UPDATED – see below
Monckton provides these slides for discussion along with commentary related to his recent post on CO2 residence time – Anthony
There is about one molecule of 13C in every 100 molecules of CO2, the great majority being 12C. As CO2 concentration increases, the fraction of 13C in the atmosphere decreases – the alleged smoking gun, fingerprint or signature of anthropogenic emission: for the CO2 added by anthropogenic emissions is leaner in 13C than the atmosphere.
However, anthropogenic CO2 emissions of order 5 Gte yr–1 are two orders of magnitude smaller than natural sources and sinks of order 150 5 Gte yr–1. If some of the natural sources are also leaner in CO2 than the atmosphere, as many are, all bets are off. The decline in atmospheric CO2 may not be of anthropogenic origin after all. In truth, only one component in the CO2 budget is known with any certainty: human emission.
If the natural sources and sinks that represent 96% of the annual CO2 budget change, we do not have the observational capacity to know. However, we do not care, because what is relevant is net emission from all sources and sinks, natural as well as anthropogenic. Net emission is the sum of all sources of CO2 over a given period minus the sum of all CO2 sinks over that period, and is proportional to the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 over the period. The net emission rate controls how quickly global CO2 concentration increases.
CO2 is emitted and absorbed at the surface. In the atmosphere it is inert. It is thus well mixed, but recent observations have shown small variations in concentration, greatest in the unindustrial tropics. Since the variations in CO2 concentration are small, a record from any station will be a good guide to global CO2 concentration. The longest record is from Mauna Loa, dating back to March 1958.
The annual net emission or CO2 increment, a small residual between emissions and absorptions from all sources which averages 1.5 µatm, varies with emission and absorption, sometimes rising >100% against the mean trend, sometimes falling close to zero. Variation in human emission, at only 1 or 2% a year, is thus uncorrelated with changes in net emission, which are independent of it.
Though anthropogenic emissions increase monotonically, natural variations caused by Pinatubo (cooling) and the great el Niño (warming) are visibly stochastic. Annual changes in net CO2 emission (green, above) track surface conditions (blue: temperature and soil moisture together) with a correlation of 0.93 (0.8 for temperature alone), but surface conditions are anti-correlated with δ13C (red: below).
The circulation-dependent naturally-caused component in atmospheric CO2 concentration (blue above), derived solely from temperature and soil moisture changes, coincides with the total CO2 concentration (green). Also, the naturally-caused component in δ13C coincides with observed δ13C (below).
==============================================================
ADDED (the original MS-Word document sent by Monckton was truncated)
==============================================================
The naturally-caused component in CO2 (above: satellite temperature record in blue, CRU surface record in gray), here dependent solely on temperature, tracks not only measured but also ice-proxy concentration, though there is a ~10 µatm discrepancy in the ice-proxy era. In the models, projected temperature change (below: blue) responds near-linearly to CO2 concentration change (green).
In the real world, however, there is a poor correlation between stochastically-varying temperature change (above: blue) and monotonically-increasing CO2 concentration change (green). However, the CO2 concentration response to the time-integral of temperature (below: blue dotted line) very closely tracks the measured changes in CO2 concentration, suggesting the possibility that the former may cause the latter.
Summary
Man’s CO2 emissions are two orders of magnitude less than the natural sources and sinks of CO2. Our emissions are not the main driver of temperature change. It is the other way about.
Professor Salby’s opponents say net annual CO2 growth now at ~2 μatm yr–1 is about half of manmade emissions that should have added 4 μatm yr–1 to the air, so that natural sinks must be outweighing natural sources at present, albeit only by 2 μatm yr–1, or little more than 1% of the 150 μatm yr–1 natural CO2 exchanges in the system.
However, Fourier analysis over all sufficiently data-resolved timescales ≥2 years shows that the large variability in the annual net CO2 emission from all sources is heavily dependent upon the time-integral of absolute global mean surface temperature. CO2 concentration change is largely a consequence, not a cause, of natural temperature change.
The sharp Pinatubo-driven cooling of 1991-2 and the sharp Great-el-Nino-driven warming of 1997-8, just six years later, demonstrate the large temperature-dependence of the highly-variable annual increments in CO2 concentration. This stochastic variability is uncorrelated with the near-monotonic increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.
Though correlation between anthropogenic emissions and annual variability in net emissions from all sources is poor, there is a close and inferentially causative correlation between variable surface conditions (chiefly temperature, with a small contribution from soil moisture) and variability in net annual CO2 emission.
Given the substantial variability of net emission and of surface temperature, the small fraction of total annual CO2 exchanges represented by that net emission, and the demonstration that on all relevant timescales the time-integral of temperature change determines CO2 concentration change to a high correlation, a continuing stasis or even a naturally-occurring fall in global mean surface temperature may yet cause net emission to be replaced by net uptake, so that CO2 concentration could cease to increase and might even decline notwithstanding our continuing emissions.
Natural temperature change and variability in soil moisture, not anthropogenic emission, is the chief driver of changes in CO2 concentration. These changes may act as a feedback contributing some warming but are not its principal cause.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In your second paragraph you said:
The decline in atmospheric CO2 may not be of anthropogenic origin after all.
I think you meant 13C, not CO2
A couple of months ago I gave a one hour, dumbed-down (a little less atmospheric physics), presentation on Salby’s work on CO2 to a group of retired university types who call themselves “The Eggheads.” They’ve been meeting on a regular basis for several decades now.
Salby’s information was very well received and caused a fair stir among a couple of gentlemen who I knew to be avid alarmists. They looked, and sounded, like they had just had a core belief shaken.
The following is a Dropbox link to a copy of the Powerpoint presentation I created using screen captures from Salby’s lecture. The quality turned out to be quite good, and I used my 55 inch Samsung for the viewer.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/603s1zbrtffxtgf/Egghead%20Presentation%20on%20Salby%27s%20Work.ppt
The alarmist camp doesn’t like the AIRS satellite output either:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
Some other views on dCO2 vs temp
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
Pretty much what Allan MacRae did a few years ago (with better filters)
I really wonder when Salby is going to publish something (even just an internet article) where we can properly asses what he’s got to say.
C. Monkton’s snapshots of Salby’s presentation … it’s all getting rather farcical.
So, just for my own summary, what we are seeing is:
1. A clear reduction in the CO2 rise during a known cooler time (early 90s)
2. A clear increase in the CO2 rise during a known warmer time (1998)
3. A reduction in the percentage of “human fingerprint” CO2 of 13C
So the logical conclusion is that something other than human input is the cause of the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels, and that something is affected by temperature.
Surely this is GOOD news to the alarmists!
Who cares? CO2 does NOT drive temperature/climate. There is no empirical data demonstrating that CO2 drives climate, climate models do but model output is not proof of anything only the ability of the programmer. Present model runs do NOT agree with reality so all FAIL.
saltspringson , thanks for the complete slide show. Now we need to see the workings.
codetech:Surely this is GOOD news to the alarmists!
Oh come on. They don’t want to save the world until the world has agreed to do exactly what they say. The world saving itself is the worst thing they could imagine happening, because no one will ever listen to them again.
‘CO2 is absorbed and emitted at the surface’…what about rain ?…CO2 is fairly soluble in water…with the tiny volume of a cloud droplet…and the very high ratio of surface to volume..all raindrops should be saturated with CO2…IMHO this should be the main mechanism for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere…and the reason why CO2 has not risen as fast as emissions…assuming all the other processes remain the same
This helps to understand how the initial reaction can be orthogonal (what Salby is trying to emphasise in his talk) and later end up in-phase.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
I have used temp – radiation response but its the same relaxation response as oceanic CO2 – temp. so same graph applies.
In summary, this initial response is rate of change proportional to forcing, the phase then slowly drifts to a mix of orthogonal and in-phase, finally being dominated by a long term response in-phase but with a time lag that matches the time constant of the reaction, ( in “lock-step” as the jargonists now like to say, “lock” means you can’t argue, it’s locked )
It will probably need three such models with varying time constants to describe oceanic out-gassing from : well-mixed surface layer; below surface to thermocline; deep ocean.
What we see in the ice core record is a trace of the last part of that (ice errors and omissions excepted), ie the circa 800y lag reflects the time constant of the slowest , deepest part.
The graphs I posted reflect the orthogonal reaction of the surface layer at 8ppmv/year/kelvin. Note that is not the final resting difference , it’s 8ppmv per year every year for each kelvin of temp change. It’s huge, but volatile and in both directions.
IIRC annual change-over is about 150 Gt/a with about 90 of the from oceans.
Taking a leaf from Gosta Pettersson’s book we can estimate the time constant from the annual flux 90 Gt change in 6 mo out and 90 Gt change in 6 mo in, ie 180 Gt/a flux. The total atmospheric reservoir is about 800 Gt which estimates the primary time const at 800/180 =4.4 years, unless I’ve slipped up.
That is close to several estimations of how long individual CO2 molecules remain in the air.
So now we need some estimation of the middle step. Then it can all be added together and we can see what proportion of the increase is due to residual emissions, outgassing and land biosphere take up.
I somehow doubt Salby’s claim that it’s “all” outgassing but we need to see his numbers as well as his pics.
This approach to mass balance shows that the IPPCs assumptions are WRONG. In a dynamic flow system you should not assume that an observed change is entirely due to one small input change. I’m working with all the Scripps data (from the South Pole to Alert, Canada) and I find a global signiture for both C13 index and CO2 concentration. Simply work with the column 10 data calculating the year to year change rate. Example: (Jan. 1992 -Jan. 1990)/2 , (Feb. 1992 – Feb. 1990)/2 etc. Both of these signitures look very much like ENSO. I’m in the process of quantifying the relative contributions of man-made emissions and ENSO emissions. I’m glad to see others using a similar approach to conclude that trying to control emissions is like spitting into the wind.
gopal panicker says:
‘CO2 is absorbed and emitted at the surface’…what about rain ?…
Salt water absorbs much more but rain must help the reaction rate by scrubbing the air.
Just thinking… in the movie “the untouchables” Sean connery says “it’s just like a whop to
Bring a knife to a gunfight”…….
Today ” it’s just like a denier to bring science to a political fight”
Of couse Without the work of all you we could not fight this b.s. ,,,please carry on and thanks,
There is other data that supports Salby’s assertion. As shown in this graph the largest increase in atmosphere CO2 occurred in 1997 which was also the warmest year on record before manipulation.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
As the above graph shows the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 is dependent on temperature not on the increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions which does not makes sense based on the IPCC carbon sink and source model. (i.e. As anthropogenic CO2 emissions are increasing year by year the increase in atmospheric CO2 should increase year by year.)
To explain that observation based on the IPCC model the missing sinks for CO2 must increase. The following course summary explains the problem using 1990 to 2000 data. To explain the increase in atmospheric 2000 to present would require that the missing sink increase to explain the fact that year by year the increase in atmospheric CO2 is constant while the anthropogenic CO2 emission has increased by 2% per year.
“Of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity, roughly 40% remains in the atmosphere, 30% is absorbed by the oceans, and the remaining 30% is the “missing sink”. Perhaps surprisingly, those percentages seem to remain roughly the same, regardless of fluctuations in the amount of CO2 that is added to the atmosphere by human activities.
For the decade of the 1990s, the global carbon cycle can be summarized as follows (units are PgC. One Pg [petagram] = one billion metric tonnes = 1000 x one billion kg):
Atmospheric increase = Emissions from Fossil fuels + Net emissions from changes in land use – Oceanic uptake – “Missing” carbon sink
3.2 (±0.2) = 6.3 (±0.4) + 2.2 (±0.8) – 2.4 (±0.7) – 2.9 (±1.1)”
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec3/carbon.html
Comment:
As Salby’s notes the only sink and source of CO2 shown in the cartoon drawings that is accurately known is anthropogenic CO2.
Greg,
I think the absorption of CO2 in tropical clouds is controlling the global concentration and distribution. Water droplets get colder with altitude. Equilibrium between air and water is maintained as the air rises. Some of that water falls as rain but some at the top of the clouds freezes. When it freezes, it releases CO2 into the upper atmosphere where it is transported toward the poles where it is absorbed by cold polar water (not ice).
Every raindrop that falls to earth contains CO2 in the form of carbonic acid.
“Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic).[”
Thus, rainwate “scrubbs” the air of CO2.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
Since 1995 , when global temps have been in pause, the rate of increase of air-borne CO2 seems remarkably constant 2ppmv/year with an inter-annual variation that is almost a perfect match for AO lagged by 3.5 years , whilst human emission have been steadily climbing.
That would suggest near total absorption of emissions and CO2 out gassing to redress an imbalance due to century long warming. One point for Salby’s line of thinking.
I don’t have an explanation for that but the degree of correlation or the lag, just a probably significant observation.
Samuel C Cogar says:
Every raindrop that falls to earth contains CO2 in the form of carbonic acid.
“Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic).”
So it’s polluted rainwater not unpolluted. At last we’ve found the carbon pollution !
It’ a good idea to show Salby’s lecture notes. I would like to have seen mention of Salby’s final point, which is that whereas temperature does not track co2, co2 does correlate very well with the integral of temperature. When this is plotted alongside co2, they are virtually identical.
co2 vs Int(SST) is the same relationship as d/dt(CO2) vs SST or d2/dt/2(CO2) vs d/dt(SST) that I posted above. Yes, very close.
derivatives are a lot clearer about any differences though. It’s easy to match integrals.
What’s “The circulation-dependent naturally-caused component”? The CO2 concentration predicted by regressing CO2 concentration against “surface conditions”?
Greg Goodman: I somehow doubt Salby’s claim that it’s “all” outgassing but we need to see his numbers as well as his pics.
I’m with you on that.
fwiw, I like your work. On one of the pages you linked you wrote “within 5% of the asymptotic value”. I have been trying to think like that wrt the surface temp approach to the nominal “equilibrium” value. Granting for the moment that “CO2 causes change”, and being skeptical of the “equilibrium” calculations, how could we tell when 95% of “the change” had occurred? For the surface temps, land and sea, I am inclined to think that 95% of “the change” occurs within a year, but I can’t think of how to tell whether that is true or not.
Greg Goodman said:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=259
“Since 1995 , when global temps have been in pause, the rate of increase of air-borne CO2 seems remarkably constant 2ppmv/year with an inter-annual variation that is almost a perfect match for AO lagged by 3.5 years , whilst human emission have been steadily climbing. ”
The AO appears to have an effect on global cloudiness via changes in jet stream behaviour.
If the primary source of oceanic CO2 emissions is the sun warmed ocean surfaces beneath the subtropical high pressure cells as appears to be the case from the AIRS data then it may be significant that those high pressure cells expand and contract with changes in the AO.
Hmm… Assuming no errors or shenanigans, then the correlations are quite good. Whatever, or however, Salby is deriving ‘Surface Conditions’ (Temp+Soil) it tracks against CO2 and sigma13C well and both to the upside and downside. Which is always an encouraging sign; cf AGW models go up regardless of which way temp is going. He has CO2 lagging Surface Conditions, which matches ice core data and so discards any need for special pleading about it being different this one time.
But the sigma13C issue is… bizarre. And I’m extremely unhappy with it. As a specific point, the only manner in which I can attempt to justify the 13C depletion is IFF this can be reflected in animal preferences for C4/CAM plants as a food source: Corn, sugar cane, etc. It’s an ad-hoc thought, but I can’t really sort out a justification of it.
Other than that, the $20k question: Did it do a better job over the last 16 years than the IPCC orchestra of models?