What the 'year of living dangerously' at nearly 400 ppm of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere looks like

Anthony, don’t know if it’s just my browser, but the two woodfortrees graphs under “No Global Warming for 14 years” are just torture on the eyes.

Go HadCRUT4! I like absurd humour.

What are the “HadCRUT4 adjustments”?

I looked at the CO2 plot and thought, “Wow, that’s quite a change”. Then I looked at the temperature scale.

I really enjoyed this post. Thanks for putting it together. But even more importantly — thanks for that preview button! I just noticed it.

During the Eemian interglacial of 125,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 was lower, yet sea level was almost 30 feet higher, and temperature was 3 to 4 degrees Celsius higher. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-rose.html
Remarkably, the higher temperatures were not related to CO2 levels, and there was no run-away warming. As always, observations trump hypotheses based on the outputs of computer models. You don’t have to look at your computer to know if it’s raining; just look out the window.
Similarly, recent studies of coastal English villages show sea level was 3 to 4 feet higher during the Medieval Warm Period a thousand years ago. That’s when vineyards flourished in England (where they don’t today).
Now we are just emerging from the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1850 AD), the coldest period since the end of the Ice Age. Of course it’s warming! Just like four other times in the past 12,000 years (the Holocene Climatic Optimum, Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warming), only not warming as much as the earlier warming periods – or the even warmer Eemian interglacial.
With Nature’s handwriting everywhere you look – previous higher sea levels, tree lines higher and further north, warm weather crops grown where they don’t grow now, greater glacier retreat than now – it’s a shame that alarmists are blinded by their dogma and can’t look out their windows to see the history of natural climate change.
So I must label them what they are: natural climate change deniers.

I’m already ready for climate change – finally broke down and purchased a snow thrower that should handle anything the coming colder winters will throw at us.

Got a “server error” when chasing the T-shirt. Link not quite ready?

Yer know what Anthony, at 400ppm – as the tree said to the birds, “it sure tastes better than it ever did!”

Excuse me, but why is the surface warming faster than the troposphere? Shouldn’t the troposphere be warming at a much higher rate?

I have to wonder. Is Hawaii the best place for global CO2 measurements?

DR says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:04 pm
“Excuse me, but why is the surface warming faster than the troposphere? Shouldn’t the troposphere be warming at a much higher rate?”
Only if CO2 magically violated Kirchhoff’s Law; and indeed “trapped heat” (decided to thermalize more frequently than to dethermalize).

@DirkH and George Smith
I did not press the sarc/off button.
Seriously, this should be the Louisville Slugger to beat over the head of AGW. The non-existent ubiquitous “hot spot” is THE main tenet of Anthropogenic Global Warming; the “fingerprint”. Lo the last 25 years of following this whole thing, it was the enhanced “greenhouse effect” that kept my attention. Somehow it has been conveniently ignored now that it doesn’t work as advertised.
I know Anthony will not allow anyone to guest post on the subject, but how is it that even John Christy acknowledges the missing hot spot as a real head scratcher for him and his colleagues, yet anyone questioning the idea of the GHE are treated like lepers.
I don’t recall seeing this new paper by Christy and Douglass being mentioned by WUWT. IMO it should be front and center.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-fingerprint-of-man-made.html

Game, Set, and Match?
Check Mate?
Back when I entered this fight in 2009 and lost a major battle against a national Carbon(Carbon Dioxide) Tax I began to pray.
House Passes the 1,200-page Climate Bill that Congress was Not Allowed to Read. Despite heated objections by some Republicans, the unread 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill was passed 219-212 in the House on Friday. June 26, 2009
“WASHINGTON — Landmark legislation to curb U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions was approved by the House of Representatives in a close vote late Friday, securing an initial victory for a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s agenda.
The 1,200 page bill — formally known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” — will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.
The House climate bill, approved by a 219-212 vote Friday evening, would mandate that 15% of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, potentially expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors. Towards that goal, it seeks to boost nascent industries such as wind-generated electricity and solar power.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124602039232560485.html#mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
What to do, what to do? Blog and Pray.
WUWT became a daily utility to spread my message, and a very useful utility at that, as long as I was being put up with. I noticed from solar activity updates the Sun started going into a bit of an extended slow period and I prayed it would stay that way for a long time. Little did I know it would.
I was reading articles of serious cold spells occurring around the globe about that time. I believed if the Sun stayed in a low activity phase, the planet would get cold enough to teach the man-made global warming crowd a lesson the would never forget. Even though virtually everyone at the time said the Sun didn’t affect climate and temperature, I still checked it daily and weekly, and cheered when the number of sun spots were low. So many days of a blank Sun passed. It was beautiful.
November 2009 we got an early Christmas present, Climategate emails, that helped block further congressional action on the Cap and Trade bill. But I knew what it would take to de-program an entire nation brainwashed by mainstream media into believing Climate Change was peoples fault. I continued to cheerlead a low output Sun even to this day.
Was it just dumb luck and good timing another Dalton Minimum was under way? It sure is helping out in the de-programing process. Or is some celestial consciousness really listening to some of us, acting on our prayers?

Restless 1 says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:23 pm
I have to wonder. Is Hawaii the best place for global CO2 measurements?
Pick one of these answers: Yes, No, Maybe, It depends.
In the WUWT search box (near the top on the right) type in Mauna Loa. Read all the posts and comments and follow all the leads therein.
Also, go here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
and here (one of the links in the above):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Here are the subject headings:
Summary
Infrared absorption.
Mole fraction in dry air
Calibration of the instrument.
Target gas.
Data selection for background air.
Auxiliary measured variables
How we calibrate the reference gases.
Replication of the field measurements
Observed variations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Further reading

Sorry folks global warming has not flatlined. Randene Neill a Global TV News anchor in Vancouver BC said the flash floods in Colorado were caused by global warming climate change, so there. That is all the proof I need.
Do I have to use sarc on.

Al Gore should be proud he once again saved the world from eminent doom.
“Excelsior!”

Dennis Dunton said, “I hate to break the bad news to ya George…”
Awww Dennis Dennis Dennis… it was meant as light satire.
Makes me wonder if I needed to put a /s at the end of my “Excelsior!” post?

I don’t know if this is weather or climate but I’ve never seen anything like this here at the Colorado – New Mexico border, and we live here more than 20 years.
For the record: it is 1:40 AM, August 11th, 2013, and the temperature outside is 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius).
This, in the very middle of summer, third night in a row. Why this rather extreme summer cold is not in the news?

Alexander Feht says:
August 11, 2013 at 12:43 am
“For the record: it is 1:40 AM, August 11th, 2013, and the temperature outside is 44 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius).”
Try this;
Rocket Stove Mass Heater
rocket mass heaters in a nutshell:
heat your home with 80% to 90% less wood
exhaust is nearly pure steam and CO2 (a little smoke at the beginning)
the heat from one fire can last for days
you can build one in a day and half
folks have built them spending less than $20
the verbose details on rocket mass heaters:
This could be the cleanest and most sustainable way to heat a conventional home. Some people have reported that they heat their home with nothing more than the dead branches that fall off the trees in their yard. And they burn so clean, that a lot of sneaky people are using them illegally, in cities, without detection.
When somebody first told me about rocket mass heaters, none of it made sense. The fire burns sideways? No smoke? If a conventional wood stove is 75% efficient, doesn’t that mean the most wood you could possibly save is something like 25%? How do you have a big hole right over the fire and not have the house fill with smoke? I was skeptical.
And then I saw one in action. The fire really does burn sideways. The exhaust is near room temperature – and very clean. The smoke doesn’t come back up because a huge amount of air is getting sucked into the wood hole. Neat! I sat on one that had not had a fire in it for 24 hours – it was still hot!
http://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp

Robert of Ottawa says:
August 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Tiredoc says: @ugust 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm
I wonder what the warmist parties are like nowadays
The warmistas do not give an eff. They use global warming as an excuse for socialist policies. It’s that simple. Yes, it is political and launched by the left. Lysenko anyone?

You have the incorrect tense. “The warmistas do not give an eff. They useD global warming as an excuse for socialist policies. It’s that simple.”
Those socialist policies are now in place so there is no need for ‘warmistas’ who will now see their funding reduced. As far as the politicians are concerned the battle is over – hence their continual mantra the science is settled.

Ian W says:
August 11, 2013 at 1:16 am
“Cold is not in the news because it is ‘off-message’ for the Administration and the US media only reports what they are allowed to report by the Administration.”
We don’t have a free mainstream media press in America anymore. Most people realize this. Once CNN got 15 million viewers on a Larry King prime time show. Now that same time slot for Piers Morgan gets 500k if he’s lucky.
The MSM has become a cover-up arm for government lies and propaganda. No matter. People who work at those corporations are getting what they deserve, the worst pay and bonuses ever.

george e. smith says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Well the first two graphs of CO2 at Mauna Loa, demonstrate the falsity of a common claim of the CO2 warming alarmists; that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 200 years. The second detailed data plot, shows that the annual CO2 “cycle” amplitude (at ML) has an amplitude of 9 ppm p-p. It takes 8 months for that 9 ppm increase to occur, but all that excess CO2 is removed in just 3 1/2 months. If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down. That is 34.3 months, which would be the time constant of a simple exponential decay process, which fits many physical processes. so if all sources were shut down, 99% of the CO2 excess, would be removed in five time constants, or 14.3 years.
I don’t think that argument works. It assumes that there would not be a similar fluctuation on the way down. But there would be, because NH plant growth does not continue all year, at least not at the same level. The mechanism of decline independent of the annual cycle would be something other than plant growth.

400 ppm
What evidence do we have that nature works in base 10?
It is a totally meaningless ‘milestone’

You just wait til it actually hits 400ppm. It will be a calamity. Meanwhile during a part of the Ordovician ice age co2 was at 3,000ppm! Climate science is Alice in Wonderland science. Up is down and down is up! Co2 is a heat trapping gas, unless it is not isnot. It’s now the main climate driver at 300ppm.

I cannot find an answer:
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Goebbels (according to http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/)

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 11, 2013 at 4:26 am
“I cannot find an answer:
Is there a pro-AGW website that explains how CO2 is warming the oceans below 700m? Is there one that explains the mechanism? Anyone? Thanks.”
Jim’s Ghost: I’ve been asking the same thing for months now. No reasonable explanation from either side of the fence has been offered. I recommend placement in the “Pure Fantasy” file.

RIchard Courtney: I’m accept for sake of argument (probably incorrectly) that all the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.
Why?
Because when a Warmista makes that claim (and they always will), I refute their scaremongering with my assertion that CO2 is great for plants and eventually humans and, according to this thread, has no negative impact on weather, and hence climate.
Your comment is correct when arguing against an all-anthropogenic origin for the additional CO2, but conceding the blame game on the human vs natural argument makes it easy to cut them off at the knees–even if ALL of it was anthropogenic, it’s a no-brainer: They lose the CO2 argument 100% of the time–we humans win and Warmistas lose.
If they accepted your argument (again, which I do), it would make pressing the point more difficult and less productive Remember, these aren’t logical people–they “think” with their emotions, much like children, or they’ve been brainwashed. But if you take their “toy” away AND give them something better, they’re happy.
Bottom line: It doesn’t really matter where the additional CO2 came from–it’s a benefit.

In re the NYT piece – they still aren’t conceding anything. Warming is “slowing,” not reversed as we know it to be. The “plateau” (translate: downward progression of temps) will end soon, and then the heating will resume. (Of course it will, maybe 30, 50, 250 years from now – and starting from a lower point than it did after the LIA ended, and probably stopping again well before 1997 temps are reached.) The Sun doesn’t lie, but the NYT does.
We could actually enter another LIA – or even a full-blown re-glaciation – and these gastropods will still claim the globe is warming. Fanaticism cannot be overcome by contrary evidence, because the first tenet of fanatical belief systems is that you do not listen to or acknowledge anything that contradicts your meme – for you, anything contrary simply doesn’t exist even if it slaps you upside the head. Two plus two will still equal -minus three to them, no matter how many times you show them it ain’t so.

“””””……Smoking Frog says:
August 11, 2013 at 2:35 am
george e. smith says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Well the first two graphs of CO2 at Mauna Loa, demonstrate the falsity of a common claim of the CO2 warming alarmists; that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 200 years. The second detailed data plot, shows that the annual CO2 “cycle” amplitude (at ML) has an amplitude of 9 ppm p-p. It takes 8 months for that 9 ppm increase to occur, but all that excess CO2 is removed in just 3 1/2 months. If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down. That is 34.3 months, which would be the time constant of a simple exponential decay process, which fits many physical processes. so if all sources were shut down, 99% of the CO2 excess, would be removed in five time constants, or 14.3 years.
I don’t think that argument works. It assumes that there would not be a similar fluctuation on the way down. But there would be, because NH plant growth does not continue all year, at least not at the same level. The mechanism of decline independent of the annual cycle would be something other than plant growth……….””””””
“”””””……..
Eric1skeptic says:
August 11, 2013 at 7:04 am
george e. smith (August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm) “If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down.”
Smoking Frog (August 11, 2013 at 2:35 am) is correct. The george e. smith scenario assumes that we would have permanent summer in the NH and if that happens, that trees in the NH could just keep growing indefinitely (require no seasonal cycle for continued growth). The other problem is that the equilibrium is going to be higher than 280 thanks to manmade CO2. Maybe not a lot more, but 300 or more seems reasonable. The correct calculation is to look at the annual rise and the percentage of CO2 above equilibrium that gets removed each year. Then assume an exponential decay with that delta. It means that in less than 40 years we would be half way back to equilibrium…….””””””
There’s a lot of “assuming”, about what I was assuming, in my back of the envelope calculation.
No need; I specifically stated my assumptions; which were:- (1) All processes contributing CO2 to the atmosphere were shut down; that’s ALL such processes. (2) The CO2 decay followed a simple exponential decay.
Smoking Frog says THAT assumes (I didn’t) continued tree growth. Eric1skeptic didn’t like the 280 ppm number; says 300 is better because of human CO2 additions. The 280 is not MY number, it’s the AGW crowd’s number. And I would swear that I said I assumed ALL CO2 contributory processes were shut down; so nyet on man made increases.
I did assume that the conditions that cause the decline, continued, by stating that a simpe exponential decline occurred. If that is permanent summer, and tree growth, so be it. It is also permanent arctic ocean ice melt.
The annual Arctic CO2 cycle in the atmosphere is three times the amplitude of the ML amplitude, suggesting that increased absorption of CO2 in the ocean (more open water) is the primary CO2 reduction mechanism; not plant growth. In contrast, the south polar CO2 cycle is about -1 ppm (out of phase with NH), and the south pole has neither a plant growth cycle, nor an open water area cycle; it’s likely due to the Antarctica sea ice cycle, which occurs far from the south pole (and is bigger than -1ppm in amplitude).
It’s easy to show that the open ocean continually pumps CO2 into the oceanic depths.
Henry’s Law prescribes how much CO2 can dissolve in the ocean surface waters. The Temperature drops with depth, so CO2 is more soluble in the deeper colder water, so the surface water CO2 moves to where the capacity for CO2 is higher, in the colder deeper waters.
So the surface does not sit there at the Henry’s law concentration of dissolved CO2; it continually pumps CO2 out of the atmosphere into the ocean depths.
When the surface Temperature increases, the Henry’s law concentration will increase, but because of the depletion by the colder deeper water, there isn’t excess CO2 in the surface waters to outgas CO2. In fact seasonal warming of the surface water, increases the Temperature gradient, and enhances the CO2 pumping efficiency.
But smoking Frog, and Eric1skeptic are both correct. In the real world, those processes that add and subtract CO2 in the atmosphere don’t ALL operate continually.
As for the 1-1.5 ppm per year ML increase; there’s no proof that is man made. We are after all just 800 years past the mediaeval warm period, which is the typical climate period delay, between increases in mean global Temperature, and subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2; as is enshrined in the long ice core records.

I am a former alarmist turned skeptic. Especially after having seen data showing that CO2 was nearly 5 times higher during the Jurassic than it is now… it seems the dinosaurs did just fine with elevated atmospheric CO2.
The sun and volcanic activity actually have a much bigger influence on the climate than anything that humans do. Watch the rest of solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25. If solar activity continues to remain low during this time, there are going to be many alarmists eating crow. Look for temperatures to stabilize the next couple of years and then begin to drop over the course of the next couple of decades, we might even see New York harbor and the Thames river freeze over in some of the coming winters.
There is something to be concerned about though, if by chance we have a VE6 or greater volcanic eruption during this time, it could trigger a year or two of especially frigid temperatures like the ones we saw back during the Middle Ages and Colonial American times.

Here’s the world at 400ppm:
Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes – The Joy of Stats – BBC Four – YouTube

RIchard, at the beginning of your paper you make this claim: ” Obviously, the net result would be an increase of CO2 production by desorption from the oceans. This is a relatively slow process, because the mass transfer coefficient between the sea water and its surface is relatively low (the rates of both absorption and desorption in the oceans have time constants that are probably of the order of decades). This would mean that a disruption by a temperature rise would result in a relatively slow increase of CO2 production.”
I did not see quantitative support for that claim.. Towards the end you acknowledge: “Convincing, quantitative proof for the existence of an increasing natural flux through the CO2 cycle can not be produced. But there is also no proof that the recent rise of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere must be attributed solely to anthropogenic emission. The latter is suggested by the evidence presented in Figure 1 in ref.1: that is, the concurrent rise of human emission and rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it is contradicted by the evidence presented in Figure 3: that is, the observed annual variance observed and the absence of a direct coincidence between annual human emission of CO2 and the annual pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere. This suggests that other influences are of importance.”
Your first claim is all the support you need for figure 3. But in fact the annual cycle reaches its low in July, the same time that the global average temperature reaches its peak, over 2C above the trough. That is direct contradictory evidence against temperature dependence of CO2. It is likely of course that the biosphere overwhelms temperature on an annual basis. But it cannot be used as evidence that a long term natural temperature rise is responsible for the long term CO2 rise. It suggests the long term factors are not temperature dependent, just like the short term.

ferd berple says: @ August 12, 2013 at 7:19 am
The Hadcrut 3 temperatures were deviating from climate model predictions. The Hadcrut 4 temperatures better fit the climate model predictions and are therefore more scientifically acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn it Ferd, now I have tea all over my screen. ROTFLMAO

“””””……eric1skeptic says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm
george e. smith (August 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm) “Surface Temperature increase LOWERS the CO2 equilibrium value, NOT increases; but as I said, the surface CO2 concentration is already depleted, by the pumping, so there isn’t excess CO2 to outgas.”
My question is why CO2 is lowest in July when global average temperature is the highest. Part of the answer may be that the ocean temperature does not follow quite the same curve at the global temperature which relies on northern hemisphere land warming in summer……..””””””
Eric, I thought I had already explained that. In the summer time, the additional open water in the Arctic ocean is another 8-12 million square km, of very cold water, which has been highly depleted of dissolved CO2, by being blocked off from the atmosphere for much of the year. During that time, that ocean ice has blocked CO2 from the water, the Temperature gradient in the water, has pumped CO2 into the deeper waters.
So when the summer melt occurs, you have all that CO2 starved water exposed to the atmosphere. The NOAA plot, (which they have now hidden) shows that the arctic ocean CO2 drops by something like 18-20 ppm during that time; several times the Mauna Loa value, which is in much warmer water.
I have the global 3-D plot of CO2 from pole to pole, for over ten years; but as I said, that graph no longer shows up at that location.
There simply is not a lot of growth cycling, going on in the Arctic ocean, when it is covered with ice, but once ice free, oceanic food blooms, which is why the whales go there in the summertime. I’m sure that aids the depletion of dissolved CO2, which simply accelerated the Henry’s law exchange with the atmosphere.
Yes you do have roiling of the surface waters during storms, but the penetration of storm effects into the depths is minimal. The ocean turnover due to currents, is much slower than the ice melt/regrow cycle.

Robert of Ottawa
August 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm
…
“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”

Is that an exact quote? The number of negatives is wrong. It should say:
“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will not believe it.”
It’s kind of bollixed either way; it would better have been phrased, “Any absurdity will be believed if repeated often enough.”

george e. smith (August 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm) “Eric, I thought I had already explained that. In the summer time, the additional open water in the Arctic ocean is another 8-12 million square km, of very cold water, which has been highly depleted of dissolved CO2, by being blocked off from the atmosphere for much of the year. During that time, that ocean ice has blocked CO2 from the water, the Temperature gradient in the water, has pumped CO2 into the deeper waters.”
George, that’s not a bad theory except the timing is a little off. CO2 reaches its trough in July and the open water reaches a peak in September. Furthermore we would expect a lag from the absorption of CO2 in that open water to the measured trough, so we would expect the trough after September.

Thanks for your reply Richard. The dynamics are the result of the processes. The relevant annual processes are the biosphere (which I stated as trees leafing out and leaves turning brown, etc) I left out ocean biosphere which should also maximize in the NH summer. I should not have left that process off my list.
But I specifically exclude cold ocean consumption and warm ocean production of CO2. My reason is very simple, the earth’s average temperature peaks in July, but the CO2 troughs in July. The CO2 cannot be lowest as the ocean surface is warmest if overall ocean temperature were a factor in the annual cycle. But I realize the ocean is much more complex than an average, it consists of different areas producing and consuming CO2 throughout the year, particularly consuming in downwelling areas near the poles and producing in warmer locations.
But I doubt the is a major annual factor for the reason I gave above. Nor are 1b, 2b, and 2c in your list. That leaves leaves. My preferred theory is the one from the scientific mainstream which is that leafing out of trees is the primary cause of the annual trough and decomposition causes the annual rise in NH autumn. But again I need to stress that I do not know the processes well enough myself to confirm that and I also acknowledge that there are lots of uncertainties in the science itself.

“””””…….eric1skeptic says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:52 am
george e. smith (August 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm) “Eric, I thought I had already explained that. In the summer time, the additional open water in the Arctic ocean is another 8-12 million square km, of very cold water, which has been highly depleted of dissolved CO2, by being blocked off from the atmosphere for much of the year. During that time, that ocean ice has blocked CO2 from the water, the Temperature gradient in the water, has pumped CO2 into the deeper waters.”
George, that’s not a bad theory except the timing is a little off. CO2 reaches its trough in July and the open water reaches a peak in September. Furthermore we would expect a lag from the absorption of CO2 in that open water to the measured trough, so we would expect the trough after September……..”””””””
At the start of the arctic ice melt in Feb-Mar, it is the dead of winter, and the Arctic Temp is around 243K. The Arctic ocean has been blocked off from the atmosphere by ice, for months, so the colde water Temperature and the Temperature gradient, have pumped surface CO2 to the depths (solubility gradient), so the water immediately under the ice is very cold, and highly depleted of CO2 relative to its Henry’s law equilibrium value.
So when the melt starts, and more open water appears, we have depleted cold ocean water in contact with the highest levels of atmospheric CO2, so the rate of exchange between air and water is accelerated, due to the unbalance from equilibrium.
So CO2 is removed at a faster rate during the early stages of the ice melt, when the atmospheric CO2 excess is highest and the exposed water Temperature is least, and most depleted.
As spring turns to summer, the atmospheric CO2 excess is lowering, the surface waters are warming, which lowers the equilibrium CO2 water fraction, and those warming waters are becoming less depleted due to the continually dissolving CO2; so the exchange process slows down as the summer progresses.
The max and min atmospheric CO2 times occur at roughly the same times as the max and min ice extent.
Also, that CO2 data is for the ML CO2; not the Artic CO2, which has a much greater cycle amplitude, and a different time phase as well.
I’m not up to speed on how the arctic ocean biological uptake is timed, the whales seem to get out of town fairly late in the regrowth phase, judging by the occasional trapping by sea ice.
I’m perfectly happy to entertain anyone’s expert input, as to why the Arctic CO2 cycle is not mostly due to the open ocean water growth and melt cycle; but the available data sure matches that thesis very closely. Certainly much closer than ANY available computer climate model matches the observed surface, and lower troposphere Temperature data.
I can’t prove MY model is correct; but any naysayer can prove me wrong with a single observation that contradicts it.

Robert S says: @ August 14, 2013 at 3:04 am
Thanks
A bit if science history I was unaware of.