Atmospheric Temperature and Carbon Dioxide: Feedback or Equilibrium?

R. Taylor writes in to Tips and Notes to WUWT with this. Anthony: If you shift Vostok temperatures by reasonable time lags, and use reasonable parameters for an equilibrium between temperature and CO2, you get predicted values for CO2 that closely match CO2 measurements in Vostok. Really simple and conclusive, but I don’t think anyone has done it before.

I’m always interested in posting others research, so here it is. – Anthony


Atmospheric Temperature and Carbon Dioxide: Feedback or Equilibrium?

R. Taylor

For several years, the suggestion that there is positive feedback between atmospheric temperature (T) and carbon-dioxide concentration (CO2) has dominated the scientific literature, and has become a fundamental assumption of climate science. Alternatively, the relationship between T and CO2 might be one of equilibrium. We can test models of each type by comparison with the Vostok record, first published by Petit, et al. (1999). The Vostok record contains about 3,300 determinations of T and 280 determinations of CO2, spanning the last 420,000 years.

Figure 1 shows the Vostok record; for clarity, the dates and measurements of T have been averaged in groups of 10, and those after 0 BCE are not shown (cf. Figure 4).

RTaylorFig1

Figure 1: Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Inferred from the Vostok Ice-core.

T ranges through about 13 °C in the record, and CO2 ranges through about 120 ppm. There are peaks and valleys of various amplitudes and durations, and changes in T precede corresponding changes in CO2 (Mudelsee, 2001). The resolution of the record improves as measurements become more recent.

The first quantitative model comparable to the Vostok record with feedback between T and CO2 seems to be that of Hogg (2008). Hogg simulated insolation and other factors over a given interval of 500,000 years to predict values of T and CO2. Figure 2 is rescaled from Hogg’s figure 2a, so T and CO2 have approximately equal amplitude.

RTaylorFig2

Figure 2: Temperature and Carbon Dioxide from Hogg’s Feedback-Model.

Feedback systems typically have characteristic amplitude and period. For this model, 1.7 °C is the characteristic amplitude of T, and 100,000 years is about the characteristic period. Adjusting the parameters of the model will change its amplitude and period, but these will be characteristic for any given set of parameters: Other amplitudes and periods will be suppressed.

Since the model assumes that CO2 has a significant effect on T, changes in CO2 happen before corresponding changes in T through a substantial portion of its cycle, viz. the latter portion of the rises to the peaks (cf. Hogg) and through essentially all of the subsequent declines. As previously mentioned, however, the Vostok record shows that changes in CO2 happen after corresponding changes in T. This lag is shown most clearly by large-amplitude features in the more recent portion of the record: CO2 rises hundreds of years after T rises, and falls thousands of years after T falls.

The substantially inverted lag of this feedback model confirms what is self-evident in an equilibrium model: A lagging entity can have no significant effect on a leading entity. For example, CO2 at a given time cannot affect the level of T that existed hundreds-to-thousands of years earlier.

A model of equilibrium between T and CO2 can be based on balance between temperature dependent processes that (i) release CO2 into the atmosphere and (ii) absorb it into the surface of the earth. If the temperature dependency is simply linear, we can express our model as:

CO2(t+l) = mT(t) + b

where t is time, l is the length of time required for CO2 to regain equilibrium after a change in T, m is the number of units that CO2 changes for a unit change in T, and b is the constant offset between units of CO2 and units of T.

Using this equation, we can predict a value for CO2 at some time in the future from each value of T. If we give l a value of 50 years after a rise in temperature and 8000 years after a fall in temperature, m a value of 10 and b a value of 270, and average the times and predicted values of CO2 in groups of 10, we obtain the predicted values shown in figure 3. The figure also shows the measured values of CO2 for comparison.

RTaylorFig3

Figure 3: Carbon Dioxide, Measured and Predicted by Lagged Temperature.

The output of the equilibrium model is consistent with the lag, spectrum and amplitudes of the record. The correspondence between predicted and measured values of CO2 indicates that CO2 is in temperature-dependent time-lagged equilibrium, and that the temperature dependence of CO2 is essentially linear through the Vostok range.

Let us turn our attention to the last 11,000 years, during which humans have disturbed the equilibrium between T and CO2. The most recent CO2 determination from the ice-core has a date of about 340 BCE. We can add an early-industrial-era value of 290 ppm at 1800 CE and a value of 365 ppm at 2000 CE to provide figure 4. The scaling in the figure is consistent with the

equilibrium model that fits the overall Vostok record, where a change of 1 °C in T causes a change of 10 ppm in CO2.

RTaylorFig4

Figure 4: Temperature and Carbon Dioxide since 9,000 BCE.

T and CO2 appear to have been in equilibrium until about 3,000 BCE. Over the 5,000 years since then, CO2 has risen increasingly above its natural equilibrium. By 1,800 CE, CO2 had risen to a level comparable to the highest in the Vostok record. During this time, T declined at a rate of 0.1 °C per thousand years, indicating again that CO2 has no apparent effect on T. The trends of this 5,000-year interval of excess CO2 are consistent with the equilibrium model, in

which T is independent of CO2.

The last 5,000 years are trivial compared to the 420,000 years of the Vostok record; of even less significance are the last 1,200 years. However, climate science has put great emphasis on the features of this interval, even though they fit within the noise-envelope. The “medieval warm period” spanned 800 CE to 1,200 CE; Vostok shows it wasn’t really warm, but wasn’t really cold either. The “little ice age” followed (although average T was barely lower), and ended after the low of -1.84 °C around 1,770 CE. By the early 1800s, T was higher than it is at present, and it has fluctuated within levels typical of the last 11,000 years since then. It is remarkable that climate hysteria should be based on noise-level changes in T over the last 200 years, which is an eye-blink in the Vostok record. It seems to be the superstition of our time.

In summary, the Vostok record indicates that CO2 is in lagged equilibrium with T and that, for the range of T in Vostok, the dependency of CO2 on T is essentially linear. Unnaturally high CO2 for the last 5,000 years has had no apparent effect on T. This empirical evidence supports a conclusion that there cannot be any significant feedback between CO2 and T. Such feedback would cause predicted T and CO2 to show fundamental disagreement with the lag, spectrum and amplitudes evident in the Vostok record.

It is impossible to say how enduring the feedback fallacy will be. However, any such model proposed in the future can be regarded as qualitative if it does not specify lag, characteristic amplitude and period, and as speculative if it cannot be compared to the Vostok record. Accordingly, any such model can be ignored.

If we may depart for a moment from objectivity, any such model should be ignored if its proponents declare that it shows polar bears are in peril, and you can save them by painting your roof white and burning nuts and corn in your car.

References

Hogg, A.M., 2008, Glacial cycles and carbon dioxide: A conceptual model. Geophysical

Research Letters, 35, L01701 (5 pp.).

Mudelsee, M., 2001, The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews, 20, 583-589. Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pépin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E. and Stievenard, M., 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429-436. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html provides on-line data.

Code with data:

Is available upon request.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 24, 2009 11:27 pm

The last graph says it all…if the data is good, this is impressive.

Johnny Honda
August 24, 2009 11:31 pm

A little bit OT, but good:
From IPCC expert reviewer to a sceptic – Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Retired Environment Canada Scientist
http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2894
I heard some Alarmists claim that it never happendend that a alarmist turned to a sceptic. Ha ha ha. Read all the truth.

Patrick Davis
August 24, 2009 11:41 pm

I am wondering, is there a trend in the increase of retired scientists, Dr’s etc etc speaking out against AGW?

Rhys Jaggar
August 25, 2009 12:15 am

I wondered whether ‘global temperature’ showed a lagged response to solar output intensity?
Does anyone have any similar analyses about that??

Sandy
August 25, 2009 12:36 am

So the Vostok core says there was a stable dependence of CO2 on temperature till 3,000 years ago, then CO2 started climbing away.
An alternative scenario is that CO2 is still stable and there is systematic error in the Vostok CO2 readings?
The records show that the Roman warm period was very fertile and apparently not affected by the low CO2.

August 25, 2009 1:20 am

Thanks for the great link, Johnny Honda (23:31)!
Further evidence of retired scientists being usurped by the payola of Big Oil. Pensions just ain’t what they once were, I guess.

Tenuc
August 25, 2009 1:35 am

I find Figure 4 chart very surprsing – if temperature didn’t cause the massive increase in CO2 which started around 2000 years ago, what did?

August 25, 2009 1:39 am

Sandy (00:36:39) :
An alternative scenario is that CO2 is still stable and there is systematic error in the Vostok CO2 readings?
The records show that the Roman warm period was very fertile and apparently not affected by the low CO2.

Did the Romans ever invade Antarctica? 😉
They used a lot of slave labour to build growing terraces on hillsides in the Balkans, with plenty imported back to the homeland as needed. Could the records be skewed by that?

Stephen Wilde
August 25, 2009 1:41 am

Fits my suggestion that if there is extra warming of the air from whatever cause then the air circulation systems shift latitudinally, the hydrological cycle speeds up and the rate of energy transfer from surface to space increases.
The shift due to human CO2 would be completely imperceptible in the face of what happens naturally when the oceans alter their rate of energy emission.

August 25, 2009 1:44 am

The correlation looks pretty robust to me. They can’t accuse you of picking cherries either.

August 25, 2009 1:45 am

Any suggestion as to why the rising lag is shorter than the falling lag?

August 25, 2009 2:06 am

M. Simon (01:45:33) :
Looking at Figure 2 it looks like we get extremely rapid temperature increases followed by a natural decay – very like radioactive decay… Hmm…

August 25, 2009 2:37 am

I question the linear assumption. As far as I can tell from theory the relationship between CO2 and temperature should be logarithmic.

Stephen Wilde
August 25, 2009 2:57 am

John A (02:37:33)
The effect of more CO2 in the air is indeed one of logarithmic decline.
However the temperature of the Earth is in my view not significantly affected by the composition of the air but rather overwhelmingly by the sun/ocean interaction.
The thing that puzzles me most about Figure 4 is the disconnect over the past 5000 years between the much increased CO2 quantity and the virtual absence of a significant temperature variation.
That would suggest human involvement producing virtually all the CO2 rise for the past 5000 years but that is not often suggested even by the IPCC which considers the human effect on CO2 to be a more recent phenomenon.
Certainly the ocean energy content did rise during the 20th Century, perhaps there was even an overall rise throughout the 5000 years and that should have fed through to rising CO2 without our involvement. Then there is the question as to how well ocean energy content is linked to global air temperatures.
If the hydrological cycle responds as effectively as I think it does then it may be that over a 5000 year term one could have rising ocean energy content but the air temperatures not fully reflecting that rise (if at all) due to the changes in the speed of the hydrological cycle.
Thus one could get higher ocean energy content, higher CO2 in the air but relatively small and only temporary changes in global air temperatures.
In addition I have often noted the discontinuity between relatively stable ice core CO2 levels and much more variable atmospheric CO2 levels.
That discontinuity does need to be resolved. There may be something in the ice core analysis that does not give an accurate reflection of either or both of the levels of CO2 in the air or the variability of those levels.

Nick Stokes
August 25, 2009 3:31 am

I don’t know why this is thought to be new. The IPCC Ar4 Sec 6.4.1 says

The ice core record indicates that greenhouse gases co-varied with antarctic temperature over glacial-interglacial cycles, suggesting a close link between natural atmospheric greenhouse gas variations and temperature (Box 6.2). Variations in CO2 over the last 420 kyr broadly followed antarctic temperature, typically by several centuries to a millennium (Mudelsee, et al., 2002).

followed by Fig 6.3, which has much the same information as the one here.

Steve M.
August 25, 2009 3:34 am

Sandy (00:36:39) :
So the Vostok core says there was a stable dependence of CO2 on temperature till 3,000 years ago, then CO2 started climbing away.
An alternative scenario is that CO2 is still stable and there is systematic error in the Vostok CO2 readings?
The records show that the Roman warm period was very fertile and apparently not affected by the low CO2.

Google 19th century CO2 measurements. After reading some of that, tell me if you think Vostok is right.

August 25, 2009 3:53 am

Climate can not heat without heating the oceans first. Air is not heating oceans; oceans get heated up by direct solar radiation (visible and UV), where back radiation of long-wave IR can maybe increase evaporation in the upper thin water layer, where IR gets absorbed. If sun is stronger or we get less clouds, ocean gets warmer and vice versa.
Funny idea is, that main “greenhouse gas” – water (vapor) – has more cooling than heating effect – it is providing strong evaporation cooling of the surface and cloud shielding.

Eric (skeptic)
August 25, 2009 4:00 am

Stephen Wilde (02:57:26)
Looking at the data in ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2.txt it seems to me that at least 2000 years worth of CO2 is smoothed into each dated ice sample. The age of the ice is presumably dated with isotopes, counting annual layers in younger ice, looking for volcanic deposits, etc. So the age of the ice is fairly accurate.
The age of the gas is based on a nonuniform diffusion of air through fresh snow and ice. From the data linked above this diffusion takes place for 1000’s of years. The bottom line is that any sudden natural variations in CO2 would be invisible in ice cores. That doesn’t mean that rapid natural variations in CO2 don’t exist, or do exist, but just that they won’t be visible in the ice core.

bill
August 25, 2009 4:12 am

Some plots taken straight from data no messing with timescales!
Perhaps the dust is important?
CO2 and temps seem to rise “simultaneously” at the end of an ice age.
Note reverse time scales and the odd CO2 scaling to fit.
0 to 40,000 years. GISP2 and EPICA temperatures plotted on this graph. Co2 steady rise is simultaneous with temperature @17500ybp
note that only greenland gisp2 temperature shows a definite younger dryas – the antarctic EPICA data shows a flattening only.The EPICA CH4 data shows a misplaced drop around the younger dryas. Note the increased dust levels during the low temperature portion.
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6826/iceage040kkq1.jpg
40k to 100k years Note the dust levels are non zero during this period and high during the low temperature portion.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3331/iceage40100kcp6.jpg
100k to 200k years Co2 rises simulaneously with temperature @136kybp. Note the dust levels are high during the low temperature portion. CH4 termination of warm period
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9952/iceage100200kbq5.jpg
Methane data is from:
Loulergue, L., et al.. 2008.
EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Methane Data.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2008-054.
NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
CO2 data is from
0-22 kyr BP: Dome C (Monnin et al. 2001) measured at University of Bern
22-393 kyr BP: Vostok (Petit et al. 1999; Pepin et al. 2001; Raynaud et al. 2005) measured at LGGE in Grenoble
393-416 kyr BP: Dome C (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) measured at LGGE in Grenoble
416-664 kyr BP: Dome C (Siegenthaler et al. 2005) measured at University of Bern
664-800 kyr BP: Dome C (Luethi et al. (sub)) measured at University of Bern
The age used is EDC3 and a comparison between dome fuji and vostok is here
The EDC3 chronology for the EPICA Dome C ice core
http://www.clim-past.net/3/485/2007/cp-3-485-2007.pdf
Where did Fig 3 in the blog entry come from – its much too flat!

August 25, 2009 4:20 am

Jimmy Haigh (02:06:15) :
Your observation may be correct. It is not a physical explanation.

kagiso
August 25, 2009 4:33 am

Excellent but blindingly obvious research and well overdue.
One point that hasn’t been made properly clear. If there is a strong feedback from temperature to CO2, then there can NOT be a strong feedback from CO2 to temperature. Two strong feedbacks would result in a runaway system rapidly going to either a snowball earth or Venus like atmosphere. The Vostok data shows clear periodicity / bistability which indicates strong feedback in one direction only, from temp to CO2.
With regard to the different lags for rising and falling temperatures. When the temperature is rising, the CO2 in the sea becomes supersaturated and is blown off rapidly.
When temperature is falling the sea becomes less than saturated in CO2, but the CO2 is recharged by less strong mechanisms of partial pressure balance at the surface, recharge by CO2 containing rainwater etc, this takes time to work.
Hence the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere from 3000 BCE as humans started slashing and burning forests at the dawn of the age of agriculture.
Eventually the excess CO2 will be reabsorbed by the sea and be removed from the Carbon cycle as either carbonate or fossil fuel deposition, but as the Vostok data and Taylor’s paper show that it will take up to 8000 years for this process to take place.

Flanagan
August 25, 2009 5:01 am

Why didn’t the author care about telling us how he constructed the temperatures in Figure 4? It really has nothing to do with all the known temperature reconstructions: http://co2.cms.udel.edu/images/ClimCh_image003.jpg
The only thing it clearly shows is that the present CO2 rise is not due to increased temperatures. The only other thing it shows is that (if the linear fit is correct) temperature at time “t” will depend on both the CO2 value and the rate of change of CO2 at time “t”. Indeed, as “l” is much smaller than “t” itself, on can Taylor-develop CO2(t+l) (using some rescaling)
CO2(t+l) = CO2(t) + l [dCO2/dt]_t + O(l^2)
so that
T(t) = CO2(t+l)/m – (b/m)
= CO2(t)/m – (b/m) + (l/m) dCO2/dt
= CO2(t)/10 – 27 + 5 dCO2/dt
looks like a PD controller, right? Where CO2 would be the offset. So the author actually predicts that a change in CO2 should affect temperatures.

Highlander
August 25, 2009 5:56 am

The question was:
————–
M. Simon (01:45:33) :
Any suggestion as to why the rising lag is shorter than the falling lag?
————–
.
Not all processes are linear in reverse.
.
It likely has much to do with the chemistry of the water itself and the ability to absorb CO2 above a certain temperature, i.e., for how long and how low did the temperature have to be before atmospheric CO2 was absorbed?
.
Additionally one must observe how the atmospheric carbon was both absorbed and released by other sources.
.
Aside from the simplistic, what ~other~ external processes were involved which we don’t know about?

Pofarmer
August 25, 2009 6:05 am

“An alternative scenario is that CO2 is still stable and there is systematic error in the Vostok CO2 readings?”
I think that’s a very large part of it. There’s no way to prove the ice core readings are accurate.

rbateman
August 25, 2009 6:26 am

Rhys Jaggar (00:15:00) :
Not exactly Temp vs SSN, which is like comparing 10 burning twigs to 10 burning trees.
Temp vs Solar Phenomenon Area Measurements is much better aligned:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin6.htm
Try the bottom graph, where the ratio of white-light faculae to penumbra associates with general temperature rise/fall.
If the ratio of WLF/Pen is lower than 1, the temp falls.
If it’s greater than 1, it rises.
From 1976 onwards, nobody measures WLF, and the existing data is suspect as it is simulated, but I can speculate that it is greater than 1:1.
What is needed?
1.) Access to the unpolluted Temp data
2.) Access to the Greenwich image collection to calibrate
3.) an effort to measure the WLF post 1976 from images.
Remember that WLF are the visible portion of the CaII K-line images, which are impossible to correlate to the latter.

1 2 3