50 nuts +/-10. I then add 10 more nuts.
1) How accurately can I measure the nuts in the bowl by counting them? Hint – the +/- 10% does not stop me knowing the number of nuts in the bowl exactly.
2) How many nuts did I put in there at the end.
Hint – the answer is 10, regardless of any other uncertainty.
3) How many nuts were left in the bowl after I put in 4 handfulls and took 2 out?
Hint – we know this EXACTLY by counting, even though the handfulls had significant uncertainty.
00
Matty, I think your nuts analogy is very apt. There is no way you can work out accurately natural emissions of CO2 and natural sinks from just knowing ACO2 emissions and the atmospheric increase.
And one thing being overlooked by Ferdinand and others who do claim you can is that the ocean loses CO2 from both the bottom and the top. At the bottom the continual movement of the plates sees continuous, massive ocean recyling through the mantle; Dr Craig O’Neill explains it this way:
“Water, absorbed into the oceanic crust as hydrous minerals, follows the plate into the mantle. Similarly, dissolved CO2 in the oceans can precipitate to form calcite, which is then deposited on the plate and likewise recycled into the mantle.”
There is no way that you have estimates, let alone reasonable estimates of CO2 movements in and out of the ocean.
00
One other thing to consider is that if the natural sinks and sources were higly variable over short time scales then indeed man made emissions would be dwarfed… but they are not, and the difference between natural sources and natural emissions is remarkably stable. which suggests to me we don’t really need to know much about them for this particular issue. If something unexpected occurred well we’d pick it up from a significant change in CO2 concentrations… either a drop or an increase way in excess of ACO2.
Also: you asked “So, deduce away matty: “no but you CAN deduce the DIFFERENCE between those two unknowns.” Show all your workings!”
ok. 1) we know the human emissions.
2) we know the change in atmospheric conc.
3) therefore we know the difference between the two unknowns (natural sources and sinks). not that hard.
00
Ladies and gentlemen,
It seems that there is some confusion about what I have said, but indeed it should be clear from the context of the whole thread that nature is a net sink for CO2 only is certain for the past 50+ years, since we have accurate measurements and quite good estimates of human emissions. MattB in #582 did make a good overview of my point of view.
Because we know the emissions and the increase in the atmosphere, we know what nature is doing (that is natural sources – natural sinks) with the amounts available in the atmosphere, as nature absorbs or releases CO2 which makes up the difference between human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere.
It is this difference which is important for what happens in the atmosphere. The real height of any natural inflow or outflow is not of the slightest importance, as long as the sum of all natural inputs balance the sum of all natural outputs. And yet it is the natural imbalance, which is exactly known. That is all what is needed to know what is happening with CO2 in nature, and that proves that nature was a net sink in the past 50+ years, even including the margins of error in the emission estimates and the CO2 measurements.
For the period 1900-1960, we have less exact figures for CO2 increase and the emissions were a lot smaller, but still nature was a net sink if counted over the whole period.
For the period 1850-1900, the emissions were a lot smaller than the natural variability, thus nature has been a sink in some years and a source in other years.
And before 1850, only natural variability was at work. Natural variability which follows temperature changes over short (4 ppmv/degr.C) to very long (8 ppmv/degr.C) periods.
I hope this made it clear…
00
Would U.S. and Russian Nuclear bomb explosions in space alter the equation?
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/HAARPbg.html
00
Part of a course work submission for an Environmental science degree at Warmer University:
“”you need the error bars in the difference between natural emissions/sinks, not the error of the emissions or the error of the sinks.
If we are 0.4 units error in the man made CO2, and the error in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is known quite accurately (source)””.
The sad thing is I am debating this material so where does that put me??
00
The difference between natural emissions and sinks [emissions – sinks] is the CO2 trend; if it goes up then emissions > sinks; and vice-versa. That tells us NOTHING about the respective quantum of the emissions and sinks OR their trends; for instance both emissions and sinks might be increasing but if the sinks are increasing more than the emissions than the difference will be negative [ie decreasing CO2 trend]; you could have a increasing emission trend and a decreasing sink trend but have a negative difference with a CO2 increasing trend if emissions started increasing from a lower base than the sinks.
Great faith is placed by both Ferdinand and matty on there apparently being very little difference between emissions and sinks in the past as shown by the relatively narrow range of CO2 variation; but as I show the latter does not prove the former; and if you can’t do that then you cannot say any increase in CO2 trend is due to the ACO2.
00
“and if you can’t do that then you cannot say any increase in CO2 trend is due to the ACO2.”
That’s the leap of faith you are taking that is not justified from the rest of your post. We know the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to ACO2, as without the ACO2 there would not be an increase, as annual ACO2 is greater than the annual increase.
Indeed the natural flows may well be as you describe (or one of the options you describe), and they may well be of interest, but one thing is certain, when atmospheric concs are rising, and rising at a rate that is less than ACO2 emissions, then without the ACO2 they would not be rising.
00
“Great faith is placed by both Ferdinand and matty on there apparently being very little difference between emissions and sinks in the past as shown by the relatively narrow range of CO2 variation; but as I show the latter does not prove the former;”
Hang on – of course it does. If there was not very little difference between the emissions and sinks in the past then there would not be a narrow range of CO2 variation. It would be all over the place. I should add that I put no faith in that continuing in the future… who knows.
00
Congratulations matty, you’ve passed logic 101; this is indeed the crux of Ferdinand’s claim: “but one thing is certain, when atmospheric concs are rising, and rising at a rate that is less than ACO2 emissions, then without the ACO2 they would not be rising.”
Look at Tom Quirk’s graph above; ACO2 almost montonic; look at CO2 ‘increase’; between 1998 and 2000 a drop of 4Gt when ACO2 is flat; another 4Gt drop between 1988-1992 when ACO2 increases by 1/2Gt; and 1982-83 and increase in CO2 of 3.5Gt when ACO2 drops by .5Gt.
CO2 is dancing with the sinks and ACO2 is home in bed.
00
Cohenite, please why don’t you want to understand something you probably understand for your own budget? If you start your bussiness at the beginning of the day with $1000 in the cash register and you add $50 of your own money and you end the day with $1025 in your cash register, are you sure that you have a good bussiness day, because you see an increase of $25?
Have a second look at Tom Quirks graph: every year, the increase in the atmosphere is less than the emissions, except for two borderline years. Human emissions don’t disappear in space, so where does the difference between emissions and increase in the atmosphere go? In natural sinks: oceans and biosphere. Thus nature was a net sink for CO2 in the past 50 years, no matter that in some years the sink is larger, in other years smaller. That is natural variability, which affects the sink rate, but doesn’t turn nature into a net source.
The net contribution of nature to the increase in the atmosphere over the past 50 years was zero, nada, nothing, whatever the individual or combined natural in and outflows were.
00
Ferdinand, I’m a married man; I don’t have my own budget. Why don’t you send that to Salby?
The point is; if CO2 increases are not primarily due to ACO2, then AGW is dead right there. I mean it may be dead for other reasons even if it is as you say that ACO2 IS responsible for the increase in CO2, but if it isn’t then we can all go home.
So, see what Salby says. And let us know how it goes.
00
Ferdinand at 603. Your business acumen is outstanding LOL! If you had
1,000 dollars in the till, and added $50 from your own pocket and at the end of the day still had 1025 dollars you haven’t made a loss on paper, but lousy business. You could have taken $25 dollars out to buy your lunch. But if you had taken sales of $500 on top of this, then you are 525 dollars down. You have been robbed. Or more likely tickling the Peter, or can’t do your sums properly on purpose to avoid taxation.
That’s what climate alarmists and people like you do juggle the facts, corrupt the data to suit your hypothesis.
Sorry folks had to be sarcastic.
00
BobC @ 584
Once again, you refuse to consider the effects of sequestration, the movement of carbon in and out of climate compartments via processes such as calcium carbonate, weathering, subduction, and other processes. Not to mention burning fossil fuels, incidentally.
We’re moving a great deal of carbon from sequestration (oil, coal, natural gas), burning it, putting it into the atmosphere, oceans, etc. The processes that reverse that are extremely slow by comparison. Salby, in his short term focus, is committing the same errors as a number of previous skeptics – and demonstrating a great lack of understanding of the carbon cycle in the process.
BobC – so you haven’t addressed these processes at all, and all of your arguments are relative to the fast compartments of the climate. Until you address the fact that carbon takes a long time to move out of the air, ocean, and biosphere, you’re just not discussing carbon uptake and CO2 absorption.
—
MaryFJohnston @ 591
I suggest you go and look at the numbers for those carbon sinks, then. Oceans are the biggest sink right now – we have reasonable numbers on how much they’re absorbing through pH measures and satellite observation of chlorophyll production.
The thing is – take a look at the graph at the top of this thread. There’s plenty of year to year variability, but both emissions and atmospheric concentration are moving in the same direction. There’s no variation observed that changes that relationship. Also note that the atmosphere, pre-Industrial Revolution, had not exceeded ~300 ppm for the last million years, and is now at 393 ppm, up >100 ppm in the last 150 years.
That’s not natural variability, MaryF. That’s emissions. To say otherwise, well, bluntly speaking would quite properly get me moderated. Suffice it to say I find the evidence quite convincing.
—
For you who disagree with mass balance arguments:
The change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is upwards, and has been for ~150 years. That means that carbon sources have exceeded sinks for that period of time.
Natural sources + Human sources > Natural sinks + Human sinksSources - Sinks = ~ 14 GTn CO2/year
These are different by the change in atmospheric concentration, currently about 2 ppm/year, ~14 Gt of CO2. Human sinks have been close to zero – long term char production, some reforestation, nothing huge. Our emissions are well known, currently about 29 GTn CO2/year.
Subtract the human influence from both sides:
(Sources - 29) - (Sinks - 0) = 14 - 29 + 0 = -15 GTn CO2/yearNatural Sources + 15 = Natural Sinks
Natural Sources < Natural Sinks
Enough said.
00
Al Gore was wrong, he started a fraudulent argument about human activities changing the climate and making it intolerably hotter. AGW.
Governments got on the gravy train, we have to have clean energy to stop industrial and human carbon emissions, tax it, make quillions for carbon trading and clean energy investors. We’ll spend billions giving out grants to scientists or likely interested parties to prove AGW was changing the climate. But non have proven it. Salby is backstepping now.
Human activities do enhance natural derived greenhouse gases. We do.
But it is so small it is insignificant in comparison to naturally produced greenhouse gases, like water vapor that is 95% composition of greenhouse gas.
Cloud cover that is made up of 95% water vapor, 4 percent CO2 and 1%
trace gases, like methane and nitrous oxide. Do in some instances warm
and also cool the planet. When there is cloud cover, frost does not
form. In deserts without cloud cover, temperatures can fluctuate from
50C during the day, and in winter months plummet to minus C. But humans produce less than 1% of this 4%.
Cutting carbon emissions is supposed to change the climate, it will cut down carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides from the areas around cities. Like SMOGS in London in the 1950s, people died. And smog masks were being sold when I worked in London in the late 1950s. But this didn’t effect towns 5 miles away from the centre of London near the Thames. The humidity from the Thames trapped sulfur from domestic coal fires and industry. Smoke free zones were established but of course their pollution effect was caused by high
water vapor in the atmosphere from the surrounding river.
Cutting carbon emissions will not change the climate and those that believe it will are either on the gravy train of carbon trading or clean energy investments or either have hidden political agendas such as redistribution of wealth around the world, such as the Australian
government’s commitment of $600 per YEAR to the UN Climate change fund,
instead of investing it here in Australia to combat real environmental
dangers, like bush fires, flooding, earthquakes and a possible volcanic eruption or tsunami on low laying coastal areas. Yes we still have active volcanic hotspots in and around the mainland of Australia.
Just remember folks one of the world’s biggest solar panel companies
Evergreen has last nite gone bankrupt. They received 58 million in state government subsidies and tax concessions, moved to China and 800
jobs were lost in America, and still went down the gurgler. Green energy is not going well, and the reasons for investing so much in various projects do now seem to be not a good investment, now the craziness of AGW is depleting. It’s only Australia is still carrying on about this, and looking fools around the world, although the convoy of no confidence seems to be getting international attention.
Nite folks. ‘And get behind me Satan!’ Gillard, Brown and Co. In 10 years time you will be made out for what you are, fools at best.
00
KR at 566:
Archer’s work covers 300 Gtn (what we’ve already released) up to 5000 Gtn (which would require considerable permafrost and clathrate feedbacks) – and with 300 GTn (by his numbers) we’ll still have 14-17% of that carbon in the atmosphere at 1 kyr. 40 years as half-life does not match his numbers at all.
I have read his work now, indeed seems to extend earlier work where only the cases of 3,000 and 5,000 GtC were analysed. Archer bases his work on the Bern model (or similar) and expects that the removal of any extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can be described with one decay rate of several hundreds of years. But that doesn’t hold. Several sink rates are at work at quite different speeds, that means that the fastest is leading, until saturated. That is the case for the oceans surface layer, which is very fast (1-2 years for a near complete exchange) but saturates already at 10% of the extra amount in the atmosphere.
But that is by far not the case for the deep oceans and the biosphere. The deep oceans contain 38,000 GtC. Any addition by humans via the THC and other sink places will be stored there, but increases the total amount of carbon in the deep. The current total of 300 GtC human emissions adds less than 1% to the carbon reservoir in the deep oceans, and ultimately that is all what returns if everything is back in equilibrium. Thus the real residu in the atmosphere is less than 1%, not 14-17% of the original release for the current total emissions.
The 40 years half life time is based on the current 4 GtC sink rate for a CO2 difference of 100+ ppmv above equilibrium. There is no sign that the deep oceans and the biosphere are saturating, as Knorr did prove in his work, and the increase in sink rate still follows the increase in the atmosphere at an exact linear rate.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 609
Archer has continued to work on this topic, and some of his latest (Archer et al 2009 – Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide) still comes to the same conclusion:
(emphasis added – this isn’t just Archer)
Now, I won’t claim to be an expert on this topic – I don’t spend my days looking at CaCO3 formation. But a single time scale just doesn’t express the multi-compartment transfer rates – a fifth to a third of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after even a 40-year half-life of ocean equilibration (which quite frankly agrees with my numbers – I get about a back of the envelope number of ~37 years half-life, depending on the saturation limits), and the rest will be around for quite a while.
00
KR at 610:
a fifth to a third of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after even a 40-year half-life of ocean equilibration
I don’t see any reason that there would be any residu that high other than the less than 1% at equilibrium. The input to the deep oceans at the poles (mainly at the NE Atlantic) doesn’t change much in total flow, but takes in more CO2 in ratio to the concentration in the atmosphere. The output at the Pacific does return the concentration as is in the deep oceans. Which increases with less than 1% if all anthro CO2 until know was absorbed there. Thus in my opinion, the equilibrium between atmosphere and deep oceans goes down to near pre-industrial levels… The more that the biosphere also helps in more permanent carbon storage as long as there is a CO2 increase, with no known limits than the old temperature-ocean-air-biosphere equilibrium…
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 611
As stated, I’m not an expert in these matters. But Archer and others appear to have good reason to believe that mid-term equilibrium after 300 GTn of carbon injection will not entirely return to pre-Industrial levels, even without temperature feedback pushing CO2 out of the ocean. We’ve seen a change in ocean pH already, and further pH changes will reduce the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold.
I’m just going to have to disagree with you on this one.
00
KR at 612:
Indeed the pH and DIC of the oceans surface layer did increase, but that is only true for the surface layer. That is the reason that the surface layer is already saturated after taking 10% out of the increase in the atmopshere in 1-2 years. But that doesn’t hold for the deep oceans, where any effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will show up some 800 years later…
But I am just reading a similar discussion between een electric engineer, Peter Dietze and several others involved in carbon cycle modelling. Very interesting discussion, including aspects of the fate of 14C, which I didn’t realise. 14C can’t be used as a tracker for the absorption rate of 12C/13C, something of interest for BobC:
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalD.htm
00
You keep talking about models, while I talk about measurements. What we know about the world is from measurements. Models must be verified before they count as anything but hypotheses.
Show me the validation of the models you mistake for knowledge. Because lots of papers are written about these models doesn’t substitute for validation. (The “consensus” argument again…)
Not so — I have mentioned repeatedly the fact that some CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for an indefinite time. The measurements show that this will be < 4% of the input (and possibly significantly less).
BTY: How much of your resistance to accepting the data is due to the fact that it falsifies the CAGW claim that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current increase? Once we start talking about vague long term effects, the crisis recedes into the distance future, and there is no need for panicky and ineffective action now.
00
Apparently due to the claim:
Say what? If this was even close to being true, carbon-14 dating flat wouldn’t work. Can you point to any laboratory data supporting this astonishing claim?
Apparently this is a model result:
This should be dead easy to verify. (It would be a remarkable result, indeed, if a molecular weight difference of 4.4% caused such a large difference in diffusion rates. Through a finely tuned molecular sieve, maybe — into water, no way.)
00
Funny, I don’t remember where pH is input into Henry’s Law. How is it possible to make carbonated beverages, anyway, if the concentration limits are so low? (Remember that the vast majority of the ocean’s bulk is under more pressure — and as cold — as a refrigerated Coke.)
00
KR @ 607
We’re moving a great deal of carbon from sequestration (oil, coal, natural gas), burning it, putting it into the atmosphere, oceans, etc. The processes that reverse that are extremely slow by comparison. Salby, in his short term focus, is committing the same errors as a number of
Sorry KR but I don’t know how the hell you can say 160gt sink is slow compared to 5gt source. Whatever the rate of reaction the process flow indicates otherwise.
Again the planet is a mean machine vacuum cleaner CO2 sucker upper.
300 ppmv co2 indicates vacuuming efficency. Forget about finely tuned coexistence biota communicating to mantle processes BS.
It is dogma that must be applied to further the AGW idiotic models thus enabling the extreme socialist/financial oligarcy de-industrialisation de-population for the elitist to inherit the earth.
00
Sorry . I just wanted to repeat this,cause I liked it so much.
“”Again the planet is a mean machine vacuum cleaner CO2 sucker upper.””
00
BobC at 615:
First of all, the equilibrium time between surface water and air is about ten times longer for 14C than it is for anthropogenic CO2
I have been thinking about that (and there is more about that further in the discussion at Daly’s web page):
In first instance, 14CO2 in air and free 14CO2 in water gets into equilibrium quite fast, be it slower than for 13CO2 or 12CO2 (reason why you also have a fractionation of 13C/12C at the air-water border). But free 14CO2 in water, as good as for the other isotopes, is less than 1% of all carbon in seawater, the rest are bicarbonates and carbonates. Now as 12CO2 and 13CO2 are already near equilibrium, any increase of both would push the equilibrium towards more carbonate and more H+, which pushes back, causing more free CO2 in the water. The net result is that a 100% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere only causes a 10% increase of total carbon in seawater (actually 9:1), that is the Revelle factor. The current total amounts of carbon in the atmosphere and the ocean surface layer are about 1:1.
For an impulse of 14C, the Revelle factor doesn’t hold, because an increase in 14C, will push the pH further down, but the reaction is that for each molecule more of 14C, 9 molecules of 12C or 13C will be pushed back as free CO2 or released in the atmosphere. The chance of 14C to be released is minute, in ratio to its abundance, which is 10^-12. Thus for pH changes, the total C is important and not the isotopic abundances.
The net result is that the 14C intake by the oceans is much faster for 14C (despite the slower intake speed) than for 12C or 13C, as the total 14C in the atmosphere will go down until about the same ratio as for the other isotopes, that is 1:1, then a new equilibrium for 14C is reached.
Thus about 50% of 14C is relative fast absorbed by the oceans surface layer, compared to only 10% of any extra 12C or 13C.
Add to that the thinning of 14C in the atmosphere by the release of 14C free fossil fuels and thinning by the increase of total CO2 mass, and it is clear that the 14C as tracer is going down much faster than what an extra 12C/13C mass does. Not even taking into account similar reactions in vegetation uptake…
00
BobC at 616:
Funny, I don’t remember where pH is input into Henry’s Law. How is it possible to make carbonated beverages, anyway, if the concentration limits are so low?
Henry’s Law only is about CO2 in the atmosphere vs. free CO2 (CO2 + H2CO3) in water. Bicarbonates and carbonates do not play a role in Henry’s Law, but the chemical equilibrium reactions do withdraw or increase the amount of free CO2 in the water phase, depending of the pH. Thus while seawater holds far more carbon than fresh water for the same atmospheric CO2 pressure, neutralising seawater with some acid will set free a lot of CO2.
00
chris price CHCH NZ at 617:
The problem with your vacuum cleaner is that most of what it sucks out of the atmosphere is blown out again at the other side of the equipment. Only half of the increase in the atmosphere is effectively removed, which makes that the removal process is too slow to cope with the increase…
00
The CO2 “sucker upperer”
chris price CHCH NZ – this is exactly right – the arguement on CO2 is irrelevent in regard to Global Warming – it is getting cooler – plants are the best indicators of temperature we have – and yet we have the Professor Snow Barlow (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/vineyards-count-days-to-change-in-flavours-20110724-1hvei.html) saying grape growing areas will be forced to move because it’s getting hotter?? Snow happens to be on the NCCARF (A government climate change group) and yet the Dept of Agriculture is paying out grape growers because of mildew and excess rains during flowering season! Not mentioned by Snow in his
—researchpress release (not yet published). Australian Grape growing regions have had late flowering (indicating lower temperatures (but many had rainfall during flowering which caused mildew) and yet here we have Prof Snow claiming climate change is the demon and excess CO2. Many other articles on the Grape story by ABC, Trolls here, and the Fairfax Group.Out of 15 grape growing regions in California – 10 had late flowering times, 2 the same and 3 earlier. This is from Grape Bloom Time Data from AGQUEST California on 2011 to 2010. Grape blooming time is solely governed by temperature and nothing else – daylight hours, overcast days do not influence these plants at all. The trend has been happening for the last 10 years?
The effect of CO2 is zero on temperature – and the sink – source arguement of FE & MattyB to justify CAGW is wrong.
The Grapes of Change will determine whether CO2 is important or not – but it is the temperature that is decreasing – and the increase in CO2 is maintaining the plant growth neccessary for our food etc.
00
My sink/source argument is sound. But it does not justify CAGW… and Ferdinand’s definately doesn’t as he does not appear to think CAGW is a problem. I’m also not sure many people anywhere would agree that “the effect of CO2 is zero on temperture.”
Dave – go on try reading just one science book, it can’t hurt.
00
.
This is only suggested by ice-core paleoclimate data which is ultimately uncheckable by direct empirical observation. I think we should be careful in assuming that the ice-core CO2 measurements faithfully represent past CO2 concentrations for a number of reasons such as chemical fractionation and the decompression that occurs when the ice is retrieved to the surface which apparently can cause temporary micro-cracks thereby potentially contaminating the chemical composition within the bubbles. Such chemical fractionation processes include gravitational compression which forces more CO2 towards the surface from the firn, the formation of clathrates which can underestimate the CO2 concentration within the bubbles, and the concentration of CO2 in surface-snow due to melting can apparently underestimate the atmospheric CO2 by 40% (Jaworoski 1992). Furthermore, the original CO2 ice-core measurements were not actually the geometrically beautiful curves we see today. They ranged from 170ppm-700ppm (Neftel 1982) and concentrations as high as even 2450ppm were apparently even recorded (Jaworoski 1992). These high measurements however were later removed and the ice-core data was homogenized with the MLO measurements (Neftel 1985). Also, there is paleoclimate data that contradicts the ice-core data, such as Stomata and we have 90,000 direct empirical chemical measurements dating back to 1812 of atmospheric with a 3% accuracy that depicts CO2 as high as 440ppm (Beck 2007).
Given that natural emissions are 27 times greater than human emissions I can’t see how the IPCC can maintain that humans are solely responsible for the entire 110ppm increase since 1850. Surely even a small imbalance would easily overwhelm the anthropogenic contribution? Do we know that the inflow and outflow of CO2 of the sinks have effectively remained in equilibrium since 1850 thereby allowing the atmospheric CO2 to increase incrementally from human-emissions? The summary statistics in AR4 for inflows and outflows of atmospheric CO2 only covers the time-period between the 1980’s and 1990’s. What about before then? Do we know? Do we have the requisite data? I haven’t done as much research into this subject as Ferdinand Engelbeen (because I’m young and got Xbox priorities), but I can’t help feel that Ferdinand is misrepresenting Henry’s law. My understanding of Henry’s law is that it implies a fixed ratio of concentrations between a gas and a liquid at constant temperature. Hence if you increased the partial-pressure of the gas you thereby force more CO2 down to the oceans in accordance with the partitioning ratio which is understood to be 1:50 for CO2 at the Earth’s current surface temperature. This implies that 98% of anthropogenic CO2 should be absorbed by the ocean to maintain equilibrium between the two phases. It is true that salinity, pH levels, chemical conversions, and the diffusion rate of POC to the bottom of the oceans can affect Henry’s law and the uptake of atmospheric CO2, but do we know how much by? Has this been quantified and empirically measured by anyone? I’m curious.
00
Dave at 622:
the arguement on CO2 is irrelevent in regard to Global Warming
I agree that the cause of the increase of CO2 is a complete separate item to what the effect is of CO2 on temperature. Then the question is, why some sceptics insist that the increase is (or may be) NOT man made, while all available evidence points to a human cause?
The effect of CO2 is zero on temperature – and the sink – source arguement of FE & MattyB to justify CAGW is wrong.
Again, see the previous point. The effect of CO2 on temperature is not zero, there are some physical laws that should be violated if that were true. But in my opinion, the effect is small, not leading to any Catastrophic AGW, even beneficial.
00
CHIP at 624:
This is only suggested by ice-core paleoclimate data which is ultimately uncheckable by direct empirical observation.
If you should have read the recent (since 1996!) literature, you should know that ice cores are reliable, including a 20 year overlap with direct measurements at the South Pole. There is very little migration in “warm” (coastal) ice cores, leading to a broadening of the resolution, but that doesn’t change the average CO2 level, thus quezing (preferable!) CO2 out of the air bubbles is pure nonsense.
There is no measurable migration in the “cold” (inland) ice cores like Vostok and Dome C, the latter going back 800,000 years.
Stomata data have their own problems, far exceeding those of ice cores. The local bias is outcalibrated, by comparing them to… ice cores and direct measurements over the past century. But that is no guarantee that the local bias didn’t change over previous centuries.
Stomata data and historical measurements share the same problem: CO2 measurements over land show extreme variability over a day, seasons, wind speed and direction. Thus simply are unreliable.
See further my take on Jaworowski, who obviously hasn’t read the scientific literature since 1996:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
and about the late Beck’s historical data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
And we have sediment records which confirm and extend the ice core record for over 2 million years.
Given that natural emissions are 27 times greater than human emissions I can’t see how the IPCC can maintain that humans are solely responsible for the entire 110ppm increase since 1850.
Again for the nth time: the height of the natural emissions is completely irrelevant, because these are more than compensated by natural sinks. Nature is a NET SINK for CO2 for the past at least 50 years. That means that the net contribution of nature to the increase is zero, nada, nothing.
Hence if you increased the partial-pressure of the gas you thereby force more CO2 down to the oceans in accordance with the partitioning ratio which is understood to be 1:50 for CO2 at the Earth’s current surface temperature.
The ocean surface layer is what directly matters, that contains somewhat more CO2 than the atmosphere (1,000 GtC vs. 800 GtC), but the chemical reactions in the ocean water push the equilibrium back, so that ultimately the surface water-air equilibrium is reached with a 1:9 partitioning between water and air, reverse and far away from the 50:1. That is measured by a few million samples of seawater by ships over time and a few long term series (Bermuda and Hawaii).
The deep oceans play a role over longer periods and indeed will go to 50:1, but there is only a limited exchange between the deep oceans and the atmosphere, that will take a lot of time (about 38 years half life time).
00
Maybe this isn’t the best place to put this comment, but I have just finished reading “Estimates of Global Food Production in 2050” which concludes : —
Now who’d have thought that?
Paul
00
Indeed Paul, Who’d have thought that such a cess-pit of ignorance like CO2 science would include such a clearly biased assessment of food production.
Well me for one.
00
MB
Perhaps saying “the effect of CO2 is zero on temperture.” is not strictly and totally and absolutely correct.
But certainly CO2 attributable to Man has no relevant influence on our Earth’s atmospheric temperature even when water is excluded from the analysis. The beloved “trick” of warmers.
If water is included, then saying that man made CO2 is a possible factor in CAGW is a deliberate falsification of science because the water effect swamps AL CO2 effect even without isolating the man made part.
.
00
“”Nature is a NET SINK for CO2 for the past at least 50 years.””
This has not been demonstrated anywhere.
Using CAGW logic we could say that “” Nature has always been a NET SINK for CO2.
Why just 50 years???
00
FE @ 617
dam busters ahead ….
please 160 gt sink is at work and it is very variable. Take the USA for example, you guys
are at a extreme dry rinse cycle wherein the c02 sink for the moment is mostly shut down
and is flipped to c02 sourcing (for the global one per cent land mass).
No sink has teleconnected to this event I know of.
FE you have run out of logic.
00
FE @ 617
Where does this come from? Again a teleconnection idea. Again Salby testifies to us (as an atmosphere scientist) that the extent of these processes are unknown. The processes are separate in time and location.
00
So MattB, let me get this straight. You have weighed the relative cost/benefits of ‘mitigation’ of AGW against the cost/benefits of ‘adaptation’ to changes in the earth’s temperature and found that there is evidence to favour the former against the latter strategy?
Oh, you haven’t? You are just using an ad hominem attack on the web site where I found the referenced article and that is sufficient for you to discredit all the data so carefully accumulated in that article.
Well if that is the best that you can offer then you have just demonstrated that you have neither data nor logic to support your world view.
It has been well known for decades that higher atmospheric CO2 improves the performance of plants. The new contribution of the article that I referenced was to quantify those improvements and relate them to the question of meeting the forecast food supply in the near future. Doing so brings the knee-jerk response of shutting down the world’s economy to prevent a hypothesized minor warming from human emissions of CO2 clearly into focus as having potentially a far more catastrophic effects on both the human populations and all other species alike.
When I was a child I was told that when I pointed at someone I had three fingers pointing back at myself. Maybe you need to realise that what you said describing CO2 Science is even more true of yourself “ignorant” and “biased”!
Paul
00
MaryFJohnston…. I’m not sure you learned your science, but when I learned science we would not use:
“Perhaps saying “the effect of CO2 is zero on temperture.” is not strictly and totally and absolutely correct.”
We would say:
“Saying “the effect of CO2 is zero on temperature” is 100% incorrect.”
You statement appears to be quite post-modern in fact.
00
Paul in 633… seriously you think the fact that the document has “references” makes it credible?
“You have weighed the relative cost/benefits of ‘mitigation’ of AGW against the cost/benefits of ‘adaptation’ to changes in the earth’s temperature and found that there is evidence to favour the former against the latter strategy?”
Indeed I have.
“Oh, you haven’t?”
No, listen up, I didn’t say that.
And yes sorry CO2 science is a cess-pit of ignorance… I’m not sure that is an ad-hom, more a statement of fact.
“Well if that is the best that you can offer then you have just demonstrated that you have neither data nor logic to support your world view.”
Which is the case for the “referenced” article. I don;t need data or logic in this instance as the article is a rant. The use of climate alarmists straight up indicates a total bias from the author. Frankly it is not worth reading even another sentence (although I did).
“It has been well known for decades that higher atmospheric CO2 improves the performance of plants.” in greenhouse conditions where other factors are also favourable to plants eg water supply and temperature and fertiliser. Not in the real world.
“Doing so brings the knee-jerk response of shutting down the world’s economy to prevent a hypothesized minor warming from human emissions of CO2 clearly into focus as having potentially a far more catastrophic effects on both the human populations and all other species alike.” are there actually any real references for that? Sounds pretty knee jerk and alarmist to me.
“When I was a child I was told that when I pointed at someone I had three fingers pointing back at myself.” I dunno paul maybe when you were a kid you spoke a lot of crap? Still seems that way.
00
Ignoring your posturing, what evidence can you produce that mitigation is more beneficial and cost-effective than adaptation?
As to : —
I agree that this knowledge has been used in greenouses where all other conditions are also optimised, but did you not read that in the real world increased atmospheric CO2 produced better results especially where the other conditions were unfavourable? I.e. increased atmospheric CO2 helps where the plants are water-stressed, where they have insufficient nitrogen, where other nutrients are less than optimum, in fact under all conditions. Maybe you missed that significant point.
Did you also miss that point that by selective use of plant varieties crops can be increased by vastly more than the average?
Paul
00
Here’s a brief summary of what MattB calls a “cess-pit of ignorance” : —
Paul
00
Ok Paul could you please give me your opinion of:
realclimate
the IPCC
and any other mainstream science website or body that is of the opinion that CAGW is a real and going concern.
Paul mind if I flip your question and ask you for evidence that adaptation is more beneficial and cost effective than mitigation? Personally as an example I could point you to our own Garnaut Report, or the Stern report, or the opinion of pretty much any economist of note.
00
“increased atmospheric CO2 helps where the plants are water-stressed, where they have insufficient nitrogen, where other nutrients are less than optimum, in fact under all conditions. Maybe you missed that significant point.”
Sorry paul, but all of that would assume that CO2 was not raising temperatures significantly. I am genuinely not aware of ANY research that shows that temperature rises as predicted by science would be good for life on this planet, especially not in a manner that would be beneficial to civilisation.
If the temp is not rising, however, sure more CO2 is lovely. So what?
00
“”You statement appears to be quite post-modern in fact.””
And since I was talking about warmers that fits right in.
00
Here’s a random commentary on Idso Idso and Idso:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/reliable-sources-climate-realists-craig-idso-ocean-acidification-edition/
A nice quote:
“This is a beautiful example of the classic denialist tactic of citing studies that explicitly refute your argument as though they support it.”
00
MaryFJohnston at 629:
If water is included, then saying that man made CO2 is a possible factor in CAGW is a deliberate falsification of science because the water effect swamps AL CO2 effect even without isolating the man made part.
Have a look at the the different wavelengths where water is active and where CO2 has its effect: at about 15 nm (from memory) water vapour has very little effect, but CO2 has. That means that the effects of water vapour and CO2 are independent of each other and thus additional.
00
MattB at 638:
The Stern report is not the best example of the calculations to show the difference between mitigation and adaptation. His way of calculation of the future wealth shows that the poor nations of today will compass the rich nations of today in the nearby future.
In The Netherlands, a study was launched (paid by the concrete manufacturers!), to show that adaptation to rising sea levels was necessary today, because the future would give a possible 6 meter sea level rise. But that was based on the worst case scenario, from the Potsdam modellers (Schellnhuber), which doesn’t agree with the more moderate projections from the other German modellers at Geesthaagt (Von Storch). The real measurements today don’t show more than 30 cm increase this century and no acceleration at all…
Thus it is simple: doing nothing in this case is very cost effective, and there is plenty of time to look at the real sea level increase over the next 50 years and if necessary, to start works at the moment (and ever getting better economics) that the real rise is getting critical.
00
MaryFJohnston at 630:
“Nature is a NET SINK for CO2 for the past at least 50 years.”
This has not been demonstrated anywhere.
Using CAGW logic we could say that “Nature has always been a NET SINK for CO2.”
Why just 50 years???
If you don’t want that humans are the cause of the increase, no argument will convince you.
Again have a look at the above graph by Tom Quirk: In every year over the past 50 years, human sources exceed the increase in the atmosphere. The difference between the two is what is absorbed by nature. Thus nature was a net sink over the past 50 years. If nature was a net source, the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the human emisions, which is not observed. It is that simple.
And as said before, the ice cores measurements at one side and the emissions estimates for the period 1900-1960 indicates that nature was a net sink over that period, be it that in some years nature might have been a source, in other years a sink.
And before 1900, the human emissions were too small, compared to natural variability, thus no certain conclusions are possible.
00
chris price CHCH NZ at 631/632:
Where does this come from? Again a teleconnection idea. Again Salby testifies to us (as an atmosphere scientist) that the extent of these processes are unknown. The processes are separate in time and location.
Chris, Salby makes the same error as many before him. Again: it is not of the slightest interest how much the inflows or outflows are, neither how much they change from year to year. If one of the inputs increased a tenfold in one year (all volcanoes together…), and the outputs can’t cope with that, that would be noticed as an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, larger than the human emissions alone. But we see that the increase of CO2 still is lower than the emissions. Thus nature is a net sink, whatever any individual natural in or outflow does.
00
From above
“””Have a look at the the different wavelengths where water is active and where CO2 has its effect: at about 15 nm (from memory) water vapour has very little effect, but CO2 has. That means that the effects of water vapour and CO2 are independent of each other and thus additional.””
As I have frequently said before my main purpose here is to follow these comments by this author to expose them as false so that lay persons will not be taken in.
If you understand the science on this , and I do, the comment is appalling.
00
MaryFJohnston at 646:
Please, look at the absorption bands of water and CO2 at:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
and enlarge the graph titled “radiation transmitted by the atmosphere” by clicking on it. You will see that there are two main regions where CO2 absorption wins from H2O: at 4-5 micron and at 10-11 micron (not 15 nm as I thought, my memory not anymore as it was 20 years ago…). The first wavelength has virtually no absorption by H20, the latter some absorption, but the absorption in that band by CO2 is 100%.
Thus the science tells us that you are wrong and I was right.
00
Looking at the discussion following the referenced article http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 i read the informative assessment of RealClimate, which someone else wanted me to take note of, as follows : —
I could not have said it better myself and add that I would omit the last sentence as redundant. I always look for an alternative citation because RealClimate is pure advocacy and is merely a propaganda tool for some ‘scientists’ to promote the doctrine of CAGW. Of course they do this as propagandists and not as scientists, though some may still be confused as to the difference.
Paul
00
Paul at 648:
In the begin period of RC, there were several interesting discussions, where warmers and sceptics both could have their view. I added several comments e.g. about the (minor) impact of human aerosols on temperature, which implies that the effect of GHGs is also less than incorporated in climate models.
I did give up to comment there when over halve of my comments disappeared in cyberspace. Selective removal of comments, even if always on topic, indeed is advocacy and has nothing to do with science.
But nevertheless, the above graph of absorption of water, CO2 and other GHGs is what is measured in laboratories and upscaled to global circumstances. That spectrum is confirmed by satellite measurements. No matter who shows the graph: that is science…
00
The idea that the net contribution from nature to the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1950 is “zero” as you say seems highly unlikely to me and is only possible if one accepts that the partitioning ratio is 9:1. I’ll accept provisionally for argument’s sake that the partitioning ratio for CO2 between the sea-surface and the atmosphere is 9:1 therefore allowing anthropogenic CO2 to accumulate. Nevertheless, even allowing for that, your claim still seems very improbable to me. Why? Because if you compare the satellite-measured sea-surface temperature with the unsmoothed raw CO2 measurements from Mauna loa (in AR4) you’ll see that there is a very strong correlation. As the sea-surface temperature increases, CO2 increases correspondingly (especially pronounced during El Niño’s). See below:
The satellite measurements show that the sea-surface temperature has been increasing gradually since 1980 and it is basic physics that when the oceans warm the solubility of CO2 decreases and as a consequence more CO2 is out-gassed into the atmosphere. Therefore, at least a portion of the atmospheric CO2 increase since 1980 must be driven by oceanic temperatures and therefore the net contribution from nature can obviously not be “zero” as you claim. Can it?
Do you really think that a 20-year overlap is sufficient enough to proving the validity of ice-core measurements? I don’t. Not very long ago Phil Jones used dendrological data as a temperature-proxy and it correlated with temperatures quite well up until 1960, but then it unpredictably and unexpectedly diverged from the instrumental record disproving the assumption that they can be used a valid paleo-thermometers as was previously thought. I’m afraid we need more than 20-years to prove this conclusively.
You may think that ‘quezing’ from within the bubbles is “pure nonsense” but the vast majority of fractionation processes highlighted by Jaworowski (yes, got his name right!) occurs before the bubbles have a chance to form and for all intents and purposes become essentially closed-systems. According to Jaworowski direct measurements of the CO2 concentration in the surface-snow at Antarctica misrepresented the atmospheric concentration by 20-50% (Jaworowski 1992). I believe these are direct empirical measurements. What objections do you have to this? The idea that the ice-core measurements are “reliable” seems highly unlikely to me, especially considering that the raw data (before adjustment) depicted CO2 concentrations oscillating between 170pp-700pm and even as high as 2450ppm. Also, I did read your critique of Jaworowski, and while it was interesting, I couldn’t see any cogent counter-evidence. It appears to me as though you are trying to debunk assumptions with more assumptions.
According to the IPCC’s figures in AR4 this is the case, but as I say, they only cover the 1980’s and 1990’s. Have the sinks compensated for natural CO2 emissions as far back as 1850? Here is an interesting post that someone submitted on James Delingpole’s site that perspicuously sums up my thoughts on this issue:
What if the CO2 sinks cannot sink the carbon fast enough because nature has increased the output from its sources, then the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases for that reason too? Or if the capacity of the sinks decreases so that they cannot sink the carbon as fast as they did before, that is another reason for the level of atmospheric CO2 to increase as well. There is a variety of equally-viable options to choose from here as possible causes of atmospheric CO2-increase. Here is a list of them, using ‘nCO2’ to represent natural emissions, ‘aCO2’ to represent anthropogenic (human) emissions and ‘S’ to represent the sinks:
1. nCO2 and S remain constant and aCO2 increases;
2. aCO2 and S remain constant and nCO2 increases;
3. nCO2 and aCO2 remain constant and S decreases;
4. nCO2 and aCO2 both increase while S remains constant;
5. nCO2 and aCO2 both increase while S decreases.
Now it gets more complicated:
6. aCO2 increases more than nCO2 decreases while S remains constant;
7. nCO2 increases more than aCO2 decreases while S remains constant;
8. aCO2 increases more than S increases while nCO2 remains constant;
9. nCO2 increases more than S increases while aCO2 remains constant;
10. aCO2 increases more than nCO2 decreases and S increases together;
11. nCO2 increases more than aCO2 decreases and S increases together;
12. aCO2 and nCO2 increase together more than S increases.
You have chosen option 1 out of 12 possibilities apparently for no objective reasons.
Would you mind explaining what these chemical reactions are that “push the equilibrium back?” By my understanding the only limiting factor that could possibly affect the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans so significantly and alter the partitioning ratio to such an extent would be if the diffusion rate of CO2 down to the bottom of the oceans took much longer than the CO2 crossing the ocean-surface/air boundary.
00
I would like to correct something in my above post. The satellite measured sea-surface temperature does go back to 1980, although the non-satellite HAD-data goes back much further.
I agree. All paleoclimate data seems intrinsically uncertain to me because there is no way they can be standardized by reference to direct empirical measurements. Although, I’m not following your logic here. To my knowledge, there is wind in Antarctica and Greenland too.
00
My comment was that I look for reliable sources of scientific data. And an advocacy site is not reliable, in that regard.
As to the absorption of long-wave radiation from the earth’s surface, while it may be true that carbon dioxide and water together do absorb certain frequency ranges of that radiation, I don’t think that that matters a whole lot because most of the heat from the surface is transported to the top of the troposphere by conduction, convection and latent heat of vaporization of water during the day. The surface temperature is therefore a function of the overturning of the troposphere and the properties of still gases in the laboratory are not in any way relevant to that situation.
If an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has any effect at the surface it will be confined to the night time after the air has ceased its convective overturning and is still, so that implies that it cannot possibly cause run-away or catastrophic ‘heating’ and merely slightly decreased rate of cooling in the latter phase of the evening/morning. I understand that during that phase the atmosphere cools from the top down, leaving a small band of warm air only by the morning. It then takes most of the day-time solar radiation to warm the entire troposphere before the surface gets the benefit of any warming.
Since water vapor contributes 95% of the wrongly named ‘greenhouse effect’ and since the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has a logarithmic and declining effect, the variation in temperature at the surface must be vanishingly small.
Paul
00
“I could not have said it better myself and add that I would omit the last sentence as redundant. I always look for an alternative citation because RealClimate is pure advocacy and is merely a propaganda tool for some ‘scientists’ to promote the doctrine of CAGW. Of course they do this as propagandists and not as scientists, though some may still be confused as to the difference.”
See Paul, I just don’t understand how you could say this and yet think CO2 science is a credible source.
00
Well MattB, when you see a group who push an ideology and couch it in scientific terms this is different from a group who look at a much broader field and try to ascertain what the data is really supporting.
Another thing to watch is whether they make appeals to authority, disparaging anyone with a different view and generally try to dissuade anyone disagreeing with them from speaking their mind, or even going out of their way to prevent them from doing so. Any of these kinds of activities indicate that the group has departed from the scientific method where the cut and thrust of discussion is encouraged so as to weed out the spurious ideas and get to the truth of a matter.
Oft-times the problem is that when people have the same biases as the group they just don’t see any bias. Maybe that is why you don’t see the bias in RealClimate which sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
And that doesn’t mean that I am going to defend CO2 Science, either. But every assertion made in the article I read there was referenced to a peer-reviewed scientific article that the reader is free to check out. That does not qualify them as a cesspool of ignorance, now does it?
Paul
00
CHIP at 650:
if you compare the satellite-measured sea-surface temperature with the unsmoothed raw CO2 measurements from Mauna loa (in AR4) you’ll see that there is a very strong correlation.
Nobody disputes the influence of temperature on the rate of change of the CO2 increase: some 4 ppmv/degr.C around the trend. The current dispute as introduced by Salby is about the influence of temperature on the CO2 trend itself. Seasonal to decade temperature changes give not more than 6 ppmv/degr.C. Century to millennia scale temperature changes not more than 8 ppmv/degr.C. It would be quite remarkable and need a lot of explanation that decade to century scale changes would give an influence of 80-100 ppmv/degr.C.
If that was true, then the 1945-1975 cooling period would show lower CO2 values, but we see a steady increase over the whole period, including direct measurements at the South Pole since 1958. The same for the period 2000-current, where the temperature is essentially flat, but the CO2 levels increase faster and faster…
More later, have a meeting now with other sceptics (see the “Groene Rekenkamer”, the Green Audit Society in Dutch…).
00
CHIP at 650:
Just back from the meeting…
The MWP-LIA cooling is visible in medium resolution (40 years averaging) ice cores as a drop of 6 ppmv for a temperature drop of about 0.8 degr.C. Thus a temperature increase of maximum 1 degr.C between the LIA and the current WP would increase the atmosphere with maximum 8 ppmv CO2. But we see an increase of 100+ ppmv. In fact temperature in this case only increased the equilibrium setpoint, and the increase of CO2 is solely by human CO2, but I have no problem to grant some 8 ppmv to natural causes, in this case temperature…
Pure based on Henry’s Law for solubility of CO2 in seawater, a 1 degr.C increase would increase the pCO2 in seawater with 16 microatm. Thus an increase of ~16 ppmv in the atmosphere would be sufficient to return to the previous situation. But because the biosphere works the other way out with higher temperatures, the net increase is 8 ppmv on long term.
Do you really think that a 20-year overlap is sufficient enough to proving the validity of ice-core measurements? I don’t.
There are alternative proxies of boron isotopes in foramin shells which independently confirm and extend the ice core results, be it with a worse resolution, and indirect indications that something happened since 1850: the 14C/12C ratio which dropped, the 13C/12C ratio which dropped in ice cores, firn and air measurements and in coralline sponges, living in the mixed ocean layer:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The sponges have a resolution of 2-4 years and an accuracy good enough to see an extra input of 1 GtC from vegetation or 4 GtC from the oceans into the atmosphere. The ocean surface layer and the atmosphere are in close equilibrium in less than 2 years.
the vast majority of fractionation processes highlighted by Jaworowski (yes, got his name right!) occurs before the bubbles have a chance to form and for all intents and purposes become essentially closed-systems.
Again, Jaworowski hasn’t read the literature since 1992: the work of Etheridge e.a. from 1996 has answered many of the objections he made. They measured CO2 in firn top down from the surface to closing depth. At closing depth, direct in-situ measurements of CO2 in firn, thus of still open bubbles, and from ice, thus already fully closed bubbles, via the normal route of drilling ice, transport, crushing under vacuum, measuring the levels, both show the same CO2 levels. Thus there is no measurable (within the margin of error: 1.2 ppmv – 1 sigma) fractionation of CO2 in the ice during closing of the bubbles. And hardly any migration in “warm” cores: a doubling of the resolution (from 20 years averaging to 40 years averaging) at full depth after 70,000 years for the Siple Dome ice core.
I respect everybody for his/hers knowledge, as long as what is said is plausible. But Jaworoski says things which are physically impossible: migration of CO2 from low levels to high levels. Age of the gas in the bubbles equal to the age of the ice layer… If someone says such things, I take every other remark of the same person with lots of salt, to say it polite…
More later…
00
CHIP at 650:
There is a variety of equally-viable options to choose from here as possible causes of atmospheric CO2-increase.
I haven’t chosen any of the different options, because the mass balance only allows three possible options, based on the emission calculations and the atmospheric measurements:
– The increase in the atmosphere is larger than the human emissions.
– The increase in the atmosphere is equal to smaller than the human emssions.
– The increase in the atmosphere is negative.
In the first case, nature is a net source and the amount released by nature = increase in the atmosphere – human emissions.
In the second case, nature is a net sink or no sink or source. The amount absorbed by nature = increase in the atmosphere – human emissions.
In the third case, nature is a strong sink, absorbing more than the human emissions. The amount absorbed by nature = increase in the atmosphere – human emissions.
In all three cases it is easy to know what nature does: a net source, a net sink or a huge sink, simply by substracting the calculated emissions of fossil fuel burning from what is measured in the atmosphere.
What the individual flows in nature do is of not the slightest interest because we know the endresult. The result may be positive or negative, caused by increased or decreased or constant inputs or outputs, it doesn’t matter.
00
FE
There are two reasonably well estimated items in the atm CO2 balance.
1. Measured absolute atm CO2 values. Not perfect but a good figure to work with.
2. Combustion of fossil fuels , cement manufacture gives an “estimate” of total and a figure which is at best “Proportional’ to total human involvement; NOT absolute value.
The others are just guesses; sinks and natural sources.
OT
You either do not understand UV IR absorption in the ATM or are trying to mislead lay people without science backgrounds.
I keep pulling you up on this type of thing. It is a pattern and a real worry.
00
FE
You have finally put this so well:
“”The amount absorbed by nature = increase in the atmosphere – human emissions.
And my response is still:
NOOOOOooo!!!!!!!!
Writing pages and pages of stuff does not cover up a lack of basic scientific comprehension.
00
Chip @ 650
Specially liked the 12 choices.
I didn’t actually go thru them all, not feeling too masochistic today, but saw some humour in it.
00
CHIP at 650:
Would you mind explaining what these chemical reactions are that “push the equilibrium back?” By my understanding the only limiting factor that could possibly affect the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans so significantly and alter the partitioning ratio to such an extent would be if the diffusion rate of CO2 down to the bottom of the oceans took much longer than the CO2 crossing the ocean-surface/air boundary.
The mixing of CO2 with the ocean “mixed layer”, the upper 200-300 m is fast: 1-2 years are sufficient to bring the mixed layer in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Henry’s Law gives, for a given temperature the ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere vs. the free CO2 in water. But it doesn’t stop there. CO2 with water forms bicarbonates and carbonates and at the same time, the H+ increases, making seawater less alkaline. More H+ (whatever the source), pushes the equilibrium between carbonate and bicarbonate towards bicarbonate, but more bicarbonate gives more free CO2, to maintain the equilibrium. Thus ultimately, the free CO2 in seawater needed to obey Henry’s Law is reached faster, because extra CO2 makes the water less alkaline, thus less CO2 is going into the oceans than expected for an increase in the atmosphere.
See further (needs knowledge of chemical reactions):
http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf
The mixing of CO2 from the atmosphere with the deep oceans is much slower and is mainly by the THC, going into the deep in the NE Atlantic, coming back to the surface some 800 years later near the Pacific equator.
00
MaryFJohnston at 658:
You either do not understand UV IR absorption in the ATM or are trying to mislead lay people without science backgrounds.
This only proves that you don’t understand what absorption bands mean. If they are not overlapping, they are additional, as the absorption of the total atmosphere shows.
Thus please, before you accuse someone of trying to mislead, just read some textbook about emissions/absorption spectra or ask it anyone who has knowledge of such things, who you may trust.
00
MaryFJohnston at 659:
You have finally put this so well:
“The amount absorbed by nature = increase in the atmosphere – human emissions.”
And my response is still:
NOOOOOooo!!!!!!!!
Writing pages and pages of stuff does not cover up a lack of basic scientific comprehension..
If you don’t (want to) understand that 4 – 8 = -4, then you have missed some basic math classes. Then sorry, but I can’t help you further.
Need some sleep now…
00
FE
4x – 8y = -4
This is the equation you would have us believe???
00
Quote:
“”This only proves that you don’t understand what absorption bands mean. If they are not overlapping, they are additional, as the absorption of the total atmosphere shows.””
In reality, which you have tried to distort, CO2 and H2O have several spectral locations on the IR bandwidth. They have one critical location where they share bandwidth and since water is present in larger amounts it takes the greater share of the IR available for absorption but not all.
There is, as you say, “overlap” at that location and the CO2 in the clear, does take up available IR, but to imply in any way that CO2 has a free go at all IR or that the amounts taken up in the “overlap area are important is not being honest , is it??
I’m just here to keep this discussion “balanced” so that we don’t go down dark alleys to nowhere and spend energy in pointless analysis.
00
“But every assertion made in the article I read there was referenced to a peer-reviewed scientific article that the reader is free to check out. ”
Paul I gave you a reference to an article that took one CO2 science piece (or Idso idso idso anyway) and demonstrated that the “references” didn;t stack up, and totally misrepresented those references.
It would be like me saying that CAGW has been proven an absolute fact (CO2 Science 2010).
00
Clarification
“There is, as you say, “overlap” at that location and the CO2 in the clear, does take up available IR, but to imply in any way that CO2 has a free go at all IR or that the amounts taken up in the “overlap area are important is not being honest , is it??
CO2 will get a go at ALL the IR at this location in areas free of water vapour (low humidity) Deserts in equatorial zones and poles.
00
Sorry
That should have been
4cr – 8ap = -4
00
MaryFJohnston at 664.
If you are stubborn, then
4x – 8y = -4
The 4 GtC is measured in the atmosphere, nothing to do with some unknown quantity. The 8 GtC is what is calculated from fossil fuel use, again nothing to do with some unknown quantity. What you willfully refuse to understand is that the difference of these two knowns is a known quantity. That is what nature as a whole does:
4 GtC – 8 GtC = x – y = -4 GtC
where x is the sum of all natural inputs and y of all natural sinks. No matter what x or y in reality are, WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. And that is all what matters for the year by year increase or decrease or the variability in the atmosphere.
You simply refuse to acknowledge that, probably because you don’t like the result. But at the same time you make yourself, but worse the whole skeptic movement, ridiculously.
00
MaryFJohnston at 665:
but to imply in any way that CO2 has a free go at all IR or that the amounts taken up in the “overlap area are important is not being honest , is it?
Again, you are distorting what I said. I never said that, nor implied that. I have said that:
If they are not overlapping, they are additional
Thus water doesn’t play any role in the 3-4 micron band and all energy absorbed there (as can be seen in the “total absorption and scattering” graph) is from CO2 alone and nothing else, whatever the water content of the atmosphere. In the 10-11 micron band, the global average absorption by water is maybe some 50% (at the tropics probably 100% and at the poles probably near 0%), but CO2 absorbs there for 100%, thus at least 50% of the absorption in that band is by CO2.
Thus CO2 absorbs energy besides water. The real effect of the absorption is an increase of a benign 0.9 degr.C for 2xCO2. That is all. Other feedbacks like clouds, (poleward and deep) convection may alter that in positive or negative ways, but that is exactly what the current debate between skeptics and warmers is about. Not the completely lost argument of who or what is responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
00
CHIP at 651:
I agree. All paleoclimate data seems intrinsically uncertain to me because there is no way they can be standardized by reference to direct empirical measurements. Although, I’m not following your logic here. To my knowledge, there is wind in Antarctica and Greenland too.
Have a look at the modern data from a few days at Giessen (Germany), the same place where the longest series of historical data was taken in the period 1939-1942:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
All data here are the raw data, including local outliers at Mauna Loa and the other stations. The “baseline” stations represent about 95% of the atmosphere, that is everywhere removed from local sinks and sources, as far as possible. That is over all oceans and above 500-1000 m over land.
The stations
If the wind speed in Giessen is very high, there is a better mixing with the above air layers, and the measurements approach the “baseline” measurements. But in general, measurements over land don’t give a clue of the global (95% of the atmosphere) CO2 levels in history.
Stomata do react on the local/regional average CO2 level of the previous season. That is what Tom Van Hoof, stomata scientist, said to me. That means that some correction/calibration for the local bias is possible over the past century. But that gives no guarantee that the bias didn’t change over the centuries before. One of the main places for stomata (index) data is in the SE Netherlands. But the landscape of the Netherlands did change tremendously over the centuries in the main wind direction: Sea was changed into agricultured land, marshes changed into agriculture, pasture or forests, forests were planted and removed again for agriculture, industry boomed in the past 1.5 century… Even the main wind direction may have changed during the LIA (less westerlies, more easterlies) with different average CO2 levels as result.
00
I have to disagree. The mass balance analysis ignores the response of the sink rate to changes in concentration.
We know from empirical data (the bomb spike) that atmospheric concentrations decay back to equilibrium in an exponential curve, C(t) = C(t=0)exp(-t/a), where a is the time constant of the decay (and ~0.7a is the half-life).
The decay rate at any time, t, is dC/dt = -1/a * C(t=0)exp(-t/a) = -1/a * C.
Hence, the concentration decay rate is proportional to the concentration (what makes the system linear, and is the generating definition of an exponential).
(I’m going to refer to all rates and quantities as positive, and identify which way they’re going by labeling “in” -to the atmosphere, and “out” -of the atmosphere.)
Let’s suppose we have an equilibrium with Rin = Rout, and C = constant. If we measure Rin = Rout = 100Gt/yr (carbon, not CO2), and C = 800Gt, we can immediately deduce the time constant, since R = 1/a * C, we get a = C/R = 8 years. (This is ~ 30% smaller than derived from the bomb spike data, so perhaps there is more than 800Gt C in the atmosphere, or we need to include some fraction of the biosphere, or the estimates of Rin, Rout are high.)
Now, let’s suppose we add an Anthropogenic component, “Ain”, to “Rin”, and continue doing so for an indefinite time. How much does C increase? There are two ways of doing this – both easy since the system has been measured to be (nearly) linear:
1) Increase at equilibrium (t -> infinity):
Since Rin = 1/a*C_natural, then (Rin + Ain) = 1/a * (C_natural + C_anthro). These linear equations are easily solved for C_anthro = a * Ain.
Hence, if Ain = 8Gt/year, C_anthro = 64Gt/year, or about 8% of total atmospheric concentrations. (Also, about 30 ppm).
Note that this is the maximum concentration increase that can be caused by an Anthropogenic input of 8 Gt/yr that continues forever. It does not continue to build up, as Ferdinand assumes – that assumption is equivalent to assuming that the time constant, “a”, is very large – 100’s of years. Making this (hidden) assumption then raises the problem of where is all the missing carbon in the atmosphere (or equivalently, why is the carbon cycle so very far out of balance?) Also, of course, such an assumption cannot explain the bomb spike data without ad hoc assumptions about the behavior of C14 vs C12.
2) The same result can be gotten by considering the discrete yearly increases in C_anthro:
Year 1 total C_anthro = Ain
Year 2 total C_anthro = Ain + (1-1/a)Ain
Year 3 total C_anthro = Ain + (1-1/a)Ain + (1-1/a)^2 * Ain
…
Year n total: C_anthro = Ain * Sum(r^n), where n goes from 0 -> n , (r=1-1/a)
This is a geometric series, whose partial sum (at year N) is:
C_antho = Ain *(1-r^n)/(1-r),
and the infinite sum (at forever) is:
C_anthro = Ain *1/(1-r) = a*Ain (after substituting r = 1-1/a)
So to summarize:
1) Measurements show that the atmosphere adjusts to an input of CO2 by an exponential decay. This implies that the sink rates are proportional to the concentrations.
2) Both the measurements and estimates from total CO2 amounts give similar time constants for the decay.
3) Points 1 and 2 put a limit on the increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration that can be caused by a continuous anthropogenic input to the yearly input times the time constant.
4) The claim that a continuous anthropogenic input can cause a continuous, fixed increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration contradicts both the measurements in point 1 and the estimates in point 2, hence is false.
00
Claim #4 is less ambiguous reworded thusly:
4)The claim that a constant yearly anthropogenic input can cause a constant, yearly increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration contradicts the conclusions that follow from both the measurements in point 1 and the estimates in point 2, hence is false.
00
And, before anyone asks: The great majority of the last century’s increase in CO2 concentrations are due to non-anthropogenic increases in the CO2 input rate, Rin. These have not yet been identified (probably because no one is looking for them).
00
BobC @ 672
The bomb-spike data you discuss measures movement of CO2 from the atmosphere to various other compartments of the climate just fine. If this was one-directional, that would be sufficient.
Unfortunately, CO2 also moves from the oceans and biosphere (and sequestered fossil fuels, due to our actions) into the atmosphere, which means you are talking about measuring a single interchange rate between various climate compartments, not total concentration changes in any one compartment. Apples and oranges, BobC.
You have also (incorrectly) stated that the oceans absorb strictly along Henry’s law, missing all of the chemistry involved in ocean acidification, the multiple layers (well-mixed layer of top !00 meters), various exchange processes (well mixed layer turbulence, thermohaline circulation on 500-800 year timescale exposing deep water, biological pump aka “fish poo” moving carbon into deeper waters) that take considerably longer.
BobC @ 674
To slightly misquote Jerry McGuire, Show me the evidence! That is an incredible bit of hand-waving there, and completely contradicted by the basic math – atmospheric concentration increase has been less than our emissions for about the last 60+ years, meaning nature is acting as a net sink over that period. You might just as well invoke leprechauns…
To put it bluntly, you’re talking through your hat.
—
We’ve been moving CO2 out of sequestration (fossil fuels) into the more mobile atmosphere, water, biosphere – and as a result atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be out of equilibrium until much slower natural processes move the carbon out of those compartments.
Salby’s work is nonsense – the fact that increased CO2 levels are due to human activity is just about as settled as science gets.
00
BobC at 672/673:
I have to disagree. The mass balance analysis ignores the response of the sink rate to changes in concentration.
The mass balance shows the net result of what happens in nature, including an increase of the sink rate over the past 50+ years. The sink rate followed the human emissions at an incredible fixed rate. As Knorr did find, there is no sign that the increase in the atmosphere (the “airborne fraction”) changed in ratio to the emissions, thus the sink rate didn’t change in ratio too. See for the period 1900-2004:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Let’s suppose we have an equilibrium with Rin = Rout, and C = constant. If we measure Rin = Rout = 100Gt/yr (carbon, not CO2), and C = 800Gt, we can immediately deduce the time constant
Sorry, but that is not the decay rate for an extra amount of CO2 above equilibrium. The 100 GtC Rin=Rout is the turnover, or how long a specific molecule in average stays in the atmosphere. Which is 5-10 years. But that has nothing to do with the sink rate.
The real increase or sink rate is (Rin – Rout), which can be calculated (atmospheric increase – human emissions) and is only 4 GtC/year for the current disequilibrium of about 100+ ppmv. Thus the time constant is about 55 years, as calculated by Peter Dietze at the website of the late John Daly:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
The 14C decay rate is a mix of turnover, mixing in 14C free carbon, increased total CO2 mass and last but not least non-response to the Revelle factor (as explained in #619). All these factors shorten the decay time of 14C in the atmosphere. That makes that the 14C decay is not representative for the decay rate of an excess amount of 12C or 13C in the atmosphere.
1) Increase at equilibrium (t -> infinity):
Again you use the wrong time constant, which is for the refresh rate, not the sink rate. Second problem: the human emissions were/are not constant, but show a slightly exponential increase, so does the increase in the atmosphere and so does the sink rate. There is no sight on any flattening of the increase in the atmopshere, to the contrary. The observed simple equation is that atmospheric increase = 0.55*emissions. That results in a sink rate which is 0.45*emissions. Both are influenced by the natural variability at about 4 ppmv/degr.C for year by year changes, largely leveling out over 2-3 years.
That the sink rate is in a near constant ratio with the emissions is the result of the ever increasing emissions, which cause an ever faster increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the equilibrium, thus pushing more and more CO2 into the deep oceans (and plant alveoles).
2) The same result can be gotten by considering the discrete yearly increases in C_anthro:
If you use the right sink rate, then OK, but remains the point that the emissions are not constant, but increasing.
So to summarize:
1) Measurements show that the atmosphere adjusts to an input of CO2 by an exponential decay. This implies that the sink rates are proportional to the concentrations.
2) Both the measurements and estimates from total CO2 amounts give similar time constants for the decay.
3) Points 1 and 2 put a limit on the increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration that can be caused by a continuous anthropogenic input to the yearly input times the time constant.
4)The claim that a constant yearly anthropogenic input can cause a constant, yearly increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration contradicts the conclusions that follow from both the measurements in point 1 and the estimates in point 2, hence is false.
1) Slightly different:
“This implies that the sink rates are proportional to the difference in concentrations with the temperature driven equilibrium concentration.”
2) Wrong rate, based on the refresh rate, not the excess decay rate.
3) Points 1 and 2 put a limit on the increase in CO2 rate which is higher for a longer time constant.
4) Nobody claims that a constant anthro input gives a constant increase in the atmosphere. What is observed is that exponential increasing human emissions give an exponential increase in the atmosphere and an exponential increase in sink rate.
BobC at 674:
These have not yet been identified (probably because no one is looking for them).
Probably because they don’t exist:
– any Rin increase leading to Rin > Rout would show as an increase in the atmosphere larger than Ain alone, which isn’t seen in the past 50 years.
– any increase caused by oceans, volcanoes, rock weathering,… would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we observe the opposite.
– any increase of the decay rate from the biosphere over the uptake would lead to increased oxygen use, but we see the opposite: oxygen use is less than expected from fossil fuel burning, thus the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2.
There are no other known sources of CO2 which can give an increase of 100 ppmv in just over a century, by coincident (?) following the human emissions with such an exact ratio… While at the other side human emissions are about twice the measured increase in the atmosphere, and do agree with all observations.
00
FE @ various.
Big is not always better.
If you can’t say it in about 10 lines it probably means you either aren’t sure OR are trying to hide something!!
00
Another Howler frm 670
“”the global average absorption by water is maybe some 50%
(at the tropics probably 100% and at the poles probably near 0%),
but CO2 absorbs there for 100%,
thus at least 50% of the absorption in that band is by CO2.”””
There is a complex distribution of inbound UV from pole to pole; so you just “assume” a value at each pole, at the equator and then average them.
I rest my case.
00
FE 669
Quote: “” The 4 GtC is measured in the atmosphere, “”
If you had said “””The 4.003 GtC is measured in the atmosphere, “””
I would treat this a little more seriously.
At the moment there is a huge scientific error implied in vales 4, 8 and 4.
00
“‘If you can’t say it in about 10 lines it probably means you either aren’t sure OR are trying to hide something!!”
Dan – if you can’t understand/follow things that have more than 10 lines maybe the issue is not with Ferdy.
00
680
One down two to go??
Keep going.
00
Let me go through the reasoning again:
1) The system is linear in rate, as shown by the exponential decay of the C14 impulse.
2) Since the system is linear, the decay rate of each isotope individually is the same as the decay rate of all the others. In particular, it is the same as the decay rate all the others together — what you would see if a large impulse of CO2 (all isotopes) were added to the atmosphere.
Blatant assertion does not count as a valid counter-argument to this measured data, and the known properties of linear systems.
So … the measured sink rate is not the right rate — the right rate can only be deduced from models which aren’t verified and are incapable of analytically reproducing the measured data.
To say I’m unconvinced would be implying that this is a reasonable argument.
What is observed are the two increases. It is not “observed” that one causes the other, anymore than it is “observed” that US postal rates cause CO2 increases.
I gave a reasoned, analytical argument based on empirical data that one does not cause the other.
Your answer: Blatant assertion, backed up by hand-waving. Try responding to my argument, for once.
00
Still on the “one-directional” kick? Check out a book on Linear Systems Theory (and read up on tracer measurements): Neither one is limited to “one-directional” systems. (Break out of your EE rut.)
I could be wrong about the oceans being the main sink (although I thought that was the IPCC’s take). The main point is that the data shows that the main sink(s) are linear in rate, hence the adjustment rate can be determined by a tracer measurement. Exactly where the CO2 is going, when it leaves the atmosphere is another issue.
Quite true — pure speculation. Why should I let you and Ferdinand monopolize the fluff?
So, demonstrate what’s wrong with my math.
Show me the evidence that any of these unverified models has any measurable relation to the real world.
Well…as long as by “science” you mean “climate science” and not the kind of science that draws analytical conclusions from empirical data.
00
Shorter Jo Nova:
After atmospheric CO2 levels remained steady for thousands of years, natural sources suddenly began to emit more than the sinks absorb at the exact same time as humans began burning fossil fuels. It’s a coincidence, really!!
Pathetic.
01
MaryFJohnston at 678:
There is a complex distribution of inbound UV from pole to pole; so you just “assume” a value at each pole, at the equator and then average them.
Absorption bands for all GHGs were carefully area weighted for clear and cloudy atmospheres. Thus a 50% absorption by water vapour is what the atmosphere as a whole does, including average cloud cover. I didn’t do any calculation, that was done by others. And I didn’t say that the 50% was the average of two values, that is your misinterpretation. I only assumed that the absorption of water vapour in one of the bands is near zero at the poles and near 100% at the equator. On good scientific grounds.
If you want, you can compare the absorption rates of the whole atmosphere, or parts (poles, mid-latitudes and tropics), winter or summer, clear sky or cloudy,… for different CO2, O3 and CH4 levels and feedbacks of water vapour at the Archers page:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html
00
No-one was measuring atmospheric concentrations of CO2 during the MWP and LIA, were they? Therefore these are not the results of empirical observations but are speculative conjectures. They are not proven facts. The reliability of proxies for CO2 and temperature are intrinsically uncheckable because no-one could go back to the times of interest and actually make the direct empirical observations that might validate them.
You are completely ignoring my point while appearing to think you are addressing it. The measurements by Jaworowski of the surface-snow in Antarctica showed concentrations that underestimate the atmospheric CO2 concentration by as much as 20-50%. These are direct empirical measurements. The measurements by Etheridge sound interesting, although from my understanding, Jaworowski argues that the formation of clathrates when the ice is decompressed explode like tiny grenades and can cause temporary micro-cracks that can potentially led to contamination of the chemical composition within the bubbles; hence they are not a perfectly closed-system. If the ice-core data were reliable I still cannot see why the raw measurements depict CO2 concentrations that fluctuate between 170ppm-2450ppm. Surely, if it were reliable, these huge fluctuations (that presumably do not reflect the actual CO2 atmospheric level) would not be present? Not so?
There are other reasons as to why I am skeptical of ice-core, besides the fractionation processes mentioned by Jaworowski. Apparently according to McKay et al 1991 concentrations as low as 250ppm for extended periods of time (as depicted in the ice-core) would have led to the extinction of certain C4 plant species and this has not been recorded by paleo-botanists. But even if we accept that ice-core paleoclimatology is an empirically-robust science we are still faced with other problems. According to the NOAA (here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt) the Vostok ice-core data covers a time-frame of about 420,000 years and during this time-frame we only have 283 measurement-samples. This gives us an average measurement-sample spacing of 1484 years (i.e. 420,000/283). Therefore the chances of sampling an increase in atmospheric CO2 similar to the one today measured at Mauna Loa over the last 52 years amounts to only 3.5% (i.e. 52/1484). The measurements have simply not been done comprehensively enough for every transitional epoch for us to say that the increase over the last 52 years is unprecedented or not.
You don’t know what Jaworowski has read and what he hasn’t read. You are merely just choosing to think you do. In fact, Jaworowski must have read the literature after 1992 because he recently published a paper in 2007 called “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” where he cites 24 papers that have been published after 1992 (23 of those published after 1996) and many of the papers he cites pertain to proxy-data, predominately ice-core.
Thanks for the link to the article describing the mathematics for the chemical reactions. It looks impressively scientific at first sight but is correct? And how might we tell? I noticed that the calculations for the partitioning ratio and buffering capacity presented in the article were not a result of Henry’s law but attributed to the ‘Revelle Buffer Factor’. To my knowledge the Revelle Factor has never been empirically proven.
According to Tom Segalstad:
Questions have been raised about how strong this buffer is. It has been postulated (Bolin & Keeling, 1963) that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will be balanced when only approximately one tenth of this is dissolved in the ocean. This postulate fails for a number of reasons. An increase in atmospheric CO2 will namely increase the buffer capacity of ocean water, and thereby strengthen the ocean’s capacity to moderate an increase of atmospheric CO2; maximum buffer capacity for the system CO2 – H2O is reached at 2.5 to 6 times the present atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, depending on temperature and alkalinity (Butler, 1982). According to Maier-Reimer & Hasselmann (1987) the borate system also increases the ocean storage capacity for CO2 by more than 20% over an ocean with the carbonate-system alone.
Furthermore, this carbonate buffer is not the only buffer active in the atmosphere / hydrosphere / lithosphere system. The Earth has a set of other buffering mineral reactions. The geochemical equilibrium system anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 – kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 has by the pH of ocean water a buffer capacity which is thousand times larger than a 0.001 M carbonate solution (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). In addition we have clay mineral buffers, and a calcium silicate + CO2 <-> calcium carbonate + SiO2 buffer (MacIntyre, 1970; Krauskopf, 1979). These buffers all act as a “security net” under the most important buffer: CO2 (g) <-> HCO3- (aq) <-> CaCO3 (s). All together these buffers give in principle an infinite buffer capacity (Stumm & Morgan, 1970).
Anyway, I’m going away for a few weeks and won’t be able to reply.
00
Why all the importance on 4GtC -when compared with all the atmospheric gases – it is totally minute.
FE – do the same analysis with H2O in regard to
H20 dwarfs CO2 in regards to temperature effects? Where is the data to support the loss of O2 equivalents with the extra CO2 generated – why is the emphasis on carbon as ademon – when clearly it is has such a small if any effect on global temperature? GWP is not included for H20 – why not?
00
BobC at 682:
1) The system is linear in rate, as shown by the exponential decay of the C14 impulse.
2) Since the system is linear, the decay rate of each isotope individually is the same as the decay rate of all the others. In particular, it is the same as the decay rate all the others together — what you would see if a large impulse of CO2 (all isotopes) were added to the atmosphere.
Again the 100 GtC Rin = Rout has nothing to do with the excess decay rate, it only shows how long a molecule of any origin stays in the atmosphere and that is the refresh rate. In part that affects both the d14C decay rate from the bomb impulse and the d13C sink rate from fossil fuel use (mainly caused by the THC sink/source, where the source still contains deep ocean waters, not affected by any change in the atmosphere). The measured decrease of d13C is only 1/3rd of what is expected from fossil fuel use. That implies that the real sink rate at least is three times the 14C pulse decay.
Further, the isotopic ratio may go towards a similar ratio as per Henry’s Law. But there is fractionation due to different kinetic speeds: the atmosphere was some 6 per mil lighter in d13C when in equilibrium with the oceans mixed layer. 14CO2 is ten times slower than 12CO2 in diffusion speed…
Have you read the 14C discussion at Peter Dietze’s page on the late John Daly’s website?
So … the measured sink rate is not the right rate — the right rate can only be deduced from models which aren’t verified and are incapable of analytically reproducing the measured data.
Nothing to do with models, pure observations:
The measured sink rate is about 45% of the emissions over the past 110 years (coincidence or not). That gives a current sink rate of 4 GtC for the 210 GtC above the pre-industrial equilibrium or a decay rate of about 55 years.
The 14C spike decay only in part reflects the real sink rate, as influenced by the refresh rate of the deep oceans, a thinning of the 14C/12C ratio by 14C free fossil fuels and by the increase in total 12C/13C in the atmosphere. Thus the real sink rate is much longer than what the 14C spike decay shows.
What is observed are the two increases. It is not “observed” that one causes the other, anymore than it is “observed” that US postal rates cause CO2 increases.
Because of the extreme good correlation between the accumulation in the atmosphere and the accululated emissions, it would need some remarkable coincidences for which:
1. The human CO2 emissions disappear into space, because it is impossible that the sum of two net contributions to the atmosphere leads to less increase than one of them.
2. Some natural process imitates the behaviour of the human emissions as disturbance in such a way that it follows the human emissions in an exact ratio.
3. The natural process involved agrees with all observations (no known natural process does that job).
I do appreciate your theoretical explanations (some where very deep in my memory), but many times the simplest answer is the right one: we add twice the amount of CO2 directly into the atmosphere than is measured as increase, thus the emissions are the cause of the increase. And that “theory” does agree with all observations.
00
MaryFJohnston at 679:
Quote: “” The 4 GtC is measured in the atmosphere, “”
If you had said “””The 4.003 GtC is measured in the atmosphere, “””
I would treat this a little more seriously.
At the moment there is a huge scientific error implied in vales 4, 8 and 4.
OK, here are the error estimates:
Human emissions currently at 8 GtC/year +/- 20% or +/- 1.6 GtC (the estimation errors are less than that, but here we give you some advantage).
Increase in the atmosphere currently at 4 GtC/year +/- 0.5 GtC/year (analytical error).
All errors together:
Atmospheric increase +/- 0.5 GtC = human emissions +/- 1.6 GtC + natural sources – natural sinks
Atmospheric increase – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks +/- 2.1 GtC
(if we may assume that the errors are additive)
4 GtC – 8 GtC = natural sources – natural sinks = -4 +/- 2.1 GtC
Thus while the errors are relative large, it is sure that nature was a net sink for most of the past 50 years, with a few years borderline within the margins of error.
00
CHIP at 685:
No-one was measuring atmospheric concentrations of CO2 during the MWP and LIA, were they? Therefore these are not the results of empirical observations but are speculative conjectures.
Ice core CO2 is directly measured in the bubbles, that is not a proxy. That is true, if there is no fractionation at closing time and no migration after closing. The first is proven by Etheridge e.a. Later work by others did show a small migration of the smaller molecules and atoms. Not measurable for CO2. Migration in “warm” cores is moderate, only broadens the resolution (but that doesn’t change the average level) and is unmeasurable small for “cold” cores.
You are completely ignoring my point while appearing to think you are addressing it. The measurements by Jaworowski of the surface-snow in Antarctica showed concentrations that underestimate the atmospheric CO2 concentration by as much as 20-50%.
The measurements by Jaworowski were not confirmed by measurement in firn at a lot of places, including – again – Etheridge in 1996. There is only 10 ppmv difference in CO2 level between the top firn layer (equal to direct atmospheric measurements) and closing depth at 72 m below surface.
the formation of clathrates when the ice is decompressed explode like tiny grenades and can cause temporary micro-cracks that can potentially led to contamination of the chemical composition within the bubbles
The ice cores are decompressed by relaxing the core at -20 degr.C over a year (or more). If there are cracks, then one should find too high levels of CO2, not too low: O2/N2 clathrates decompress much earlier than CO2 clathrates, thus if they cause cracks, will escape first, because the internal pressure is higher than at the outside. When CO2 clathrates decompose, there is not much pressure left to escape (0.3% of the atmosphere), thus leading to too high levels, but the measured levels are lower than at the outside world…
If the ice-core data were reliable I still cannot see why the raw measurements depict CO2 concentrations that fluctuate between 170ppm-2450ppm.
The 2450 samples were where visible and measurable (drilling fluid) cracks or other known problems were present. These are rightfully discarded. These extreme values are not measured where no such cracks are present.
Apparently according to McKay et al 1991 concentrations as low as 250ppm for extended periods of time would have led to the extinction of certain C4 plant species
I suppose that it is C3 plants which have more trouble with low CO2 levels than C4 plants. But there is hope: Ice cores measure CO2 in the bulk of the atmosphere. Plants live on soils over land (sea plants are lucky, plenty of CO2 there), where the average CO2 level is 30-40 ppmv higher than in the bulk atmosphere, even larger if you measure at ground level.
Vostok ice-core data covers a time-frame of about 420,000 years and during this time-frame we only have 283 measurement-.
We have a lot of ice cores, with very different resolution and overlapping periods in time. For overlapping periods, all ice cores are within 5 ppmv. The resolution is 8 years over the past 150 years, 40 years over the past 1,000 years, 80 years over the past 70,000 years and about 560 years for the past 800,000 years (Dome C used smaller samples than Vostok). Thus we know for sure that there was no peak around 1940 in the CO2 data of more than 20 ppmv over a period of 1 year or 2 ppmv sustained over a period of 10 years. But we can’t measure such a short peak in the Dome C record. However, we can measure an increase of 2 ppmv sustained over 560 years, thus a 100 ppmv increase over 100 years (and back in 100 years?) certainly would be noticed.
You don’t know what Jaworowski has read and what he hasn’t read.
Yes I know, had some direct correspondence with him. Makes it even worse: he simply denies that there is a difference in age between the ice layer and the gas bubbles, while Neftel calculated the difference and Etheridge measured it in 1996. Something even a layman understands: that the pores remain open long after the snow was deposited, allowing exchanges with the overlying air.
His “new” work is mainly a rehash of his own 1992/1994 arguments, which need pages and pages to refute near every point he ojects to. And he doesn’t refer to the work of Etheridge, why not?
He reuses his stupid idea of the “arbitrary” shift of 83 years between the ice core data and Mauna Loa, while there is no shift at all, he simply assumes that the ice age is the same as the gas age and ignores the gas age data.
Further he compares the ice cores with the late Beck’s overview, but the historical data taken over land have no bearing with the real background levels, but measurements on seaships show levels around the ice core data for the same period.
And he uses stomata data to show that the ice cofes are wrong, but we have discussed the stomata problems before…
To my knowledge the Revelle Factor has never been empirically proven.
Yes, it thas been proven. The BATS series measured DIC (total dissolved inorganic carbon) over a period of 20 years. Graph at:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm
DIC increased less than 1% in that period, while the atmosphere shows an increase of 10% over the same period. Ocean surface layer and atmosphere have rapid exchanges (1-2 years) to equilibrium.
That only counts for the surface layer. Exchanges with the deep oceans are limited (but have no such ratio restrictions as the surface layer) and other chemical reactions are very slow.
00
Where and how has the sink rate been measured? The bomb spike data comes the closest to doing that — it does it directly for C14, and by implication for C12 and C13.
What has been measured is the change in atmospheric concentration (and the C14 sink rate) — everything else is speculative hypotheses based on models.
00
BobC at 690:
Where and how has the sink rate been measured?
The sink rate is the difference between increase in the atmosphere and the emissions.
As CO2 is too heavy to disappear in space (hydrogen does), the non-increasing quantities emitted by humans must go somewhere in natural sinks. No matter if some of it resides for years in the atmosphere (and a natural CO2 molecule is absorbed instead) or is captured by the next available tree. All what matters is that there is conservation of matter, in the case of the atmosphere even conservation of mass.
The observed 14C decay is not only its sink rate, but is influenced by the exchange rate to a large extent, as can be seen in the build up of low 13C carbon in the atmosphere by fossil fuel use, which is 1/3rd of what is calculated. For 14C that means the opposite: the real sink rate is at least three times the observed sink rate, due to exchanges with the deep oceans. Here the plot for the 13C decrease with different deep ocean exchange rates:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
And that is only the influence of the deep ocean exchange rate. Add to that the increase in the atmosphere and the addition of 14C free CO2 by fossil fuel burning. Thus the observed sink rate in 14C decay is far too short, the real sink rate of the decay of an extra amount of CO2 is much slower.
00
In the beginning there were Natural associated sources of CO2
which created;
Natural associated sinks
Then God begot man who created: Human associated sources
which in turn created Human associated sinks
There is no individual sink related only to “natural” sources it is a “combined” N + H sink.
The reason this is to be emphasized is that human related CO2 is disposed of in exactly the same way as “natural” CO2.
00
MaryFJohnston at 692:
The reason this is to be emphasized is that human related CO2 is disposed of in exactly the same way as “natural” CO2.
Amen.
00
Sorry, that’s not the sink rate. The sink rate is the rate at which CO2 leaves the atmosphere, and the IPCC estimates it at ~100GtC/yr. It has never, to my knowledge, been measured, except indirectly by the Bomb Spike C14 tracer measurement.
Of course, CO2 is coming back into the atmosphere at the same time. The difference between these two, while interesting, is not nearly as informative as the actual sink rate. As I demonstrate in #672, knowing both the current sink rate and the current concentration allows you to calculate the adjustment time constant, due to the relationship that the sink rate equals the concentration times the time constant.
The IPCC’s estimate of the sink rate (and total atmospheric CO2) implies a time constant of 8 years. The direct measurement of the time constant by the bomb spike experiment gives 11.4 years.
The bomb spike graph clearly shows the atmospheric-sink system behaving as a linear system. Your assumptions that:
1) Anthropogenic inputs account for nearly all of the 100 ppm concentration increase in the last century implies an adjustment time constant of hundreds of years, at least — and
2) that only 1/2 of each year’s anthro input is retained by the atmosphere implies a very non-linear system. (How is it that 1/2 of this year’s anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed, but not 1/2 of last years? If 1/2 was removed each year, that would imply a time constant of 2 years and result in the concentration increase due to anthropogenic inputs peaking at twice the input, contradicting your assumption #1.
Neither of these assumptions is consistent with the bomb spike data; Nor can that response be derived from these assumptions.
Also, the difference between the net increase in atmospheric CO2 and any part of the total source (say, anthropogenic input, forest fires, undersea volcanism, etc.) is equally meaningless. You could pick any part of the source that equals the net increase (say a combination of volcanos, fires, and tundra melting) and say that is the cause of the last century’s increase.
By picking a part of the CO2 source (anthropogenic) that equals twice the yearly increase and declaring that to be the sole culprit of CO2 rise, you have made it impossible to create an analytical linear model (or even, probably, a rational model) of the carbon system. You are reduced to what you have been doing (KR as well) of making blatant statments that this is so (although, I will say that you are far, far, more polite than KR).
00
Hello Ferdinand
You cover an enormous number of highly technical areas in these posts and have obviously done a lot of work on CO2. You seem to have a lot of enjoyment in getting to understand the fine detail such as isotopic examinations and the like. I can relate to that.
My main method of moving forward has been to assemble the overall picture, looking at all possible factors, many of which have been deliberately left out by the CAGW “scientists’.
From my earlier posts the irrelevance of CO2 wrt CAGW has been emphasised as here
“”When you quantify the “Green House” ( IF I CAN USE THAT TERM) effects we have a major
winner in Water, followed by Natural produced CO2 and way behind both in magnitude,
Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.
Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:
a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.
b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.
c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.
d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.
It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control two systems:
1. The oceans
and
2. Natural CO2 emissions.
Logically, the Atmosphere and Human CO2 emissions are rendered impotent by the shear weight of the other two factors.””
00
I don’t think that anyone has commented on the fact that the areas of increased atmospheric CO2 that have been identified from satellite scanning are not in the industrialised areas, suggesting strongly that the source(s) of the increase are natural and that they are overwhelming the minor anthropogenic component.
It seems that the too-neat model of the carbon cycle, used to attribute entirely to human emissions the measured increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of recent decades, is being challenged by the data and found wanting. And there does seem to be an element of special pleading in the attempts to hold onto the model when the data is asking for a much deeper analysis.
Paul
00
BobC @ 695
Astounding. Simply, completely, astounding. The difference between CO2 leaving the atmosphere and CO2 entering the atmosphere is the sole determinate of how the total CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes!!!
You are not only wrong, you state why you are wrong, and then claim it’s unimportant.
—
At this point, BobC, you have clearly demonstrated that you’re blowing smoke, and also – that it’s just not worth discussing it with you…
00
Congratulations, KR, on a completely vacuous statement:
So, to paraphrase: The net rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere is the sole determinate of how the total CO2 concentration of the atmosphere changes.
My lord — who would have thought? What will you think of next? The rate at which water moves down a stream is the sole determinate of the stream flow volume? The speed at which you drive is the sole determinate of how fast you are going? The mind boggles at the possibilities for faux authoritive pronouncements which mean nothing.
The net rate of gain (or loss) of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a datum. Despite what you or Ferdinand think, it does not allow you to predict the response to adding (or subtracting) CO2 from the atmosphere — for that, you need to know the individual rates (in and out), not just their sum.
I have to agree — you add nothing to the conversation. I look forward to your lack of discussion.
00
BobC at 695:
Sorry, that’s not the sink rate. The sink rate is the rate at which CO2 leaves the atmosphere, and the IPCC estimates it at ~100GtC/yr. It has never, to my knowledge, been measured, except indirectly by the Bomb Spike C14 tracer measurement.
I do see the problem: the 100 GtC/yr (actually 90 GtC/yr is only for the oceans, some 60 or 120 GtC is for the biosphere), is the exchange rate, not the decay rate. But even the IPCC in its report confuses between both… The basic flows (based on oxygen and isotopic measurements) are roughly as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
The inputs and outputs between the atmosphere at one side and the oceans and biosphere at the other side are near equal, that means that most of what is coming in in one season is going out in another season. The flows involved are only roughly known, but with the estimated 150 GtC/yr throughput on 800 GtC, you have an exchange rate of a little less that 20% or somewhat above 5 years half life time.
The real decay rate is not how much is going in and out, but it is the difference between what is going in and out. That is all what matters. If the total inputs and total outputs are equal, there is no increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even if the levels in the atmosphere stay the same, the refresh rate will reduce the 14C spike, because part of what is going in is low in 14C (deep ocean upwelling) or zero 14C (fossil fuels), while the sinks receive the higher 14C as is in the atmosphere. Thus the 14C spike is decreasing faster than is the case for any real uptake of an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1) Anthropogenic inputs account for nearly all of the 100 ppm concentration increase in the last century implies an adjustment time constant of hundreds of years, at least — and
2) that only 1/2 of each year’s anthro input is retained by the atmosphere implies a very non-linear system.
The anthro input currently is about 8 GtC/yr and the real sink rate is about 4 GtC/yr. The sink rate follows the emissions with a constant ratio of about 55%, or from a process view: the sink rate follows the increase in the atmosphere with a very linear rate, currently 4 GtC / 100 ppmv (210 GtC) over equilibrium. That means that the sink rate is linearly following the partial pressure difference between what is in the atmosphere and what is in the oceans (and plant alveoles). That gives a time constant which can be calculated as near 40 years half life time.
Also, the difference between the net increase in atmospheric CO2 and any part of the total source (say, anthropogenic input, forest fires, undersea volcanism, etc.) is equally meaningless.
The main difference between the pre-industrial equilibrium and the current state are the human emissions. Without the emissions, there would be a decrease in the atmosphere of around 4 GtC in the first year, as the driving force, the difference between the current level and the equilibrium level still is 100 ppmv. The sink rate will decrease in ratio with that difference, going down to zero near the old equilibrium. Thus it is human emissions against what the rest (nature) does…
00
MaryFJohnston at 696:
Indeed, I like to know how things in nature work and have a very broad interest in everything scientific and technical. Climate already for over 35 (40?) years, after reading a book about the role of the sun in climate, including the usuals like temperature, precipitation, hurricanes,… But also non-usuals like earthquackes (clustering in the upgoing flank of the solar cycle, as is the case now) and even the number of wars (probably spurious, but continuous bad weather, as in our “summer” now, influences one’s mood, thus more fights, etc.).
And thanks to the late John Daly, I was early aware of Mann’s hockeystick, in fact the main reason why I did become a -moderate- skeptic…
Logically, the Atmosphere and Human CO2 emissions are rendered impotent by the shear weight of the other two factors
The basic flaw in your reasoning is that you only look at the natural inputs, which indeed are around 97% of the total input in the atmosphere. But there are also natural outputs out of the atmosphere, which are at 98.5% of the total inputs. Thus the natural inputs are less than the natural outputs, and the difference between the total (natural + human) inputs and total outputs is what remains in the atmosphere.
That means that human emissions (not counterbalanced by any large human sinks) are one-way additions (3%), while nature is mainly a two-way source and sink (97%) and only for a small part (1.5%) a net sink. Not a real source at all over the past 50+ years. Thus only humans are responsible for near all of the increase in the atmosphere (1.5% per year!).
The effect of the meanwhile 30% increase, that is the real debate which is going on nowadays, not who is responsible for the increase, that was cleared up a long time ago…
00
Paul at 697:
The satellite measures CO2 at a band around 5,000 m. The emissions are at ground level and for 95% over NH land. Before the increase reaches the 5,000 m band, it has been mixed and subject to several main circulations. The change of CO2 due to vegetation in spring in the mid-latitudes of Europe are first seen in Barrow, Alaska, not in stations at the same latitude (except if one measures directly above the forests), that is because of the Ferrel air circulation, which transports CO2 far to the North at height and back to Europe near ground. The same for CO2 transport over the equator, because the ITCZ reduces the exchange of air (and aerosols and CO2, CH4,…) between the NH and SH to some 10%.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen at 702:
the ITCZ reduces the exchange of air (and aerosols and CO2, CH4,…) between the NH and SH to some 10%.
The exchange of air masses between the NH and the SH is about 10% per year… That makes that the CO2 increase in the SH lags the increase in th NH with 1-2 years.
00
700Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In a linear system, the exchange rate controls the decay (recovery from impulse) rate — see my analysis at #672.
If you want to argue that the carbon cycle system is substantially a non-linear system, fine. I would like to see some evidence of that, however, not just modeling.
00
BobC @ various
You have consistently mistaken the exchange rate between the atmosphere and other climate compartments for the sink rate, the rate of concentration change, which by definition must be slower than the exchange rate in the presence of CO2 coming into the atmosphere. Both Ferdinand and I have pointed this out repeatedly.
This seems to indicate that you actually know the distinction.
Since what we are interested in is the actual change in CO2 concentration, not the residence time of individual molecules, the difference between outgoing and incoming is the only point of interest. I will refer you again to Archer et al 2009 – Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, and similar works, where this is very clearly pointed out (Google Scholar is a good starting point here). We’re looking at a couple of hundred years for the first 2/3rds of anthropogenic carbon to leave the atmosphere (if we were to stop emitting now), with a multiple thousand year tail on the remainder.
00
You disappoint me KR — I thought you said you weren’t going to discuss this any more.
And I have repeatedly pointed out that you guys consistently mistake unverified models for reality, and don’t know anything worth mentioning about Linear Systems theory, tracer measurements, or why the sink rate for each carbon isotope (in CO2) is the same as each of the others and the same as all of them put together.
Apparently, you are unbothered by the fact that the models you mistake for reality are incapable of predicting the C14 measurements. As I fruitlessly pointed out to you before, a correct model of reality must be able to reproduce measured parameters within its domain. If it can’t, it’s wrong — regardless of who created it, or how many people believe it.
*************************************************
So, here’s a little challenge problem for you, to see if you know what you’re talking about (I think Ferdinand might be up to it):
1) The system is a cylindrical bucket with holes in the bottom.
2) There is an input stream of water at R_in gal/min from another reservoir which you know little about — and you don’t know the value of R_in.
3) There is an output (from the holes, back to the other reservoir) of R_out gal/min, and you don’t know the value of R_out either.
4) We have reason to believe that the output rate, R_out, is proportional to the total volume of water in the tank, V gallons (which we do know) — so R_out = c*V, but we don’t know the proportionality constant, c. (If we did, we could calculate R_out from V.)
5) We also believe that R_in is approximately a constant.
(Note that 1/c is the time constant for what KR calls the “exchange rate”.)
6) We do know, from observation, that the tank is losing water at x gal/min (x<<V). (Remember, we also know V, the total amount of water in the tank.)
Here's the problem. If we augment the input stream by 2x gal/min, what happens to the the rate of change of the volume, V? (Note that this setup is analgous to Ferdinand's mass balance argument.)
If you followed my analysis in #672, you will realize that this question cannot be answered with the information available.
If we knew either R_in, R_out, or c (from any one and x, we can calculate the others), then we could give a precise answer. The answer would only be "V would increase by x gal/min" (Ferdinand's mass-balance answer) if R_in < < x, or equivalently c < < 1 — so this answer assumes (without actual knowledge) a very long exchange time constant, 1/c.
**********************
I’ll demonstrate how to the answer depends on the exchange time constant, 1/c, when both of you have put your math where your mouth is (or admitted you don’t know what you’re talking about).
01
BobC at 704:
In a linear system, the exchange rate controls the decay (recovery from impulse) rate — see my analysis at #672.
Your analyses in #672 is completely right, except for one point, the decay in mass from an impulse is not controlled by the exchange rate.
Let us assume the pre-industrial atmosphere at 580 GtC.
If nothing extra is added or substracted (temperature, volcanic vents,… are constant), then the Rin = Rout and nothing happens in the atmosphere with the total amount of carbon/CO2 in the atmosphere. The exchange rate is about 150/580, that is about 25%.
Then we add a one time huge quantity of 100 GtC red coloured human CO2, coloured to make a distinction between human and natural CO2. What happens with the this red CO2 in the atmosphere and what happens with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Immediately after the 100 GtC pulse, the total amount of CO2 increased to 680 GtC in the atmosphere. The fraction of red CO2 now is 100/680 or about 15% of the atmosphere.
What happens next?
The next year, the seasonal exchanges still are around the same quantities, as these are mainly temperature driven. Thus now Rin and Rout are about 150/680 or about 22%, not much difference. As there is no differentiation in type for the inflows and outflows, also 22% of the red CO2 is exchanged by natural, colourless CO2, from the deep oceans (we forget for a moment that some of it returns in another season from the ocean surface layer and vegetation decay). Thus after one year, the fraction of red CO2 reduced from 15% to 12%.
Nothing would happen with the total quantity of CO2 (whatever type) if still Rin = Rout, but that is not the case: the increase of total CO2 in the atmosphere increases the uptake by oceans and vegetation and decreases the oceanic degassing. How much, that can be debated, but based on the current sink rate, for a 100 GtC impulse, the imbalance may be 2 GtC in the first year, thus Rin may be reduced by 0.5 GtC and Rout increased with 1.5 GtC (Rin from vegetation decay or volcanoes, etc. is hardly influenced by increased CO2 in the atmosphere). The net effect is that the total CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced by 2 GtC to 678 GtC, or only 0.3% of the total mass, or 2% of the pulse.
That goes on for all next years, where the red CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced with over 20% each year, but the total CO2 only reduces with 0.3% in the first year, but less and less over the next years, in ratio to the difference between total CO2 and pre-pulse CO2.
After some 50 years, most of the red CO2 is in the deep oceans and is replaced by natural CO2, thus the fraction of red CO2 approaches zero, but still some 40 GtC extra CO2 (40% of the initial pulse) is in the atmosphere, because the decay rate is much slower (about 40 years half life time) than the exchange rate (5 years half life).
Here a graph which shows what happens in the atmosphere after a 100
GtC pulse:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
Where
FA = fraction of anthro/red CO2 in the atmosphere
FL = fraction of anthro CO2 in the ocean surface layer (not of importance here)
tCA = total (anthro + natural) carbon in the atmosphere
nCA = amount of natural carbon in the atmosphere
In short, your calculation is based on the exchange rate, not the decay rate and the 14C spike is of no help in this case, because that shows a mixture of slow decay rate and fast exchange rate, where the fastest is dominant.
Sorry for the length of this comment, but I hope this example makes clear where the problem lies.
00
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ 707
Well stated, thank you. I would completely agree with your math and analysis on this.
BobC: Exchange rate != decay rate, and the decay rate can only be slower in the presence of incoming CO2.
00
BobC at 706:
Here’s the problem. If we augment the input stream by 2x gal/min, what happens to the the rate of change of the volume, V? (Note that this setup is analgous to Ferdinand’s mass balance argument.)
In the real situation, the rate of change of the volume and height is measured, the extra input is known and the extra outflow can be calculated from the difference between these two. The problem thus is not the rate of change of the volume during the extra input, but the rate of change of the volume when the extra inflow is stopped.
If the new instream is constant, the volume will increase until the extra inflow is fully compensated by an extra outflow. That will happen by an increase of the total volume, where the extra volume and height increase are measured. The latter is important. It is not necessary to have any knowledge of what the original inflows and outflows are, because we know the extra inflow and thus we know that the difference in total inflows and outflows in the new equilibrium situation is equal to the extra inflow. It is easy to calculate the time constant of the decay rate of the extra volume, because that is in linear ratio with the increase in height of water in the tank, and we know the extra outflow at the measured increase.
In reality, we have a situation where no equilibrium is reached (and probably will not be reached in short term), because the extra input increases slightly exponential over time. But we know the extra input, we measure the increase in volume and height in the tank, thus we know the extra output out of the tank, because that is the difference between these two. The extra outflow is in ratio to the measured increase in height of water in the tank and we know both. That gives us the time constant for the decay rate of the extra volume when the extra inflow would be stopped. Again, it is not necessary to have any knowledge of what the original inflows and outflows are.
00
What you’re claiming, Ferdinand, is that in the real world the sink rate for CO2 is independent of the concentration of CO2 (in which case, my analysis indeed would not apply). Such a system would be different from nearly all the individual absorption-emission modes that are known (except, perhaps, subduction, which could be modeled as a conveyor). It would also mean that the carbon cycle is unstable: Once the input and output became unbalanced in one direction, the concentration would simply run in that direction indefinitely, as the sink rate would not adjust to produce a new equilibrium. The effects of such a bizare situation (sink rate only controlled by temperature) should be evident in the paleolithic record.
Given that diffusion, absorption, Henry’s Law, biosphere growth, etc. emphatically do not behave this way, I think the onus is on you to show some empirical evidence that this is the case in the real world (not just in a convenient model).
I’m not asking for some more verbal argument and hand-waving — to establish that the CO2 cycle acts in this contra-physical manner you need hard evidence. Can you come up with a falsifible test — one that would be true if you are right and false if you are wrong?
00
Ferdinand, try reducing this argument to mathematics (e.g.,calculate the decay time constant and increase in volume in terms of the known variables). You’ll find you cannot do it, since your argument is inconsistent. For example, to calculate how much the volume must increase to cause the outflow to rise to compensate the added inflow, you must know the magnitude of the inflow, outflow, and rate constant (any one of those will allow you to deduce the others). Try producing an equation that gives the new volume in terms of the old volume and the rate difference, x (the known variables) only.
00
BobC at 710:
What you’re claiming, Ferdinand, is that in the real world the sink rate for CO2 is independent of the concentration of CO2 (in which case, my analysis indeed would not apply).
I thought that I was clear that the extra outflow in your example is in linear ratio with the extra height of water in the tank, or in my 100 GtC pulse example, that the extra outflow is directly in ratio to the extra increase in the atmosphere.
Thus indeed the sink rate of CO2 doubles when the increase of CO2 above equilibrium in the atmosphere doubles. But that doesn’t imply that the total outflow doubles! The total outflow only increases from an estimated 150 GtC/yr to 154 GtC/yr, if we assume the inflows as constant. Even if the inflows are not constant, the difference between the natural inputs and natural outputs, which is the real net sink, is not more than 4 GtC, as can be calculated from known human inputs and known increase in the atmosphere.
Your calculation is based on an outflow of 100 GtC/yr, which is one part of the exchange rate, while the real net outflow is only 4 GtC/yr. That is the problem.
00
BobC at 711:
Ferdinand, try reducing this argument to mathematics (e.g.,calculate the decay time constant and increase in volume in terms of the known variables). You’ll find you cannot do it, since your argument is inconsistent.
Again, you pose the wrong question: the increase in volume (in your example) or the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (in my example and in reality) don’t need to be calculated, because these are measured. Further are known the extra inflows and therefore the extra outflows, thus the decay constant of any extra volume/concentration can be calculated from the extra volume/concentration and the extra outflow at that volume/concentration.
For the current extra CO2 in the atmosphere (210 GtC) the extra output flow is about 4 GtC/year. That gives a time constant (1/e) of 210/4 = 52.5 years or an about 36 years half life time.
00
“If ‘ifs’ and ‘ands’ were pots and pans, there’d be no work for tinkers’ hands”. That is an out-dated saying but it could have a modern-day corollary, “If pros and cons of climate talk were scientific truth there’d be no need for funding perks or science work at all.”
This recent part of the discussion exemplifies the problem with the whole CAGW claim: when the discussion gets too technical for most people to follow they end up simply choosing who to believe rather than trying to work out for themselves where the truth lies.
Further, trying to reduce the complexity of the atmospheric system to a verbal discussion is rather like learning how to ride a bicycle from a book. In short, not very useful. You learn nothing until you get on the bike and start to ride it.
This is the reason why the scientific method has been so successful: instead of very clever men convincing their less clever fellow-men that they should be in charge of things and dictate policy, it requires those very clever men to design an experiment, make a falsifiable claim as to the outcome of the experiment, measure the actual results of the experiment and then publish their results so that other very clever men can check their claims, verify that the results are reproducible and then refine and test the hypothesis with other experiments. In other words there are cross-checks in place to avoid both deliberate deception of others and, even more importantly, self-deception, which is one of the greatest pitfalls of even the most clever of men.
Getting back to the matter under discussion, which is the cause of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in today’s world, where are the scientific experiments that have been done to ascertain and quantify what is actually going on?
Some questions that may need answering are : —
A) How much carbon dioxide is being out-gassed in warm equatorial oceans, what is the lag-time from when it entered the oceans and what were the ocean temperatures at that time?
B) How much carbon dioxide is being absorbed in colder oceans, near both poles and whether this has altered in response to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Both of the above questions have to do with the deep oceanic currents that have a circulation time measured in hundreds of years. There is every likelihood that current changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are being influenced by events up to a millennium ago.
C) What has been the effect of deforestation since the start of the Industrial Revolution on the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and what has been the subsequent change in bio-mass in remaining forested areas caused by the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
Those are just some of the questions that occur to me. Without measured data relating to such questions our understanding of the ‘carbon cycle’ is rather too rudimentary to base any political policy thereon.
Besides, this is just one link in the chain of logic that is needed to justify repressive laws against the use of coal and oil as sources of energy. Other links in the chain are : —
1) How much warming will an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide cause directly?
2) Are the natural feed-backs for warming from any source positive or negative?
3) What effect will a change in the rate of warming, determined by answers to the previous two questions, have on global temperatures and in what time-frame?
4) Will policies aimed at reducing the use of coal and oil be more or less cost-effective than policies aimed at adaptation to forecast changes as they emerge?
It is always important to bear in mind that this is not just a scientific discussion, it is also and more importantly a political discussion. While the science is interesting and important it is the political policy decisions which are the real issue. The science has however been co-opted, corrupted into advocacy and used deceptively as a justification for the policy. This requires that the so-called ‘science’ be held up to scrutiny and called to account.
It has become increasingly clear that the ‘science’ has been bought and paid for by ‘Government’ in order to justify their taxes and that real scientists have been gagged from saying what the data actually supports.
Since the government, the mass-media, many vested financial interests and a small coterie of climate scientists are held in a consensus of convenience, it is up to the small number of people, outside this unholy huddle, with the training and experience to sift through the propaganda, the real science and the war of words, to speak up and for the rest of the people to exercise their intelligence sufficiently to grasp the points at issue and make up their own minds as to where the truth lies.
Paul
00
To which I would add, a saying that I learned from my grandfather, “Half the lies you hear aren’t true!” which is truer today than when he said it.
Paul
00
BobC
I cornered FE about this on another thread about 1500 posts back.
Nothing has changed.
My concern was that you cant subtract an unknown from a known and then subtract a relatively well estimated number from the answer to get a real number.
A large sheet of fresh white paper was suggested to start again.
00
Paul at 714:
A) How much carbon dioxide is being out-gassed in warm equatorial oceans
B) How much carbon dioxide is being absorbed in colder oceans
Both are roughly known:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/feel2331.shtml
The difference between A and B is also roughly known:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.abstract
Thus we know that both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere are net sinks for CO2.
C) What has been the effect of deforestation since the start of the Industrial Revolution
Deforestation has caused even more human emissions beyond the emissions from fossil fuel use, but the response of the biosphere can be deduced from the oxygen balance. That is included in the above reference as increasing amounts of sinks in the biosphere. The 1991-1997 sink capacity of the whole biosphere is 1.4 +/- 0.8 GtC/year, while human emissions, excluding deforestation, were around 6 GtC/year. Meanwhile both the emissions and the sink capacity of the biosphere increased (there are newer references, but my computer still is in repair…), but the terrestrial sinks don’t exceed more than about 1/4th of the human emissions.
The effect of CO2 on global temperature is a complete separate discussion, no matter what the cause of the increase in the atmosphere is. But as both the biosphere and the oceans are proven net sinks for CO2, nature is not responsible for the increase over the past at least 50 years.
One can have a lot of discussion about the science of the effect of CO2 on temperature, but that humans are responsible for the 1.5 century increase of CO2 in the atmosphere still is old fashioned rock solid science.
00
MaryFJohnston at 716:
Nothing has changed.
My concern was that you cant subtract an unknown from a known and then subtract a relatively well estimated number from the answer to get a real number.
You still don’t get it: The human emissions are known and the increase in the atmosphere is known. Substraction of these two knowns gives us a real number. That real number is what the net total of all natural inflows and outflows is. And that shows that nature is a net sink over the past 50 years.
Even if we shouldn’t have the slightest idea what any of the natural inflows or outflows is or what the total inflows and outflows are, we know the difference, and that is all we need to know if nature is a net source, a net sink or no sink or source for CO2.
00
Yes, I see what you mean about it being ‘old fashioned’, it being well and truly out of date and sort of a ‘first stab’ at estimating the absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The oft-heard refrain, “we need to do more research” is found here resoundingly.
I found it interesting to read the assumptions that were made, including the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 at 280 ppm, whereas I have read elsewhere that there were multitudes of accurate empirical measurements made at much higher levels than that. Also that the changes could be viewed as cyclical but it is ‘simpler’ to attribute them to anthropogenic origins. Hence the conclusions, being only as valid as the assumptions on which they are based, are less than conclusive.
I also found it interesting to see the less than strident call for abatement of carbon dioxide emissions at the time those papers were published. In the concluding remarks it says : —
Nota bene, “This conclusion suggests one antidote to global warming,
if it becomes a major problem.”. Did you get that? if it becomes a major problem.
This could also be interpreted as favouring newer coal-burning technologies rather than forbidding the use of coal entirely for electrical generation.
Paul
00
Paul at 719:
Yes, I see what you mean about it being ‘old fashioned’, it being well and truly out of date and sort of a ‘first stab’ at estimating the absorption of CO2 in the oceans. The oft-heard refrain, “we need to do more research” is found here resoundingly.
As I have said, there is newer information available, but you may do some search yourself, before discarding any information that you don’t like.
The total sink rate of nature is known to a reasonable accuracy. What sinks in land plants is known with a large margin of error, but it is a real sink. Thus as the oceans do the rest (there are no other fast sinks in nature), simply substract the sinks by vegetation from the total sink capacity. That gives what is absorbed in the oceans, again with large margins of error, but a real sink.
I found it interesting to read the assumptions that were made, including the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 at 280 ppm, whereas I have read elsewhere that there were multitudes of accurate empirical measurements made at much higher levels than that.
That “elsewhere” probably is the work of the late Ernst Beck. I had a lot of personal discussions with him. While I respect the tremendous amount of work he has done, his conclusions were wrong. The accuracy of the historical measurements is highly debatable: at best at +/- 10 ppmv, worst at +/- 150 ppmv. Even the latter data (from a system used to measure CO2 in exhaled air) were used and averaged by Ernst Beck, while the error margins were gigantic.
The main problem with much of the historical data is that they were taken over land, where one can find any level of CO2 beween 200 and 600 ppmv, depending of local sources and sinks, wind speed and direction, etc. But samples taken on seaships over the oceans or coastal with wind from the seaside, show levels around the ice core data for the same period.
But even if you think that the 280 ppmv pre-industrial level is wrong, the increase sinds 1958 is 80+ ppmv, fully attributable to human emissions. Not to an extra natural source, as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the emissions. Nature is a net sink for CO2 over the past 50 years. It is that simple…
Aerosols. Climate forcing due to aerosol changes is a wild card.
I fully agree with that remark, it is the main reason why I think that the climate models largely overestimate the real effect of 2xCO2.
00
With respect, Ferdinand, it’s you who don’t get it. The measured yearly increase in CO2 concentrations is a real number. The estimated anthropogenic emission is a real(ish) number.
The difference between the two is a meaningless number (without much additional information, anyway). Your attempt to give it the meaning you wish (“Nature is a net sink of CO2”) makes any number of hidden assumptions which we do not know are true or false. The most dicey hidden assumption you make is that the exchange rate is very slow.
Here are some other examples of meaningless numbers:
1) The difference between CO2 growth rates and artic tundra GH release.
2) The difference between CO2 growth rates and biosphere uptake
3) The difference between CO2 growth rates and cow flatulance.
You can’t draw any conclusions from any of these, either.
As I showed in #672 (and you agreed is correct in #707, except for one point which you declined to demonstrate mathematically), the total long-term increase from a constant additional input, x, is the exchange time constant, a, times x. Since even the IPCC estimates this constant at ~8 years (corresponding to a half-life of 5 years), this means that if humankind had been emitting at the current rate of 8GTC/yr for the last century we still would only be responsible for ~30ppm of the 100ppm increase over that time. Of course, we are responsible for much less, since we have been emitting at significantly less than 8GTC/yr for most of that time.
Thus, nature is (currently) a net source of CO2.
Don’t just make meaningless statements (a la KR) about how “I’m mixing up exchange and sink rates” — show me where the damn math is wrong.
Hell, put some holes in a bucket and do the experiment I posed as a problem in post #706. See if it confirms your verbal arguments or my math.
00
If you want to simulate the “other boxes” in the carbon cycle with the “bucket test”, you make the reservoir (that the bucket drains into and gets input from) 50 times larger than the bucket. You also make the input stream into the bucket be a/50 * V_reservoir (where ‘a’ is the proportionality constant determing the output of the bucket.)
You’ll find that any additional input to the bucket, R_in, results in a long term solution that the bucket volume increases by a constant amount, a*R_in, plus a constant increase of R_in/50 per time period.
If the bucket represents the atmosphere, and the reservoir the rest of the system, you have an approximate model of the real world. BTY: 8/50 = 0.16GTC/yr — lost in the noise.
00
And not only the late Ernst Beck. I am now reading ‘Historic Variations in CO2 Measurements‘ which tells the same story. A graph showing the measured atmospheric CO2 from 1826 to 1960 shows clearly that levels above 280 ppm were evident throughout that entire period, with a maximum around 1940 of 380 ppm with a rapid fall thereafter to about 310 ppm.
As to how the figure of 280 ppm was arrived at : —
So it isn’t quite as solid as you contend. The ‘story’ we are being fed is just a touch too tidy.
Nota bene the doubts and revised expectations of ‘Global Warming’ of these two scientists that are not part of today’s ‘script’!
Paul
00
Paul at 723:
And not only the late Ernst Beck. I am now reading ‘Historic Variations in CO2 Measurements‘ which tells the same story. A graph showing the measured atmospheric CO2 from 1826 to 1960 shows clearly that levels above 280 ppm were evident throughout that entire period, with a maximum around 1940 of 380 ppm with a rapid fall thereafter to about 310 ppm.
That IS the story of the late Ernst Beck. The 1942 “peak” is nowhere seen in any other direct measurement (high resolution ice cores from Law Dome) neither in stomata data for the past century, neither in coralline sponges, the latter based on 13C/12C ratio’s which certainly should change if there was an important change in inputs or outputs from vegetation or oceans.
The 1942 “peak” is mainly based on two long series: Giessen (Germany) and Poona (India). The latter should be discarded without any doubt, as that is a series of measurements inbetween and under leaves of growing crops (one of the criteria of Callendar for not using such data). The data from Giessen show a variability of 68 ppmv (1 sigma) thus measure an enormous variability and/or problems with the method, reagens, skill,… In the same period at the other side of the ocean, 250 ppmv was measured in the atmosphere over land.
Simply said, forget all historical data, except when measured over the oceans. That is the same criterium as today.
One can critisize the criteria of Callendar, but at least he had criteria for inclusion of data and exclusion of outliers. Beck had none, he simply averaged all data: the good, the bad and the ugly.
And Callendar’s estimate was confirmed several decades later by ice cores.
Moreover, while it is possible to have a sudden increase of 80 ppmv in seven years (enormous outbreak of volcanoes, 1/3rd of all vegetation burning down), it is physically, chemically and biologically impossible to remove such quantity again in 7 years.
And it would be very remarkable that the source of such extreme variability would stop exact at the moment that accurate measurements started…
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Stomata data have the same problem: plants grow over land, where the CO2 levels in general are a lot higher than background. The bias over the past century can be compensated by calibrating against ice cores and direct measurements. But there is not the slightest guarantee that the bias remained the same over previous centuries, due to changes in land use, vegetation types, climate,…
00
BobC at 721:
The difference between the two is a meaningless number (without much additional information, anyway). Your attempt to give it the meaning you wish (“Nature is a net sink of CO2″) makes any number of hidden assumptions which we do not know are true or false.
Bob, think for one moment a little further:
We add 8 GtC/year. We measure an increase of 4 GtC/year. The difference MUST go somewhere in nature, or you have destruction of matter. So whatever the natural inflows or outflows do, the difference between natural inputs and outputs MUST be 4 GtC more sink than source.
Since even the IPCC estimates this constant at ~8 years (corresponding to a half-life of 5 years)
The IPCC uses several time constants: the constant for the exchange rate of ~8 years, and several time constants for the decay rates in different compartiments, ranging from less than a year (ocean surface) to decades (deep oceans) to centuries and millennia (rock weathering, sedimentation). Thus for the IPCC, the exchange rate has nothing to do with the decay rate.
Thus, nature is (currently) a net source of CO2.
That simply is impossible. If nature was a net source, the increase in the atmosphere would be equal to human emissions + net natural source, that is larger than the human emissions alone. But the increase is LESS than the emissions…
00
Sorry, I have to leave now, because our oldest daughter is coming back from a trip to Japan. That also means that I have to give her laptop back, and as my own computer is not yet repaired, it will be silent from my side for hopefully not too long…
00
It is quite hilarious that poor old Ferdinand still hasn’t got you guys convinced! None so blind as will not see.
We put more in the atmosphere per annum than the atmospheric concentration increases by => NATURE IS A SINK NOT A SOURCE AT PRESENT!!!! No matter what “sources” you propose.. volcanoes, oceans, whatever, the sum total of all those natural sources is DEMONSTRABLE LESS then the sum total of all natural sinks.
If you can’t see this then I’m really sorry but you are just not up to this whole debate. It is so blindingly elementary, and does not even mean much in terms of actual validity of climate science. Poor ferdinand.
00
I would ask you what I asked of Ferdinand, “show me where the damn math is wrong”: Except where Ferdinand won’t, you can’t.
You might be smart enough to do the “bucket test” and demonstrate your ignorance — but I doubt it.
00
Paul @ 723
Actually, Paul, that is Beck’s data again – see the source link of your data here. And Beck’s data has horrible issues, being distorted by “Urban CO2 Islands”, to coin a phrase.
Your objections to the CO2 history are (IMO) unjustified – see the Time history of CO2 presentation. And even if your issues with historic CO2 measurements were correct, we’ve still added significant CO2 over the last 150 years, and that will have an effect.
—
At this point the thread is down to less than half a dozen people. BobC continues to use residence time as a substitute for adjustment time, Ferdinand continues to support his (correct) statements about mass balance, Paul dismisses the science and measurements entirely, MaryFJohnston throws in the occasional snark but no numbers, and as for me, well, I’m certain folks have their own opinions 🙂
Salby’s numbers for thermal influence on CO2 concentrations are an order of magnitude too high, and back-casting those to the last ice age indicates zero (that is, absolutely none at all) CO2, which would have killed off all vegetable life on the planet. That did not happen, Salby is wildly wrong, a simple Reductio ad absurdum demonstration.
The anthropogenic influence on atmospheric CO2 is about as solid as science gets, supported by multiple lines of evidence – simple accounting, ocean acidification, ocean CO2 increasing at the surface (by Salby it would have to be decreasing), decreasing atmospheric O2, isotopic balances, etc.
Feel free to disagree with the anthropogenic attribution – just keep in mind that all of the evidence supports it, and opinions contrary to facts are not science.
Adieu
00
This is because they use fantasy models that have never been verified by testing them against the real world.
It is easy to see that, in any model of the real world, the decay rate must be a function of the exchange rate:
1) If the exchange rate = 0, then no decay is possible.
2) In general, the decay rate cannot be more than the exchange rate (else, where does the decaying concentration go?)
3) There may be more than one decay rate, depending on the various reservoirs and exchange rates in the system.
In a linear system, the decay rate(s) can be derived from the exchange rates and reservoir sizes. In a nonlinear system, the decay rate must be determined by measurement. The IPCC has done neither, so their guesses are irrelevant to the real world.
00
KR there are more watching this than you think.
Ferdinand has been polite and patient. I can’t yet decide if there is a sinister reason for this or not. At face value he has admitted to being a “-moderate- skeptic…” and as such sooner or later will have to separate from KR and that should be entertaining at worst.
FE From 701:
and 720:
With these two statements from FE and his good nature I’d have to say that I appreciate his interest and look forward to when his computer is fixed. I hope the debate here comes to a (wait for it) consensus 🙂 and urge the several other posters not to throw FE out with the bath water.
The paranoid me wonders if this isn’t some new approach though. If KR and MattB support him something strange is afoot and I wish FE would make a firm statement about his “moderate skepticism”.
P.S. being 1/4 Dutch myself has nothing to do with my thoughts here….
00
Oops, I read FE’s CV too fast. I see he is actually born in BE not Netherlands and worked in the Netherlands. Therefore my Dutch comment is lost. As a backup though, I can say that I have toured Belgium extensively…..
Also, if you have not gone to his web page you would have missed a link to this: http://www.chlorophiles.org/ where he clearly is at odds with Greenpeace (over chlorine at least).
00
Mark D. @ 731
Well, I’m glad to hear we’re not the last drunks in the bar at this point.
As to FE and the fact that I’m supporting him on some items, I have to say there’s no strange motive on my part (cue sinister cackling in the background, howling wolves, symbols of the Illuminati)…
I’ve disagreed quite strongly with FE before (here and on WUWT) regarding the effects of CO2, negative feedback levels, and the like. But the math he’s put forth regarding mass balances is quite straightforward and accurate – as I have stated before I prefer to approach each point of discussion on it’s own benefits, rather than accepting/rejecting everything based upon a label.
00
Nobody is contending with his maths.
“”But the math he’s put forth regarding mass balances is quite straightforward””
Sure he can add up and subtract; many people can now do that.
Certainly anyone who didn’t see that -4 + 8 = 4 is not mathematically literate.
The problem has always been with the Origin and derivation and accuracy of the actual numbers used.Analogys are good.
FE subtracts human estimates of CO2 added from some other number (i forget what is was) maybe total atmospheric CO2.
Nobody doubts that it is a real number; but the result means nothing. It has no meaning.
He might as well deduct the number of eggs our chickens used to lay in a week (about 28) from total atmospheric CO2. Same amount of relevance.
There is no point to that calculation.
00
Just because you are too lazy to do a full analysis and quantify all quantities and effects does not mean that we have to take the only “obvious” solution to the problem as the answer:
“”the anthropogenic attribution – just keep in mind that all of the evidence supports it,””
What quantified evidence??
As for numbers: there is no point discussing numbers that are just wild assumptions.
That is strictly for non scientists.
00
From above
No! not heaven
just MB
“”We put more in the atmosphere per annum than the atmospheric concentration increases by””
Yes Mattie we understand what that means.
Now show us how smart you are.
Explain the significance or importance of that piece of info?? That’s the issue.
It means nothing,nada,zilch.
Why keep repeating nothing over and over all the time???
00
CO2 (Carbon dioxide) concentration, History of
So I still maintain that the data doesn’t fit the theory ‘just so’ neatly as is claimed. Much as the glass slipper did not fit the feet of the ugly sisters. Both are ‘just so’ stories or fairytales.
And that is not ‘anti-science’, that’s just normal science rather than post-normal science.
Paul
00
Ferdinand: I agree with this statement 100% — currently, sources have exceeded sinks by 4 GTC/yr for a number of decades. This is why the atmospheric concentration keep increasing by that amount — that is obvious.
What is not obvious (in fact, ignores the straightforward linear model of the system) is that the 8 GTC/yr anthropogenic contribution is completely responsible for the increase. Both the total sources and sinks are much much larger than the anthropogenic contribution.
Since the sources increase the atmospheric concentration, and the sink rates grow proportionally with the concentration, a constant increase in the source rate (say, 8 GTC/yr) results, after a time, in a new concentration level sufficient that the increased sink rate equals the new source rate. It does not result in a constantly increasing concentration.
That requires a constantly accelerating source, significantly larger than the anthropogenic contribution:
Given the measured (not modeled) sink rate, the anthropogenic contribution (when numerically integrated over the last 100 years) can account for < 10% of the growth. Even if we had emitted the current amount every year over the last 100 years, it would only have accounted for ~30% of the observed growth (and would have done so in the first 30 years, or so).
And it doesn’t even matter if you insist that the bomb spike data measures the exchange rate, not the sink rate — in a linear system (note to KR: this means a system in which rates are linear functions of amounts, not a “one-way” system, or an “open-ended” system.) the adjustment rates can be calculated from the exchange rates and reservoir volumes.
There is a reason why published CO2 cycle model papers never try to derive the empirical data on atmospheric exchange rates — they are not capable of doing so. Were they to simply accept the measured exchange rates and use them to derive the rest of the model, they wouldn’t get the desired answer.
00
Paul at 737:
The Siple data ended with a CO2 concentration of 330 ppm in 1883. 330 ppm CO2 in 1883 is way to high, 330 ppm was first reached by Mauna Loa data around 1960-70.
I am back, now using some archaic system, but with Internet connection…
The year 1883 is how old the ice layer is. The air included in the ice layer is much younger, because as long as the pores have an open connection to the atmosphere, migration takes place. That is slower and slower with increasing density of the ice.
For the Siple Dome, the age of the air in the bubbles was calculated, based on pore diameter and migration speed. From Neftel (1992):
Based on porosity measurements the time lag between the mean age of the gas and the age of the ice was determined to be 95 yr and the duration of the close-off process to be 22 yr. These values are, of course, evaluated for one particular core representing the present situation (1983), assuming a homogeneous enclosure process and not taking into account the sealing effect of observed impermeable layers.
Further:
Because of the layers between 68 and 69 m.b.s., the air below is already completely isolated, about 7 m above the debt obtained assuming a homogeneous enclosure. Consequently, for this core, the difference between ice and mean gas age is only 80-85 yr instead of 95 yr as estimated previously.
One can discuss the real difference between the gas age and ice age, but there is no doubt that there is a difference, thus alluding to some dirty trick or “arbitrary” shift of data, as Jaworowski says is simply dishonest.
Moreover, the difference between ice age and gas age was directly measured by Etheridge e.a. already in 1996. He measured CO2 in the firn (still open bubbles) top down from the surface to closing depth. The difference was only 10 ppmv, thus the average age of the gas was 7 years younger than in the atmosphere. The ice at the same depth (72 meters) was 40 years old.
You see, the difference between ice age and gas age in ice cores was already proven some 15 years ago…
00
BobC at 722:
Finaly some time for your bucket test…
you make the reservoir (that the bucket drains into and gets input from) 50 times larger than the bucket. You also make the input stream into the bucket be a/50 * V_reservoir (where ‘a’ is the proportionality constant determing the output of the bucket.)
You make it a little more complicated than necessary, because the main sink, the deep oceans, only respond to an increase in the atmosphere some 800 years later. For the sake of clarity, let us make two assumptions:
– The increase in output of the bucket doesn’t lead to an increase of the mainstream input of the bucket from the reservoir, for the time period of the experiment and only leads to an increase in reservoir volume.
– The extra input in the bucket is traced by a red dye.
1. Initial conditions: For the bucket inflow RinB = outflow RoutB.
2. Addition of an extra flow RinH in the bucket starts.
3. After some short time, depending of the water volume in the bucket and the height of flows RinH and RinB the red dye concentration gets in equilibrium. Finally that is reached at RinH/RinB. The speed to reach the equilibrium has a time constant of Vbucket/(RinB+RinH), that is more or less the exchange rate time constant Vbucket/RinB.
4. The volume in the bucket increases until the extra static pressure is sufficient to increase the outflow so that it is equal to the extra input. Thus at that moment RoutB increased with RinH. The total volume in the bucket increased with VbucketE and the total height of the liquid increased with HbucketE
5. The speed at which this happens depends of the volume per height unit (Vh) of the bucket and the extra flow RinH. The time constant for the increase thus is RinH/Vh.
6. The necessary increase in static pressure depends of the resistance of the output drains, but is independent of the main inflow RinB; the only difference for a different RinB is that the start of the extra height/volume increase is at another level.
7. When both the dye concentration and the total volume in the bucket are in steady state, we stop the extra inflow RinH;
8. The dye color input now is zero, thus the color in the bucket reduces with the exchange rate time constant Vbucket/RinB.
9. The extra input flow now is zero, thus the extra heigth/volume starts to decrease until the old dynamic equilibrium of RinB = RoutB is reached. The time constant to reach the old equilibrium is VbucketE/RinH (because at the start of the decrease, the extra output still = RinH). That is the decay rate time constant.
10. The decay rate time constant is independent of the exchange rate time constant and independent of the main inflow RinB.
In the real world, things are more complicated, as indeed some inflows are increasing or decreasing, due to the increase in the atmosphere, but the main point is that decay rate and exchange rate have nothing to do with each other, and that the 14C tracer shows more the exchange rate than the decay rate.
00
BobC at 730:
1) If the exchange rate = 0, then no decay is possible.
In the bucket example, we stop all circulation between the bucket and the reservoir. Then we add an extra flow into the empty bucket. The bucket will see an increase in height/volume until the output = the extra input. In this case, the throughput is not a two-way exchange between two reservoirs, but a one-way addition from one reservoir and a one-way sink in another reservoir, thus the exchange rate between the “normal” reservoirs (bucket and reservoir) still is zero, because you have no input from the reservoir below.
Then we stop the extra input. The decay rate is Vextra/outflow. Thus even with an exchange rate still zero, there is an outflow, only governed by the decay rate.
2) In general, the decay rate cannot be more than the exchange rate (else, where does the decaying concentration go?)
Yes it can: if in one year all land vegetation on earth burns down or 1000 volcanoes emit 1000 times more than today in one year, the increase in the atmosphere will increase the sinks far beyond the “normal” exchange rate.
3) There may be more than one decay rate, depending on the various reservoirs and exchange rates in the system.
Agreed for different sink rates in different reservoirs, but that has nothing to do with the exchange rates.
In a linear system, the decay rate(s) can be derived from the exchange rates and reservoir sizes.
The decay rate can be derived from the measured increase in volume and calculated outflow(s), which is a highly linear system, independent from the exchange rates or reservoir sizes.
00
Mark D. at various:
Thanks for your kind words… Indeed I am from Flanders/Belgium, living only 1.2 km from the Belgian/Dutch border, therefore working in The Netherlands was not such a problem (except for the daily traffic jams in our densily populated countries…).
And the Chlorophiles was my reaction on the attacks by Greenpeace on my -then- new job in a chlorine/VCM/PVC factory, which I knew was very clean (in many ways), compared to my previous work in a resin factory (raw material for paints, printing inks,…).
That was an interesting time: until then Greenpeace was alone in the media, because the industry was very right, very academic and… very slow in its reactions. As an activist all my life, with a few friends from different chlorine/PVC factories, we started the Chlorophiles, with direct actions: where Greenpeace did some actions, we were there with our banners, so that the media (even reached the TV in several debates) had to cover both sides…
But in general, I like to know how things really are. No matter from which side it comes. In some cases I do agree with the “warmers” and disagree with the skeptics, in most cases it is the opposite…
00
And, as you are no doubt fully aware, there is a lot more to this than just one or two competing scientific papers.
CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
So, my position remains sceptical about the ‘just so’ claims about the monotonic rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the Industrial Revolution and our use of coal and oil.
Even if I accepted the ice core CO2 concentration data and ‘age’ as ‘rock solid’, which I don’t, the stitching together of that polar data with the data from an equatorial measuring station and calling it one continuous graph of global CO2 concentrations is totally unjustified, statistically and scientifically.
That has to be driven by the need to convince multitudes of scientifically naive people about an impending catastrophe.
Since global temperatures have ceased rising, contrary to the predictions of all the models, the constant warning of catastrophe should now be called off, don’t you think?
Paul
00
Ferdinand @742, Happy to hear of your interest in “knowing how things are”. I would like that too but there seems to be too many that are interested in keeping us from knowing…….in more than just the subject here.
This is off topic but perhaps entertaining. I’ve been to BE twice and seen much of Brussels, Ghent, Brugge, a host of small towns along rivers and canals in between. I have roots in northern Holland two generations back (my grandfather was born there). It is nice countryside and except for Brussels seems to be doing well. Brussels is suffering from a variety of influences which are not beneficial. Too bad I think…
Back on topic, how confident are you with the 800 years deep ocean co2 exchange?
00
Hi FE
In your comment:
“”because the main sink, the deep oceans, only respond to an increase in the atmosphere some 800 years later”‘
The term “deep ocean as main sink” has been used before by various commentators in conjunction with the concept of a very “sluggish” main sink for CO2.
There has also been the implication that deep oceans are the only active CO2 sinks that we can rely on to save us.
The term, whether deliberately or accidentally , tends to obscure the violent, convulsive and unpredictable activity of the full range of CO2 sinks and sources.
This is particularly important when considering out gassing from “loaded” currents bringing CO2 to the surface in an unpredictable and unknowable manner.
To confuse CO2 inputs from oceans to atmosphere even further we have submarine, ocean floor rends, like the one seen recently in the Arctic. Ian Plimer has made only rough estimates of this factor which Climate Science ignored because it makes human origin CO2 irrelevant.
There is a huge turnover of CO2 which until very recently has been treated by the IPCC and Climate Scientists as invisible to the general public and therefore something which can be ignored.
It has never been an invisible problem for those of us with engineering backgrounds.
00
Paul at 743:
Even if I accepted the ice core CO2 concentration data and ‘age’ as ‘rock solid’, which I don’t, the stitching together of that polar data with the data from an equatorial measuring station and calling it one continuous graph of global CO2 concentrations is totally unjustified, statistically and scientifically.
There is little difference between the atmospheric CO2 data at the South Pole and at Mauna Loa, even with the current human emissions mainly in the NH, see the graph of different stations over the past 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
Moreover, there is a 20 year overlap between the ice core data from Law Dome and the direct measurements at the South Pole (and no difference over all Antarctica for atmospheric CO2 levels):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
Thus as the ice core simply reflects the ancient atmospheric CO2 levels, be it smoothed, there is no reason for not combining the graphs…
00
Don’t CO2 measurements at the South Pole have exactly the same problem (i.e. they are affected by local circumstances, such as wind-speed, temperature, and seasons?). See ‘Infrared Analyses of NOAA Primary CO2-in-Air Reference Gas Standards at SIO, 1991-1999’ and you’ll see atmospheric CO2 measurements fluctuating between 246.59ppm-521.48ppm. Granted the back-ground level is similar to that at Mauna Loa, but the point is, the ice-core data appears to suffer from the same problem as Stomata and is affected by local circumstances considerably too. So why can we trust proxy ice-core data anymore than we can trust Stomata?
But it is a proxy, because the idea that that it is not a proxy rests on the tenuous and unproven assumption that the chemical composition of the ice-core data does not undergo any fractionation processes before closing and after closing that affect the chemical composition of the bubbles thereby perfectly preserving the atmospheric concentration of CO2. But, as I have said before, the measurements by Jaworowski of the surface-snow would indicate this is not the case. Also, given the atmospheric CO2 measurements at South Pole range between 246.59ppm-521.48ppm I don’t see how the trapped CO2 in the ice-core bubbles could accurately represent the back-ground level. Indeed, the interannual and day-to-day variability of the SIO measurements would explain why we get such large fluctuations in the ice-core data (before they are edited).
So all high values and low values were removed because of cracks and the samples without cracks were all kept? That sounds reasonable. May I ask how you know this?
Maybe I’m just being very obtuse (I probably am) but I.m failing to see how an increase in DIC proves the Revelle Factor.
00
So, if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, this result can only be understood as falsifying the ‘theory’ as expressed by the models. Data should trump theory and the models should be dumped.
Paul
00
If you think that the data supports Global Warming, then answer me this, “Why do they have to doctor the data to make it say so?”
So there you have it; the raw data shows no significant warming in NZ for the past 100 years but by the time NIWA have adjusted it there is a significant warming. They say that they are using a recognised scientific method to do the adjustments, but they just make up their own methods! This sort of deception by a scientific body should be ‘unbelievable’, but given the need to convince us of an impending catastrophe is seems it is not. Shocking! – no, I take that back. It’s par for the course for CAGW.
Paul
00
Mark D. at 744
Brugge is the most interesting town of Flanders, with a lot of buildings from the rich days of the 13th and 14th centuries. Next time you should put Antwerp on your “things to see” list: cathedral of the 13th century with several paintings of P.P. Rubens, town hall of the 15th century, a very nice Grand Market, and last but not least, the central station, nicknamed the “railway cathedral”, one of the five most beautiful station buildings of the world, according to the New York Times.
About the 800 years return time of the THC, that is based on several “human” tracers, like the 14C nuclear bomb spike, the CFC emissions which suddenly increased after WWII, the 13C/12C ratio, etc…
Sorry no link by now and bad news from my computer: something on the main board is broken, and replacing it is near as expensive as buying a new computer… So that will be for the next days, but meanwhile I help myself with some prehistoric microlaptop with a microscreen, where you need to see where you put your fingers, or you push three letters at the same time…
But I did find something on the net which hints to the return speed, I suppose based on the same tracers: the distribution of “human” CO2:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml
00
MaryFJohnston at 745:
There has also been the implication that deep oceans are the only active CO2 sinks that we can rely on to save us.
Vegetation probably was a net (but small) source before 1990, but since then did become an increasing sink. That is based on the oxygen balance.
This is particularly important when considering out gassing from “loaded” currents bringing CO2 to the surface in an unpredictable and unknowable manner.
The 13C/12C ratio from deep oceans or volcanoes or dissolving rocks in general is higher than of the atmosphere. Any sudden increase of such outgassing would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a steady decrease, in ratio with human emissions.
Further, while a huge sudden outbreak of CO2 is physically possible, although very unlikely, there is no way that such a huge quantity can be absorbed in short time.
There is a huge turnover of CO2 which until very recently has been treated by the IPCC and Climate Scientists as invisible to the general public
If you had read the several publications of NOAA, included in the reports of the IPCC, they show the huge turnover of CO2 already many years. Plimer was by far not the first to show that (but he should know that volcanoes emit less than 1% of human emissions).
00
CHIP at 747
Don’t CO2 measurements at the South Pole have exactly the same problem (i.e. they are affected by local circumstances, such as wind-speed, temperature, and seasons?).
Local circumstances over land are local vegetation, traffic, heating,… Which with some precautions (upwind from the base, don’t take flask samples with the wind in your back: exhaled air contains 20,000 ppmv CO2…) don’t exist at the South Pole. The nearest volcano is at 2,000 km… Thus wind and temperature in this case don’t play a role, because that doesn’t change the local CO2 levels (but it does if there are lots of local sources and sinks).
See ‘Infrared Analyses of NOAA Primary CO2-in-Air Reference Gas Standards at SIO, 1991-1999′ and you’ll see atmospheric CO2 measurements fluctuating between 246.59ppm-521.48ppm.
The report says:
“A set of 15 natural-air primary reference gas standards, ranging in mole fraction of CO2 from 246 to 521 parts per million (ppm)”…
That were the measurements of the calibration gases used to calibrate the equipment for CO2 measurements in the atmosphere, not actual CO2 measurements in Siowa!
But, as I have said before, the measurements by Jaworowski of the surface-snow would indicate this is not the case.
Sorry, but Jaworoski in my opinion is a complete unreliable source. Something I seldom say from anybody. Because it is in my nature to trust people until proven otherwise. Which is the case for Jaworowski: talking of migration from low CO2 levels to high levels, not knowing that there is a difference between ice age and gas age in an ice core,…
Nobody else than Jaworowski has found huge CO2 variability in firn. CO2 was measured in air at the South Pole from 1958 on, it was measured in firn at coastal places, at the South Pole, at Dome C and other places.
So all high values and low values were removed because of cracks and the samples without cracks were all kept? That sounds reasonable. May I ask how you know this?
From the debated ice core (Neftel, Siple Dome), the number of samples is known and the full range is given. Where cracks were found the minima were kept, because these were in line with the median of previous and following samples at depth of the ice core.
I should have thrown out all the data of the contaminated places, but that is just my opinion.
Maybe I’m just being very obtuse (I probably am) but I.m failing to see how an increase in DIC proves the Revelle Factor.
When CO2 dissolves in water, the pressure of CO2 in water and in the atmosphere must obey Henry’s Law. But in seawater, free CO2 is less than 1% of all carbon dissolved. The rest is bicarbonate and carbonate. To know how much total CO2 from the atmosphere dissolved in sawater, one combines free CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate as DIC.
An increase of 10% CO2 in the atmosphere gives an increase of 10% of free CO2 in the ocean surface layer, but only 1% in total dissolved CO2. That is what is predicted by the Revelle factor and that is what was observed.
00
I just knew there was a key missing in Gillards Policy on Climate Change!!! It is the Fact and her own admission she is an athiest:-
I sat with a client this morning – she has slight MS but the most clever little lady I hve ever met. The NSW government sent in their lowest to remove everything she owned based on a tribunals findings “Siblings dont lie”. I sent a letter off and she has been able to re-gain control of her assets.
This morning we sat talking about the Global Warning issue – she turned to me, knowing I only possess an internal faith and said; “Anna, what do you know about Noahs Ark”. IT SUDDENLY HIT ME:-
It took Noah many years to finish building the ark. Then all the animals came into the ark safely with Noah and his family and Yahweh shut them in. Yahweh then sent a great rain that lasted for forty days! The water rose higher and higher till you could not see even the tallest mountain! Only Noah and his family and all the animals that were in the ark were saved.
The ark floated on the water for about seven months till it landed on the mountains of Ararat. There the ark stayed until the the tops of the mountains were seen. Noah waited, then he sent out a raven and a dove to see if there was dry land. But the dove could not find a place to rest, so it came back. He waited a week, then sent it out again. This time the dove came back with an olive leaf in her mouth. And Noah knew that the waters were lower. So he waited another week, then he sent her out again. She did not come back.
Noah looked on the surface of the earth, and beheld the earth was dry. Soon after, Yahweh told Noah to leave the ark, and bring out the animals, to let them multiply on earth. So Noah did so.
Noah built an altar to Yahweh and used some of the clean animals to make sacrifices. Yahweh saw this and sent a rainbow as a sign that he would never again send a flood to kill all the people.
THE MORAL TO THE STORY IS THUS:_ What would Gillard BLAME THAT ON- BHP Bridgestone, the trucking fraternity????? Maybe Bob Brown and Oakeshot and Co would care to answer the question.
00
BobC at 738:
Some addition to your remark:
Since the sources increase the atmospheric concentration, and the sink rates grow proportionally with the concentration, a constant increase in the source rate (say, 8 GTC/yr) results, after a time, in a new concentration level sufficient that the increased sink rate equals the new source rate. It does not result in a constantly increasing concentration.
That requires a constantly accelerating source, significantly larger than the anthropogenic contribution:
The year by year human emissions increased from less than 3 GtC/yr in 1960 to nowadays 8 GtC/yr. In the same period, the increase in the atmosphere increased from about 1.5 GtC/yr to about 4.5 GtC/yr, with an incredible fixed ratio to the human emissions. Thus all three variables: yearly human emissions, increase in the atmosphere and sink capacity increased linearly over time, leading to exponential increases of total emissions, total increase in the atmosphere and total sinks over the whole period.
00
FE @754
The way you have expressed the “Human output versus atmospheric increase” scenario is excellent.
I can see why you have been so enthusiastic about the theory, assuming that the figures used are OK.
You have certainly made a strong case for this but there are a couple of things which must be addressed.
The “evidence” is circumstantial and will remain that way until all possible factors are accurately understood and quantified.
Two factors that immediately come to mind are:
1. The very likely possibility that this sort of exponential atmospheric CO2 increase has occurred in the past naturally. There is every likelihood that it has, given the violent nature of the Earth’s geology and biosphere.
2. The tentative nature of our understanding of the whole CO2 cycle. When we have better knowledge of the quantities and mechanisms of CO2 movement in the mantle, oceans and biosphere we can then give some credibility to the “theory”. At the moment there are too many unknowns.
As and example in just one field lets consider inland Australia.
Up until very recently we had an area of inland Australia totally in drought: no water for many years. During the initial drying out period you could probably imagine the smell of rotting bio mass.
Lots of chemical activity with some material completely degrading and other going into hibernation.
Along come recent floods and the Inland Sea is a mass of living material once again.
The quantities involved in the shut-down and later re- activation of this bio-system are enormous.. Has anyone quantified them This happens all over the world.
So many unknowns.
00
*Slaps forehead* Opps. Sorry. Silly me. That was a rookie mistake. I was basing my statement on the graph below. In my eagerness I must have cited the wrong paper.
You see, I was labouring under the (perhaps simplistically naive) impression that chemical associations such as HCO3 would have forced more CO2 down to the oceans because when you reduce the activity of CO2 in the oceans you create a disequilibrium between PCO2atm and pCO2 aqueous and this increases the driving force for transferring CO2 from the atmosphere to the oceans. Similar to how CO2 gets sequestrated by shellfish and coccolithophores or how CH4 gets converted into CO2. And since about 90% of CO2 is converted into HC03 when it reacts with H2O then this would naturally provide an enormous buffer. The Revelle Effect (RE) to me appears to be based on the unproven assumption that the surface ocean waters (SOW) can be regarded separately from the deep oceans when taking into consideration the partitioning ratio for PCO2atm and pCO2aqueous because of the apparently long-time it takes for free CO2 to diffuse to the bottom of the oceans. Hence there is a bottleneck in the atmosphere-ocean CO2 exchange. The process of CO2 diffusing to the bottom of the oceans according to the IPCC can take up to 500 years, albeit according to Segalstad POC (particular organic carbon) can sink to the bottom of the oceans in less than a year. If CO2 can diffuse to the bottom of the oceans in less than a year then there is no bottleneck and no build up of anthropogenic CO2 in the SOW and the increase in DIC must be due to natural reasons, of which there are obviously many. This is why I think that measuring an increase in DIC is not proof of the RE because CO2 is exchanging so fast between the SOW and the deep oceans.
Segalstad explains it better than I ever could:
Also, when you compare the mathematical growth curves for atmospheric CO2 and human emissions the numbers for the RE simply do not add up. According to Wikipedia they explain the RE by saying: “If CO2 in the atmosphere is increased by one part per million, the CO2 in the ocean is increased by only a tenth of a part per million, because of the way that the carbon dioxide in the water is partitioned between carbonate ions and bicarbonate ions and free CO2. As additional CO2 is added, it tips the equilibrium between these three kinds of carbon dioxide, so because of the Revelle Factor, it means that you can add a large amount of CO2 to the air without adding much to the water”. This implies that about 10% of anthropogenic CO2 gets transferred down to the oceans and 90% gets added to the atmosphere upon equilibrium. According to the IPCC in AR4 anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2007 were 29 gigatonnes corresponding to about 3.635ppm and if 10% of emissions get transferred down to the oceans as the RE implies then the atmospheric CO2 content should have increased by 3.262ppm. However the Keeling Curve tells us that the atmospheric CO2 content increased by about 2ppm. Therefore 44.8% of anthropogenic emissions must have been absorbed by the sinks, ostensibly by the ocean. The ocean appears to be absorbing significantly more than what the RE allows. How is this disparity to be explained? Either that, or there is a Missing Sink as others have postulated.
Could you link me to these papers? I would quote an extract from Jaworowski’s paper rebutting this, but it’s very long and I can’t copy-and-paste it. Here’s the link instead: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf By the way, if you want to quote someone, just copy-and-paste the part you want to quote and put ‘b-quotes’ around the quoted passage.
00
Here’s the graph of the South Pole CO2 measurements (yes, I know it’s a blog, but salient citations are provided!). Forgot to post it: http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-synthetic-is-keeling-curve.html
00
MaryFJohnston at 755:
You are right that many parts of the carbon cycle are hardly known, but even the largest cycle, the seasons, doesn’t change the atmospheric CO2 levels with more than 6 ppmv for 1°C change. That implies a lot of vegetation regrowth in spring (mainly the mid-latitudes NH spring) and a lot of vegetation decay in fall. Thus while Austalia had its draught and floods, that does contribute to the CO2 sources and sinks, but less than you expect…
Further, the ice cores largely differ in resolution, but for the past 150 years, the resolution is good enough to see a sudden increase or decrease of 20 ppmv sustained over 1 year, or 2 ppmv during 20 years. Even the Vostok or Dome C ice cores over the past 420 kyr or 800 kyr have sufficient resolution to show an increase of 100 ppmv over 100 years (and down again in 100 years?), as we do have now…
00
CHIP at 756:
The Revelle Effect (RE) to me appears to be based on the unproven assumption that the surface ocean waters (SOW) can be regarded separately from the deep oceans when taking into consideration the partitioning ratio for PCO2atm and pCO2aqueous because of the apparently long-time it takes for free CO2 to diffuse to the bottom of the oceans.
There is little migration between the ocean surface layer (the ‘mixed layer’) and the deep oceans. Most of the exchanges is via the sink flows near the poles, mainly in the NE Atlantic by the THC. It is possible to follow the mixing by tracers like the 14C bomb spike and CFC’s, both increased rapidely after WWII. See Sabine e.a. as given before:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml
Segalstad explains it better than I ever could:
I had a quite good discussion with him at a skeptics meeting in the European parliament in Brussels. Some of his remarks were OK, some others not so.
1. Fresh water and seawater are complete different things regarding CO2. The Revelle factor stops the CO2 solution in fresh water much faster than in seawater, just because the pH is rapidely going down, pushing carbonate to bicarbonate to free CO2. Seawater is alkaline and can (and does) contain much more CO2 than fresh water.
2. Coke bottles are carbonated at 3-7 bar (depending of water temperature) within a few seconds, but the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is 0,0004 bar. That needs a lot more time to be absorbed and migrate hundreds of meters into deeper layers than a few mm in coke.
3. A coke bottle of 2 l, or 1.5 l or 0.5 l, all will show (near) the same CO2 pressure and quantity in the air under the crown cork when shaked, while the ratio between CO2 mass in the liquids is 4:3:1. The ratio in mass doesn’t have any influence (besides delivering the necessary quantity for the increase in pressure), only the pressure at equilibrium counts.
4. The residence time of suspended POC is only 5-10 years. Again (he did that for the atmospheric residence time too), he confuses between residence time and excess decay time. Even if the residence time was less than a year, that doesn’t change one gram of organic CO2 at the surface or in the deep oceans, neither of inorganic carbon in the oceans or the atmosphere. Only when more POC is formed than destructed by bacteria in the deep, or more DIC is falling down from calciferic plankton than is redissolved in the deep, only then the CO2 levels at the surface (and indirectly in the atmosphere) will go down. Plankton growth is not influenced by increasing CO2 levels, as that is not the limiting factor in seawater (in contrast to land plants).
5. The Revelle factor is only relevant for the ocean surface, where there is a rapid equilibrium between air and water. The cold waters near the poles and the deep oceans are far from saturated, but these have a limited exchange, neither are land plants near saturation, but they have other limits. The net result is that about 10% of the emissions go into ocean surface, 20% in the deep oceans and 15% into vegetation.
References:
Neftel e.a. about the Siple ice core measurements:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/neftel82-85.pdf
Etheridge e.a. about the Law Dome ice cores (unfortunately behind a paywall):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml
A few graphs are on my web page:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Further about the CO@ measurements: wherever you measure are whatever you measure, one need to take into account that some of the measurements are outliers. For Mauna Loa, that are volcanic vents at downwind conditions (+4 ppmv) and depletion by vegetation with upwind conditions. For the South Pole, that are the harsh conditions, which cause human and equipment failures. As said before, even exhaling air in the main wind direction does increase the CO2 levels of a sample. Ever tried to open an air sample bottle within a blizzard at -80°C with your nose in the wind direction?
But there are strict criteria to include or exclude measurements for daily, monthly or yearly averages, see:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
But even if you use all data, including the outliers, that doesn’t make any difference in average or trend over a year:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
Looks terrible, isn’t it? But on full scale (Mauna Loa and Samoa in this case) that looks quite different:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_raw_select_2008_fullscale.jpg
00
Hi FE
Just to reinforce the ongoing main feature of my understanding of the CO2 cycle and to counter any misunderstanding from my 755.
The earth’s CO2 comings and goings are Enormously Complex and largely not accurately quantifiable..
Your ocean current outcroppings “tagged” by isotopes; have you ever seen a plume of smoke rising; can you predict where it will move from moment to moment??
When we have a full lateral and vertical system of CO2 measurement and reporting on a 1 km grid over the whole world surface; then I will agree we have something to work with.
Until then??
00
The Mensa Space Special Interest Group article called “Climate Change from Space” already had this information worked out from a paper about the Carbon Cycle by Tom Segalstad in 1998.
00
Mary, Ferdinand, KR and others. This link shows why the question of the sources and sinks of CO2 are irrelevant to climate even if you take the IPCC at its word (which I don’t).
Also here is more of that pesky physicist stuff that destroys the who “greenhouse theory” completely.
Yet more physics that compares Earth and Venus to show CO2 content is irrelevant.
00
Sorry, I got the third link wrong. It was meant to go here.
00
[…] Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not … Watch for “esteemed” professors jumping ship claiming things like “AGW contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics” and you will realise they really don't have a clue. I concede that is not a strong argument in favour of . […]
00
[…] click
00
[…] changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions Read the rest here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blo…ls-not-humans/ There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon […]
10
[…] nicht einmal das globale CO2-Niveau. http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au…tural-sources/ Es hat mit Emissionen nichts zu tun. […]
00
“If your mission is to find human-induced climate change, you better find it. Otherwise you’re not going to be in business very long.” Also from soft-spoken Professor Salby.
10
[…] http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/ […]
01