The “baseline” approach is in line with what is found in the ice cores and reflects what happens if we may assume that the CO2/temperature relationship is a dynamic equilibrium. In that case, the trend (baseline) itself is (near) fully caused by the emissions and temperature changes only influence the variability around the trend, not the trend itself.

We can use both calculated trends of dCO2/yr with the total accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/lans_egbn_acc_trend.jpg

Both formulas follow the real trend pretty well, where the 57% emissions approach is a near fit, while the temperature approach is slightly slow at first and a little too fast at the end.

As you can see, the “baseline” approach fits all CO2-T relationships over all periods of the past near million years, the “constant” approach need a highly variable “constant” to match the CO2 trend in different periods and is not even applicable for pre-industrial times.

Thus it looks like that the temperature influence is limited in time and isn’t responsible for the current trend. That both T and dT give a nice correlation with dCO2/yr is not coincidence: both are highly variable and don’t show any period where T and dT are flat for more than a few years. Thus it is impossible to know which one is the driver for the variability of dCO2/yr. But from ice cores we know that it is dT.

About emissions and temperature as drivers in ice cores, here are two graphs comparing total emissions with total CO2 increase and temperature with total CO2 increase, as measured in ice cores (Law Dome and others) 1900-1959:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_1959.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_1959.jpg

Again, the emissions trend, be it more irregular, due to the resolution and accuracy of the ice core measurements and emission inventories, is far superior over the temperature-CO2 trend.

Thus there is no reason the doubt the value of the ice core CO2 measurements and all observations support that dT is a limited driver of CO2 levels, from fast (3 ppmv/°C) on short term (months) to slow (8 ppmv/°C) over millennia. The current increase is quite certainly caused by the emissions and not caused by temperature changes, although there is a (spurious) correlation with temperature, as both temperature (irregularly) and CO2 levels (very regularly) did go up in the past 50 years.

Regards,

Ferdinand

Here the graph of the dCO2/dT from my formula:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/egbn_trend.jpg

I have increased the “baseline” of my formula from 0.55*emissions/year to 0.57*emissions/year, as it seems that the ratio of what rests in the atmosphere is slightly increasing.

If you compare the graphs, both follow more or less the temperature variability and there is little difference in performance. But what about the “constant” compared to the “baseline” approach?

The “constant” need to decrease over time to allow the temperature trend over 45 years to follow the increase. As the “constant” is a mixture of everything except temperature, the emissions are included, but these are increasing markedly over the full period. Thus something else must pull out the extra CO2. That may be vegetation growth, but as that is measured via oxygen measurements, vegetation indeed is a sink for CO2, but by far not large enough to absorb the extra near 3 ppmv/yr which is the difference of emissions with the “constant” at the end of the period. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/287/5462/2467.pdf and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Moreover, the “constant” occupies about 2/3rd of the yearly increase of CO2 in average, thus temperature is only responsible for 1/3rd of the increase, the rest anyway is from the emissions (or one need even more sink).

Had some connection problems, therefore the testmessage… Now I will put the message in two parts, probably the message was too long, or too many links in it…

I think we are going to agree somewhere…

I agree that longer term processes as well as in the oceans as in the biosphere have their influence, but these too are limited: once the temperature of the full ocean (including the deep oceans) is increased by a certain temperature, the related increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will hinder a further increase of CO2 from the oceans. Thus a new equilibrium will be reached. The same for land occupation and sea algues: a doubling of CO2 will increase the amount of carbon fixed over decades, but that is less than double: even with all other necessities available in unlimited quantities (which are the limiting factors in many cases), that gives about 20-40% extra growth, not 100%. Thus even there, a new equilibrium is reached in a few decades (for extra CO2 over current land occupation) to millennia (for ice sheet retraction and plant spread).

The combined effects of oceans and vegetation are known from ice cores: dCO2/dT is about 8 ppmv/°C, pretty constant over 4 ice age – interglacial cycles in 420,000 years and surprisingly linear, despite that a number of players in this game are acting far from linear. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif

No effect is seen from prolonged, sustained cold or warm periods over thousands of years, thus T has no effect, only dT has an effect. That is true for the whole pre-industrial period, including the MWP-LIA cooling, as seen in the Law Dome (and other) ice cores. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg

What about the current period? Based on the ice core dCO2/dT relationship, the increase in temperature since the LIA has added not more than 6 ppmv to the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium. That is all. Humans meanwhile have added about twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. But let us see what is important: dCO2/T or dCO2/dT.

Here the graph of dCO2/T from your formula:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/lans_trend.jpg

I had to adjust the “constant” somewhat, as the early decades of the Hadcrut3gl are colder, thus needed a higher constant and the last decades did give an overshoot. The start for the best fit was at about 1.2 ppmv/yr the end at 0.7 ppmv/yr linearly decreasing in between.

This is a test message…

quite 100% honestly:
If the dCO2 / T relationship is just a coincidence, and not correct, dont you think its a rather impressive “coincidence” when comparing the red and the blue below??

http://www.nofeestamps.net/climate/TDThadcrut.gif

So, if you have cooling, already after few months the dCO2 is influenced. But then you are saying that after this fast influence, there will be no more influence of the cooling on dCO2 the coming months and years. But an influence within a few months could only affect a few meters of the upper ocean? It is vey likely that the waters on the surface in the next years will be shifted out, and therefore the temperature (And not only dT) should be important for longer period.

When the whole ocean is mixed, then you can really talk about equilibrium. It takes around 600-1000 years, and: The last years are likely to have lowest impact of the new temperature level. So a new temperature level should have an effect for a while, but yes less and less effect each year until the whole ocean is in equilibrium.

Something tells me, that ”the truth” on this matter is somewhere in between the dCO2-dT and the dCO2-T links. Another thing: Regardsless what the source is for the rising trend of CO2, its the temperature sensitivity of CO2rise/year that gives the flat Antarctic curves problems. The CO2-temperature link.

Engelbeen, you do not see any logic in the following:

More CO2 => bigger biosphere => bigger withdrawel of CO2 from the atmopshere (both from plankton and plants) => less CO2

?

What in this logic have you argumented well against?

http://www.nofeestamps.net/climate/TDThadcrut.gif

If T is the correct match with dCO2, then as mentioned the dT will appear with the same timing in variation as it is releted strongly to T. So its hard to proove much this way.

The seasonal trend is what it shows: CO2 levels follow temperature up and down with a fast response, again to a new (temperature) equilibrium. That causes two opposite streams: oceans 90 GtC in and out, biosphere 50 GtC in and out, difference 40 GtC in and out for about 1°C change (the effect is less than that, as a part is continuous exchanged and doesn’t add to the variation).

The year by year increase is 1.5-2 GtC, of a complete different nature: continuous adding over every month of the year (as the emissions do), only modulated, again, by temperature changes. Thus while CO2 and temperature are thightly coupled and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the seasonal cooling within a month, the other factor, the emissions independently increases the amounts, pushing the setpoint of the equilibrium to higher levels.

The current difference in pCO2 between atmosphere and oceans is about 7 ppmv (again proof that the oceans are NOT a source of extra CO2), see:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml

Again, as neither the oceans (despite increasing temperatures), nor the biosphere (a proven sink) are the source of the increase in the atmosphere, temperature is the cause of the variability around the trend, but can’t be the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

More in next message…

And then you request a graph. Nice, then i will have to make one!! :-)
The difficulty is, that if i am right (the dCO2 / temp link is correct) , then YOUR claim to some extend wil appear correct too as dT and T is related.
There are frequent changes in temperature and thus dT will jump around synchronously with T. So.. the challenge for me will be to somehow seperate the things. I want to compare years with less temperature changes to years with more temperature changes. hmmm….

But you still havent documented that CO2 equilibrium can be reached within like a year. (Or was your seasonal CO2 an attempt to do this?).

The big problem for dT:

5 years of cold temps:

Only first year during the temperature dive dT has a value. All the next years cooling will have no effect on CO2 rise/year.
We need some severe documenting on this one Engelbeen… :-)

BUT i admit your last graph IS striking.

Nonono…
My rough formular was just to show the CO2-sensitivity to temperature, the gradient of 3,5.

So lets go back again and heres what I wrote in the article:

“CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,95
For 2007, a UAH temperature anomaly approximately – 0,32 K should lead to CO2 rise/year = 0 , that is, CO2-stagnation.
On the graph, I have illustrated that there is a longer trend difference between CO2 and Temperature. Thus, the “constant” of the equation should be a variable as it varies with time (1979: 0,7 2008: 1,2).”

and

“So today we have a larger biosphere. Every single extra plant or plankton cell will demand its share of CO2. It takes more CO2 to feed a larger biosphere. More CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere today than earlier. An enormous negative feedback on CO2 levels”.

And Engelbeen I described many many times in the article and for you here and in mails, that there seems to be changes in long term trends but these in real life changes over some decades. And too that the long term trends seems to omit the temperature changes after some decades.
In long term trend lies human emissions and changing biosphere.

I have given you the graph of the hadcrut/co2 connection that shows that longterm trend changed around 1978. in 1978 there was a max in CO2 accumulation compared to temperature. Since 1978 there has been less and less CO2 accumulation for the same temperature. So even though humans have been emitting more and more CO2, less and less is accumulated.

A factor seems to drag more and more CO2 out of the atmosphere. And a growing biosphere seems to be a good explanation. This indicates as I have written in the article and told, that the BIOSPHERE quite naturally and obviously grows with growing CO2 and thus allways makes an effective BUFFER for variations in CO2.

So Engelbeen, your writing “According to your formula, CO2 levels would increase at infinitum as long as the temperature remains at about the same (or increased) level”
Makes me sad as I understand you really really havent tried to understand what I have been saying for so long now.

d13C levels are not proxies, these are measured in air and water and for longer time frames in air from firn and ice cores. For the oceans, coralline sponges deposit the calcite with the same isotopic composition as in seawater of the moment of deposit. Again direct measurements, no proxy.

The discussion of what E.M.Smith copied would need a whole blog, but is not relevant here. What is relevant here:

- higher temperatures give more CO2 from the oceans which, even after fractionation at the sea surface, has a higher d13C level than the current atmosphere.
- higher temperatures give more CO2 uptake by vegetation, which prefer 12C, this increases the d13C level of the atmosphere. The increase of biological uptake over decay is confirmed by a slight deficiency in oxygen use measured in the atmosphere.

Thus higher temperatures cause an increase of d13C in the atmosphere. But we see a continuous decline of d13C (diluted by the seasonal exchanges). That excludes oceans and vegetation as sources of the increase. Thus what causes the increase?

I prefer the best fit of data, and I think it’s the objective thing to do.
And beyond any discussion, the dCO2-temperature is the best fit.

Again you are mixing up the fast response of CO2 on temperature in short term with the cause of the long term trend. Even if you detrend the dCO2-temperature curve (that means zero contribution to the trend), you will find the same fit. But that is an excellent fit for the variability of the trend, not the trend itself!

I prefer the trend of the accumulated emissions, which is a near perfect fit for the observed accumulation in the atmosphere, above the temperature trend which is not so perfect…
See and compare:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
with:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg

Which one is the cause of the trend?

(I need to be shorter in my comments…)

From second half of 1998 and 2 years forward Temp and CO2 goes down together. They stay down together until temp slowly rises again. But the rise is slow, and there is NO sign that the CO2 should have reached an equilibrium and is on its way up one milimeter more than dictated by temperature!

My formula has no problems with the up and down change in temperature, see the period 1997-2004 in my graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_calc_trends.jpg
neither has the formula of Pieter Tans:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
But I am still awaiting your graph where your formula and reality are compared…

“The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).”

This is the case, if we would be near equilibrium, but the “old” equilibrium was about 280 ppmv, we are now at 380 ppmv (thanks to the emissions)…
But let us assume that we should stop today to emit any more CO2. What will happen with the CO2 level in the atmosphere? According to your formula, CO2 levels would increase at infinitum as long as the temperature remains at about the same (or increased) level. According to me, we would see a drop of about 4 GtC in the first year, a little less in the second year,…

Further, I am talking about absolute levels of CO2 which may reach an equilibrium, you are looking at the derivative, the increase per year…

Have a look at the seasonal changes at Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo_co2_seasons.jpg
The influence of temperature is clear: warmer in this case means more CO2 eaten away by vegetation and reverse when temperatures in the NH drop. Thus a change of temperature of in average 1°C in the NH causes a rapid change of +/- 2.5 ppmv in CO2 levels to both sides: up and down, or about 5 ppmv/°C. The shape over many years is near identical. Thus for the same temperature change, we have about the same CO2 change. Does that imply that a sustained summer would decrease the CO2 levels indefinitely? No, there is a limit in what vegetation growth can do on short term.

Besides that, you see a continuous (but variable) increase over the years. According to you, both the seasonal variability and the increase over the years are the result of temperature increases, but the short term increase is only 5 ppmv/°C… In our opinion temperature variability over the seasons is a matter of temperature and the variability of the CO2 increase is a matter if temperature (of the same order as for the seasons), but the increase is the result of the emissions.

As long as we disagree so much on the core issues, there is ENOUGH to debate withot dragging proxies in.

If you want to see some points that i support on the issue, see the SPLENDID writing here in this debate by E.M.Smith (19:42:00) 23/12.
Its fine that you mention these, but i dont agree in all your conclusions, and the use of proxies are also very secondary compared to real data. So for now i focus on the central issues.