Excerpts from Salby’s Slide Show

UPDATED – see below

Monckton provides these slides for discussion along with commentary related to his recent post on CO2 residence time – Anthony

clip_image002

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.

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006

clip_image008

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.

clip_image010

clip_image012

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).

clip_image014

clip_image016

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).

clip_image018

clip_image020

clip_image022

==============================================================

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).

clip_image002

clip_image004

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.

clip_image006

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.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

320 Responses to Excerpts from Salby’s Slide Show

  1. The other Phil says:

    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

  2. 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

  3. Greg Goodman says:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
    Pretty much what Allan MacRae did a few years ago (with better filters)

  4. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  5. CodeTech says:

    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!

  6. johnmarshall says:

    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.

  7. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  8. gopal panicker says:

    ‘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

  9. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  10. fhhaynie says:

    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.

  11. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  12. 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,

  13. William Astley says:

    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.

  14. fhhaynie says:

    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).

  15. 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.

  16. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  17. Greg Goodman says:

    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 !

  18. Vince Causey says:

    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.

  19. Greg Goodman says:

    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.

  20. Joe Born says:

    What’s “The circulation-dependent naturally-caused component”? The CO2 concentration predicted by regressing CO2 concentration against “surface conditions”?

  21. Matthew R Marler says:

    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.

  22. 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.

  23. Jquip says:

    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?

  24. dp says:

    Samuel C Cogar says:
    November 23, 2013 at 7:18 am

    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.

    It isn’t just rainwater – fog and condensation are highly acidic and are a commercial problem.

    http://www.taylortechnologies.com/ChemistryTopicsCM.ASP?ContentID=82

    http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca4204p6-68791.pdf

    This absorbtion of CO2 also true for sea spray, the shimmering rainbow filled mist from waterfalls, wind swept fetches of lake water, and anywhere natural forces cause mixing between water and CO2.

  25. James V says:

    So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table. Since the science isn’t settled – what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now? Climate sensitivity estimates from a doubling of C02 are all over the place, even within the IPCC AR5, from .3 degrees C to Hansen’s 6 degrees. Anyone want to make a guess as to what it really is? If the greenhouse effect of Co2 is Logarithmic http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
    then when are we done warming from China burning as much coal as they want? I am not a troll or being sarcastic. Thanks

    Jimmy

  26. Gary Pearse says:

    “It is thus well mixed, but recent observations have shown small variations in concentration, greatest in the unindustrial tropics.”

    I guess I’ve been a bit repetitious on this topic, but I have offered an hypothesis that the ozone, AND CO2, N and noble gases “hole” at the poles (less because of much greater atmospheric circulation at the north polar area) should have a corresponding ridge in the equatorial zone because of the fact that only O2 is strongly paramagnetic and is attracted to the stronger polar mag fields and the other gases are diamagnetic and are repulsed by the stronger field. I have predicted that the diamagnetic gases would be more abundant in the equatorial zone. It was my explanation for why we will not see the “ozone hole” close- it will vary over time with mag field strength. Where is Vucevic, he’s never on when I present this thesis? I have noted that the ozone doesn’t just thicken gradually as you go away from south pole, it forms a collar of concentrated Ozone around it, like a rolled down turtleneck sweater. Can anyone supply concentrations of oxygen and the other atmos. gases at the poles and the equatorial/temperate zones? This article convinces me even more strongly.

  27. Jquip says:

    James V: “what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now? ”

    When did you stop beating your wife? Problem is precisely that there’s a disagreement on it. But for man-made CO2, the average person is stated to exhale 850g per day. For the world popluation as estimated at 7.126B then the annual CO2 output from respiration is on the order of 2.2 Gigatonnes. If she’s truly concerned you can add in flatulence, which is given as somehere on the order of 0.8 Gt for a grand total of 3.0 Gt. So for just humans breathing and farting, they’re 60% of the way to their fossil fuel emissions. Best thing here is to tell your sister to save the planet by shutting her pie hole.

  28. David in Cal says:

    I am struggling to understand this. From my naïve POV, a key question is how the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2. If there were no impact, then ISTM that any amount of extra anthropogenic CO2 would remain in the atmosphere and add to its CO2 concentration.

    However, I think we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does affect the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2. We’re told that the oceans are acidifying (really,becoming less alkaline), because the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere means that the oceans absorb more CO2. To the degree that higher atmospheric CO2 leads to more plant growth, plants will also take more CO2 out of the atmosphere, as its CO2 concentration increases.

    In short, it seems to me that in order to make use of the speed of CO2 absorbtion, we need to know how changes in atmospheric CO2 affect the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2.

  29. Greg Goodman says:

    Rate of absorption of CO2 is proportional to difference of partial pressure of CO2 in atm from p.p. in ocean. The latter depends upon SST, which of course varies widely as does the level of absorbed CO2 itself. No simple answer, but that roughs it out.

  30. Greg Goodman says:

    S. Wilde: “The AO appears to have an effect on global cloudiness via changes in jet stream behaviour.”

    Yes, I had a look at the UK station data Euan and Clive Best were looking at. Just on one station there is a clear correlation.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=644

    More detail in that in various links I posted on Euan’s site:
    http://euanmearns.com/uk-temperatures-since-1956-physical-models-and-interpretation-of-temperature-change/#comment-262

    3.5 years must indicate some physical lag I would have thought. That is interesting because the pattern does not seem to be getting spread as I would expect if it was direct causation traversing half the globe and taking 3.5years. The detail of the pattern seems to match remarkably closely.

    common cause, part of an integrated climate oscillation ?

    There is a different lag and less correlation during warming, when temperature seems to be more a dominating factor. There are strong clues in all that, they just need unravelling.

  31. The last three crucial slides and the summary of the argument seem to be missing. I’ve alerted Anthony and I’m sure he’ll correct this when he gets a moment.

  32. Marchand says:

    I have not understood what is the idea behind Mr. Monckton’s first graph, and, by the way, we are in 2013, so, what does it actually proves (disproves?)

  33. John Whitman says:

    The excerpts (provided by CM) of a Salby presentation forced me to get a complete and technically validated context; namely the excerpts forced me to review in detail the whole context provided by the video presentation of Murry Salby in Hamburg in April.

    Salby deserves a complete context.

    I strongly support concerns that biased IPCC centric gate keeping at journals is still something Salby must overcome to get his current research (profoundly critical of the IPCC) published.

    John

  34. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    James V says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:18 am
    So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table.
    William:
    Howdy,
    The following are a couple of key observations and analysis points to support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cyclic changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. I would suggest you print off some graphs and a page or two of the papers, a picture is worth a 1000 words.
    1. The pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match the predicted pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing mechanism. As shown in Bob Tisdale’s, temperature anomaly, land and ocean, average 2007 to December, 2012 by latitude, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. That observation contradicts what the IPCC model predicted. The IPCC models predicted that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where the most amount of long wave (infrared radiation is emitted to space).
    The molecule CO2 only absorbs a narrow frequency band of long wave radiation (infrared radiation) which explains why theoretically the increase in CO2 has less and less theoretical affect on warming (theoretical reason for logarithmic equation; the logarithmic equation is based on a simplified test that does not simulate actual atmosphere conditions, actual observations indicate that the CO2 mechanism(s) saturates which indicates there is a fundamental error in atmospheric modeling at altitudes above 5 km) The warming due to the increase in CO2 should also be proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2.

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
    As CO2 is more or less eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
    “These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
    “These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    2. The IPCC models predicted that there should be a hot spot (highest amount of warming) in the atmosphere in the tropics at about 8 km above the surface of the planet. There is no observed hot spot which indicates there is something fundamentally incorrect with IPCC models Vs actual atmosphere processes.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

    The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the assertions concerning the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
    3. There is the fact that planetary temperature has not increased for 17 years which does not make sense as CO2 is increasing.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/
    4. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the past where the same pattern of warming that was observed in the last 70 years (high latitude warming and cooling). The past cycles of warming and cooling correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, which support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the pattern of warming and cooling. The cooling occurs when the sun enters into Maunder minimum. The solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and cool by modulating the amount of low and high level cloud cover at high latitudes. The solar magnetic cycle changes also change the optical properties of clouds in the tropics which cause El Niño and La Niña.
    5. In the last 70 years, the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 6000 years.
    6. The solar magnetic cycle was abruptly slowed down with the fastest reduction in 8000 years of data.
    7. Due to the above observations and analysis, the planet should significantly cool due to the abrupt slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. Observations to support that assertion are record sea ice in the Antarctic and a rapid recovery of sea ice in the Arctic.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

  35. davidmhoffer says:

    James V says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:18 am
    So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table. Since the science isn’t settled – what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If Salby is correct, then the answer is we don’t know.

    But for the purposes of a thanksgiving day dinner, pre-industrial concentrations are generally accepted to be 280 ppm and current concentrations are close to 400 ppm. If you understand the logarithmic nature of CO2, that fact alone puts the alarmists in a bind. If sensitivity was high, then we would have seen a measurable change in temperature over the last couple of decades. We have not. If sensitivity is low, we have nothing to worry about.

    Thus all the twisting and turning to explain the “pause” in temperature increases over the last two decades, blaming it on heat being sequestered in the deep oceans (where we cannot measure it) or in the arctic (where we cannot measure it). I find this even more amusing, because even if these new explanations turn out to be correct (which I doubt) they still represent assertions by the alarmist scientists that the science is not in fact settled and an admission that they really don’t know what’s going on at all.

  36. Well, this seemes to be a repeat of the previous debate(s) about Salby’s lecture. What I want to see is a direct response from Salby on the objections I have put forward on his speech in London (where I was present) and on this blog. Until now the response was rather evasive or completely absent.

    To begin with, the fate of the 13C/12C ratio.

    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.

    Near all inorganic carbon has a high 13C/12C ratio around zero per mil δ13C compared to the standard. That is the case for:
    Oceans (surface +1 to +5 per mil, deep oceans 0 to +1 per mil), chalk deposits around zero per mil, volcanic vents -7 to +3 per mil (subduction volcanoes higher than deep magma volcanoes).

    Near all organic carbon is low to extremely low in 13C/12C ratio: from -15 per mil (C4 plants) to -80 per mil for some sorts of CH4 (methane). The average from plant decay and of fossil fuel burning is around -25 per mil, thus hardly distinguishable.

    The atmosphere is in between at -6.4 per mil δ13C (pre-industrial) down to below -8 per mil δ13C today.

    But there are two possibilities to differentiate between fossil fuel emissions and plant decay:
    - the 14C content of fossil fuel is zero: too old for 14C, which is below detection limit after ~60,000 years, while recent organics have recent levels of 14C incorporated.
    - the oxygen balance. the amount of oxygen used to burn fossil fuels can be calculated from type of fuel, sales and burning efficiency. That gives that there is a small deficit in oxygen use. That means that the whole biosphere (land and seaplants, microbes, insects, animals,…) is a net absorber for CO2. As photosynthesis by preference uses 12CO2, that means that relative more 13CO2 is left in the atmosphere and thus the whole biosphere is not the cause of the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. See:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    Thus the whole biosphere is a net absorber of ~1 GtC/yr of CO2.

    That means that only humans are responsible for the δ13C decline, as the biosphere is not the cause and all other known sources are (too) high in δ13C. That includes the oceans: any substantial increase from the oceans will INcrease the 13C/12C ratio, while we see a substantial DEcrease, including in the ocean surface.
    Moreover, the δ13C decline starts around 1850 and completely parallels the increase of fossil fuel burning:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

  37. gymnosperm says:

    Jquip,

    The reason for the sigma 13C is that the biosphere is Carbon limited AND temperature limited. We live in an ice age. We live in a biological depression. When temperature increases, biological activity increases, preferentially cycling 12C through the system and diluting the rejected 13C. And the opposite.

    C4 plants also prefer 12C, they just need a bit less of it.

  38. pouncer says:

    Upon November 23, 2013 at 6:43 am
    Greg Goodman says: we need to see (Salby’s) numbers as well as his pics.

    The Salby presentation has been circulating some while. The
    numbers are overdue. (Not the first time such a dichotomy
    arose in Climate Research…)

    Is there any indication that the publication of the research
    is being delayed via peer-nitpickery, as Jeff Id’s rebuttal on Stieg’s
    Antarctic work has been documented to have been delayed?

    Or is it likely that Salby’s numbers don’t hold up, and a
    valid peer-review is preventing publication?

    How would an outsider and layman tell the difference?

  39. James V says:

    Jquip and William Astley Thanks

  40. davidmhoffer says:

    James V says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
    Jquip and William Astley Thanks
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Jquip’s answer is in regard to CO2 created by humans breathing which has pretty much nothing to do with the debate since it is so small. The debate is in regard to CO2 from anthropogenic sources. My more detailed explanation is upthread, inadvertently in moderation due to my copy/paste of your use of the “d” word. In any event, the numbers you are looking for are 280 ppm for pre-industrial and 400 ppm current.

  41. Part 2 about the trends:

    Variation in human emission, at only 1 or 2% a year, is thus uncorrelated with changes in net emission, which are independent of it.

    The graphs are rather misleading, by displaying the emissions and the increase in the atmosphere in different graphs. If one combines them, that gives a quite different impression:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

    Thus while the changes in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are not correlated with the emissions, these changes are changes in sink capacity, not in source capacity…
    Human emissions are twice the amount of the average increase in the atmosphere, thus about halve the human emissions (in mass, not individual molecules) disappear in oceans and vegetation. In warm years somewhat less, in cold years somewhat more. But in all years of the past 50 years, nature was a net sink for CO2

    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).

    The first graph is simply curve fitting, which isn’t even that good if you compare the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere with the accumulated emissions over the past 50 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg

    The second graph is completely wrong, as there is none natural source of low δ13C at work. Only humans emit low δ13C CO2…

  42. Greg Goodman said:

    “common cause, part of an integrated climate oscillation ?”

    Yes I think so, hence my attempt at a new climate model listing the observed phenomena in sequence as they were seen to occur.

    Clearly the phase of increased sunlight onto the subtropical ocean surfaces at a time of active sun should result in more CO2 outgassing a result of reduced ocean absorption.

    As Christopher points out, we only need to find some natural sources that are lean in C13 to dispose of the isotope issue and the mass balance issue has been disposed of in a previous thread here in my opinion.

    I have suggested that the biosphere in the oceans might be producing emissions lean in C13 but have no information on that as yet.

    Anyway, the best guess seems to be that human emissions are reabsorbed locally and regionally by the land biosphere whilst the changes in oceanic absorption capability are in control overall with the ice cores producing far too coarse a record to reflect a large natural variability in atmospheric CO2.

    I think I’m on stronger ground with these issues than with one of my suggestions as regards the radiative energy budget which went somewhat awry on a previous thread where I posted without sufficient thought.

    I too would like Murry Salby to firm up his proposals with actual numbers but the general principles that he is setting out look convincing to me.

    Being aware of Ferdinand’s views I would very much like to see a firm resolution of the isotope issue.

  43. Greg Goodman says:

    “Or is it likely that Salby’s numbers don’t hold up, and a
    valid peer-review is preventing publication?”

    that is also a possibility that would prevent him wanting to publish outside peer-review.
    About time he put his cards on the table.

  44. David, UK says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:11 am

    The world saving itself is the worst thing they could imagine happening, because no one will ever listen to them again.

    Nah, they’ll just move on to some other form of alarm, like they always do.

  45. Jquip says:

    @gymnosperm: “C4 plants also prefer 12C, they just need a bit less of it.”

    Right, so if we’re attempting to shoehorn the argument for normative bio-activity, then a preference for C4 plants as a food source will fixate the 13C elsewhere over time. Remember: The assumption underneath the argument presented is that natural processes dwarf anthropogenic considerations. And that’s certainly true during the summer photosynthetic condition no matter where you stand in the debate. But given the preconditions here, then the winter season returns similar or less 13C then was present during the previous cycle. So: Where does it fixate? That needs a good argument. Maybe there is one, I’ve only got the graphs; so consider it thinking out loud.

    @davidmhoffer: “Jquip’s answer is in regard to CO2 created by humans breathing”

    Is entirely the point of attack, not defense. eg. Which would you give up? Breathing or smart phone? Which do you discard? An entire nuclear family or a single refrigerator. Don’t let them put you on the defensive about ‘belief’ statements when facts have error bars wider than the Atlantic. Put them on the defensive for what they think we should do about ‘their’ belief. It’s their religion, let them spell out the Levitical diet to stave off the Lake of Fire.

  46. William Astley says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:03 am

    That is a good summary.

    The only aspect I would query is the attribution to solar magnetic changes rather than solar effects on ozone quantities at different levels.

    More data is needed but it does seem to be an active area of research.

  47. James Strom says:

    Seems kind of harsh to expect Salby to publish in his current circumstances; however, he has said enough to allow others to reconstruct his work. There’s a brief report at The Hokey Schtick with links to a fuller article. This may provide the documentation that some have been looking for.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

  48. davidmhoffer says:

    Jquip;
    Put them on the defensive for what they think we should do about ‘their’ belief. It’s their religion, let them spell out the Levitical diet to stave off the Lake of Fire.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If you think providing them with an uninformative answer that in the context of the debate is actually misinformation, you are entitled to you opinion. But if James V encounters at his thanksgiving dinner a single detractor who has a firm grasp of the facts, your answer serves no purpose but to make James V look foolish and to damage the skeptic side of the debate in general.

  49. Janice Moore says:

    I wonder why A-th-y gives the sneeringly dismissive label “Salby’s Slide Show” to Dr. Murry Salby’s excellent lecture given in Hamburg on April 18, 2013… . And why doesn’t Mr. Goodman (and others) watch that entire lecture (and read Dr. Salby’s book) and comment on THAT instead of the truncated-almost-to-the-point-of-distortion version of Dr. Salby’s work above?

    In case anyone is interested (from the comments, it appears few have ever [done] this) in listening to Dr. Salby’s entire lecture…

    Here is Dr. Murry Salby to speak for himself:

    Is the reason so few of you watch this because the introduction is made in Deutsch? Dr. Salby speaks in English. The lecture is in English.

    Is it the fact that I, someone you detest and or whose opinions you do not respect, is the one posting Salby’s lecture?

    PLEASE DO NOT LET THE MESSENGER (me) DISTRACT FROM THE MESSAGE (Salby’s lecture).

  50. Janice Moore says:

    “… few have ever done this…”

  51. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:39 am

    “But in all years of the past 50 years, nature was a net sink for CO2…”

    There you go again. Meaningless “mass balance” argument. It says nothing on its own regarding whether it would have been a net sink without anthropogenic forcing.

  52. John Whitman says:

    I find two thrusts of Salby’s presentation in Hamburg in April:

    1. On all time scales, changes in atmospheric CO2 lag changes in surface conditions. The lags are seen indirectly in proxies and directly in observations.

    2. The integral of surface condition observed data (to present) is coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite. Whereas the surface condition observed data is not coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite.

    Those two findings force the invalidity of the hypothesis that 13C dilution is exclusively or even primarily caused by burning fossil fuels. In other words something is wrong with the estimates of the net emission of C13 bearing CO2; wrong in knowing all the sources and/or wrong in the time dependence and amounts from each source. Therefore I strongly recommend large amounts of public research funds are diverted to carbon cycle research and away from the observation contradicting GCM modeling.

    I hope we get to see Salby’s research if it is finally published.

    John

  53. Kevin Hearle says:

    The first graph is missing C13 data points between ~ 1953 and 1979 and the time scale is truncated at 1980 + ( by eye) where is the up to date data.
    I think someone published Salby’s paper after the lecture in Germany.

  54. gopal panicker says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:40 am

    CO2 is absorbed and emitted at the surface’…what about rain ?…

    Fresh water may absorb some CO2, but with 0.0004 bar in the atmosphere the quantities are very low. I calculated it some time ago: if the rain absorbs CO2 to saturation at the (cold) place of formation, drops to the ground and evaporates again, 1 mm of rain (1 l/m2) will give an increase of 1 ppmv in the first meter (1 m3) of air. That is all. Simply negligible…

  55. Bart says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:19 am

    There you go again. Meaningless “mass balance” argument. It says nothing on its own regarding whether it would have been a net sink without anthropogenic forcing.

    It would be meaningless if there were no other indications. But your (and Salby’s) theory of a huge increase of natural emissions + sinks is completely dismissed by all known observations.

    And since we are some 110 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium, it is quite certain that if we stop all emissions today, the CO2 level will drop with a decay rate of ~50 years or somewhat less than 40 years half life time…

  56. J Martin says:

    A much fuller set of Salby’s slides and words of wit and wisdom are available at;

    http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/report-lecture-by-prof-salby-7th-nov-2013/

    However, if Greg wants the mathematics then he will need to watch the video linked by Janice Moore above.

  57. AJB says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says, November 23, 2013 at 10:39 am

    … there is no natural source of low δ13C at work. Only humans emit low δ13C CO2.

    And we know this how, exactly? What proportion of the annual incremental change of CO2 concentration is due to human emmissions and how much of the remainder has been adequately characterised in this manner? Would 4% and a big fat zero sound about right?

  58. Jquip says:

    @davidmhoffer: “If you think providing them with an uninformative answer that in the context of the debate”

    What debate? We’re talking about a morality play at a family dinner. That’s the context of the post presented. And if you think such moral shaming in a social context qualifies as ‘debate about the issues’ then you’re as bad as the sister in question.

  59. davidmhoffer says:

    Jquip;
    What debate? We’re talking about a morality play at a family dinner.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No. We’re talking about someone asking what portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is “man made” in the context of CO2 being logarithmic. I’ve provided the numbers relative to that question. You’ve provided numbers that have nothing to do with the question.

  60. John Whitman says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am

    1. On all time scales, changes in atmospheric CO2 lag changes in surface conditions. The lags are seen indirectly in proxies and directly in observations.

    CO2 lags on all time scales, except over the past 160 years, where it leads T…

    2. The integral of surface condition observed data (to present) is coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite. Whereas the surface condition observed data is not coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite.

    If the data don’t fit the theory, the data must be wrong? The integral of surface condition matches the observed data, because Salby uses an arbitrary baseline. That is curve fitting, not based on any physical process.

    Another point: the ice core data don’t fit his theory either (in the Hamburg lecture), thus the data must be wrong (again). Therefore he calculates a theoretical migration in ice cores which doesn’t exist in reality. To fit his theory, the ~100 ppmv peak value seen in ice cores (280-300 ppmv) during interglacials should be 1000 ppmv, according to Salby.
    But that means that during glacials the ice cores must have been much lower, low enough to kill near all life on earth. Even negative CO2 values over 200,000 years…

  61. Jquip says:

    AJB: “And we know this how, exactly? ”

    This one is actually easy. Fossil fuels are low 13C and so it’s humans. Fossil fuels are low 13C because they’re made of plants, essentially. And, of course, modern plants are low 13C, so future fossil fuels made of current plants will be low 13C.

    Point of fact, the question isn’t really what things are low 13C, it’s how 13C ever got high in the first place. The standard notion is that photosynthetic life preferentially grabs the 12C, depletes it from the atmosphere, and there you have it. And so by returning the 12C by burning fossil fuels we are — in essence — returning to a prehistoric atmosphere. Which is where Salby’s theory runs into issues in dealing with the 13C ratio. The rest is all pleasant.

  62. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:39 am

    “It would be meaningless if there were no other indications.”

    No, it is still meaningless. Those other indications are what may have meaning, if there is any.

    “But your (and Salby’s) theory of a huge increase of natural emissions + sinks is completely dismissed by all known observations.”

    No, by your interpretation of observations. By narratives.

    Your belief, on the other hand, is contradicted by hard evidence.

    “And since we are some 110 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium…”

    Temperature influenced, not controlled, and we are very close to it. That is the point, that CO2 levels seek their naturally constrained dynamic equilibrium level, and those equilibrium forces are much more powerful than human forcing. If “dynamic equilibrium” sounds like an oxymoron, it is intended to mean “that level which the system seeks due to boundary conditions which may be changing slowly with time”, as due, e.g., to upwelling of CO2 rich waters to the ocean surface.

  63. AJB says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:45 am

    And we know this how, exactly? What proportion of the annual incremental change of CO2 concentration is due to human emmissions and how much of the remainder has been adequately characterised in this manner? Would 4% and a big fat zero sound about right?

    AJB, as said before: there are two main sources of low δ13C at work: (human) CO2 from fossil organics and (natural) CO2 from recent organics. Recent organics are a proven sink for CO2 as deduced from the oxygen balance. Thus not the cause of the recent decline in δ13C. Rests human CO2.

    But if you have knowledge of any substantial source of low δ13C that strictly follows the same decline as seen in the atmosphere and the ocean surface, I stand corrected.

  64. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:51 am

    “The integral of surface condition matches the observed data, because Salby uses an arbitrary baseline.”

    The data already have an arbitrary baseline, in that they are temperature anomalies with respect to a selected baseline. And, the baseline does not affect anything but a linear trend in CO2 concentration, but the integral matches all components, including higher frequency variability and, crucially, the curvature.

    “Another point: the ice core data don’t fit his theory either (in the Hamburg lecture), thus the data must be wrong (again). Therefore he calculates a theoretical migration in ice cores which doesn’t exist in reality.”

    So, they do fit his theory assuming migration such as he shows fits well with the data.

  65. Bart says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:58 am

    Bart, we have been there before. Your take on anything that doesn’t fit your theory is that the data must be wrong. Or the interpretation of the data must be wrong. Just like Salby does for ice core data.

    You dismiss the fact that the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2.
    You dismiss the fact that any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the d13C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease.

    These two points are proven facts, not interpretations. If you have some information that these facts are wrong, I like to see some proof of that…

    Temperature influenced, not controlled, and we are very close to it.

    800 kyr of ice cores show a CO2 level for the current temperature of ~290 ppmv, not 400 ppmv. Over that period, there was a very strict, near-linear ratio between CO2 and T at about 8 ppmv/K. That even holds over the MWP-LIA transition in the medium-resolution (20 years) Law Dome ice core.
    According to your theory, the current equilibrium must be over 400 ppmv for the current temperature, because CO2 levels still increase in the atmosphere from natural emissions…
    But of course, the ice cores must be wrong, because they don’t fit the theory?

  66. Jquip said:

    “The assumption underneath the argument presented is that natural processes dwarf anthropogenic considerations. And that’s certainly true during the summer photosynthetic condition no matter where you stand in the debate. But given the preconditions here, then the winter season returns similar or less 13C then was present during the previous cycle. So: Where does it fixate? That needs a good argument. Maybe there is one, I’ve only got the graphs; so consider it thinking out loud.”

    I’m thinking out loud too so forgive me if I’ve missed something.

    There is a lot less land based biosphere activity globally in the northern hemisphere winter since most land is in the northern hemisphere.

    Suppose oceanic CO2 emissions are not relatively high in C!3 as Ferdinand suggests due to biological processes in the oceans preferentially releasing C12 (Ferdinand accepts that biological processes favour C!2 and there is a lot of plankton in the oceans and they do use photosynthesis which prefers C12) then the northern hemisphere biosphere could absorb C12 preferentially in the summer and allow an increase the amount of C13 in the atmosphere during the northern summer months but in winter would be unable to keep up so that there would be a decrease in the proportion of C13 due to the continuing release of C!2 from the oceans when the northern hemisphere biosphere shuts down and just maybe the latter effect is greater than the former effect on an annual basis during a natural warming spell.

    So during a natural global warming spell the C12 proportion would increase incrementally each year from natural causes ?

    The opposite during a natural global cooling spell.

    As it happens the 1850 start point used by Ferdinand correlates not only with the industrial revolution but also a recovery phase from the LIA though there was another dip around 1900.

    More oceanic biological activity involving photosynthesis and plankton when the climate system warms could be a better candidate than human emissions for the decline in C13 relative to C12.

    Both mechanisms are organic in a sense but plankton would be bigger than us :)

    Is there any evidence to the contrary ?

  67. Bart says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm

    So, they do fit his theory assuming migration such as he shows fits well with the data.

    His calculated migration is physically impossible, as that implies and ever increasing peak back in time for every interglacial and an ever decreasing CO2 level in the glacial periods in between. The latter simply destroys all life on earth if sustained over even one period of 90,000 years.

    Thus his theoretical huge migration doesn’t exist and his match is not based on any existing physical process. Thus hereby his theory completely failed.

  68. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    “Your take on anything that doesn’t fit your theory is that the data must be wrong.”

    No, my take is that any speculative narrative which contradicts the hard evidence must be wrong.

    “You dismiss the fact that the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2.”

    No, I simply point out, correctly, that this is meaningless.

    “You dismiss the fact that any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the d13C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease.”

    I dismiss the narrative which says that the change in the ratio must be due to human input. Moreover, I dismiss the contention that, even if the d13C ratio is from human emissions, it necessarily follows that overall concentration is driven by humans. Due to slow diffusion processes, it is quite possible that you can have one without the other. Even a small source of impurities can pollute a well, without being responsible for the level of water in it.

    “These two points are proven facts, not interpretations.”

    No! There are underlying facts, but your narrative is an interpretation of those facts.

    “…because CO2 levels still increase in the atmosphere from natural emissions…”

    Not if they are rapidly removed by the sinks.

    “But of course, the ice cores must be wrong, because they don’t fit the theory?”

    The interpretations of the ice core data are probably wrong or, at least, incomplete. We have no means of closed loop testing and validation.

  69. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    These are mere assertions on your part. I do not care enough to look into it myself, because modern data is already enough to confirm that CO2 concentration in recent history is driven by natural conditions. But, I trust that an eminent climatologist like Dr. Salby, with a reputation for painstakingly scrupulous work, has carefully evaluated his model and has not made any elementary mistakes such as you allege.

  70. Bart says:

    I must attend to other matters. Will pick up again tomorrow.

  71. FrankK says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:36 am
    James V says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
    Jquip and William Astley Thanks
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Jquip’s answer is in regard to CO2 created by humans breathing which has pretty much nothing to do with the debate since it is so small. The debate is in regard to CO2 from anthropogenic sources. My more detailed explanation is upthread, inadvertently in moderation due to my copy/paste of your use of the “d” word. In any event, the numbers you are looking for are 280 ppm for pre-industrial and 400 ppm current.
    ——————————————————————————————————
    The question was:
    “what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”

    You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.

    The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %

    i.e still “peanuts”

  72. Janice Moore says:

    Dear James the Fifth (re: 8:18am),

    Your majesty, (;)) using the “Search” box at the top right of the WUWT home page (and doing a brief search using Bing), I found some posts which may be helpful to you:

    1. Overall Discussion and Good General Background Info. to Refute AGW
    {Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/}

    2. “5. The current spike in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural (~98%). i.e. Of the 100ppm increase we have seen recently (going from 280 to 380ppm), the move from 280 to 378ppm is natural while the last bit from 378 to 380ppm is rightfully anthropogenic.”

    {That is: 2ppm/100ppm = 2%)

    {Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/14/an-engineers-take-on-climate-change-2/}

    3. “Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). *** Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.”

    “Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).”

    {Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html}

    *************************************
    Also See the many good links within the above three sources.
    *************************************************************************

    A bit of advice (from the cheap seats):

    1. Don’t talk about politics, AGW, or religion at the table if you want to enjoy your meal (wait until during your stroll between dinner and dessert).

    2. Don’t play defence. YOU and not your sister have the facts on your side. Ask HER (for instance):
    (1) Your Q: What evidence do you have that CO2 (much less the small amount that is human MUCH LESS the tiny % that is from U.S. sources; btw China emits much more) causes ANY changes in the climate of the earth?
    (Note: don’t accept junk IPCC model projections — see many posts on WUWT for analysis proving the models are, indeed, Failed (as Bob Tisdale — buy his book! says in his e book).

    Honest, Informed, Answer: I have none. All I have is conjecture.

    (2) YQ: Global atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased for more than the past 20 years, now. For the past 17 years, global temperature has NOT. How do you explain this? No, it is not MY burden to prove YOUR assertion; the burden of proof is on YOU to back up your assertion about CO2, i.e., to disprove the null hypothesis that, so far, is firmly proven by the real world data.

    HIA: Apparently, CO2 does not drive temperature. And the IPCC’s models are so far wrong that they are worse than rolling a die to see what might happen.

    ********************************************************************

    Okay. “Enough, already,” I can hear you say, heh. Don’t get distracted by red herring issues such as: that the fact that the human % of atmospheric CO2 is tiny is not, per se, proof it couldn’t have a huge impact (like ricin or what-EVER she uses as her red herring analogy). Steven Mosher likes to toss that stinker out here every so often (he’s quite the comedian — be sure to read his posts). The key is not the % of human CO2. The key is that CO2, both natural and human, DOES NOTHING (no evidence, yet) to affect the climate (or weather, lol) of the earth to any significant degree. (Be ready for the Precautionary Principle Fallacy — just whack her back with something about not bankrupting your business to buy fire insurance for it.)

    Hoping that my efforts are helpful to you,

    Janice

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

    #(:))

  73. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    As it happens the 1850 start point used by Ferdinand correlates not only with the industrial revolution but also a recovery phase from the LIA though there was another dip around 1900.

    About the (far) past: the change in δ13C over a glacial-interglacial interval was a few tenths per mil δ13C. That is for a huge change (5-10 K) in temperature, land and ice area, biological life in oceans and over land.
    Over the whole Holocene, the variability of δ13C also was a few tenths of a per mil.
    Since ~1850 we see a drop of near 2 per mil. Ten times more than over a galcial-interglacial transition. Do you think that is all natural? See again the change over 600-150 years ago and after that:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

    More oceanic biological activity involving photosynthesis and plankton when the climate system warms could be a better candidate than human emissions for the decline in C13 relative to C12.

    Is there any evidence to the contrary ?

    Yes: the fact that large areas of the oceans are net CO2 emitters in summer and net absorbers for the rest of the year. Just contrary to land plants. The emissions hapens in summer, despite a decrease in DIC (total carbon) caused by biolife and emissions to the atmosphere.
    See Fig. 4 in:
    http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
    and FIg. 1 in:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
    and Fig. 5-2 in:
    http://www.umeoce.maine.edu/docu/Fujii-JO-2009.pdf

    Moreover, biolife in the ocean surface layer increases the δ13C ratio of that layer compared to the deep oceans, as part of the produced organics drop out of the surface layer.

    Including some partitioning at the ocean-air border (and reverse), any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the δ13C of the atmosphere, thus the oceans are not the cause of the δ13C decrease in the atmosphere.

  74. FrankK says:

    In case you were wondering. A note to Dr Spencer from Ferdinand Engelbeen

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/

    “Dear Dr. Spencer,
    I have reacted a few times via Anthony Watts’ weblog on your different thoughts about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless if that is man made or not, I think we agree that the influence of the increase itself on temperature/climate is limited, if observable at all.”

  75. davidmhoffer says:

    FrankK;
    The question was:
    “what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”
    You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.
    The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %
    i.e still “peanuts”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sigh.
    Background is commonly accepted as 280 ppm.
    Current is approaching 400.
    Difference = 120.
    If we assume the difference is “man made”

    As a percentage of current concentrations, 120 = 30%
    As a percentage increase over background, 120 = 42.9%

    In the context of the logarithmic effects of CO2, these are the values James V was asking for. We are, over pre-industrial values, 43% of the way to a first doubling. Based on a ln2, that means over half the warming from a single doubling is already in the pipe. If sensitivity were high, it would be easily discernible in the temperature record. It is not. This implies that sensitivity is low, in which case we have nothing to worry about. This is the reason that the alarmists are scurrying around trying to justify deep ocean or arctic as places where the heat may be hiding. Without that or some other justification for a near two decade pause in temperature increased, they cannot justify high sensitivity, nor the endangerment finding that goes with it.

  76. wayne says:

    I look at the sixth plot above and after downloading the Mauna Loa CO2 records and looking at the November to October differentials it becomes so clear. In 1997 the ΔμAtmCO2 was 1.17 and in 1999 it was 1.00 but in 1998 for that El Nino year it was a whopping 3.64 for the ΔμAtmCO2 and that is NOT because mankind stopped using energy during 1997 and 1999 and burned huge amounts in 1998 but this shows exactly how much out-gassing and decrease in uptake is occurring per temperature variances as Salby points out if I read him correct. This is all assuming Kelling is in fact measuring to 0.1 ppmv of CO2 month by month.

    Also, if you plot the differentials of the ΔμAtmCO2 it’s slope crosses the x-axis right at at June 1931 which would imply a base at ≈307 ppmv and zero ΔCO2 prior to that time, not the beginning of the industrial revolution, not 285 ppmv. It is so curious that this also coincides with the large jump in solar activity, you can’t just rule that out either.

    It seems a bit hard to exactly those thoughts to Salby but I think that is what he is saying in so many words, it is all or mostly because an increase in Δtemperature over this period and I still think it was releated to the grand maximum occuring during this same period.

    That’s my take away.

  77. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Hello,
    This is an interesting problem. There appears to be a paradox. Observations/analysis and the IPCC CO2 sources and sink theory are in conflict. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 58% 1990 to present, yet there is only a 25% percent increase in the average yearly rate of CO2 increase.

    To explain that observation using the IPCC’s model, the missing sink must magically increase hiding more CO2 which does not make sense. How does one explain that observation?
    The IPCC predicted that the CO2 sinks should be less effective when atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature rises not more effective.

    As this paper notes 7 out of 8 times temperature rises first and then atmospheric CO2 rises. When detailed CO2 change latitudinal analysis is done on the CO2 rise, the rise occurs in the Southern hemisphere which does not make sense as the majority of the anthropogenic source is in the Northern hemisphere. As Salby notes the increase in CO2 correlates to planetary temperature changes not to anthropogenic CO2 changes. The fact that temperature rises first and then CO2 rises second, provides additional support for the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    http://www.principia-scientific.org/techknowgroup/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    Comments:
    1. CH4 is primary inorganic (the term primary is used as ‘natural’ gas is the initial source of all hydrocarbons and water on the surface of the planet). The deep primary source of CH4 explains the massive amounts of CH4 that are found in the earth’s crust, super concentrations of CH4 at crustal zones, such as Qatar, CH4 deposits in mountainous regions (the deep source CH4 creates the mountain bands), explains the low C13 content of ‘natural’ gas, explains geological phenomena such as Tibet plain that is 14,000 meters high and thousands miles from the crustal collision, and provides an explanation as to why the continents float on the mantle: there is a massive amount of CH4 in the continental crust at around 40km, and so on.The source of CH4 is the earth’s core which is released as the core solidifies. Under high pressure a portion of the CH4 is converted to light hydrocarbons. Have you read Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels.
    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/853851.The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere
    2. Salby’s theory is particularly interesting as there is overwhelming evidence and analysis that the planet is about to cool. We will therefore soon have an opportunity by observation rather than theory to prove of disprove Salby’s theory.

  78. Anthony Watts says:

    IMPORTANT NOTE:
    The original MS-WORD file has some additional slides and commentary by Monckton that didn’t show up in the version he sent me, nor in a second version he sent me that was sent to fix the problem once discovered. A third version sent this morning was added to the body of the post with a break-point line added.

    Readers are encouraged to review the update.

  79. Latitude says:

    fine…..as long as you ignore carbon life forms….and never admit CO2 was limiting

    If you pretend CO2 was not so low it was limiting…..you can wonder about sinks

  80. otsar says:

    Here is some interesting reading regarding CO2 by Prof. Beck. Please ignore if it has been linked to already: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

  81. Jquip says:

    Stephen Wilde: “Is there any evidence to the contrary ?”

    If you dig into the ice core records you’ll see that the ratio can vary as Ferdinand mentioned in his response to you. By the same token, it can vary, both ways, at the maximal extent mentioned during a flat line period of CO2 ppm. So… yes, seems it can vary quite a bit and independent on ppm changes. To do so requires that there are natural processes running directly the contrary. Doesn’t make any difference what it is necessarily. Simply: It’s permissible to state in some respect.

    But this puts Salby in the same position as the normative theories. “It’s different now.” Each have their own take on what was, what is, and what necessarily changed in the now to make it all work. About the strongest I’ll commit to on Salby’s case is that it’s a ridiculously good correlation to temp+soil (however that’s derived) and the CO2 derivative. Beyond that I find as many problems with his as with the normative considerations.

  82. dikranmarsupial says:

    regarding Bart’s hard evidence

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19/offset:0.14

    If you subtract the offset of 0.14 from the derivative of the CO2 measurements instead of the temperature data, you end up with a correllation that is *exactly* the same,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/offset:-0.14/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19

    However if you then integrate the CO2 derivative again, it no longer explains the long term increase in CO2.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/offset:-0.14/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-335

    This is because the long term increase in CO2 is caused by the mean value of the derivative of the CO2 measurements, which is not explained by the variation in the temperature data, which only explains a minor modulation in the rate of growth of CO2 (small wiggles around the long term trend)

    As pointed out in my SkS article, correllations are insensitive to the offsets of the signals over which they are computed, but it is the offset in the CO2 derivative that explains the long term trend. http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html

  83. kingdube says:

    I expect it reasonable to predict that as the Earth cools, atmospheric CO2 will spike sharply from natural causes. (Of course the alarmists will then argue, when this occurs, that poor Mother Nature can no longer choke-down the anthropogenic emission – she has had her fill from us. But that will be a misinterpretation of this natural process.) Further explanation below:

    During the Little Ice Age, natural sinks had overtaken sources so atmospheric CO2 fell (caused by cooling). The warming since then has stimulated natural sources which, in turn, have stimulated natural sinks. And the sources are now out in front, with our modest help to be sure. But both sources and sinks have been growing far more rapidly than our anthropogenic contribution in absolute terms. So if our contribution were to be removed in its entirety, there would be little identifiable change. Microbial and insect emissions would more than make up the difference if we let them**. And had we not contributed our 2%, the vegetative sinks would have been most likely under-stimulated by a somewhat similar amount such that there would be little identifiable change. (The water tub analogy where a spigot is filling the CO2 tub, while a drain is draining it, is entirely misleading in the way it is often presented as there is a clearly coupled relationship between changes to the rates of input and output – at least till a saturation event occurs.)

    And if the Earth continues to be warm but then starts to cool, at some likely predictable point the photosynthetic sequestering sinks will saturate (so that their increasing capacity to sink CO2 will quit increasing; and then for the same continued cooling causes, these sinks will subsequently and rapidly reverse to a decreasing capacity to absorb CO2; while the emission sources more slowly respond; and the oceans, in particular, fail to respond for many decades). Then very steep atmospheric spiking will ensue just as it so often has in the past. It is very likely that photosynthetic sequestering (biological response) provides an enormous (geologically real-time) negative feedback to additional atmospheric CO2 until such time as it saturates. This predicted saturation event is not likely very near if the planet continues to slide sideways on temperature. However, a near-term solar-driven mini ice age may likely accelerate this predictable spiking event into the near term (i.e. atmospheric CO2 will likely increase sharply soon).

  84. Nick Stokes says:

    J Martin says: November 23, 2013 at 11:41 am
    “However, if Greg wants the mathematics then he will need to watch the video”

    Why can’t it be written down? Does it fade?

  85. DocMartyn says:

    Let us do this very simply; we use a very simple three box model which consists of the atmosphere, the surface layer of the ocean and the deep ocean, where CO2 is represented as a volume of fluid, and it attempts to reach steady state or dynamic equilibrium, due to gravity.

    http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/reseviours_zps4776b7df.png

    Before we began burning fossil fuels the atmosphere had 600 GtC, the well mixed surface waters 1000 GtC and the depths 37,000 GtC.
    Now carbon from the atmosphere mixes with the surface layer at rate A; at steady state the overall rates of transfer between the two reservoirs was identical, 600*efflux rate = 1,000*influx rate.
    The surface layer also talks to the lower bulk ocean and at steady state the influx and efflux rates were identical.
    Then we did two things, we burnt a lot of fossil fuels and we exploded nuclear weapons in the atmosphere generating a pulse of 14CO2 in the atmosphere.
    We know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (Keeling), the amount of CO2 we placed in the atmosphere (Andre) and the 14CO2 ratio in the atmosphere (Levin and Kromer) for the 1970-2003 period.

    http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/DecayofEuropean14C1970-2003_zpsaf4cba3c.png

    Now because we inject 12CO2 in the atmosphere, we dilute the 14CO2 ratio, so we have to do a correction for this, to work out the rate that 14CO2 is transported from the atmosphere into the ocean.
    After the dilution effect we get a half-life for atmospheric 14CO2 of 12.3 years.
    Now on our reservoir figure we have two rates, the rate of transfer from the atmosphere and the upper ocean and from the upper ocean into the depths. In such a simple system one of those rates is going to be rate limiting, but we cannot immediately state which is limiting.
    We have a little problem in that we do not know what the levels of 14CO2 are in the upper oceans. Imagine that Rate A, is very fast, say that half of the total CO2 in the atmosphere exchanges with the surface in one month. This would mean that the atmosphere and upper oceans exist as a single system with respect 14CO2; during the period of the bomb tests both reservoirs reached dynamic equilibrium before 1970 and the disappearance rate after 1970 is Rate B, the transfer rate between the upper surface and the very large depths.
    We do something about the relative sizes of Rate A and Rate B. Firstly, neither can be lower than 0.0563 per year; the only place for atmospheric 14CO2 to go to is the upper surface, and the only places CO2 in the upper surface can go to is up or down. If Rate B is slow, we quickly reach a dynamic equilibrium between the atmosphere and upper ocean, it saturates, and we would see a biphasic 14CO2 decay curve, an initial rapid rate (which we might have missed if Rate A is large) and then a slower rate due to limiting transfer between the upper ocean and the depths. We observe no biphasicity, and we observe 2.8 half-lives up to 2003, and we know from other series that first order kinetics continue for at least a decade.
    So the bottom lines are that Rate A and rate B are equal to or greater than 0.0563 y-1.
    So what is the rate of bulk transfer of excess, fossil fuel derived CO2?
    Essentially, 50% of the CO2 we inject into he atmosphere disappears each year, the kinetics of this I will do later

  86. ferdberple says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 10:10 am
    That means that only humans are responsible for the δ13C decline, as the biosphere is not the cause and all other known sources are (too) high in δ13C.
    ============
    that is the IPCC argument that CO2 must be the cause of warming because we can’t think of anything else. Your argument is a logical fallacy. see:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

  87. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Thanks for the various links and I’m sorry if I’m a bit obtuse but could you refer me to the specific portion(s) that suggest that oceanic emissions of CO2 are not predominantly of the C12 isotope.

    Just speculating that :

    “bio life in the ocean surface layer increases the δ13C ratio of that layer compared to the deep oceans, as part of the produced organics drop out of the surface layer.”

    needs something in support, I think.

    Is it in those links somewhere?

  88. Jquip says:

    Lot of interesting stuff, but the entire of Salby’s argument distills down to exactly the same argument that’s currently in use:

    Normative: The average annual increase is 0.5 that of mankind’s annual output. It is impossible that it is not man.

    Salby: The growing season decrease is 1.2 times mankind’s annual output. It is impossible for it to be man.

    So let me cast this in a different light. If there is any validity to the basic argument then both are valid. And Salby’s argument is both a proper refutation and a proper affirmative claim. If you hold that they are not valid, then Salby’s is still a proper refutation of the Normative claim, but we cannot follow it as a proper affirmative claim itself. It’s simply a demonstration of the invalidity of the argument. This alters not a one jot or iota no matter what is thought or occurs with the rest of Salby’s theory.

    tldr: Don’t trust people that average. 62% of them are trying to scam you.

  89. Nick Stokes says:

    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.

    The dotted line shows little of the variation in the blue line that it is supposed to be the integral of. The reason of course is that in the unseen mathematics, it’s actually the difference between temperature and some steady chosen value. And what you are seeing is mainly the contribution of the latter.

    But the argument that the current temp rise is the cause makes no sense. As some here like to say, that rise is not yet very large, especially compared with ice ages. Yet for a million years, with temperatures in a 6-8°C range, CO2 stuck between 180 and 280 ppm. Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?

  90. kingdube says:

    Nick Stokes asks: Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?

    Of course it is!!

  91. About the new added parts:

    This stochastic variability is uncorrelated with the near-monotonic increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.

    If we follow this reasoning: because there is no correlation between the monotonic increase of temperature, meltwater, tectonic movements or whatever may influence sealevel and the tide gauge measurements, these are not responsible for the rise in sealevel, but the waves, tides, storms and whatever further causes the stochastic variability in tide gauge measurements are responsible for the sealevel changes.

    We are talking about a multivariate system, where human emissions and temperature are the main driving variables and the increase in the atmosphere is the dependent variable. Temperature is the main cause of the short term variability of 4-5 ppmv/K and of the (very) long term variability of ~8 ppmv/K. Humans are responsible for the bulk of the increase since ~1850.

    Natural temperature change and variability in soil moisture, not anthropogenic emission, is the chief driver of changes in CO2 concentration.

    Everybody agrees that the fast temperature changes and soil moisture are the main drivers for the fast changes in sink capacity of vegetation and oceans. See Pieter Tans in:
    http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf from sheet 11 on.

    But that doesn’t tell you anything about the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.

  92. FrankK says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    FrankK;
    The question was:
    “what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”
    You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.
    The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %
    i.e still “peanuts”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Sigh.
    Background is commonly accepted as 280 ppm.
    Current is approaching 400.
    Difference = 120.
    If we assume the difference is “man made”

    As a percentage of current concentrations, 120 = 30%
    As a percentage increase over background, 120 = 42.9%
    ——————————————————————————————————
    Even a bigger sigh.
    Your assumption is flawed because you are assuming that the difference is all man-made which has not been proven. The largest difference in CO2 has quite likely been due to temperature increase. But the point has been missed, The percentage of man-made CO2 of the TOTAL atmosphere CO2 (the question that was asked) is not the percentages you are quoting.

    See the above post “If the natural sources and sinks that represent 96% of the annual CO2 budget change” etc.

  93. ferdberple says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    that is the IPCC argument that CO2 must be the cause of warming because we can’t think of anything else. Your argument is a logical fallacy.

    Except that in the case of δ13C, the amounts which are emitted by humans are already good for three times the δ13C decline which is observed in the atmosphere and the δ13C decline in atmosphere (and ocean surface) exactly follows human emissions over time.
    We can’t say that of the temperature trend and human emissions…
    See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg

  94. kingdube says:
    November 23, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    “Nick Stokes asks: Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?”
    Of course it is!!

    Short term (1-3 years) response: 4-5 ppmv/K
    Medium to (very) long term (50 years to 800,000 years) response: 8 ppmv/K

    Current times (last 50+ years) response: 140 ppmv/K ???

  95. ferdberple says:

    1. Since Gore and Mann are so all fired sure the human CO2 is causing catastrophic storms
    2. Since 25% of the CO2 historical emissions have been from the US.
    3. Do Mann and Gore support the US paying 25% of the cost of catastrophic storms?
    4. Why not? Shouldn’t the polluter pay?
    5. The EPA in the US has ruled that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
    6. The US courts have upheld the EPA right to so rule.
    7. Thus it would seem there is precedent to lay claim against the US for reparations.
    8. Shouldn’t the US do the right think and pay this money into the UN now?

    Repeat this argument loudly and often enough in support of global warming action and it will not be long before the US stops talking about CO2 as the cause of extreme weather. It is one thing to use the weather to fleece taxpayers. It is quite another when other countries show up to fleece you.

  96. FrankK says:

    -Nick Stokes says:
    Yet for a million years, with temperatures in a 6-8°C range, CO2 stuck between 180 and 280 ppm. Now it has shot up to 400. Is that a response to a 1°C rise?
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    What measurements are those historic CO2 concentrations based on Nick?. You mean those CO2 concentrations in ice cores subject to diffusion over time that would have been much higher in the past. (See first part of Salby’s lecture in Hamburg).

  97. davidmhoffer says:

    FrankK;
    Even a bigger sigh.
    Your assumption is flawed because you are assuming that the difference is all man-made which has not been proven.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    I made no assumptions. I provided the commonly accepted numbers, which are more than sufficient for the purposes of the discussion the questioner was anticipating having.

  98. Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. Very good article.
    You write that “the CO2 concentration response to the time-integral of temperature very closely tracks the measured changes in CO2 concentration, suggesting the possibility that the former may cause the latter.”. Well, yes!
    The IPCC got it backwards because they were looking to corroborate a hypothesis and forgetting to try and find ways to falsify it. The corroboration proved to be weak and elusive, the falsification, much stronger, was at hand but unseen. Confirmation bias or malice?

  99. William Astley says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    To explain that observation using the IPCC’s model, the missing sink must magically increase hiding more CO2 which does not make sense. How does one explain that observation?

    Both the oceans and the biosphere are expanding sinks when the pCO2 (~ppmv) in the atmosphere increases: the absorbance of the oceans (and plant alveoles water) inreases in ratio with the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and water. As CO2 increases, the uptake increases.
    For the oceans, at the warm upwelling zones, an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere will decrease the pCO2 difference, thus reducing the influx of CO2 from there.
    Both human emissions and increase in the atmosphere are slightly quadratic increasing over time. That leads to a slightly quadratic increase in sink capacity over time and an incredible fixed ratio between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere.

    Some warned for a saturation of the (deep) oceans, decreasing the % uptake of human emissions, but for the moment there is not the slightest sign for such a decrease.

    A temperature increase of 1 K causes a CO2 increase of ~16 ppmv in seawater, the 100+ ppmv increase caused by human emissions by far exceeds that.

    When detailed CO2 change latitudinal analysis is done on the CO2 rise, the rise occurs in the Southern hemisphere which does not make sense as the majority of the anthropogenic source is in the Northern hemisphere.

    I suppose that theory comes from Tom Quirk? It is anyway wrong: the NH CO2 measurements lead the SH measurements with 6 months to 2 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg

    CH4 is primary inorganic

    I don’t think many geologists will agree with that, but that is not a point of interest for me. Even if it is all inorganic, there are no signs (in atmospheric levels) that it is increasing rapidely.

    And indeed we will see what happens if the earth cools, I am pretty sure that CO2 levels still will increase, be it somewhat less fast…

    [ .. "(and plant alveoles water)" .. ? Phrase missing? Mod]

  100. Paul Schauble says:

    Jquip says
    >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.

    Could corn used to make ethanol for motor fuels make a difference?

  101. James V says:

    Wise words from Janice re: thanksgiving dinner

    “1. Don’t talk about politics, AGW, or religion at the table if you want to enjoy your meal (wait until during your stroll between dinner and dessert).”

    I recall same sister and older brother arguing about Bill (depends on the meaning of is) Clinton and Ronald RayGuns. They didn’t speak to each other again for some time after.

    Happy dysfunctional Holidays!

  102. eric1skeptic says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen (November 23, 2013 at 3:56 pm)
    > Short term (1-3 years) response: 4-5 ppmv/K
    > Medium to (very) long term (50 years to 800,000 years) response: 8 ppmv/K
    > Current times (last 50+ years) response: 140 ppmv/K ???

    From Bart’s “hard evidence” graph looking at 1997-1998, I see about 0.26 ppm CO2 rise for about 0.18K temperature rise which is a little under 1.5 ppm/K.

  103. Edim says:

    The seasonal global temperature cycle is driving the annual change in CO2. It acts as a pump, which flow is temperature dependent. The airborne fraction will decrease further with the cooling and at some point it will reach zero, in spite of the record human emissions.

  104. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    William Astley says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    To explain that observation using the IPCC’s model, the missing sink must magically increase hiding more CO2 which does not make sense. How does one explain that observation?
    Ferdinand Engelbeen:
    Both the oceans and the biosphere are expanding sinks when the pCO2 (~ppmv) in the atmosphere increases: the absorbance of the oceans (and plant alveoles water) inreases in ratio with the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and water. As CO2 increases, the uptake increases.
    For the oceans, at the warm upwelling zones, an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere will decrease the pCO2 difference, thus reducing the influx of CO2 from there.
    Both human emissions and increase in the atmosphere are slightly quadratic increasing over time. That leads to a slightly quadratic increase in sink capacity over time and an incredible fixed ratio between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere.

    William:
    You are stating nonsense. The percentage of CO2 absorbed by the ocean must increase to explain the observations. The IPCC models predicted that the percentage of CO2 absorbed by the ocean will decrease due to increasing ocean temperature and increased ph of the ocean.
    I see from your comment that you have are completely ignorant concerning the deep methane hypothesis for the formation and evolution of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The alternative hypothesis is the late veneer hypothesis which cannot explain the anomalously low amount of noble gases in the earth’s atmosphere and is not supported by chemical analysis of ancient geological formations.

    Sloan Deep Carbon Workshop (Sponsored by the US department of Energy)
    https://www.gl.ciw.edu/workshops/sloan_deep_carbon_workshop_may_2008

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976

  105. Hoser says:

    We know the half-life for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years based on bomb 14C (rate constant k= -0.1354 /yr). That provides information about the magnitude of the total flux from sinks and sources. My estimate of the total flux of CO2 out of the atmosphere then is about 413 Gton/yr based on 400ppmv CO2 and 5.3×10^6 Gton total atmosphere [1]. This CO2 flux quantity compares well with the IPCC estimate of about 450 Gton/yr [2,3].

    The anthropogenic contribution is about 36 Gton/yr [4].

    The Mauna Loa net flux is about 2ppmv/yr which is about 16 Gton/yr increase [5]. This CO2 increase is 0.5% of total CO2, and about 4% of the CO2 flux. Is it anthropogenic?

    A claim that 57% of human CO2 (hCO2) is absorbed [2] doesn’t make much sense. Is it 57% of hCO2 over all time? Each year? We can estimate the steady-state amount of hCO2 if the rate of production is constant as Co and the rate constant of absorption is k. The steady-state amount would be Co/k. The value is about 7.39 *Co using the k from 14C decay (see above). Using ORNL CO2 estimates of world CO2 production [6] from 1751 to 2010, we can estimate the current (2010) amount of hCO2 in the atmosphere since 1751. A correction factor of 0.935 is applied to the input hCO2 quantities to correct for discrete calculation by year rather than say daily. Atmospheric hCO2 increases exponentially, just as the yearly human inputs increase exponentially. The constant ratio is 1/k.

    The total hCO2 emitted is 1303 Gton worldwide since 1751. My estimate for the amount of hCO2 in the atmosphere is about 200 Gton, which equates to 85% absorbed. If the 2ppmv CO2 increase were due to hCO2, or 16 Gton/y. Since most of the hCO2 in the atmosphere is from prior years, the yearly increase of hCO2 is much lower, only about 4.5 Gton/yr currently. However, the Mauna Loa increase is about 4 times the yearly hCO2 increase. The rate constants for hCO2 increase and atmospheric CO2 increase differ by an order of magnitude.

    I attempted to fit atmospheric CO2 with the known change in hCO2 (assuming the 14C rate constant is correct, half-life ~5 years). A differential equation assuming a fixed natural outgassing of natural CO2 (nCO2) plus exponentially increasing hCO2 was solved [Eq. 1, see Notes] to fit the Mauna Loa data. A value of 342 Gtons/yr nCO2 fits 1959, or 400 Gtons/y nCO2 fits 2010. The conclusion is natural outgassing has increased from about 340 Gtons/y in the first half of the 20th century to about 400 Gtons/y in the latter half. The nCO2 outgassing rate could be much higher now.

    CO2 total = No/k * (1 – e ^ -kt ) + Ho/(h+k) * (e ^ ht – e ^ -kt ) + (No + Ho) * e ^ -kt [Eq. 1]

    The bomb CO2 flux estimate could be a bit low since it was derived from old data. The rate could be higher now because organisms could easily respond to higher CO2 levels and net consume more of it than they did 40 years ago. A hallmark of life is homeostasis. If the biosphere were not capable of handling perturbations, life would have largely gone extinct long ago. Only simple organisms in stable environments like underground would persist.

    It is much more likely biology is quite capable of handling a slight imbalance of CO2 such as the human contribution. The increase in CO2 is probably due to a shift in the equilibrium. Perhaps the various rate constants associated with different fluxes are affected by temperature. We know average temperatures have increased very slightly over the last century. Some ascribe this increase to CO2 increases. It is very hard to believe the slight change in CO2 can affect the radiation of energy to space at night significantly. Clearly, water vapor would dominate any changes in IR emission and re-radiation back to the surface. Consequently, it is more likely CO2 changes are an interesting footnote in climate change, but not a driver.

    Notes
    In equation 1, No is nCO2 outgassing rate from sources, -k is the CO2 loss rate constant, i.e. CO2 to sinks. Ho is the starting hCO2 amount, and h is the rate constant for hCO2 increase per year. The parameter t is the number of years since 1751. -k = -0.13541, h = 0.03482, Ho = 0.005, and No varied as described. It is important to start the time well before 1959 to have the nCO2 values stabilized by 1959. See the basic solution strategy in my post a few days ago [8].

    Refs
    1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
    3 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
    4 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emissions.svg
    5 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    6 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/CSV-FILES/
    7 ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
    8 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-1481426

  106. Bart says:

    dikranmarsupial says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    “This is because the long term increase in CO2 is caused by the mean value of the derivative of the CO2 measurements.”

    You have not been much involved with the discussion, and so do not realize this has nothing to do with my argument.

    The offset is arbitrary, because it has to be, because the temperature anomaly offset is arbitrary to begin with. But, it is beside the point. Yes, the integration of the offset provides the linear term in the CO2 graph. But, it does not provide either the variation, or the quadratic term. It is the fact that integrating temperature anomaly fits both those items with the same scale factor that we know that temperature is driving CO2.

    Your SkS article is wrong. Trivially wrong on the “mass balance”, and beside the point otherwise.

    Nick Stokes says:
    November 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    “Is that a response to a 1°C rise?”

    Probably not entirely. See here for details on what I will call “my” hypothesis.

  107. Bart says:

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    “From Bart’s “hard evidence” graph looking at 1997-1998, I see about 0.26 ppm CO2 rise for about 0.18K temperature rise which is a little under 1.5 ppm/K.”

    You aren’t using the right units. The equation is dCO2/dt = 0.19*T + 0.14. The derivative is in units of ppmv/month, so the scale factor is 0.19 ppmv/month/K.

  108. geran says:

    Janice Moore says:
    November 23, 2013 at 11:13 am
    I wonder why A-th-y gives the sneeringly dismissive label “Salby’s Slide Show” to Dr. Murry Salby’s excellent lecture given in Hamburg on April 18, 2013… . And why doesn’t Mr. Goodman (and others) watch that entire lecture (and read Dr. Salby’s book) and comment on THAT instead of the truncated-almost-to-the-point-of-distortion version of Dr. Salby’s work above?
    >>>>>

    Janice, if you are not accepted here as the World’s authority on science experts, will you then become an (screaming monkey) alarmist?

    Hint: “Sneeringly dismissive” works both ways….

  109. Mario Lento says:

    Janice Moore: THANK you for this wonderfully cogent mathematical lecture on what we KNOW about CO2. Perfect!

  110. Bart says:

    Bart says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    “The equation is dCO2/dt = 0.19*T + 0.14.”

    Note that this can be rewritten as

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    with k = 0.19 ppmv/month/K and Teq = -0.14/0.19 = -0.74 degC.

    If the RSS temperature anomaly were to fall to -0.74 degC, and conditions which give rise to these values continued, then atmospheric CO2 would stop rising, except potentially for whatever tiny portion is due to increasing human inputs.

  111. Janice Moore says:

    Thanks, James V. Yeah, I think a LOT of us “share your pain” when we would just like to be “points of light”… . Did you find any of those sources I gave you helpful; were they even in the ballpark? Hope so.

    Well, try to keep the “FUN in dysfunctional” and have a great day with the family.

    Janice

    Maybe you’ll have as much fun as these folks did!

  112. gymnosperm says:

    Ferdinand, ” As photosynthesis by preference uses 12CO2, that means that relative more 13CO2 is left in the atmosphere”

    Photosynthesizing creatures do not do it for charity, they do it for their own respiration. We should thank them every morning because they produce an excess of hydrated Carbon we freeloaders live by.

    The biological Carbon cycle is like a giant motor. It sucks in 12CO2, converts it to 12carbohydrate, and then burns it off as 12CO2. The faster you run it, the more 12C you will measure at any point in the system because it dwarfs the inorganic cycle in speed and efficiency. Photosynthesis does not deplete the atmosphere of 12C because organic respiration replenishes it apace.

    Throttle the motor back by any means, you will measure more 13C.

    This is the situation in an ice age. Go back to the early Triassic when it is very hot. The motor is pegged and Carbon is limiting. Now you can deplete the atmosphere (and everything else) of 12C with biological activity.

  113. Dr Burns says:

    Fredinand,
    “The average from plant decay and of fossil fuel burning is around -25 per mil, thus hardly distinguishable.”
    Doesn’t Salby suggest that temperature increases biological activity in the soil, which would have the same effect as burning fossil fuels ?

    “But there are two possibilities to differentiate between fossil fuel emissions and plant decay:
    - the 14C content of fossil fuel is zero:…”
    From what I can see 14C follows temperature over the past thousand years. It looks well removed from the graph of man’s C emissions.

  114. Nick Stokes says:

    Hoser says: November 23, 2013 at 6:06 pm
    “A claim that 57% of human CO2 (hCO2) is absorbed [2] doesn’t make much sense. Is it 57% of hCO2 over all time? Each year?”

    Here’s a plot over time.

    “It is much more likely biology is quite capable of handling a slight imbalance of CO2 such as the human contribution.”
    Slight? The amount of C we’ve emitted is about equal to the entire mass of vegetation. How can it be hidden?

  115. Janice Moore says:

    MARIO LENTO!!!!!

    Am I glad to see you. HOW ARE YOU??

    I have been praying my head off ever since I saw your post (re: getting a medical for racing — lol, I knew that’s what it was (or some kind of machine operation).

    I hope that your long absence (what a time to be missing in action, here — sheesh) just means you’ve been out burning rubber, doing drifts, and going 0 to 60 in less than 5 seconds.

    And, thank you for your VERY generous and kind words. Boy, Mr. Lento, if you only knew what I’ve been going through here for the past week or so (lots of snarls and a few insults)… . I needed you! Gunga Din came alongside, though, and Bart said something super sweet today, so that helped a lot.

    Well, keep the rubber side down and LET ME KNOW HOW YOU ARE DOING!

    Your WUWT pal,

    Janice

  116. eric1skeptic says:

    This should make my point clearer: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/offset:-36.3/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998

    The red line is CO2 divided by 10. The offset is irrelevant since we only care about the change. The green line is temperature with no scaling or offset. The graph shows CO2 rising from Jan 1997 to Jan 1998 by 0.16 times 10 or 1.6ppm. Over that same interval temperature rises 0.35K for a ration of 4.6 ppm / K.

    It is also clear (and a similar result) when removing the averaging of CO2 over time: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/offset:-36.3/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998 in this latter graph the CO2 rises 1.2 ppm while temperature rises 0.35 K for a ratio of 3.4 ppm / K.

  117. Janice Moore says:

    Uh, Geran? Is that YOU?

    I just hoped that people would watch Dr. Salby’s lecture. Some people’s comments make it pretty clear that they have not. I hoped they would decide for themselves, not take my word for it.

    If I have been “sneeringly dismissive” as A-th-y was in his title “Salby’s Slide Show,” please quote what I said, for, believe it or not, I really don’t know what you are talking about v. a v. me doing that to anyone here.

    Puzzled by your bitterness, but hopeful that we’ve just had a miscommunication….,

    Janice

    (I thought, when I asked you for forgiveness 3 weeks ago or so, you said that you had forgiven me for saying you were acting “like a screaming chimpanzee.” Are you still angry with me about that? Geran, again I tell you, I am sorry. I hope you realize that I meant that.)

  118. gymnosperm says:

    Nick Stokes, “Slight? The amount of C we’ve emitted is about equal to the entire mass of vegetation. How can it be hidden?”

    Um, down to the depths of the deepest boreholes we have drilled, into the mesosphere, and most importantly in the jars of ocean water stored several years before they are tested at Scripps.

  119. DocMartyn says:

    “Nick Stokes
    It is much more likely biology is quite capable of handling a slight imbalance of CO2 such as the human contribution.”
    Slight? The amount of C we’ve emitted is about equal to the entire mass of vegetation. How can it be hidden?”

    Nick, just for a moment imagine that that Faraday, playing with electrodes and water, came up with cold-fusion and that humankind was able to generate electricity from surface nuclear fusion (in a fictional universe). Now human-kind continues it progress in much the same way, but there amount of fossil fuels burnt is trivial, and they never quite get into concrete.
    What would the atmospheric CO2 level be?
    My guess is that in the fictional world the Greens would be worrying about global cooling caused by human emission of phosphates and nitrates into the worlds oceans.
    The sheer mass of primary nutrients supplied to photosynthetic marine organisms in cold-fusion world would drop atmospheric [CO2] below 250 ppm. The loss of this green house gas would cause global cooling, with no bounce back from the little ice age and now all our food plants would by carbon restricted, as the pCO2 drops, the ability to feed the population is becoming increasingly difficult. Cold fusion world is in a bind, the only way to grow enough food is to keep mining phosphates and making nitrates, to put on he fields, but this ends up in the aquasphere, making CO2/DIC the limiting nutrient. The seas bloom and the world cools.
    Some heretical climate scientists suggest digging up coal and burning it, but these geoengineers are treated with scorn as the amount of coal needed to raise the steady state level of CO2 back to 280 ppm is huge, and calculations show that the residency time is only 12 years.

  120. gymnosperm says:

    Dr. Burns, “From what I can see 14C follows temperature over the past thousand years. It looks well removed from the graph of man’s C emissions.”

    Of course it follows temperature. It is coming from the oceans, whose outgassing follows temperature, not from fossil fuels which contain no 14C.

  121. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar says:

    gopal panicker says:
    >‘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
    ++++++

    Thank goodness this is getting some attention. It is amazing to see such a large CO2 stripping mechanism missing from the conversation.

    Greg Goodman says:
    >Salt water absorbs much more but rain must help the reaction rate by scrubbing the air.

    Um….no. I think fresh water presently absorbs (very rapidly) 1128 ppm at sea level and the oceans are about 620 ppm because they are a) salt water and b) full of CO2-strippers.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    >Fresh water may absorb some CO2, but with 0.0004 bar in the atmosphere the quantities are very low.

    I think 1128 ppm is high. Water sucks it in like a molecular sponge. You can taste the difference by boiling some water and leaving it to cool in a closed cup, and tasting the same boiled water open to the air for 24 hours. The taste difference is the change in pH by absorption of CO2. Henry’s Law and alla that.

    >I calculated it some time ago: if the rain absorbs CO2 to saturation at the (cold) place of formation, drops to the ground and evaporates again, 1 mm of rain (1 l/m2) will give an increase of 1 ppmv in the first meter (1 m3) of air. That is all. Simply negligible…

    Well, most rain falls into the ocean. Rain that falls and runs into rivers has by definition not evaporated. Rain is, net, a CO2 stripping mechanism. When water droplets form they are very small and absorb CO2 rapidly with a huge surface area per gram. Then they join hands to fall. Clouds >0° C are full of CO2 – far more concentrated than open air per cubic metre.

    fhhaynie says:
    >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).

    Lots of CO2 is transported north within the clouds using water droplets as vehicles. The Northern Hemisphere loses liquid water and accumulates a great deal of winter ice and snow which of course contains no CO2. This applies to all soil that freezes, lake surfaces (which have less CO2 than water drops, BTW) resulting in a rather obvious NH Winter increase in the global CO2 level. It is not plants breathing that we see at Mauna Loa, it is the cryosphere.

    The ‘cold polar water’ is only uncovered in summer which allows it to absorb CO2. Combined with the melting of all the ice and snow, the CO2 level drops – and it drops far more than anything we do or do not emit. I saw it claimed years ago by some alarmist that the rise in NH winter CO2 was caused by, ‘industrialized nations burning fossil fuels to keep warm’. No number attached, of course.

    http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/ has the quote: “The relatively low CO2 quantities above the equator are due to the clouds and rain of the Intertropical Convergence Zone.”

  122. Adam says:

    It would be great if these types of posts were written more like a paper with the conclusions summerized at the start of the page in an abstract rather than having to wait until the bottom of the page. What I mean by this is that the point of the post is not really about the fact that “Monckton provided some slides…” It is more that

    “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.” Which is a fantastic start and makes the post seem extremely interesting and tells us what the whole post is about before we dive in and explore the rationale.

    Certainly not being critical here, just suggesting a way to structure the posts which for me would be more appropriate.

  123. Brian H says:

    If a temp dip does cause a flattening or reversal of CO2 concentration, the game will be once and truly over. By that time (whenever it comes) China alone will likely be exceeding all current Anthro-emissions.

  124. Joe Born says:

    Hoser: “We know the half-life for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years based on bomb 14C (rate constant k= -0.1354 /yr)”

    As you observed, that rate constant k= -0.1354 /yr would be consistent with popularly quoted values for the ratio of carbon-dioxide uptake rate to total atmospheric content.

    But Gösta Pettersson says at the top of page 5 here: http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper1.pdf that a regression fit to the bomb data instead indicates a “relaxation time” of 14 +/- 1 years. Although there’s been some nomenclature debate recently, Pettersson says on his page 2 that in this case “the relaxation time will differ less than 5% from the turnover time,” which his page 1 tells us is the reciprocal of the rate constant, so he’s saying the bomb data suggest a half life of around 10 years instead of the 5 years you mention above.

    Do you have an alternate source for that 5-year estimate?

  125. Greg Goodman says:

    Janice Moore: “Is the reason so few of you watch this because the introduction is made in Deutsch? Dr. Salby speaks in English. The lecture is in English.

    Is it the fact that I, someone you detest and or whose opinions you do not respect, is the one posting Salby’s lecture?

    PLEASE DO NOT LET THE MESSENGER (me) DISTRACT FROM THE MESSAGE (Salby’s lecture).”

    Firstly Janice, I’ve seen you name a few times here but have no idea what you stand for and have no reason not to have the neutral ‘respect’ for your opinions that anyone gets until they denote themselves one way or the other. I was unaware you were associate with the presentation. I generally skip the obligatory intro guff on such speeches and fast forward to the meat. Don’t over-rate your own importance.

    Germans are generally a rigorous and serious lot (with characters like Ramnsdorf showing that are capable of being rigorously and seriously foolish too. ). German is generally a positive prejudice for me.

    My first introduction the Salby’s was his Hamburg lecture, which I found very interesting but annoyingly superficial. I assumed there would be more in publications somewhere. But no.

    I listened to it twice in a row to make sure I had not missed the crucial bit where he proved it or referred us to other work. But no.

    After seeing the lecture I searched out his email and sent him some suggestions and questions. I got no reply but was later see the U. Macquerie fiasco and realised they would have binned any emails they received to his account.

    So yes I did listen to it all (twice). I’m not put off by who introduced it nor by the german language or the fact it happened in Germany. My opinion is based on what he has and HAS NOT presented.

    Since you presumably have some means to contact Murry Sably, perhaps you can pass on the message that his credibility is being damaged by his lack of putting something concrete up for inspection. If he is being blocked by gate-keeping he needs to go public via other means. He was claiming to be “weeks away” for publication about 2 years ago. It’s wearing thin.

    If he has something that stands up to scrutiny, it could knock AGW hypothesis for six. With the IPCC pushing hard to endebt us for hundreds of $BILLIONS each year for generations to come we need to see it NOW.

    TIME TO SEE WHAT HE’S GOT.

  126. Greg Goodman says:

    Crispin apparently quoting Ferdinand:
    “I calculated it some time ago: if the rain absorbs CO2 to saturation at the (cold) place of formation, drops to the ground and evaporates again, 1 mm of rain (1 l/m2) will give an increase of 1 ppmv in the first meter (1 m3) of air. That is all. Simply negligible…”

    Since 1 mm of rain is not much that sounds like one helluva transport mechanism and is probably more important than direct absorption at the ocean surface.

    This may account at least in part for the asymmetry in the annual cycle

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=651

    It is interesting to note the near linear rise and fall.

  127. Nick Stokes says:

    Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar says: November 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    “Thank goodness this is getting some attention. It is amazing to see such a large CO2 stripping mechanism missing from the conversation.”

    Whenever you think of some exciting new mechanism, it’s worth thinking – why would this be making a difference now? It’s been raining for millions of years and the air is not stripped.

    I think it may well be a significant flux. Here is just one recent paper considering it. But all it does is shift the steady state a bit.

    In the long run fluxes balance, and concentrations adjust to make it happen. We tend to think of the exchange fluxes of CO2 across the sea surface balancing, with CO2 tension the same on each side. But with the rain input, the balance will shift a little. A bit more CO2 in the ocean than otherwise, and a net exchange flux up to balance the rain. That’s how it was.

  128. Greg Goodman says:

    James Strom says:
    Seems kind of harsh to expect Salby to publish in his current circumstances; however, he has said enough to allow others to reconstruct his work. There’s a brief report at The Hokey Schtick with links to a fuller article. This may provide the documentation that some have been looking for.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html

    ===

    What circumstances is that? He has the times and the means to travel and do public lectures but still does not produce anything hard to back it up.

    The link you provided is useful (between the translation and the original for the bits google messes up we get a good idea).

    However, this model does not fit that well really and does not include Salby’s ‘ground conditions’, so it is hardly reproducing Sably’s work. Where Sably gets interesting is when he adds that in and gets a much better match. And that’s what we need to see.

  129. Greg Goodman says:

    UPDATE says: “Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.”

    There is a strong correlation of dCO2 and SST, that has been established several times by different authors. But that does not preclude a different component being present in long term change.

    It’s a bit like not removing the seasonal variation and then saying there’s no correlation between other factors which only becomes apparent once you improve the signal to noise ratio by filtering out the annual cycle.

    This is a complex interaction and will not be understood by make trivial statements like the above.

  130. Greg Goodman says:

    Correlation coefficient is simple a measure of the linear relationship between two variables.

    Since this relationship contains both a direct (in-phase) component and the orthogonal ( d/dt(CO2) ) component plus a gentle transition from one to the other , probably superimposing several different time constants as deeper ocean layer come into play , we can not draw definitive conclusions from looking at correlation of two simple variables.

    Attempts to over simplify will lead to erroneous conclusions.

  131. Greg Goodman says:

    thanks for the paper link Nick.
    ” Including these processes, the western equatorial Pacific CO2 flux is modified from an ocean source of +0.019 mol CO2 m−2 yr−1 to an ocean sink of −0.078 mol CO2 m−2 yr−1. ”

    Enough to reverse the role of ocean from source to sink in that region.
    Unfortunately pay-walled as usual at JRL

  132. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar says:
    November 23, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    Well, here again the calculations:

    From:
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
    the solubility of CO2 in fresh water at 0°C is 3.3 g/kg (or 3.3 g/l which is practically the same) at 1 bar CO2.

    The atmospheric pressure of CO2 is 0.0004 bar. Thus at some height where clouds are formed at (very) cold temperatures, the maximum absorbance in cloud drops is 1.32 mg/l.

    At the cloud side, 1 l of rain is a lot, it takes many m3 of air to reach that. If water evaporated from a surface of around 30°C, there will be a drop of about 2% water in air into droplets at near 0°C (at sealevel pressure). One m3 of air weights 1.27 kg, thus a drop out of 2.5 g water per m3, or 1 l of water drops out from 400 m3 of air.

    The 1.32 mg/l CO2 thus comes out 400 m3 of air. Taking into account the difference in mol weight between CO2 (44) and air (28.6), the drop in CO2 at cloud formation is
    1.32 / 1,270,000 / 400 * 44 / 28.6 = near zero ppmv.

    Even if I have made a mistake of 6 orders of magnitude, the absorbed amount of CO2 still is undetectable in the 400 ppmv at the height of cloud formation.

    The same for the eventually evaporation at ground level: undetectable.

    Which doesn’t say that there is no effect of rainwater on carbonate rocks, but even that needs millions of years to carve the undergound holes…

  133. Greg Goodman says:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=651

    The rates of change we see in the annual cycle 14 ppmv/year OUT for about 0.6 of the year and 19 ppmv/year IN for 0.4 of the year and the magnitude of the annual cycle in volume (150Gt) both suggest that annual emissions equivalent to 4ppmv could be absorbed totally, unless things have evolved to just fit the required natural swing.

    There will be factor of out-gassing due to steady increase since LIA.

    Put the two together and you see a net sink of CO2 due to the presence of emissions as well as a residual long term rise determined by SST. This is the Salby description.

    Now whether the natural sinks can absorb that magnitude each year every year without saturating and reducing their capacity to absorb is less clear.

    This leads to a less than total absorption of emissions and a long term rise that is a mix of residual and out-gassing. This will still carry a strong correlation with changes in SST.

    It has been noted that the percentage of residual emissions has been falling since around 1990. That could indicate that atm CO2 is getting further from equilibrium leading to faster correction (this argues against total absorption) or it could be the result of a more active biosphere (which could be consistent with total absorption).

    Sadly not black and white answers, probably a mix of all of those in unknown proportions.

  134. eric1skeptic says:
    November 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    From Bart’s “hard evidence” graph looking at 1997-1998, I see about 0.26 ppm CO2 rise for about 0.18K temperature rise which is a little under 1.5 ppm/K.

    Yes, but Bart’s and Salby’s assumption says that the 1.5 ppmv/K is sustained for every year that the increase in temperature above an arbitrary baseline is sustained. According to Bart the 1.5 ppmv/K thus is 1.5 ppmv/K/yr, while Henry’s law is reducing the ppmv/K when the CO2 levels approach the new equilibrium at 16 ppmv/K:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

    If Bart and Salby are right, then we have different CO2 rates for every period in time: 0.002 ppmv/K/yr for a glacial-interglacial transition (100 ppmv over 5000 years and 10°C), zero ppmv/K/yr for a glacial period over 90,000 years and zero ppmv/K/year over an interglacial period of 10,000 years, 0.15 ppmv/K/yr for the MWP-LIA transition (6 ppmv, 0.8 K, 50 years) and again zero ppmv/K/yr for most of the Holocene. But nowadays we have a sudden increase of 1.5 ppmv/K/yr over the past 50 years…

    If you look at the past 800 kyr in ice cores, it is a lot simpler if one starts from an equilibrium reaction of around 8 ppmv/K, that fits all changes over all time periods, except the current one. The difference: human emissions.

  135. William Astley says:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf

    It is interesting that the warmists have ignored the fact that the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with in the rate of increase of anthropogenic CO2. To explain the observations assuming there is very little mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean water which is the warmist’s assumption, the CO2 sink must increase in percentage absorbed (i.e. not just absorb more to maintain the same percentage of absorption but rather increase the amount of CO2 that is absorbed, which does not make sense based on the warmist theory.)

    Comment: Note anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased 58% from 1990 yet there is only a 25% increase in the rate of atmospheric CO2 rise from 1990. Also note that the yearly change in CO2 correlates directly with ocean temperature and does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Look at the above graph and below data and try to explain the change in the yearly rate of change (increase in atmospheric CO2).

    Key to understanding what is happening is the amount of mixing of the deep ocean water with the surface ocean waters. If there is more mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean waters, the anthropogenic CO2 is mixed with a much larger reservoir of carbon which dampens the impact due to size of the deep ocean carbon reservoir.

    The analysis of the C14 data indicates that there is significant mixing the deep ocean and surface ocean waters based on the very low C14 value that is reached. If the C14 was mixing only with the surface ocean water it would reach a higher plateau value (the surface ocean carbon reservoir is 700 Pct as compared to the atmosphere carbon of 750 Pct and the deep ocean is carbon reservoir 38,000 Pct.

    In order for there to be heat hiding in the deep ocean there must be significant mixing of the surface ocean waters with the deep ocean waters. The implication of mixing surface ocean water with deep ocean water is that the anthropogenic CO2 increase is mixed with a much larger reservoir which significantly reduces the impact of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If the planetary temperature drops there will be a significant reduction in atmospheric CO2.

    Now if there is significant mixing of surface ocean water with deep ocean water, a significant portion of the observed CO2 rise in the atmosphere is the result of the increase in temperature of the ocean – as Salby asserts – rather than due to anthropogenic CO2 increases. I can explain the C13 changes if someone is interested.

    1980 1.73 1990 1.19 2000 1.62 2010 2.45
    1981 1.43 1991 0.99 2001 1.58 2011 1.84
    1982 0.96 1992 0.48 2002 2.53 2012 2.66
    1983 2.13 1993 1.4 2003 2.29
    1984 1.36 1994 1.91 2004 1.56
    1985 1.25 1995 1.99 2005 2.52
    1986 1.48 1996 1.25 2006 1.76
    1987 2.29 1997 1.91 2007 2.22
    1988 2.13 1998 2.93 2008 1.6

  136. William Astley says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    You are stating nonsense. The percentage of CO2 absorbed by the ocean must increase to explain the observations. The IPCC models predicted that the percentage of CO2 absorbed by the ocean will decrease due to increasing ocean temperature and increased ph of the ocean.

    Did I say that the IPCC is right? To the contrary. The observations show that the deep oceans are far from saturated and indeed increase their uptake over time in ratio with the increased pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. Temperature and pH play a role for most of the ocean surface, which is saturated at 10% of the change in the atmosphere. But the sink rate into the deep oceans near the poles are hardly affected by temperature or pH, neither is the uptake by plants.

    I see from your comment that you have are completely ignorant concerning the deep methane hypothesis for the formation and evolution of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans.

    No matter if the deep earth methane theory is right or wrong, the current methane injection into the atmosphere is near constant over the last decade, thus not the cause of in increasing decline rate of δ13C
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mlo_ch4_ts_obs_03437.png

    BTW, the CH4 levels in the previous interglacial were around 700 ppbv at higher temperatures than today. We are currently at 1800 ppbv, the difference certainly is man-made too…

  137. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi, two problems with you back of envelop figures:
    “If water evaporated from a surface of around 30°C, there will be a drop of about 2% water in air into droplets at near 0°C (at sealevel pressure).”

    a) Clouds do not usually form at SLP but at the tropopause.

    b) what are you calculating anyway?

    This not a once in a lifetime event , it is a continual process. What you need to show is the integral of how much per year is removed or how this will affect the equilibrium.

    Your result has the right units but what does it represent physically?

  138. Nick Stokes says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says: November 24, 2013 at 2:20 am
    “Well, here again the calculations:…”

    I think it is not nothing. On average every m2 gets about a m^3 of rain in a year. 1.32 mg/l is 1.32 gm/m2/yr. On 5e14 m2 earth, that’s 0.66Pg, or 0.66 Gton CO2/yr. That’s about 1.5% of human emissions. Actually, similar to volcano. Not much, but…

  139. Greg Goodman says:

    “BTW, the CH4 levels in the previous interglacial were around 700 ppbv at higher temperatures than today. We are currently at 1800 ppbv, the difference certainly is man-made too…”

    Oh certainly! So by the same logic the fact that the length of day is now longer than during that period is our fault too? OMG we’re going stop the Earth turning unless we act NOW !

  140. Greg Goodman says:

    “I think it is not nothing. On average every m2 gets about a m^3 of rain in a year. 1.32 mg/l is 1.32 gm/m2/yr. On 5e14 m2 earth, that’s 0.66Pg, or 0.66 Gton CO2/yr. That’s about 1.5% of human emissions. Actually, similar to volcano. Not much, but…”

    Thanks, Nick, that is starting to sound more meaningful. Now we need to look at point a)
    I think the 2% he based this on will be substantially different at tropopause pressures.

  141. Greg Goodman says:

    ” I can explain the C13 changes if someone is interested.”
    I’m interested.

  142. Hoser says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    It is much more likely biology is quite capable of handling a slight imbalance of CO2 such as the human contribution. The increase in CO2 is probably due to a shift in the equilibrium.

    The whole biosphere evoluated from a slight source before the 1990′s to a slowly increasing sink since 1990. That is calculated from the oxygen balance:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

    There are no signs that the turnover time (amount in the atmosphere divided by throughput) did change over time: recent estimates even give a slightly longer residence time than older estimates, which is when atmospheric levels increase for a constant throughput.

    The current human part is around 9% of total CO2, even if 100% of the increase is man-made, because the residence time of individual molecules is only ~5 years, but the e-fold decay rate from an injection of extra CO2 is ~50 years:
    For a 100 GtC pulse 160 years ago:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
    where FA is the remaining fraction of anthro CO2 in the atmosphere, FL in the ocean surface, tCA total carbon and nCA “natural” carbon in the atmosphere. After ~60 years all “human” CO2 disappeared and is replaced by natural CO2, but still the total increase of CO2 above equilibrium is from the human input.
    Here for the human input over the past 160 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg

  143. Greg Goodman says:

    “If Bart and Salby are right, then we have different CO2 rates for every period in time: 0.002 ppmv/K/yr for a glacial-interglacial transition (100 ppmv over 5000 years and 10°C), zero ppmv/K/yr for a glacial period over 90,000 years and zero ppmv/K/year over an interglacial period of 10,000 years, 0.15 ppmv/K/yr for the MWP-LIA transition (6 ppmv, 0.8 K, 50 years) and again zero ppmv/K/yr for most of the Holocene. But nowadays we have a sudden increase of 1.5 ppmv/K/yr over the past 50 years…”

    Ferdi, you are trying to make it sound ridiculously complicated and thus illogical and improbable.

    Here’s a more sensible way to look at the same figures:

    zero ppmv/K/yr for a glacial period over 90,000 years and zero ppmv/K/year over an interglacial period of 10,000 years

    0.002 ppmv/K/yr for a glacial-interglacial transition (100 ppmv over 5000 years and 10°C)

    > 5000 years system has equilibrated. Circa 800 y lag in ice record suggests a circa 800y time constant. Five time constants (4000y) >99% final value.

    The last interglacial transition was not a one way 5000 year event , it included an almost total reversal in Y-D event so that time period may be shorter for 0.002 ppmv/K/yr but of the order of 1000 years.

    “and again zero ppmv/K/yr for most of the Holocene.”
    Within the resolution of the data a fairly stable period in moderate equilibrium. We don’t have decadal scale resolution to compare with recent years, so we can’t do it.

    ” 0.15 ppmv/K/yr for the MWP-LIA transition (6 ppmv, 0.8 K, 50 years) ”
    Unlike 5000 years, 50 years will not equilibrate with the deep oceans. What we are seeing here is the smaller volume of moderate depths. This will result in strong , faster response. We are not looking at a 800 time constant here !

    My plots of dCO2 vs SST derived 8ppm/K/year as an even shorter inter-annual response an 4ppmv/K/year inter-decadal.

    All that seems totally consistent and simply implies different time-scales for different depths as would be expected.

    Your suggestion that a one-size-fits-all model can be applied to 10 and 50 year change as well a 5000 years is, on the other hand, clearly unrealistic physically.

  144. Greg Goodman says:

    “but the e-fold decay rate from an injection of extra CO2 is ~50 years:”
    Where do you get that figure from?
    why do I care about a graph unless I know where it comes from and the assumption upon which it is based?

  145. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 3:14 am

    a) Clouds do not usually form at SLP but at the tropopause.

    Agreed, but it is maximum 3% water in air at evaporation in hot equatorial waters, if that all drops out, it is 50% more than calculated, still negligible for local measurements.

    b) what are you calculating anyway?
    This not a once in a lifetime event , it is a continual process. What you need to show is the integral of how much per year is removed or how this will affect the equilibrium.

    I have calculated it on the base that in the past several insisted that e.g. the Mauna Loa readings may be affected by (local) rain and local levels near-ground. But locally the change in levels is completely unimportant.

    Because the total mass on the move is gigantic, the CO2 mass movement indeed (as Nick says) is not negligible. But the residence time of water is only a few days in the atmosphere. Thus any change in water circulation (and transported CO2) will rain out in a few days. If there are no changes in difference between inputs and putputs, which is hardly possible for the water cycle, there is no change in CO2 levels of oceans, atmosphere, rivers, etc.
    Even if global warming increased the water cycle with 10%, it doesn’t make a difference in CO2 levels and the 10% increase in CO2 mass circulation may increase rock weathering, but that still is negligible for the carbon balance…

  146. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 3:20 am

    Oh certainly! So by the same logic the fact that the length of day is now longer than during that period is our fault too? OMG we’re going stop the Earth turning unless we act NOW

    As usual, I do know more than I wrote… But you are right to ask for the background of where that is based on.
    From 420 kyr (Vostok) ice cores, there is a quite nice ratio of methane with temperature over glacial-interglacial transitions. That changed around 1860, completely parallel with the onset of fossil fuel use, as is the case for CO2 too:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_ch4.jpg
    The Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of ~20 years, thus spanning the MWP-LIA transition. The other cores less than a decade.

    Maybe just coincidence that after 420,000 years (800,000 years for CO2) CH4 and CO2 levels start to increase at the moment that humans start to use fossil fuels, but I don’t believe in such coincidences…

  147. Greg Goodman says:

    Thanks Ferdi. You have some useful stuff. It would be great if I did not have to prod you for sources all the time.

    Doesn’t CH4 match the ‘plateau’ in temps quite well too?

  148. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Your suggestion that a one-size-fits-all model can be applied to 10 and 50 year change as well a 5000 years is, on the other hand, clearly unrealistic physically.

    It is a multi-component model, where each component has its own decay rate for an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. More or less like the Bern model, without the restrictions in capacity. Except for the ocean surface, which is saturated at 10% of the change in the atmosphere.

    For short term responses (seasons) the exchange rate is huge (~150 GtC in and out), but limited in capacity (ocean surface, fast biological changes) net effect ~5 ppmv/K and mainly driven by temperature and extra-tropical vegetation in the NH.
    For short term responses (2-3 years) the exchange rate is smaller (several GtC in and out) and mainly driven by (ocean) temperature, outgassing in the tropics and changes in uptake (even release) of CO2 by tropical forests at 4-5 ppmv/yr
    For medium term responses (decades) the exchange rate is rather large (~40 GtC/yr for the deep oceans), less restricted in total capacity but restricted in flux rate and mainly atmosperic pressure (difference) related.
    For very long term responses (centuries to multi-millenia), changes in (deep) ocean currents, area of ice sheets and vegetation all play a role.

    The overall decay rate changes from 4-5 ppmv/K short term to 8 ppmv/K long term.

    All these different decay rates are from equilibrium reactions, where a sustained step change in T (or P) will lead to a new equilibrium over time. Thus in all cases a decay in ppmv/K/yr over time.

    We don’t have decadal scale resolution to compare with recent years, so we can’t do it.

    Yes we have: the Law Dome DSS core has a resolution of ~20 years, fine enough to show a decrease of 6 ppmv for the ~0.8 K drop in temperature between MWP and LIA, this time with a lag of ~50 years of CO2 after T:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
    again ~8 ppmv/K sustained over ~200 years for the temperature variation over the LIA until ~1800.

    The same Law Dome ice cores shows an increase of 60 ppmv 1800-1980 (with a 20 year overlap with South Pole data) with a similar (smaller?) increase in T between LIA and current as the decrease in T between MWP and LIA with a 6 ppmv drop.

    A difference of 10 times for the same temperature change? Nothing to do with human emissions?

  149. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 4:16 am

    “but the e-fold decay rate from an injection of extra CO2 is ~50 years:”
    Where do you get that figure from?

    I should have learned to give the references by now, but as the responses come at high speed, it takes to much of my time. But anyway:

    The current increase in the atmosphere is 230 GtC(110 ppmv) above equilibrium (of ~290 ppmv) for the current temperature. The observed absorbance is ~4.5 GtC/yr (~2.15 ppmv/yr). That gives an e-fold time of 230/4,5/yr or ~51 years.

  150. eric1skeptic says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen (November 24, 2013 at 2:46 am) “Yes, but Bart’s and Salby’s assumption says that the 1.5 ppmv/K is sustained for every year that the increase in temperature above an arbitrary baseline is sustained. According to Bart the 1.5 ppmv/K thus is 1.5 ppmv/K/yr, while Henry’s law is reducing the ppmv/K when the CO2 levels approach the new equilibrium at 16 ppmv/K…”

    I agree except Bart uses per month units above: “0.19 ppmv/month/K” So I picked a year in which the temperature rose the most Jan 1997 to Jan 1998. I showed exactly one year in my graph to get a complete annual swing in CO2. I showed that for my cherry-picked year the temperature rose and the CO2 rose too with a ratio of about 4 or 5 ppm per degree K. That is higher that Bart’s 2-3 ppm per degree per year, but my year is cherry picked. My cherry-picked year also shows there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in the short run (my second graph above), therefore a per month claim is unsupported whether using T or T minus Teq.

  151. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:23 am

    Doesn’t CH4 match the ‘plateau’ in temps quite well too?

    Hardly:
    http://www.aemet.izana.org/images/stories/news/CH4_IZO_1984_2009.pdf

    Not even an effect of the 1992 Pinatubo or 1998 El Niño and little difference in slope for 1990-2000 and after 2000.
    What I have heard is that the change in slope is mainly from better maintenance of natural gas lines/leaks, reduction in direct methane releases from oil exploration and transformation from traditional wet rice plantation to “dry” rice growing.

  152. Philip Mulholland says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen @ November 23, 2013 at 10:39 am says:-

    The second graph is completely wrong, as there is none natural source of low δ13C at work. Only humans emit low δ13C CO2…

    Ferdinand are you sure about that?
    13Carbon dioxide clearly has a higher molecular weight than 12Carbon dioxide (assuming that the oxygen atoms in both molecules are of the same isotopic specie). Previously you have advised us that mineral calcium carbonate has a higher concentration of 13C than atmospheric carbon dioxide. Clearly the formation of crystalline calcite by the precipitation from solution of soluble calcium bicarbonate preferentially accepts the 13C carbonate anion over the 12C form.

    This must be true, else calcite would not have the higher concentration of 13C observed. This is merely another way of stating the fact that gaseous 12Carbon dioxide, is more easily evaporated from water because its lower molecular weight means that less kinetic energy is required for surface escape.

    My point is this:- it is the surface emission process that governs the fractionation into the atmosphere of 12C versus 13C and not the measured concentration of 13C in the produced mineral calcite.

  153. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi: “The current increase in the atmosphere is 230 GtC(110 ppmv) above equilibrium (of ~290 ppmv) for the current temperature. The observed absorbance is ~4.5 GtC/yr (~2.15 ppmv/yr). That gives an e-fold time of 230/4,5/yr or ~51 years.”

    Thanks,
    You appear to have assumed that the assumed pre-industrial value of 280 plus the assumed 10 ppm rise you attribute to temp increase is the current equilibrium without emissions.
    You also assume all increase is residual emm. If those assumptions are not correct there is more thermal rise and more complete absorption of anth.em. , then the decay time will fall a lot.

    That may be useful somewhere.

  154. eric1skeptic says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:37 am

    Sorry, did misunderstand what you meant…

    There are more problems with Bart’s approach. To match the slope of the dCO2/dt increase, he needs a factor to match the slope of T in the direct measurements with the slope of dCO2/dt in the derivative. But the same factor also influences the amplitude of the fast variations of T. That makes that, depending of the difference in slopes, the amplitudes of the variability only match by coincidence.
    For the “best match” in slope, the amplitude of the dCO2/dt variability caused by T variability is only a fraction of the observed variability if you use Bart’s “hard evidence“…

    Conclusion: the short term variability in dCO2/dt is almost entirely from the short term
    variability in T, but the slope of dCO2/dt has very little connection with the slope of T, which is from a different process, T dependent or not.

  155. Greg Goodman says:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
    again ~8 ppmv/K sustained over ~200 years for the temperature variation over the LIA until ~1800.”

    Law Dome DSS, there is about 8ppm drop across two data intervals (34y ) and then about 7ppm rise [from] 1750 -1800

    I see no reason to believe that either rapid event lead to an equilibrium state. That gives average rate of change of 0.24 and 0.14 ppm/year. But Law Dome does not have a temp proxy , what are you using for that?

  156. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi: “Conclusion: the short term variability in dCO2/dt is almost entirely from the short term
    variability in T, but the slope of dCO2/dt has very little connection with the slope of T, which is from a different process, T dependent or not.”

    No, you still don’t get the way the relaxation response works. It’s not a different process, it’s the same one.

    It starts out short term with the orthogonal reaction which you correctly state, then on longer time-scales the in-phase relationship starts to dominate. That is what Sably is on about and on that he is correct (whether his calculations are right remains to be seen).

    The cross-over where the magnitude of each are the same is omega*tau=1 , so we need to know the time constant of the reaction to know when we should be expecting CO2 to correlate with T.

    That is the model for a simple “single slab” ocean.

    You are again correct that anything matching on the same scale is coincidental, the relative scaling again depends on tau.

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399

  157. Greg Goodman says:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.fr/2013/09/mathematical-observational-proof-that.html

    “If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause…”

    Neat.

  158. Philip Mulholland says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:12 am

    I have missed a similar question by Stephen Wilde. Here my knowledge:

    The deep oceans have a δ13C level of around zero per mil, thus about the same level as the world wide used (V-PDB) standard.

    The ocean surface with its biolife increases the δ13C level of the ocean waters by incorporating slighlty more 12CO2 than 13CO2, thus leaving an elevated 13C/12C ratio in the surface waters.
    The surface waters, depending of the intensity of biolife are between 1-5 per mil δ13C.
    There was a nice overview of the δ13C levels in different parts of the oceans by Anthon Duarte, but it has been (re)moved. But see:
    http://epic.awi.de/30740/1/EGU2012-5065.pdf gives some clues, for a few places.
    More can be found on the net.

    Some of the organics drop out of the surface layer and are either destructed in the deep oceans or sedimented and transformed to oil and gas over very long time frames. With destruction, they lower the δ13C level of the deep oceans.
    Some biolife (coccoliths) form calcite shells which also may drop out after the algue died. The calcite shells show the same δ13C ratio as of the seawater where it is formed. When these drop out in the more shallow oceans, they form thick calcite layers, still visible at a lot of places. When they drop out in the deep oceans, they dissolve and increase the δ13C level of the deep oceans.
    Some more information is available from coralline sponges which grow until some 200 m dept, again building calcite layers, which give the δ13C levels in the ocean surface waters over 600 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

    In pre-industrial times there was a quite stable equilibrium of δ13C between (deep) oceans, atmosphere and vegetation. That changes only with small amounts, a few tenths of a per mil, over huge temperature and ocean/vegetation changes like over ice ages and interglacials.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5567/522.full (free access if registered for free)
    Over the LGM-Holocene transition:
    http://scar2012.geol.pdx.edu/doc/abstracts/Session_3.pdf
    Over the whole Hocene little variation:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19779448

    About the ocean-air and air-ocean isotopic changes:
    The lighter isotopes will transfer faster than the heavier isotopes in both directions. That gives that there is a dop of about -10 per mil from oceans to air and a drop of -2 per mil from air to oceans (thus an increase of +2 per mil in air). With fluxes in equilibrium, that gives a drop of -8 per mil by ocean-air exchanges. See:
    http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.5.05_Siegenthaler_249-257.pdf

    If the upwelling was directly from the deep oceans, that thus would give an equilibrium level of -8 per mil in the atmosphere (assuming the biosphere in equilibrium). But the upwelling places are exaclty the places with the most abundant biolife. Thus increasing the δ13C ratio near the surface. The rest of the oceans too are higher in δ13C, thus matching the atmosphere at between -7 and -3 per mil δ13C. As can be seen in ice cores, the pre-industrial mean equilibrium over the Holocene was about -6.4 per mil in the atmosphere…

  159. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:52 am

    But Law Dome does not have a temp proxy , what are you using for that?

    Law Dome dD and d18O can’t be used, as the moisture catch area is from the nearby Southern Oceans and the inland ice cores are too coarse (but CO2 still is global). Thus I needed one of the many multiproxy temperature reconstructions over the past millennium (Esper or Moberg, can’t remember which one I used). In any case not MBH, as you may expect…

  160. Greg Goodman says:

    So you have a problem not knowing how the time resolution of DSS compared to that of the multiproxy temperature reconstruction. I would expect, by the nature of such a thing, a certain amount of averaging and damping to be mixing the resolution of each proxy (plus a good amount of running mean distortion thrown in for good measure).

    If T and CO2 don’t come from the same core, dividing one by the other gets very suspect.

    Law Dome may give us an estimation of d/dt(CO2) but I would not put much weight on ppm/K/a derived like that.

  161. Jquip says:

    Paul Schauble: “Could corn used to make ethanol for motor fuels make a difference?”

    Not in this context. The only point of distinction between a bio fuel and a fossil fuel is whether we’re regrowing the crop or not: They’re both bio fuels. So if we harvest down corn for ethanol, and replant, then we can — crudely — consider it a zero-sum condition. It puts 12C and 13C back in circulation for diffusion and respiration certainly, but the fixation preference of C4 plants remains.

    The issue of interest is whether or not we can find preferential or neutral 13C fixation in animal life. As this permits a manner for the natural variation side of 13C ratio variation. And it simply must exist, as the ice cores show such variation themselves. On that end, I was popping back in to drop off a tidbit I scoured up on the subject. Which is that for rats, and then by assumption more mammals, there is indeed a significant preference to fixate 13c in muscle, liver, and collagen tissue. But a preference for 12c in fat. The balance, for exhaled CO2 is to be significantly depleted in 13C relative the diet of the animal. But this varies significantly depending on just what the diet is in toto. Specifically it’s not so much a preference for 12 or 13 C as such, but of plant molecules that have fixed those. An interesting bit to feed the brain and stir ideas: http://intl-icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/1/21.full

    So I’ll call it a good guess generally. Or at least something that’s worth chasing if the info can be found, or the interest and funding intersects.

  162. Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 7:15 am

    No, you still don’t get the way the relaxation response works. It’s not a different process, it’s the same one.

    I don’t think so.
    There are at least three different processes at work, near independent of each other:
    - the seasonal swings (directly temperature related – mid- and high latitudes – mainly vegetation)
    - the short term swings (temperature and moisture related – tropical – mainly vegetation)
    - the long term changes (pressure difference related – deep oceans – partly in vegetation)
    Besides human emissions.

    Starting from Henry’s law, a change in temperature causes a change of 16 ppmv CO2/K over a relative short period (5-10 years) from the ocean surface.
    Over the MLO period, the incease in temperature (HadCRU4) was 0.6 K thus a maximum increase of 10 ppmv from seawater temperature increase (less combined with land vegetation, but so what).
    Thus whatever the short term variability, the maximum increase from the seawater surface is 10 ppmv over the recent 50 years if no other processes are involved.

    About the seasons and short term variations: these level off after one year (seasons) to 5 years (short term). No trace left after 5 years. There is no connection between the short term variations and the trend over the past 50 years. Seasonal and long term variations work in the same direction: oceans: increased release, vegetation: increased uptake for increased temperature.
    short term changes go opposite for vegetation: decreased uptake, even release for increased temperature. See:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    from point 70 on + Fig.7 and the conclusions.

    Thus three processes with three different mechanisms and decay times.

    Now if we look at the CO2 record, of the 70 ppmv over the past 50 years, maximum 10 ppmv is from the temperature increase only. As the temperature incease is rather linear, in the derivative that gives a flat positive offset of 0.012 K/yr and a flat positive offset of 0.2 ppmv/yr for CO2. Still both contain the full short term variability of the sinusoid as also can be seen in the derivative of temperature in Wood for Trees.

    Thus in my opinion, the short term CO2 variability is entirely temperature (and moisture) dependent, but has nothing to do with the trend which is from another process, whatever that may be.

  163. Ferdinand said:

    “Now if we look at the CO2 record, of the 70 ppmv over the past 50 years, maximum 10 ppmv is from the temperature increase only”

    That assumes that the temperature increase in the topmost layer of sun warmed oceans in the subtropics when global cloudiness decreased during the late 20th century is limited to the average global atmospheric temperature increase (leaving out the issue of UHI and data manipulation).

    In reality, more sunlight into oceans is going to result in much greater local temperature increases possibly involving the extra solar input driving out CO2 from the water whilst the thermal inertia of the ocean bulk and increased evaporation minimises any bulk ocean temperature change.

    I don’t think Ferdinand’s simplistic assumptions necessarily reflect the reality.

    The topmost layer of a swimming pool can get a lot warmer than the bulk below and a lot warmer relative to the air temperatures above.it on a sunny afternoon.

  164. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 24, 2013 at 10:49 am

    The cross-over where the magnitude of each are the same is omega*tau=1 , so we need to know the time constant of the reaction to know when we should be expecting CO2 to correlate with T.
    That is the model for a simple “single slab” ocean.

    If I understand that correctly (please correct me if that is wrong), that means that there is one process that regulates both the short term variations and the long term slope.

    But that can’t be true, as we have at least three different source/sinks at work:
    The ocean surface with a fast mixing, short reaction time but limited uptake
    The deep oceans with a very slow mixing, longer reaction time but near unlimited uptake
    Vegetation with a mix of fast mixing and slow mixing, a short (seasonal) reaction time + a longer (permanent) reaction time and unlimited uptake for the slower processes.

    Vegetation may give a better example of a “single slab ocean” effect?

  165. kingdube says:

    Dear Ferdinand, could you comment.
    You offer equilibrated estimates like 5ppm/degree K, but the Earth is always in disequilibrium. If the Earth begins to cool, sinks will diminish quickly, but the primary source (oceans) will keep rolling for many decades. I predict that CO2 will spike sharply.

    kingdube says:
    November 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I expect it reasonable to predict that as the Earth cools, atmospheric CO2 will spike sharply from natural causes. (Of course the alarmists will then argue, when this occurs, that poor Mother Nature can no longer choke-down the anthropogenic emission – she has had her fill from us. But that will be a misinterpretation of this natural process.) Further explanation below:

    During the Little Ice Age, natural sinks had overtaken sources so atmospheric CO2 fell (caused by cooling). The warming since then has stimulated natural sources which, in turn, have stimulated natural sinks. And the sources are now out in front, with our modest help to be sure. But both sources and sinks have been growing far more rapidly than our anthropogenic contribution in absolute terms. So if our contribution were to be removed in its entirety, there would be little identifiable change. Microbial and insect emissions would more than make up the difference if we let them**. And had we not contributed our 2%, the vegetative sinks would have been most likely under-stimulated by a somewhat similar amount such that there would be little identifiable change. (The water tub analogy where a spigot is filling the CO2 tub, while a drain is draining it, is entirely misleading in the way it is often presented as there is a clearly coupled relationship between changes to the rates of input and output – at least till a saturation event occurs.)

    And if the Earth continues to be warm but then starts to cool, at some likely predictable point the photosynthetic sequestering sinks will saturate (so that their increasing capacity to sink CO2 will quit increasing; and then for the same continued cooling causes, these sinks will subsequently and rapidly reverse to a decreasing capacity to absorb CO2; while the emission sources more slowly respond; and the oceans, in particular, fail to respond for many decades). Then very steep atmospheric spiking will ensue just as it so often has in the past. It is very likely that photosynthetic sequestering (biological response) provides an enormous (geologically real-time) negative feedback to additional atmospheric CO2 until such time as it saturates. This predicted saturation event is not likely very near if the planet continues to slide sideways on temperature. However, a near-term solar-driven mini ice age may likely accelerate this predictable spiking event into the near term (i.e. atmospheric CO2 will likely increase sharply soon).

  166. Greg Goodman says:

    “If I understand that correctly (please correct me if that is wrong), that means that there is one process that regulates both the short term variations and the long term slope.”

    No, there’s more than one process at work . The point I’m making is that the relaxation process (with respect to temp in this case) has both orthogonal and in-phase responses as part of the same process, not totally one or the other.

  167. Greg Goodman says:

    BTW, this is where Bart is going wrong IMO. He wants to regress this totally as one process (which is fine as an experiment) but then gets a rather dubious, approximate fit and declares it “perfect”.

    I’d say it fits quite well but clearly there are significant variations that are not explained but such a simplistic model. This is why Salby brings in the “ground conditions” factor. I await more detail on what that is and how it is derived.

  168. Bart says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    “Slight? The amount of C we’ve emitted is about equal to the entire mass of vegetation. How can it be hidden?”

    This is like one of those Congressional budgets sleights of hand wherein the opposition Party claims that the costs of a program are a staggering $XXX bajillion, but they don’t mention that, that is spread out over YY years.

    Brian H says:
    November 23, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    I am so looking forward to that day, when we can put all this nonsense behind us!

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:30 am

    “But that does not preclude a different component being present in long term change.”

    It does, because the long term slope in temperature matches the long term slope in dCO2/dt. Human inputs also have a slope, but there is no (or, little) room for it when you have taken account of the temperature induced slope.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:46 am

    I do not agree with the conclusion, but this was a very fair-minded post, and once again shows that Ferdinand Englebeen is a gentleman of the first order.

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 4:06 am

    Bravo!

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:37 am

    ” showed that for my cherry-picked year the temperature rose and the CO2 rose too with a ratio of about 4 or 5 ppm per degree K.”

    You are missing the point that this is an integration of temperature. Once you have established a temperature differential, CO2 keeps pumping into the air, at least in the near term (decades, centuries, millennia? – we do not yet know, but at least 1/2 century right now), whether the temperature continues increasing or not. You cannot shoehorn a dynamic relationship into a static model like you are attempting to do.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 24, 2013 at 6:33 am

    “For the “best match” in slope, the amplitude of the dCO2/dt variability caused by T variability is only a fraction of the observed variability if you use Bart’s “hard evidence“…”

    Or, vice versa. But, you will get different results depending on which temperature set you use. Which one do you use? The bottom line is that these are bulk measurements which are not really matched for the actual dynamics in the first place. It must be inferred from the quality of the fit that the simplest explanation is that the overall dynamics are captured in this model, but more research is needed to determine the best set of observations to use for a higher fidelity input/output model.

  169. Bart says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:49 am

    ‘BTW, this is where Bart is going wrong IMO. He wants to regress this totally as one process (which is fine as an experiment) but then gets a rather dubious, approximate fit and declares it “perfect”. ‘

    My point has always been that this process is dominant, and that it leaves little room for anything else of significance.

    ‘This is why Salby brings in the “ground conditions” factor. I await more detail on what that is and how it is derived.’

    Me, too. I’m just a guy with a particularly applicable set of skills, and a little spare time. I look forward to the day when the professionals nail it down into a tight little ball.

  170. eric1skeptic says:

    Bart (November 24, 2013 at 12:03 pm) “You are missing the point that this is an integration of temperature. Once you have established a temperature differential, CO2 keeps pumping into the air, at least in the near term (decades, centuries, millennia? – we do not yet know, but at least 1/2 century right now), whether the temperature continues increasing or not. You cannot shoehorn a dynamic relationship into a static model like you are attempting to do.”

    There is a long term relationship between CO2 and temperature with some allowance for natural variations in temperature due to weather: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/to:2013/scale:0.01/offset:-3.5/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013 Doesn’t change too much if CO2 is raw instead of smoothed: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/to:2013/scale:0.01/offset:-3.5/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013

    And here’s Jan 1997 to Jan 1998: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/offset:-36.3/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998 But here is the following year: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1998/to:1999/scale:0.1/offset:-36.3/plot/rss/from:1998/to:1999 Therefore the relationship doesn’t hold year by year.

    Within a single, cherry-picked year, there is no relationship: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/offset:-36.3/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998 Therefore there is no short term relationship. not from the CO2 signal just shown, and not from the derivative of the CO2 signal in that same cherry-picked year: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/to:1998/derivative/scale:0.1/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998

    Obviously variation of weather due to temperature is the main reason that the relationship would change year to year, or month to month. But even where the relationship holds, the response is no more than 4-5 ppm per degree K. That is 30 times too small; it needs to be 140 ppm per degree K for this theory to work. It is not 4-5 ppm (or similar value) per degree K per year. That is clear from the 1998-99 graph where CO2 is positive and temperature is negative. It is not 0.19 ppm per K per month since that is clear from the 1997-98 graph where there is no correlation.

    The only way the theory of CO2 causing temperature rise works is in my first two plots above. It is a nice theory but there is a better explanation that accounts for short term temperature fluctuations with no resultant change in CO2.

  171. kingdube says:
    November 24, 2013 at 11:31 am

    You offer equilibrated estimates like 5ppm/degree K, but the Earth is always in disequilibrium. If the Earth begins to cool, sinks will diminish quickly, but the primary source (oceans) will keep rolling for many decades. I predict that CO2 will spike sharply.

    Depends which mechanism wins: cooling gives less uptake by vegetation and more uptake by the oceans. But normally CO2 levels follow temperature: lower temperatures = lower CO2 levels. Thus if the earth starts to cool, normally CO2 levels start to go down, in several cases with a long lag.

    In the current case, probably not, as human emissions still are increasing and the uptake in oceans and vegetation can’t follow that, even with a cooloibg earth. That is the mainstream opinion and also my opinion. But that is opposed by Salby and Bart…

  172. Greg Goodman says:

    eric: “That is clear from the 1998-99 graph where CO2 is positive and temperature is negative. ”

    that’s because the primary fast relationship is with the derivative. plot d/dt(CO2) and it’s in phase and it works.

  173. Those of you who remember the story of David slaying Goliath (you can find it in 1 Samuel ch.17) may recall that the Philistines put forward their giant champion to challenge the armies of Israel. None dared take up the challenge save the shepherd boy David. With neither armour nor sword, but just a sling (and five stones) David slays Goliath with just one slingshot (‘…the stone sank into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth’).

    Faced as we are with just about every supra-national body, the EU and UN with its IPCC, a host of green NGOs, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace and other hugely wealthy lobby groups, along with a supposed global consensus of scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels is catastrophically changing the climate, we might indeed feel intimidated and fearful to challenge this awesome multi-headed giant.
    Here Prof Murry Salby comes to our rescue. With one deadly and precise piece of science he has slain the giant phantom of CACC.
    I’m being a bit hyperbolic about the rest of us – I don’t suggest we’ve been fearful of attacking the giant, but I do think Murry’s science is both precise and utterly fatal to the AGW/ACC/CACC giant.

  174. eric1skeptic says:

    Greg Goodman (November 24, 2013 at 1:40 pm)
    > eric: “That is clear from the 1998-99 graph where CO2 is positive and temperature is negative. ”
    > that’s because the primary fast relationship is with the derivative. plot d/dt(CO2)
    > and it’s in phase and it works.

    It works in 1998-99, but not in 1997-98 where the derivative of CO2 is essentially opposite sign from temperature: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998

  175. Greg Goodman says:

    An why do you expect to compare CO2 to lower tropo ?

    SST looks good to me
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233

    What do expect to find? One simple linear regression that fits perfectly and explains all climate since the last deglaciation?

  176. Jquip says:

    @eric1skeptic: Always good to bring your best argument and not your weakest. Comparing monthly values with a yearly smoothed for Mauna Loa just isn’t good form. As well, using tropospheric temperature is a bit of whoops, especially if discussing anything that relates to ice core data or surface temps and conditions. And, of course, anyone can bust any correlation by taking the timescale low enough that the inherent noise swamps the signal. Better to have a good crack at it with a stronger showing on your part.

  177. Jquip says:

    Greg Goodman: “see my recent article on Climate Etc about filters”

    This cannot be stressed enough. It’s a general concern in climate records generally. And a specific issue in any specific analysis; such as here with Salby.

  178. Bart says:

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm

    These are superficial, and misleading, relationships. You have two increasing variables, and you scale them so they are increasing at roughly the same rate. It is a trivial exercise, but it tells you nothing about causation.

    What we are talking about here is the fact that the temperature to CO2 relationship is very much of the form

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    CO2 = atmospheric CO2 concentration
    k = coupling factor
    T = temperature anomaly w.r.t. its own baseline
    Teq = equilibrium temperature w.r.t. that baseline

    This relationship indicates that temperature is driving CO2, and that human inputs have little impact. It moreover implies that temperature dependence on CO2 is, at best, negligible. Otherwise, there would be a positive feedback loop and the system would be unstable.

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 24, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    “Bart, see my recent article on Climate Etc about filters”

    Not sure if you are taking issue with my statement, or merely pointing out some considerations with regard to filtering. Are you suggesting that the slope is not what it appears to be? I would disagree.

    Jquip says:
    November 24, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    “s well, using tropospheric temperature is a bit of whoops…”

    All of the temperature sets are more or less affinely related. It doesn’t really matter which one you choose. For the purposes here, none of the temperature sets likely captures fully and faithfully the true dynamic signal we are looking for. They are all bulk, global averages, and likely miss or smudge out the pertinent signal.

    “And a specific issue in any specific analysis; such as here with Salby.”

    Perhaps you guys could explicitly state your concern. If you want a smoothed filter output with zero phase everywhere, here is one.

  179. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 24, 2013 at 5:43 am

    Greg Goodman says:
    >>> Doesn’t CH4 match the ‘plateau’ in temps quite well too?

    Hardly:
    http://www.aemet.izana.org/images/stories/news/CH4_IZO_1984_2009.pdf

    What is that data you posted. Nocturnal CH4 in Madrid ??

    Looks nothing like MLO CH4 which is perfectly flat from 1999-2007 (then rises).

  180. eric1skeptic says:

    Bart, it is true that I scale one variable (CO2) but that’s only so both traces are viewable in a single URL on WFT. Your graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19/offset:0.14 that you linked above several times shows a maximum of 4-5 ppm per degree K which you do not dispute. As temperature varies up and down due to weather the CO2 goes up and down about 4-5 ppm per degree K at most in that plot. That means your theory that 1 degree of temperature rise has caused 140 ppm of CO2 rise is incorrect.

    The same ratio is clear in my plots except that my plots also show that there is no correlation between the two variables for short term periods, nor any consistent correlation between temperature and the derivative of CO2. For example, here is Jan1997-Jan98: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/from:1997/to:1998/scale:0.1/plot/rss/from:1997/to:1998 When the temperature rises in the latter half of 1997, the derivative of CO2 goes negative. IOW, the CO2 decreases with a rise in temperature. The temperature series of course has the annual correction built in and CO2 has no smoothing in my plot, but the key point is that in 1998 the opposite is true, that is, the temperature rise correlates with a positive derivative of CO2 in accord with your theory.

    You can’t have a theory that includes some years, e.g. 1998, and excludes certain years, e.g. 1997, without a reason to do so (i.e. by adding another variable like a non-temperature side effect of ENSO).

  181. Bart says:

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    “…shows a maximum of 4-5 ppm per degree K which you do not dispute.”

    Of course I dispute it. I dispute the entire premise that CO2 and temperature are affinely related to one another. They aren’t. The rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature anomaly.

    You’re not even wrong, because you are not even grasping the argument.

  182. Bart says:

    “Your graph http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1959/scale:0.19/offset:0.14 …”

    You do realize that is a graph of the derivative? Are you acquainted with differential calculus?

  183. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Greg Goodman,

    Re: 11:35pm on 11/23/13

    I apologize for my poorly written post (at 11:13am on 11/23) which gave you the mistaken impression that I am more than an enthusiastic fan of Dr. Murry Salby. I had and have nothing to do with his lecture except that I’ve posted it several times on WUWT and watched it and taken notes. I have no way of contacting him. I’m sorry that I cannot help you with that.

    Glad to know that, so far anyway, heh, you are not one of the ones (oh, yes, there are several regular skeptic posters and a mod (wince) who do — and those are just the 4 or 5 that I’m aware of, lol — detest and or have utter contempt for me and or my opinions) who find me abhorrent. I’m a firmly anti-AGW skeptic who, since to date no evidence has been provided, firmly believes that CO2 (even less, human CO2) is not a significant cause of climate (or weather, lol).

    Sorry to take so long to respond. I glanced at your 11:35pm post about 12 hours ago, but could not bring myself to read what I was sure would be yet another snarl full of bitterness. What a relief to find out that you didn’t talk like that at all. Whew. (I can only take so much of that in 1 week).

    Well, Mr. Goodman, guessing from what you have revealed of your personality on WUWT over the past 7 months (that I’ve been here) that this post has been trying your patience for about 10 lines now, I’ll stop.

    And leave you …
    and also all of you skeptics who DO find me (and or my opinions) detestable:

    With this #(:)) — I may be annoying, but…

    “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”

    (UNLESS you go over the Dark Side… then, watch out,
    bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!)

    Your WUWT pal (I hope),

    Janice

  184. Janice Moore says:

    “Don’t over-rate your own importance.” (Greg Goodman at 11:35pm on 11/23)

    Thank you for your insightful rebuke. I needed to hear that.

    Janice

  185. It has been every bit as interesting a discussion as I had hoped. In particular I should like to pay tribute to the extraordinary, patient persistence of Ferdinand Engelbeen in explaining many points of the underlying science. On any view, his knowledge is profound and he has thought about these questions in detail.

    He makes the intriguing statement that the e-folding time of CO2 is simply the total anthropogenic excess against pre-industrial concentration (in round numbers 100 micro-atmospheres) divided by the current annual net increment in CO2 emission, represented by a concentration increase of 2 ppmv/year (or, equivalently, 200 PgC excess divided by 4 PgC/year net emission): thus, 50 years.

    It would be helpful if he would be kind enough to answer these questions, which I ask not because I disagree with him (as a layman I do not know) but because his answers will help me to understand.

    1. How does he define e-folding time? The e-folding time is the period after which the [excess] concentration is expected to fall to 1/e = 1/2.718 = 37% of its current concentration, but under what conditions? For instance, is he calculating the e-folding time under the assumption that from today no further net CO2 emission occurs? Or that net emission continues at 2 microatmospheres/year?

    2. Why is the e-folding time defined in the answer to 1 as simply derived as he derives it? How does the math hang together?

    Many thanks.

  186. In q.1 above, I meant to write “the EXCESS concentration is expected to fall to …37% of its current value”. Sorry for the confusion.

  187. eco-geek says:

    For me there is a great deal of confusion in this article. There seem to be several errors and ill-defined terms when it ought to be fairly straightforward and VERY important. It needs some critical reworking.

  188. Greg Goodman says:

    Thanks for taking it in good spirit, I have a tendency to be a bit direct at times ;)

  189. Greg Goodman says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    “2. Why is the e-folding time defined in the answer to 1 as simply derived as he derives it? How does the math hang together?”

    The basics of the flux-rate / time constant relationship is covered in Gosta Pettersson’s papers , which you may have seen already.
    http://www.false-alarm.net/author/gosta/

    I too would be interested to see exactly how Ferdinand applies this clearly laid out, since I think he has misapplied this in the past. Obviously, if he has applied it correctly it would valuable to have a clear account rather than just a simple declaration of that’s the way it is.

  190. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    In reply to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 24, 2013 at 3:05 am
    William Astley says:
    November 23, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    William: Your comments are again nonsense and do not address the scientific problems. You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. That is an astonishing unexplained anomaly that requires an explanation. See my comments above. What is the alternative explanation?

    There is an overwhelming set of observations/analysis results to support the assertion that Thomas Gold’s deep earth CH4 mechanism/hypothesis is correct. The deep earth CH4 mechanism is directly related to Salby’s observation and is required to explain the variance of CO2 in modern times and throughout the geological record, is required to explain a long list of anomalies related to hydrocarbon deposits on the planet, is required to explain the evolution of the atmosphere in geological time, is required to explain why oceans cover 70% of the planet, and so on. (H2O is dissociated by UV radiation in the upper atmosphere and the H2 is removed by the solar wind. If there was not a constant new source of CH4 release into the atmosphere the earth would be dry and lifeless.)

    Light oil deposits, heavy oil deposits, natural gas, and most coal deposits are the result of deep primordial release of CH4 from the earth’s core at it solidifies. The immense pressure at the core enables the CH4 to break the rock of the mantel and migrate up to the surface of the planet. As the CH4 moves through the crust it picks up heavy metals which explains the heavy metals and sulfur in heavy oil, light oils, and in coal.

    The CH4 mechanism’s immense pressure and breaking of the mantel rocks provides a path to enable helium (which is of course inert) to move migrate with the CH4 and through the CH4 created paths up into the oil formations. That explains why there is 100 times concentration of helium in the oil formations. There is no physical explanation (with the ridiculous biogenic hypothesis) as to why helium should be concentrated in oil formations.

    The ocean surface is saturated with CH4 which indicates there is a significant deep ocean source of CH4. Another clue is the massive methyl hydrate deposits on the ocean floor.
    The primordial CH4 is deficient in C13 which explains the astonishing low C13 contain of ‘natural’ gas.

    The hydrocarbon deposits are all deficient in C13 however the accumulated carbon deposits from precipitation out of the ancient oceans do not vary in C13 over geological time. That supports the assertion that there is a continual new source of carbon from the deep earth. If there was not, the C13 in the atmosphere and in the carbon deposits would gradually increases due to the immense deposits of deficient C13 in the hydrocarbon deposits. (i.e. If carbon was recycled as required in the late veneer hypothesis then the C13 content of the atmosphere and the deposits would gradually increase.) The deep earth CH4 hypothesis explains the formation of mountains on the planet, the floating of the continents on the mantel crust, and the breakup and evolution of the continents with time.

  191. Greg Goodman says:

    eric “You can’t have a theory that includes some years, e.g. 1998, and excludes certain years, e.g. 1997, without a reason to do so (i.e. by adding another variable like a non-temperature side effect of ENSO).”

    Really, what are you expecting to find in noisy, corrupted and “corrected” data, a perfect mathematical correlation between two variables. Get real.

    The “another variable” is noise of data corruption or that global SST average is not a perfect match to the regions that dominate CO2 at MLO. So a strong correlation is an indication of a physical link.

    d/dt(CO2) correlates better than CO2 directly even if you lag it. That suggests where the primary relation can be found. It’s clearly not full story.

  192. eric1skeptic says:

    Bart: “You do realize that is a graph of the derivative? Are you acquainted with differential calculus?”

    I graphed the derivative in one of my plots above but also graphed without derivative for clarity. Using the derivative graph, the Y axis units are CO2 per unit time. The highest rate of change is about 0.3 ppm / month. During 1997 CO2 rose 1.6ppm and temperature rose 0.35K for a ratio of 4.6 ppm / K.

    The units for that calculation are ppm of CO2 per year divided by degrees K per year which results in ppm per degree K. Having a rise of 4.6 ppm of CO2 per degree K during a good year (1997) shows that it is impossible to achieve 140 ppm for 1 degree K. Furthermore the temperature dropped during 1998 but CO2 still rose which shows that the two are not correlated in the short run.

    We also know that CO2 and temperature are not correlated in the short run because weather changes the global average temperature as much as 0.1 or 0.2C in a month. CO2 does not change that rapidly apart from a few very minor fluctuations that are visible using a 12 month moving average.

    Another thing to consider is that the global average temperature does not have much meaning when considering CO2 release and uptake. The latter depends on specific conditions at the equator where CO2 is generally released and at the poles where it is generally absorbed. Thus the overall weather patterns will modulate CO2 slightly independent of the seasonal cycle and manmade secular rise.

  193. eric1skeptic says:

    Greg Goodman (November 25, 2013 at 3:07 am)
    > The “another variable” is noise of data corruption or that global SST average is not a perfect
    > match to the regions that dominate CO2 at MLO. So a strong correlation is an indication of a
    > physical link.

    You are correct that global temperature is different from the MLO area where CO2 is being measured in the plots that I linked to. BTW, I did not use global SST in my plots (nor did Bart in his plot) but instead used MSU lower troposphere temperature which has even less physical correlation to the areas in the ocean where CO2 is absorbed and released.

    The bottom line however is that the short term (month by month) correlation of CO2 and temperature is very small.

  194. Dear Lord Monckton,

    Thanks for your kind words. I am from the old school, where science was teached as a broad field, unlike the current education system where they deliver a lot of specialists to the real world who have enormous knowledge of a very small field and virtually none outside their field…

    In the case of CO2, like in many chemical and physical reactions, the atmosphere and other reservoirs (mainly oceans and vegetation) are in continuous exchange with each other. That are dynamic equilibria reactions, where temperature and pressure (difference) are the main players.

    Of importance for the calculation of the e-fold decay rate is that the response to an increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is linear, which seems the case:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
    Where the accumulated sinks are the difference between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere.

    For the year by year accumulation/sink rate:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

    If we compare the increase in the atmosphere of the first graph with the increase in sink rate of the second graph, there is a slight curvature in both (besides the short term variability caused by temperature variability) which makes that the relationship between them is near-linear.

    If the relationship between a disturbance to an equilibrium and its response is linear then:
    T = excess / outflow
    Because the excess is reduced by the outflow (without further disturbance), the outflow reduces over time with an e-curve. Therefore T gives us the e-fold time for any linear process.
    Some theoretical background:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_folding
    Specific for the decay rate of CO2 in the atmosphere from Peter Dietze at the late John Daly’s web site:
    http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
    Interesting to see that his calculation from 1997 and the current estimates 15 years later still are quite similar…

    Further disturbances, like continuous human emissions have no influence on the e-fold time, but of course both influence how much is retained in the atmosphere. With a small T, most emissions would disappear in short term and the increase in the atmosphere would be modest. With constant emissions, the increase in the atmosphere will assymptote to a new equilibrium, etc…

    That doesn’t proof that human emissions are the cause of the increase, but it is a strong indication.

    The alternative view from Bart and Salby is that the e-fold time is very short and that some other huge temperature dependent process is involved.

    As the human emissions are slightly quadratic increasing as does the increase in the atmosphere, any alternative temperature driven process must give a slightly quadratic CO2 response to temperature (which did more or less linearly increase) and completely parallel human emissions in the same time frame. Such a process thus also must give a 3-fold increase in turnover (a 3-fold decrease in residence time) in the period 1960-current to mimic and dwarf human emissions in the same time frame.

    But there are no indications of any increase in turnover in the more recent estimates of the residence time or in changes of the 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio trends…

  195. Greg Goodman says:

    ” I did not use global SST…”

    Since we are discussing whether out-gassing from the oceans is correlated, it would seem obvious to use an SST dataset.

    “The bottom line however is that the short term (month by month) correlation of CO2 and temperature is very small.”

    I don’t think that conclusion will surprise anyone, which is why most people investigating this relationship remove the annual cycle. This can best be done with successive 12,9 and 7 month running averages which can be done on WTF.org. as I already demonstrated in a link to such a graph.

    This was noted years ago and has been repeated by several people including myself and I have linked my plots several times including in this thread.

    Knit-picking about any small deviation is irrelevant, you won’t get perfect correlation is this kind of data. It would be helpful to move forward to trying to understand the cause of this relationship.

  196. eric1skeptic says:

    Greg, my understanding of the cause is simply that ocean temperature modulates CO2 uptake and release. We all agree that there is always uptake and release going on simultaneously in various locations around the globe. With warmth there will be less uptake and more release and with cooling there will be more uptake and less release. Generally high latitudes will have uptake and low latitudes will have release so local weather is important, not just global averages.

    The small fluctuations in the CO2 graph (more visible using running averages) that match the temperature graph are a manifestation of the relationship of temperature and CO2.

    Looking at these somewhat correlated fluctuations, the only difference between the “anthropogenic CO2″ theory and yours is that the A-CO2 theory has significant net uptake of CO2 and yours has net release, but both allow modulation of the rate. In the A-CO2 theory, the rate of uptake will rise and fall with temperature but there will always be net uptake. Thus the A-CO2 theory is coherent with the evidence that you and Bart present.

  197. William Astley says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:17 am

    You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    William, I am not the least interested in the origin of CH4, because there is no correlation between ocean temperature (integrated or not) and recent emissions of CH4 as can be seen as levels in the atmosphere. Neither are the current levels comparable with historical levels. By coincidence (?) sharply increasing when humans started to use it. Thus in my opinion, humans are the cause of the increase.

  198. Greg Goodman says:

    eric:”Thus the A-CO2 theory is coherent with the evidence that you and Bart present.”

    Sorry, I must have missed a trick. Which part of your “A-CO2″ account shows 8ppmn/K/year relationship between CO2 and SST ?

  199. gary gulrud says:

    I’d say this drives the stake thru. Thanks for the time integral.

  200. Brett Gossage says:

    “Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.” This statement is not true. Independence implies zero correlation. Zero correlation does not imply independence.

  201. Mr. Gossage is incorrect in stating that absence of correlation does not necessarily imply absence of causation. In logic, while it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.

    Here is an example. It is known by experiment that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere ought to cause some warming, and, conversely, that warming the atmosphere ought to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. If for a sufficiently long period CO2 concentration rises and global temperature rises too, then it is possible (though not certain) that one is causing the other to change, and it is not possible to deduce merely from the correlation which (if either) of the two datasets was causative of change in the other.

    On the other hand, if for a sufficiently long period the concentration of CO2 continues to rise but global temperature does not, then the absence of correlation necessarily implies that the CO2 increase has not caused the temperature to fail to rise. Something else must be causing that, and it must be sufficient to offset any warming that the CO2 on its own might have caused.

    Likewise, if a dataset increases monotonically, as CO2 does, and another dataset, say global temperature, varies stochastically, then we know that the stochasticity of the temperature dataset cannot have been caused by the monotonicity of the CO2 dataset.

    Entire textbooks have been written on the causal laws. The principle that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation is well established, and can be demonstrated by various formal methods, including propositional calculus.

  202. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:37 am

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    Some addition:

    Here a graph of human emissions/yr, the measured increase in the atmosphere/yr and the calculated increase/yr by applying a factor to human emissions (“the airborne fraction”) and the increase/yr as function of the excess pressure above equilibrium:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg

    The function assumes:
    - 1850 equilibrium CO2 level 290 ppmv
    - CO2 increase by T (medium/long term): 8 ppmv/K
    - 0.6 K linear T increase 1960-2010
    - removal factor 2.15/110 (ppmv/ppmv)

    As you can see, the trend can be fitted quite nicely with a single linear decay rate which is directly excess pressure related and hardly influenced by temperature.

    The variability around the trend is caused by short term reactions of oceans and plants on temperature and humidity changes, as Salby said, but also by several before him.
    See e.g. the lecture of Pieter Tans from sheet 11 on:
    http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

  203. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    November 25, 2013 at 8:25 am

    Mr. Gossage is incorrect in stating that absence of correlation does not necessarily imply absence of causation.

    The monotonic increase of sealevel caused by melting ice, waming oceans, tectonic movements etc. doesn’t correlate at all with the tide gauge measurements, while waves, tides and storm surges do correlate.
    Does that imply that
    - the first series of variables are not the cause of the (very small) trend?
    - the second series of variables are the cause of the trend?

  204. Greg Goodman says:

    thanks for clearly stating the assumptions. I’m not sure I agree with them but at least we are clear where we’re starting from. That’s good.

    However, CoB and myself were asking about your flux rate derivation of 51 year time constant, could you explain the maths behind your calculation. ie why the ration of those two quantities gives the time const .

  205. Bart says:

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:09 am

    You are just not getting it. You cannot get a sensitivity in ppmv/K when you have one in ppmv/K/unit-of-time. You do not get a finite change for a finite change in temperature.

    “The latter depends on specific conditions at the equator where CO2 is generally released and at the poles where it is generally absorbed.”

    Yes. That is why I have been advising Ferdinand that it is futile to try to match things too perfectly here using these bulk global averaged measurements. What we really need is a globally weighted average temperature to bring out more directly those portions of the globe which are most affected.

    Nevertheless, the SNR is so strong, that we already see the emerging phenomenon in the global averages to a remarkable degree of fidelity.

  206. Brett Gossage says:

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    From “Introduction the Theory of Statistics” by Mood, Graybill, and Boes. 3rd Ed. Section 4.5:

    Corollary to Theorem 9: “If X and Y are independent variables then Cov[X,Y] = 0″

    Remark: “The converse of the above corollary is not always true; that is Cov[X,Y] = 0 does not always imply that X and Y are independent, as the following example shows.”

    While there may be many cases for which the two statements are true, that is not always so.

    Regards
    Brett

  207. Greg Goodman says:

    Bart: “What we really need is a globally weighted average temperature to bring out more directly those portions of the globe which are most affected.”

    It would be useful to try to establish which regions are key in this short term reaction. While I agree in principal with your comment, a quick scan around the major basin averages (eg N. Atlantic etc.) did not reveal any region that correlated better (or as well as) global.

    That maybe due to the wide latitude range of these subsets which I had extracted for other purposes.

    KNMI climate explorer makes it very easy to pull out “rectangular” long/lat subsets, so looking into what regions dominate this relationship may be interesting.

  208. Mr. Engelbeen and Mr. Gossage question my assertion that, while correlation does not necessarily imply causation (with which they both agree), absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation (with which they both disagree).

    Mr. Engelbeen takes the following instance:

    “The monotonic increase of sealevel caused by melting ice, waming oceans, tectonic movements etc. doesn’t correlate at all with the tide gauge measurements, while waves, tides and storm surges do correlate.
    “Does that imply that
    - “the first series of variables are not the cause of the (very small) trend?
    - “the second series of variables are the cause of the trend?”

    His first statement really says tide gauges are not accurate as methods of measuring sea-level rise, which he believes to exist and to be monotonic. However, sea-level rise is not monotonic, as even the largely fictional graph of the University of Colorado shows. As for whether there has been sea-level rise recently, during the entire eight-year period of the ENVISAT satellite, sea level was shown as rising at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century – well within the measurement uncertainties. Also, Peltier et al. (2009) reported that analysis of the gravitational anomalies measured by the GRACE satellites showed there was no sea level rise over the period of study, and that sea level might actually have fallen. His example fails on factual grounds. If the tide-gauges are not showing sea-level rise to be monotonic, they are correct. If they are showing sea-level fluctuations as being caused – at least in the short term – by waves, tides, and storm surges, they are again correct.

    Mr. Gossage quotes from a textbook of statistics, “Introduction the Theory of Statistics” by Mood, Graybill, and Boes. 3rd Ed. Section 4.5:

    “Corollary to Theorem 9: “If X and Y are independent variables then Cov[X,Y] = 0.

    “Remark: “The converse of the above corollary is not always true; that is Cov[X,Y] = 0 does not always imply that X and Y are independent, as the following example shows.”

    Mr. Gossage has things the wrong way about. The statement that the covariance of independent variables is aye nil is the statisticians’ way of stating that absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.

    The textbook’s “Remark” to the effect that absence of causation does not necessarily imply absence of correlation is correct. For instance, if events A and B did not cause one another, they may both have been caused by a third event C, in which event they may or may not be correlated with one another.

  209. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 9:09 am

    You cannot get a sensitivity in ppmv/K when you have one in ppmv/K/unit-of-time. You do not get a finite change for a finite change in temperature.

    That is exactly where you, Salby and others go wrong. The atmosphere gets to a new equilibrium with the oceans and vegetation when the temperature changes with a finite amount. There is a finite change in CO2 for a finite change in temperature. That is what Henry’s law dictates for ocean waters and what happens for the uptake/release from vegetation.

  210. Bart says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 25, 2013 at 10:47 am

    “It would be useful to try to establish which regions are key in this short term reaction.”

    This could be a monumental study requiring a great many man-hours. The proper weighting might even be time varying with the hemispheric seasons, or particularly heavily weighted in relatively small regions, possibly due to undersea geologic activity. I suppose I would focus on the tropical and the polar oceans, as regions of upwelling and downwelling waters, first.

    I might suggest latitude weighting bands. You could actually do a fit of a few weighting coefficients to the dCO2/dt. Granted, this might produce only an apparent agreement over the existing data sets which might not hold up over time. Then again, it might.

    I don’t intend to attempt that analysis myself, but if you’ve a mind to, by all means go for it. You have alluded to Salby’s “surface conditions”. Perhaps he has started down a path in this direction, and no doubt has a better comprehension of what might be appropriate than I. Someday, hopefully, he will find just what he is looking for to make an incontrovertible case, and will publish it. I suspect that is the reason for his reticence so far – he probably wants to have an airtight case before confronting the firestorm which is sure to erupt.

  211. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:22 am

    “The atmosphere gets to a new equilibrium with the oceans and vegetation when the temperature changes with a finite amount.”

    Not if new CO2 is being introduced to the surface system via, e.g., the temperature dependent outgassing of CO2 from CO2 rich upwelling waters. You know quite well this is my argument.

  212. Bart says:

    Here is that argument as a reminder. Something like this must be going on, because the data clearly show a ppmv/K/unit-of-time dependence.

  213. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Dear Lord Monckton,

    Back to our favorite subject:
    There is no correlation between the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere and human emissions.
    There is a strong correlation between the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere and changes in temperature.

    Does that imply that human emissions are not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere (the trend)?
    Does that imply that the nice correlation with the temperature variability also proves that temperature is the cause of the increase in the atmosphere (the trend)?

  214. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Here is that argument as a reminder. Something like this must be going on, because the data clearly show a ppmv/K/unit-of-time dependence.

    I had quite a lot of comments there. But as usual…

    The data are a mix of a trend (caused by humans) and a variability (caused by temperature variability). There is not the slightest indication in the data that the trend is caused by temperature
    There is no increase in emissions from the oceans visible in the residence time or the 13C/12C ratio trend or the 14C/12C bomb spike trend…

  215. jai mitchell says:

    What kind of a fanciful world you all must live in, you can see a prehistoric graph of air samples over 800,000 years old, through multiple interglacial cycles (some of which had temperatures slightly above our current temperature at their peak) and their CO2 concentrations never went above 300 ppmv.

    You can look at this 800,000 year record and notice that our current CO2 concentration is almost 133% greater than the highest level recorded in at least 800,000 years, and that the increase has occurred since 1880, in only about 135 years.

    And you can, somehow, convince yourselves that it has nothing to do with human emissions???

    My favorite quote:

    “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.

    . . .amazing
    baffling and amazing
    you all live in a very magical world.

  216. Greg Goodman says:
    November 25, 2013 at 10:47 am

    It would be useful to try to establish which regions are key in this short term reaction. While I agree in principal with your comment, a quick scan around the major basin averages (eg N. Atlantic etc.) did not reveal any region that correlated better (or as well as) global.

    Based on the 13C/12C ratio changes, the 1-3 year variability in CO2 comes mainly from the tropical forests: with an El Niño, rain patterns change and temperature increases. That gives that several parts of the Amazon get drier but also that soil bacteria are working harder.

    But it will not be easy to find regional precipitation levels for the Amazon forest…

  217. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:53 am

    First, do you then acknowledge that your comment at November 25, 2013 at 11:22 am is not at all as categorical as you allege? That if CO2 rich waters are upwelling as I hypothesize, then that would lead to just such a temperature dependency as we observe?

  218. Jaye Bass says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    November 25, 2013 at 11:10 am
    Mr. Engelbeen and Mr. Gossage question my assertion that, while correlation does not necessarily imply causation (with which they both agree), absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation (with which they both disagree).

    Yea its the difference in “if/then” and “if and only if”. There really is no arguing beyond that…sorry mathematics is a cruel mistress.

  219. Greg Goodman says:
    November 25, 2013 at 9:02 am

    However, CoB and myself were asking about your flux rate derivation of 51 year time constant, could you explain the maths behind your calculation. ie why the ration of those two quantities gives the time const .

    As usual, I was preparing a (too) long reaction, but by being hasty completely destroyed it with one keystroke…

    Thus here in short (?). based on Paper 1 of Pettersson:

    If the equilibrium constant is less than 0.05, more than 95% of the emission will be removed from the reservoir and the process may be considered as practically irreversible. Under such conditions, the relaxation time will differ less than 5% from the turnover time and be practically equal to it.

    and

    The turnover time (β) is normally defined as the amount of compound being present in the reservoir divided by the flux rate at which the compound is removed:

    β = Amount/Flux

    Warning: the “turnover time” in this case is NOT the mass of CO2 going in and out within a year caused by temperature, it is the mass of CO2 which is removed per year as result of the difference in pressure between current atmosphere and atmosphere at equilibrium. For clarity we still will use “relaxation time”.

    Contrary to the Bern model, the deep oceans and vegetation can remove 99% of all extra CO2 above equilibrium, thus reaching near equilibrium with only one relaxation time (*).

    In fact there is one extra factor: the ocean surface layer, which can absorb about 10% (19% according to the Bern model?) of the change in the atmosphere with a relaxation time of 1.2 years. That is part of the overall relaxation time, thus doesn’t play a visible role now, but when the emissions should stop, the fast equilibrium reactions of the surface layer will reverse and release CO2 into the atmosphere as levels are falling. That will increase the overall relaxation time, but that is not the case for now.

    (*) That needs some clarification:
    The deep oceans receive their increased levels of CO2 from a few cold places near the poles. These have a pCO2 down to 250 μatm, while the atmosphere is at 400 μatm (~ppmv). That is what pushes CO2 into the deep oceans. To saturate the oceans in the current circumstances would need to increase the pCO2 of the oceans up to 400 μatm, without further increase in the atmosphere.
    Near the poles, the uptake thus is not a problem, not even in the far future. The Revelle (buffer) factor doesn’t play a role in deep waters.
    The up to current human emissions all can be absorbed and still give only 1% increase in deep oceans and atmosphere at equilibrium…

    I hope that is clear now?

  220. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi: ” the 1-3 year variability in CO2 comes mainly from the tropical forests: with an El Niño, rain patterns change and temperature increases. ”

    Interesting. There are aspects of the phase relationship that I have not reconciled yet, so I’m open to ideas. Once again if you could point to evidence of what you say rather than expecting us to take it on faith it would be good.

    “That is exactly where you, Salby and others go wrong. The atmosphere gets to a new equilibrium with the oceans and vegetation when the temperature changes with a finite amount. There is a finite change in CO2 for a finite change in temperature. That is what Henry’s law dictates for ocean waters and what happens for the uptake/release from vegetation.”

    You have stated that the time constant is 51 years . That suggests about 250 years to get close to equilibrium, assuming no continued changes in other parameters, which of course there are.

    It would lead to a 50y lag in response to a steady increase in driver. It may be interesting to see how well that plays out in relation to changes in both temp and atm CO2.

    BTW if you could explain how you derive the 51y lag mathematically, it would be fairly essential to adopting the idea.

  221. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    First, do you then acknowledge that your comment at November 25, 2013 at 11:22 am is not at all as categorical as you allege? That if CO2 rich waters are upwelling as I hypothesize, then that would lead to just such a temperature dependency as we observe?

    - a finite increase in temperature gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    - a finite increase in upwelling (either amount or concentration) gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    - a combination of both gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    - a linear increase in temperature gives a linear increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    - a linear increase in upwelling gives a linear increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    - a combination of both gives a slightly non-linear increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Only in the latter case can the linear increase in temperature mimic the slope in trend of the derivative of the CO2 trend. But there is not the slightest sign that the upwelling (infact the througput) increased over time, to the contrary…

  222. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    “- a finite increase in upwelling (either amount or concentration) gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    If by that, you mean a finite pulse in upwelling, then I agree. But, a sustained increase in upwelling concentration above that of current surface waters will gradually diffuse throughout the surface oceans, and continuously increase their concentration, which thereby continuously outgases to the atmosphere.

    “But there is not the slightest sign that the upwelling (infact the througput) increased over time, to the contrary…”

    In fact, we do not have direct measurements of the rate of inflow of CO2 to the surface waters, so no way of dismissing the hypothesis.

    This is, in fact, precisely what the observed temperature dependency of the rate of change of CO2 indicates to be likely. And, I only qualify it as “likely” because there could be other temperature dependent sources than the oceans. But, the oceans appear to be the most probable source.

  223. It seems to me that allowing more sunlight into the surface waters beneath the subtropical high pressure cells could drive out CO2 by heating individual surface or near surface molecules directly but without necessarily resulting in a significant rise in averaged global atmospheric temperature.

    Also, did Ferdinand produce any evidence (rather than supposition) that the CO2 emissions from the sun warmed oceans are actually richer in C13 than C12 despite the undoubted presence of substantial biological activity in surface waters ?

  224. Greg Goodman says:
    November 25, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    Some more indications about ocean temperature and dryness of the Amazon forest:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/11/ocean-temperatures-can-predict-amazon-fire-season-severity/

    Sometimes it may help if you read the papers I have already referenced before… In:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    From the abstract:
    Interannual variability calculated from these data shows a strong land carbon source associated with the 1997–1998 El Niño event, supporting many previous studies indicating that high atmospheric growth rates observed during most El Niño events reflect diminished land uptake.

    And in the text, at point [70]:
    This work thus supports many previous studies linking rapid atmospheric CO2 growth rates with diminished land carbon uptake during El Niño events [e.g., Keeling et al., 1989; Clark et al., 2003; Nemani et al., 2003; Schaefer et al., 2002; Reichenau and Esser, 2003]. The primary mechanism is now thought to be increased aridity and biomass burning in tropical areas during El Niño events [Langenfelds et al., 2002; van der Werf et al., 2004].

    It would lead to a 50y lag in response to a steady increase in driver. It may be interesting to see how well that plays out in relation to changes in both temp and atm CO2.

    I have no idea how to derive a lag from a response time, so you may teach me how to do that.
    I am learning more about integrals, derivatives and that kind of stuff now in last years than I have used in the past 50 years…

    Anyway, if you look at the increase rate in the atmosphere vs. human emissions, you can see a lag of 20 years which still is growing:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
    With not such a nice connection for the temperature trends…

  225. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    If by that, you mean a finite pulse in upwelling, then I agree. But, a sustained increase in upwelling concentration above that of current surface waters will gradually diffuse throughout the surface oceans, and continuously increase their concentration, which thereby continuously outgases to the atmosphere.

    For a fixed temperature, a fixed, sustained increase in upwelling will give a fixed, sustained increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter if that happens directly at the upwelling places or diffuse over a larger area. For a fixed temperature an increase in concentration gives a near-linear increase in pCO2, thus a fixed increase in outflux, which leads to a fixed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr.jpg

  226. Joe Born says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen: “I have no idea how to derive a lag from a response time, so you may teach me how to do that.”

    Pardon me for being an officious intermeddler; I’m sure Mr. Goodman is more than capable of responding, and, besides, I’m not entirely positive that I understand the question. Just in case it is of any interest at all, though, I just set forth the response to a steady increase in connection with Prof. Pettersson’s’ model at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/on-co2-residence-times-the-chicken-or-the-egg/#comment-1484013.

  227. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Also, did Ferdinand produce any evidence (rather than supposition) that the CO2 emissions from the sun warmed oceans are actually richer in C13 than C12 despite the undoubted presence of substantial biological activity in surface waters ?

    Stephen, I don’t know what you exactly mean, but have a look at:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2374/F1.large.jpg
    That is the graph of the measurement series at Bermuda (BATS) where peak temperature in summer gives maximum pCO2 (thus most of the releases) and minimum DIC (thus most of the releases and most of the bioactivity) and maximum δ13C (thus maximum bioactivity)

    The scale of δ13C is inverted, which is rather confusing…

    Even with the increased δ13C levels, still most of what is emitted is 12CO2, just over 1% is 13CO2…

  228. John Whitman says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen,

    It has been little over 3 years since you posted at WUWT your 4 part essay entitled ‘Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made’. Your part 4 essay was posted September 2010.

    I suggest you update your position.

    I suggest in any update that you differentiate your position from the IPCC’s AR5 assessement of science on the carbon cycle. Skeptics have assessed there is systematic institutional bias wrt IPCC processes, so clarity wrt your position would be helpful.

    Also, another reason for you to update is the level of skepticism in climate science has surged in the past three years. Arguments evolved that can be addressed, Salby’s being just one. Note: Salby came to public attention more than a half year after your WUWT essay.

    Once again, I would like to sincerely compliment you on the level of your civility and professional bearing in WUWT commentary. I find myself in disagreement with your fundamental overall logic, but I do not disagree with your intent toward factual focus nor with your seriousness toward reasoning and science.

    John

  229. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    “For a fixed temperature, a fixed, sustained increase in upwelling will give a fixed, sustained increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…”

    A sustained rise in the rate of incoming CO2 will continuously increase the pCO2 of the surface waters, until such a time as the pCO2 of the incoming waters matches the pCO2 of the surface waters, i.e., until the entire surface ocean is essentially replaced. That will continuously increase the pCO2 of the atmosphere.

  230. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    How representative is Bermuda? I would think the Pacific Ocean off of South America would be the ideal location to perform measurements.

  231. eric1skeptic says:

    Greg Goodman asked me “Sorry, I must have missed a trick. Which part of your “A-CO2″ account shows 8ppmn/K/year relationship between CO2 and SST ?”

    Sorry for the delay in my answer. The relationship is as much as 4-5 ppm / K over some time periods. That is from the “hard evidence” plot linked above. Not per year since the relationship doesn’t hold each year and is not cumulative. It held in 1997 with a bit over 2ppm CO2 against a temperature rise but in 1998 we saw a bit under 3 ppm gain in CO2 against a net drop in temperature. However for the most part there is a couple ppm CO2 response to temperature changes. Also there is a possible lag as you pointed out. The lag is not evident in the “hard evidence” link above but there is 12 month smoothing of the CO2 that helps show the correlation.

    My specific answer is that the steady CO2 rise is completely manmade but there is a natural variation in that rise dependent on temperature, mostly temperature and weather in specific locations but also shows up in the global average temperature. IOW the net uptake by oceans is modulated by temperature. That is my explanation of the “hard evidence” correlation.

  232. eric1skeptic says:

    Bart (November 25, 2013 at 9:09 am) “You are just not getting it. You cannot get a sensitivity in ppmv/K when you have one in ppmv/K/unit-of-time. You do not get a finite change for a finite change in temperature.”

    Both measurements are per unit of time. In all my posts above I refer to ppm changes per year against degrees K changes per year. There is no other measurement possible for the latter when considering changes in temperature. The resultant units are therefore ppm per degree.

  233. Speaking of the oceanic CO2 emissions Ferdinand said:

    “Even with the increased δ13C levels, still most of what is emitted is 12CO2, just over 1% is 13CO2″

    Then consider that Christopher in his post said this:

    “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 (I think Christopher meant C13) than the atmosphere, as many are, all bets are off. The decline in atmospheric CO2 may not be of anthropogenic origin after all. ”

    Doesn’t Ferdinand’s comment confirm that oceanic emissions are leaner in C13 than the emissions from the land based biosphere so increasing oceanic emissions on their own would dilute 13C in the atmosphere would it not ?

    The proportion of atmospheric C13 would be reduced whenever ocean emissions increased relative to the land based biosphere emissions and would be increased whenever ocean emissions decreased relative to the land based biosphere emissions.

  234. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    Perhaps the point eric1skeptic is making would be easier to see if we rearranged Bart’s equation.
    (dCO2/dt)=0.19T + 0.14
    where T is the temperature anomaly
    so (dCO2/dt)-0.14=0.19T
    and
    (d/dt)(CO2-0.14t)=0.19T
    i.e a linear term is subtracted from the CO2 series.
    Now the value 0.14 is almost exactly the trend (in ppm/month) in CO2 variation for the time period (1979-present) used.
    So Bart’s equation in words reads,
    The derivative of the detrended CO2 variation is proportional to the temperature anomaly. This is interesting. The fluctuations away from the trend are proportional to temperature. However it does not show anything about the trend’s dependence. Whether the longer term trend in the CO2 concentration follows T, precedes T or has no connection at all to T, is not deducible from that equation.

  235. Bart says:

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    I’m sorry, no. I have tried to explain it to you, but you refuse to understand it.

    It is cumulative. Once you have a temperature offset, the accumulation of CO2 continues, whether the temperature changes again or not.

    You can see it right now. Global temperatures have stagnated, and so has the rate of change of CO2. Emissions, meanwhile, keep accelerating faster and faster.

    The rate of change did not fall to zero, as you would have it. It settled out in lock step with the temperature pause.

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Ugh. Not this silliness again.

    No, no, no, a thousand times NOOOOOO!!!!

    I am not arguing on the basis of the linear trend in total CO2. I am arguing on the basis of the variability, and the quadratic factor in total CO2, i.e., the variability and trend in the rate of change of CO2. They match the trend in temperature with incredibly high fidelity.

    Yes, the linear trend is not dispositive. It. Does. Not. Matter. There is other information available here which pins attribution on the temperature relationship, and not on human inputs.

    I keep telling you this, and you keep making the same non-point over and over again regardless.

  236. Bart says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Let me make this clearer:

    I am not arguing on the basis of the linear trend in total CO2. I am arguing on the basis of the variability, and the quadratic factor in total CO2, i.e., the variability and trend in the rate of change of CO2. They both match the variability and trend in temperature with incredibly high fidelity.

    You are worried about the trend in total CO2, which is the bias offset in the rate of change of CO2. I do not care about that. My argument does not hinge on it. I care about the trend in the rate of change of CO2, which is NOT responsible for the trend in total CO2, but for the quadratic component.

    Emissions also have a trend in the rate of change, which would induce a quadratic component in accumulated emissions. There is no room for it in total CO2. The trend in the rate of change is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Which is to say, the quadratic component in total CO2 is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.

    THINK!!! And, address the actual argument, and not a straw man.

  237. Bart says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    “Doesn’t Ferdinand’s comment confirm that oceanic emissions are leaner in C13 than the emissions from the land based biosphere so increasing oceanic emissions on their own would dilute 13C in the atmosphere would it not ?”

    Hmm, good catch. Maybe you stumbled over your wording, Ferdinand?

  238. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    I am not arguing on the basis of the linear trend in total CO2. I am arguing on the basis of the variability, and the quadratic factor in total CO2, i.e., the variability and trend in the rate of change of CO2. They both match the variability and trend in temperature with incredibly high fidelity.

    Yes, they do. So what?
    You are banging on (and on) about the tiny fluctuations represented by the deviations from the trend, while ignoring the trend. Those fluctuations sum to (to high fidelity as you put it), zero. Why on earth do you think they matter?

    Why don’t you try thinking?

    Emissions also have a trend in the rate of change, which would induce a quadratic component in accumulated emissions. There is no room for it in total CO2.
    So you say – most people would say it is already there, and all you are saying is that you cannot add it twice.

  239. Bart says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 25, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    “You are banging on (and on) about the tiny fluctuations represented by the deviations from the trend, while ignoring the trend.”

    You keep ignoring the trend in dCO2/dt, which is matched by the trend in temperatures when you match the variability.

    The rate of emissions also has a trend. There is no room for it. The trend in mean temperature anomaly already accounts for the trend in dCO2/dt, which is the rate of change of CO2.

    The bias offset is then just the obvious baseline to which the temperature anomalies should be referenced. There is nothing underhanded about doing so. The baseline for mean temperature anomaly in each data set is just an arbitrarily chosen zero reference.

    “So you say – most people would say it is already there, and all you are saying is that you cannot add it twice.”

    Yes. You cannot add it from the emissions because it is already added in by the temperature relationship when you match the variational components.

  240. Bart says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 25, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    “Why on earth do you think they matter?”

    Because such are the clues which tell you what is truly happening. They are the distinguishing characteristics by which you can separate suspects from culprits. Like fingerprints. Why would anyone care about some tiny ridges on a person’s finger? Because when you match them, then you’ve found the perpetrator of the crime.

  241. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    “The bias offset is then just the obvious baseline to which the temperature anomalies should be referenced.
    And so it is just a coincidence that it just happens to be the value which detrends the CO2 series?

    If you actually do the integral of,
    d(co2)/dt = 0.19T + 0.14
    from 1979 to the present (i.e. the range of the data you used) then only 1 ppm of the change in CO2 comes from the integral of 0.19T. Do you not think that this means that claiming that these fluctuations are significant is the straw man here?
    I might add that the equation is hopeless at hindcasting – it would have predicted that CO2 fell in the 1960′s

  242. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    “Because such are the clues which tell you what is truly happening.

    Fine, you think that something that is zero within experimental error is significant. I don’t. I will leave this to someone else to continue.

  243. Bart says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    November 25, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    “Do you not think that this means that claiming that these fluctuations are significant is the straw man here?”

    Yes. It is the converse, that the large trend tells you something, which is incorrect. A trend is very vanilla. Very commonplace. It is almost impossible to uniquely identify it with anything.

    “I might add that the equation is hopeless at hindcasting – it would have predicted that CO2 fell in the 1960′s”

    Apparently not. Yes, this is a different time series, with different fit coefficients, mainly in the arbitrary offset bias. But, the two datasets have different baselines to begin with. Which just goes to show that the baseline is arbitrary to begin with.

    “Fine, you think that something that is zero within experimental error is significant.”

    Who determines the experimental error? How is that error affected by all the filtering to get the end product? E.g., independent errors are attenuated by 1/sqrt(N) when you have an N-point average.

    This appears to be an attempt to avoid accepting that this is an incredibly good fit to everything which is going on.

  244. Bart said:

    ““Doesn’t Ferdinand’s comment confirm that oceanic emissions are leaner in C13 than the emissions from the land based biosphere so increasing oceanic emissions on their own would dilute 13C in the atmosphere would it not ?”

    Hmm, good catch. Maybe you stumbled over your wording, Ferdinand?”

    I don’t think he did but would appreciate confirmation.

    Vegetation absorbs C12 preferentially and releases C13 preferentially.

    Oceans appear to release C12 preferentially.

    Altering the relative speed and sizes of the land based vegetation and oceanic sources appears to naturally deplete C13 when the oceans are warm and naturally increase C13 when the oceans are colder. If the rate of oceanic release of C12 runs ahead of the rate of vegetative release of C13 then the proportion of C13 will be diluted as actually observed with no need to blame our emissions.

    Furthermore our fossil fuels generate C12 preferentially and so would be favoured for local and regional take up from energised land based vegetative sinks. CO2 being heavier than air would give plants a good chance of grabbing it before it mixed upward from convective uplift.

  245. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:27 am
    William Astley says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:17 am
    You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
    William, I am not the least interested in the origin of CH4, because there is no correlation between ocean temperature (integrated or not) and recent emissions of CH4 as can be seen as levels in the atmosphere. Neither are the current levels comparable with historical levels. By coincidence (?) sharply increasing when humans started to use it. Thus in my opinion, humans are the cause of the increase.
    William:

    I repeat again: “You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.”

    William: The above statement does not does include the word ‘CH4’. I am not talking about CH4. Are you trying to change the subject?

    Salby’s points out a fact that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of the ocean temperature rather than the change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. As anthropogenic emissions are increasing and ocean temperature in the last 17 has not increased that means a large percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 must be absorbed in the biosphere which does not makes sense based on the IPCC model (i.e. The IPCC model is incorrect.) That observation and the bomb test C14 changes in the atmosphere indicate that IPCC’s Bern model (which is used to model how long anthropogenic CO2 will remain in the atmosphere before mixing) is not correct.

    The Bern model has three relaxation times: 1.2, 19, and 173 years; to model the three CO2 sinks; land, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

    As I noted if there is significant mixing of the deep ocean with surface ocean water then a greater portion of the anthropogenic CO2 is mixed with the deep ocean. As the carbon in the deep ocean is more than 50 times greater than the carbon in the atmosphere the effects of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions is diluted if there is significant mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water. The heat hiding in the deep ocean requires there to be significant mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water. The warmists cannot have it both ways. The warmists hypothesis that heat is hiding in the ocean supports the assertion that the Bern equation is incorrect.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/

    The Bern model assumes there is not significant mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water which is not correct, as can be seen by figure 2 in this paper. The physical reason the C14 created in the atomic bomb tests of the 1960s drops to very, very, low levels is due to the fact that there is significant mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean water.

    http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper1.pdf

    Figure 2. The bombtest curve, compared with response functions proposed to
    account for the relaxation of an excess of atmospheric carbon dioxide

    As the paper notes below roughly 50% of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to the increase in the ocean surface temperature, not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper2.pdf

  246. John Whitman says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    I suggest in any update that you differentiate your position from the IPCC’s AR5 assessement of science on the carbon cycle. Skeptics have assessed there is systematic institutional bias wrt IPCC processes, so clarity wrt your position would be helpful.

    I think that skeptics need to make a differentiation between scientists sampling the best data available and “scientists” interpretating the same data.

    I have not the slightest reason to doubt most of the data which are collected by many scientists all over the world, of course within the error margins of each of these data. Some data are quite accurate, like the CO2 measurements over the past 50 years, thanks to rigorous quality control procedures. Others have (too) large errors, due to lack of quality control like is known for temperature measurements. In that way, the satellite measurements are a lot more accurate.

    Thus the data which were and are produced for the estimates of the carbon cycle still are far from complete and one discovers new surprises near every day. Which doesn’t say that the main fluxes aren’t known (again within large margins of error). There are no signs of an increase in turnover, which is necessary for Bart’s

    What is known sometimes is disputed by several skeptics, mostly based on “they fit the AGW theory, thus they must be wrong”, without any deeper look at the data. That is the case for the historical CO2 measurements collected by the late Ernst Beck and the ice core data collected by the late Jaworowski. Although I am sure that both have done a lot of rigorous work in their own field of interest, their conclusions were wrong and now completely outdated. But still their work is used by skeptics to doubt the historical CO2 levels in ice cores… Which makes that the credibility of skeptics on these points is seriously undermined.
    But even in the current discussion: there is no measurable migration of CO2 in ice cores (there is an unimportant small theoretical migration in “warm” ice cores), but Dr. Salby calculates a theoretical huge migration necessary to fit his theory, which makes that I doubt all of his theory, no matter how nice that may fit the CO2 curve…

    About the IPCC: I don’t believe one word of them anymore, except when verified in the original literature. The IPCC is a political organisation, which spread false information and suppresses any opposition (IPCC Vice President Van Ypersele pressed the Brussels University to forbid an open discussion with Fred Singer and Claes Johnsson).
    Thus I don’t accept the Bern model for CO2, because the real world doesn’t show any sign of saturation of the deep oceans or the biosphere, to the contrary.

  247. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    A sustained rise in the rate of incoming CO2 will continuously increase the pCO2 of the surface waters, until such a time as the pCO2 of the incoming waters matches the pCO2 of the surface waters, i.e., until the entire surface ocean is essentially replaced. That will continuously increase the pCO2 of the atmosphere.

    The release of CO2 from the deep oceans is only in a small part of the oceans mostly near the equator, the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig06.jpg

    A sustained rise at the upwelling places will give a sustained increased flux to the atmosphere, but that is leveled off by the increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere, which increases the CO2 uptake near the poles and decreases the CO2 release at the upwelling places.

    The only way to obtain a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 from upwelling is from a linear increase in upwelling combined with a linear increase in temperature…

  248. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    How representative is Bermuda? I would think the Pacific Ocean off of South America would be the ideal location to perform measurements.

    Bermuda is representative for the NH Atlantic gyre only, but we also have Hawaii for the North Pacific and a few other places. Besides that, there are regular ships measurements:
    http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/publication/abstracts/Gruber_etal_99_gbc_abstr.htm
    The upwelling places have the highest 13C/12C ratio, thanks to biolife…

  249. Richard says:

    @Ferdinand Engelbeen You wrote: “A temperature increase of 1 K causes a CO2 increase of ~16 ppmv in seawater, the 100+ ppmv increase caused by human emissions by far exceeds that”.

    I have no idea where you got that figure from? Wikipedia? It seems wrong to me in any case. As far as I can infer it would only take very minor changes in ocean temperature – not just ocean surface temperature – to increase atmospheric CO2 by 100ppmv. The calculations involved are rather straightforward and Wikipedia provides a van’t Hoff temperature-equation from which one can do the calculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law On a side-note Wikipedia’s claim that the “Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16°K increase in temperature” is an egregious misrepresentation of Takahashi et al 2002. A change of 1C would be enough to change CO2’s solubility by around 3%, which would be sufficient to increase the CO2 concentration by 530.4ppmv, assuming the entire ocean warmed, which contains 37,000 gigatonnes of carbon. Also, your claim that Henry’s law is redundant because CO2(aq) only equilibrates with CO2(g) is not true since all DIC exists in chemical equilibrium. There is 50 times as much CO2 as DIC in the oceans than the atmosphere, as required by Henry’s law. The same as there is in a carbonated drink at the same temperature.

  250. Stephen Wilde says:
    November 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Doesn’t Ferdinand’s comment confirm that oceanic emissions are leaner in C13 than the emissions from the land based biosphere so increasing oceanic emissions on their own would dilute 13C in the atmosphere would it not ?

    Stephen, the 13C/12C ratio is expressed in per mil δ13C, compared to a standard (Pee Dee Belemnite, PDB) mineral in the early days, nowadays a standard established during a conference in Vienna (V-PDB):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9413C
    13C indeed is slightly over 1% of all CO2, that is in oceans, air, vegetation and fossil fuels.
    The difference is in the 0.1 %’s of the 13C content, thus very small.

    The proportion of atmospheric C13 would be reduced whenever ocean emissions increased relative to the land based biosphere emissions and would be increased whenever ocean emissions decreased relative to the land based biosphere emissions.

    No, the δ13C level of the oceans, including the partitioning at the water-air border is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial release (or increase in circulation) from the oceans wil increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere.
    For the biosphere: that depends of when it is a net absorber or a net emitter: in the first case the δ13C level of the atmosphere will rise, in the second case the δ13C level will decrease. As the oxygen balance shows, the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2, thus increasing the δ13C level of the atmosphere.

    But we see a continuous decline of the δ13C level in the atmosphere, which completely parallels human emissions…

  251. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 3:01 am

    “… the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:”

    Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.

    “…but that is leveled off by the increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere…”

    Over a very, very long period of time. It only stops when the pCO2 of upwelling matches the pCO2 of all surface waters.

    “The only way to obtain a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 from upwelling is from a linear increase in upwelling combined with a linear increase in temperature…”

    Either way, you have effectively conceded that your comment here is false in general.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 3:28 am

    “The upwelling places have the highest 13C/12C ratio, thanks to biolife…”

    Do they? It appears, at least from this link, that the areas of upwelling are not really certain.

    Must go on an extended trip. Failure to respond to any further discussion is not indicative of acquiescence. The data are very clear that humans are not driving atmospheric CO2 concentration, and that fact will only become more apparent as we slide into an extended downturn in global temperatures. And, that is my last word on this thread.

  252. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 4:32 am

    OK, next to last word. This popped up when I posted.

    “But we see a continuous decline of the δ13C level in the atmosphere, which completely parallels human emissions…”

    Even if so, this is likely only coincidence. There are many possible explanations which do not involve human emissions. And, even if it is from human emissions, it does not follow that atmospheric CO2 is driven most significantly by humans. I made the analogy earlier to a well which is polluted via diffusion from a small stream of impurities dribbling in, but the impure stream does not drive the level of water in the well.

  253. William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 1:43 am

    You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Really?
    Here the graph of the increase in the atmosphere vs. total human emissions and temperature:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
    That gives for human emissions vs. atmospheric CO2:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
    and for temperature vs. atmospheric CO2:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg

    Human emissions do fit the increase in the atmosphere almost perfectly without using integration against an arbitrary baseline and without any physical basis…

    As anthropogenic emissions are increasing and ocean temperature in the last 17 has not increased that means a large percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 must be absorbed in the biosphere

    The uptake by the biosphere slightly increased over the past decades, bit still is low at ~1 GtC/yr. ~0.5 GtC is absorbed by the ocean surface and ~3 GtC by the deep oceans. Colder oceans (if they got colder at the sink places) absorb more CO2…

    The Bern model has three relaxation times: 1.2, 19, and 173 years; to model the three CO2 sinks; land, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

    If you have read some of my comments here, you would have noticed that I do reject the Bern model on the basis that there is no saturation of the deep oceans and vegetation in sight. My own estimate is an amount of ~40 GtC/yr which is cycling through the deep oceans and the atmosphere. That is based on the dilution of the δ13C “fingerprint” caused by human emissions.

    That is also the reason why the 14C/12C dropped faster than what can be expected from an excess amount of 12CO2 (or total CO2) in the atmosphere: because what returns out of the deep oceans is the much lower 14C/12C ratio of ~1000 years ago, but what goes into the deep oceans is the current composition. Thus the 14C decay is too fast and not representative for the decay of extra 12CO2 in the atmosphere…

  254. Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    You keep ignoring the trend in dCO2/dt, which is matched by the trend in temperatures when you match the variability.

    Sorry Bart, that is not true: for any of the temperature trends you can match the timing of the variability, but you can’t match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).

    The problem is that the full variability is matched by the integral of dT/dt, as that doesn’t change the amplitude, but because you need a factor to match the difference in slopes between T and dCO2/dt, you influence the amplitude of the variability. The smaller the dCO2/dt slope vs. the T slope, the smaller the amplitude gets. Thus there is something fundamentally wrong by combining variability and slope.

  255. Ferdinand said:

    “the δ13C level of the oceans, including the partitioning at the water-air border is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial release (or increase in circulation) from the oceans wil increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere.”

    The total C13 content for the atmosphere as a whole is not the correct comparator because it is a moving target dependent on the sum of all C13 from al the different sources of C13.

    You are conflating total atmospheric C13 content with the relative proportions of C12 and C13.

    The main sources of C13 being oceanic emission and vegetation emission.

    The oceans can add to total C13 yet still cause a change in the proportions of C12 and C13.

    You can have an increase in total C13 (as observed) whilst the proportion of C13 compared to C12 declines (as observed).

    To have that effect the oceans only need to provide less C13 as a proportion of ocean emissions than would vegetation as a proportion of its emissions.

    Do the oceans do that ?

    If they do, then an increased release of emissions from sun warmed oceans, having a lower proportion of C13 than vegetation emissions would dilute C13 as a proportion of the total whilst still leading to an overall increase in C13.

    Which is what we actually see isn’t it ?

  256. stephen wilde says:
    November 26, 2013 at 6:00 am

    Stephen, δ13C is a measure of the ratio between 13C and 12C in the atmosphere, not of absolute 13C levels.

    If some CO2 from the oceans is released, its 13C/12C ratio is higher than the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, thanks to little to abundant biolife. Higher with more biolife. No way that it will give a lowering of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.

    You can have an increase in total C13 (as observed) whilst the proportion of C13 compared to C12 declines (as observed).

    That can be if the increase of 12C is larger than the increase in 13C, as is the case for human emissions, compared to the atmospere. That can’t ever be from the oceans. It can be from vegetation, if and only if there is more vegetation decay than growth. But the current calculations show that vegetation is growing faster than decaying

  257. Phil. says:

    Bart says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    “- a finite increase in upwelling (either amount or concentration) gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    If by that, you mean a finite pulse in upwelling, then I agree. But, a sustained increase in upwelling concentration above that of current surface waters will gradually diffuse throughout the surface oceans, and continuously increase their concentration, which thereby continuously outgases to the atmosphere.

    But as I’ve told you before you’ve ignored the continuity equation of fluid mechanics, which says that for every m^3 of upwelling ocean water there is an equal m^3 of downwelling ocean water, typically near the poles carrying high concentration of CO2 down to the deep ocean to return to the surface ~1,000 years later. It is also an assumption on your part that the upwelling water is in fact super-saturated with CO2, any direct evidence to back that up?

    “But there is not the slightest sign that the upwelling (infact the througput) increased over time, to the contrary…”

    In fact, we do not have direct measurements of the rate of inflow of CO2 to the surface waters, so no way of dismissing the hypothesis.

    We do know that if upwelling increases then so does downwelling.

    This is, in fact, precisely what the observed temperature dependency of the rate of change of CO2 indicates to be likely. And, I only qualify it as “likely” because there could be other temperature dependent sources than the oceans. But, the oceans appear to be the most probable source.

    The temperature dependence is more likely to indicate the temperature dependence of the net sink terms since the overall flow is from the atmosphere to the ocean.

  258. Bart says:
    November 26, 2013 at 4:36 am

    Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.
    Also confirmed by the increase in DIC (total inorganic carbon), pH and pCO2 measurements at a lot of places. Maybe your interpretation of the data is wrong?

    Either way, you have effectively conceded that your comment here is false in general.

    I don’t see any problem with what I said.

    Do they? It appears, at least from this link, that the areas of upwelling are not really certain.

    But a link from that link shows that the upwelling places, which comprise some 5% of the oceans, are the places with the most abundant biolife:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling

  259. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 5:45 am

    Not proof read:
    but you can’t match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).
    but you can match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).

  260. Greg Goodman says:

    Bart: “I am not arguing on the basis of the linear trend in total CO2. I am arguing on the basis of the variability, and the quadratic factor in total CO2, i.e., the variability and trend in the rate of change of CO2. They match the trend in temperature with incredibly high fidelity.”

    Bart, I’m very interested in evaluating this relationship but I don’t think over-stating the case like you do here or calling it almost “perfect” like you did on Hockeyschtick is very helpful at all.

    It is easy to match integrals and frankly there are significant deviations in the plots you have done. That is not to say there is not a relationship but please try to be honest and realistic about quality of the fit. As per the comment I left on HS, if you plot the derivative of your two integrals it will look less impressive. This is, I think why Salby introduced the “ground conditions” argument, for which I eagerly await real numbers (not pics) and falsifiable claims.

    This may well relate to the land variations that Ferdi has linked information on.

    Ferdi:

    but you can match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence

    If I understand what you are referring to, it think it is shown here. In this graph I have attempted to match the long term variability not the inter-annual detail.
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223

    This is exactly the kind of effect produced by the low-pass filter action of the relaxation response. I explained this in rigorous detail in my article the in-phase and orthogonal responses that I’m getting tired of repeatedly linking.

    Both the direct and derivative response have a frequency dependant coefficient which looks like k/(1+(omega*tau)^2)

    So you will see a higher magnitude variation in fast changes than in to longer ones. More over the long term changes will be dominated by in-phase terms and the short-term by orthogonal (derivative) terms.

    This general description fits what we see and what you point to.

    Now I do not regard that as even weak proof that this is what is happening but it does show that that kind of model would fit. Our old climate science favourite : it is “consistent with”.

    So this scaling issue you point out tends to support rather than refute the presence of a temperature dependent effect. Though I would not state it more strongly than that at this stage.

  261. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 5:19 am
    William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 1:43 am
    You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
    Really?
    Here the graph of the increase in the atmosphere vs. total human emissions and temperature:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
    That gives for human emissions vs. atmospheric CO2:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
    and for temperature vs. atmospheric CO2:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
    Human emissions do fit the increase in the atmosphere almost perfectly without using integration against an arbitrary baseline and without any physical basis…

    William:
    Salby is a senior scientist who has written two textbooks. Salby has found an unexplained paradox. There is a paradox. Salby is not a crank. If the climate wars were not being fought Salby’s paradox would be addressed and solved rather than being ignored/hidden.

    Your comments, conclusion, and graph are not correct. I not sure if you are: disingenuous/crafty, ignorant, and/or that you lack scientific imagination/curiosity (Crafty, as a smart troll who makes up sciency looking things to confusion readers. Advanced smart trolls can get their work published which is the basis for climate gate.). I must admit that your incorrect categorical statement that there is no paradox concerns me when a back of the envelop calculation shows there is a paradox. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 58% from the 1990’s while atmospheric CO2 has only increased 25%.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are interested in understanding this subject from a scientific standpoint and simply lack scientific imagination which is the ability to compare competing hypotheses to solve problems. Scientific curiosity is also required (Indication of scientific curiosity would be that you had read Nobel prize winner Thomas Gold’s book on the origin of: 1) hydrocarbons, 2) the origin and evolution of our planet’s atmosphere, and 3) the origin and evolution of oceans on the surface of the planet which is most definitely involved to explain Salby’s paradox).

    Could you please provide a link to the source data CO2 rise and source data anthropogenic CO2 emission by year.

    As the anthropogenic CO2 has increased particularly in the last 17 years a smaller and small percentage remains in the atmosphere. That is a fact, an observation, not a theory. That does not make physical sense in terms of the physical assumptions of the IPCC model and does not agree with the IPCC carbon sources and sink models. The IPCC assumes as the planet warms and the ocean ph increases the biosphere’s ability to absorb CO2 reduces not increases.

  262. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 26, 2013 at 4:15 am
    @Ferdinand Engelbeen You wrote: “A temperature increase of 1 K causes a CO2 increase of ~16 ppmv in seawater, the 100+ ppmv increase caused by human emissions by far exceeds that”.

    I have no idea where you got that figure from? Wikipedia? It seems wrong to me in any case. As far as I can infer it would only take very minor changes in ocean temperature – not just ocean surface temperature – to increase atmospheric CO2 by 100ppmv. The calculations involved are rather straightforward and Wikipedia provides a van’t Hoff temperature-equation from which one can do the calculation:

    I think that you must have done the calculations incorrectly then, because Ferdinand’s value is consistent with all the values I’ve seen published. Try using this on-line calculator, you’ll see much lower sensitivity than you’re suggesting:

    http://www.microcosmofscience.com/CO2%20and%20TIC%20calculator.html#pco2uatm

  263. William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 8:36 am

    William, I am not impressed by someone’s titles, if what he/she say isn’t based on observable data. The graphs I provided are based on observed data.
    If the fact that about halve the human emissions are going into known or unknown (“missing”) sinks doesn’t change the fact that human emissions are probably the caues and more than sufficient to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So does the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. So does every known observation. The solution Salby promotes doesn’t fit several observations. So, in my informed opinion, Salby is wrong.

    The CO2 data of different stations can be found at:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
    human emissions are here:
    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

    The percentage remaining CO2 from human emissions hardly changed over the years, within the huge variability caused by temperature:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg

  264. Greg Goodman says:

    Once again the low-pass filtering effect can be seen in both in-phase and orthog:
    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399

  265. Greg Goodman says:
    November 26, 2013 at 8:23 am

    So you will see a higher magnitude variation in fast changes than in to longer ones. More over the long term changes will be dominated by in-phase terms and the short-term by orthogonal (derivative) terms.

    I don’t think that is the problem. The problem is that Bart (and Salby) combine the short term variability with the long term trend which are (near) completely independent of each other. The short term variability is near entirely caused by temperature, while the trend is near entirely caused by another (not or less temperature dependent) process.

    Here a simulated example of a sinusoid + trend of temperature causing a 70 ppmv trend in CO2 (with a small sinusoid, 90 deg shifted in phase):
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_co2_temp_00.jpg
    and here the derivatives:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom_00.jpg

    I did give the Tanomaly a small factor to show the still perfect timing, but in fact the amplitude should be zero because there is no trend in the derivative of CO2 while there is a trend in T.
    Even if there is a small non-linear component in the CO2 increase, there is no reason that the slope in dCO2/dt should match the slope of T which is necessary to match the amplitude of the variability.

    On the other side, the zeroed variability of dT/dt always matches the variability of dCO2/dt after integrating, no matter the slope of dCO2/dt.

    Which points to different, (near) independent processes at work…

  266. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 10:39 am
    William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 8:36 am
    William, I am not impressed by someone’s titles, if what he/she say isn’t based on observable data. The graphs I provided are based on observed data.
    If the fact that about halve the human emissions are going into known or unknown (“missing”) sinks doesn’t change the fact that human emissions are probably the caues and more than sufficient to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So does the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. So does every known observation. The solution Salby promotes doesn’t fit several observations. So, in my informed opinion, Salby is wrong.

    William:
    You need a better pair of spectacles (the anomaly is visually obvious from the graph) and/or need some training in mathematical analysis and some need some understanding of the physical problem (there is a change in slope, really quite basic).

    Graph the data in piecewise segments comparing 1970 to 1990 and 1990 to present. Anthropogenic CO2 has increased 58% while atmospheric CO2 has only increased 25%. The ‘missing’ carbon sink is absorbing more anthropogenic CO2 in terms of percentage 1990 to present, as compared to 1970 to 1990.

    Salby has not promoted a ‘solution’ Salby has pointed out an observational fact which is a paradox, something that is not explained by the Bern model, something that indicates the Bern model is incorrect.

    Your comments concerning the bombtest data were not correct. The Bern model has three terms in it as there are three different large carbon sinks/reservoirs: land, surface ocean, and deep ocean. As I have noted three times above – you ignore my comments – if the Bern model was correct, atmospheric C14 would have decline to a plateau as it reaches equilibrium with the smaller carbon reservoirs (land and surface ocean). That is not what is observed. The C14 drops to very low levels as it is mixing with the deep ocean reservoir.
    http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper1.pdf

    As the carbon reservoir in the deep ocean is more than 50 times greater than the carbon in the atmosphere if there is significant mixing of the deep ocean with surface ocean water then this no plateau in C14 as the atmospheric C14 is mixing with the massive deep ocean reservoir.

    The warmists of course have noted that heat is hiding the deep ocean. The only way heat can hide in the deep ocean if for there to be mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean. The warmists need to get together if they want to avoid embarrassing propaganda paradoxes.

    Ferdinand said: So does every known observation.
    William: List every known observation which you believe contradicts Salby’s observation. Salby has discovered a paradox. Observations do remove a paradox. Scientists look for additional paradoxes as they can provide a clue to the ‘solution’.

    I see you ignore the fact that detailed phase analysis of CO2 changes vs temperature changes supports Salby’s observation. Temperature changes first and then CO2 rises 7 out of 8 times. As the paper notes the rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with changes in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The detailed mathematical phase analysis agrees (finds another paradox, effect occurs before cause) with Salby’s observation. http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

  267. William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    need some training in mathematical analysis and some need some understanding of the physical problem (there is a change in slope, really quite basic).

    If you take a better look: in the period 1975-1995 there was no increase in rate of change of CO2 either.

    Further, so what? Does a change in sink rate prove that humans are not the cause of the increase? As long as it is a sink rate in whatever sinks still humans are the prime suspect of the increase in the atmosphere and if you don’t have hard proof in observations like turnover, isotope ratio’s, etc… it is the only suspect. A model, any model is not proof until proven…

    Salby has not promoted a ‘solution’ Salby has pointed out an observational fact which is a paradox, something that is not explained by the Bern model, something that indicates the Bern model is incorrect.

    I do completely agree with Salby that the Bern model is wrong, but I completely disagree with Salby that the integral of temperature is the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    And the 14C decay of the bomb tests is not comparable with the decay of an injection of extra CO2. Thus while that is not proof of a failing Bern model, the fact that there is no sign of slow down of the sink rate is proof that the Bern model is wrong.

    List every known observation which you believe contradicts Salby’s observation.
    - a slight increase in residence time over the most recent estimates. If Alaby is right, there must be an increase in outgassing/turnover from the oceans (vegetation is a proven sink), thus a reduction in residence time over time. But we see a slight increase. What means a rather constant turnover in a growing reservoir.
    - a firm decrease in δ13C over time in ratio with human emissions in atmosphere and ocean surface waters. Any release from the oceans would increase the δ13C ratio and as the biosphere is a proven sink, that is also a source of extra 13C.
    - no change in the decay rate of the bomb test 14C spike. If the oceans would increase emissions/turnover then the decay rate would increase over time.
    2 out of 3 are observations the residence times are estimates based on observations. One observation is sufficient to reject a theory…

    As the paper notes the rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with changes in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    The rise in CO2 correlates for 99.93% with the rise in human emissions, temperature for 80.61%.
    The high correlation with temperature is in the derivatives for the short term variability, but that says next to nothing about the cause of the trend.

    The Humlum e.a. paper contains serious flaws:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

  268. William Astley says:

    In reply to:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm
    William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    The Humlum e.a. paper contains serious flaws:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

    It appears you have not read the Humlum paper. The Humlum paper uses phase analysis which is an examination of the timing of different events that occur cyclically to determine cause and effect. The phase analysis supports the conclusion of the Humlum paper.

    The paper you quote (a pathetic warmist paper) ignores the Humlum phase analysis (i.e. the counter paper does not criticize the phase analysis or offer new phase analysis) and instead claims the conclusion of the Humlum paper must be incorrect due to mass balance. The counter paper applies the Bern model to arrive at their conclusion that Humlum’s phase analysis must be incorrect.

    The Humlum paper’s result and the bombtest analysis, shows the Bern model is incorrect.
    The flaw of the Humlum paper is it unequivocally supports Salby’s finding that the majority of the CO2 increase (more than 50%) was due to the increase in temperature of the ocean rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Please do not go away, if Humlum and Salbys’ conclusion is correct atmospheric CO2 will drop as the planet cools. I am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the complete failure of the warmist theory with a true believer.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
    http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    “Thus, summing up for the analysis of the NCDC data, changes in atmospheric CO2 is lagging 9.5-12 months behind changes in surface air temperatures calculated for the two main types of planetary surface, land and ocean, respectively. The strongest correlation (0.45) between atmospheric CO2 and NCDC temperature is found in relation to ocean surface air temperatures, suggesting a rather strong coupling from changes in ocean temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2.”
    “The correlation coefficient is considerably higher (0.56) for the Southern Hemisphere than for the Northern Hemisphere (0.26), indicating the association between changes in hemispherical temperature and changes in global atmospheric CO2 to be especially strong for the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, both analyses suggest a mainly Southern Hemisphere origin of observed DIFF12 changes for atmospheric CO2.”
    “Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”

    William:
    The physical implications of the sets of observations and anomalies (the C12/C13 change in the atmosphere requires an explanation, Thomas Gold has a entire book listing anomalies and the start of a physical theory to resolve the anomalies) are 1) there is significant mixing of the deep ocean waters with surface ocean waters particularly in the Southern hemisphere (point 1 an interchange of deep ocean water with surface ocean water causes there to be large change in atmosphere CO2 when there is change in ocean surface water temperature) 2) there is a significant source of low C13, CO2 in the deep ocean – it appears based on other analysis that the source of the CO2 is primordial CH4 which is very low in C13 that is then converted to CO2 by micro bacterial action. The CH4 is released at the spreading of the ocean floor that occurs throughout the ocean. In some cases a portion of the primordial CH4 is carried by the spreading ocean floor under the continents where it causes mountain bands to form at the edges of continents. This explains why there is a band of mountains at some but not all thrust faults as the ocean floor moves beneath the continents.

  269. eric1skeptic says:

    Bart (November 26, 2013 at 4:36 am) Ferdinand said “… the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:” Bart gave the same link as above showing small fluctuations of CO2 somewhat correlated with temperature. Bart “Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.”

    Bart we can all agree your small fluctuations of CO2 are caused by temperature changes with possible lags and noise due to the temperature being a global atmospheric temperature index and not the SST in the warmer regions that outgas CO2.

    But what Ferdinand and I are saying is that those fluctuations represent small changes in the net absorption of CO2 by the oceans. The oceans absorb CO2 continuously, there is never net outgassing. But the total absorption is modulated a bit by temperature.

    There are many ways to demonstrate this from evidence presented in this thread. One of the best ways uses your WFT chart which shows that the time constant for the small, somewhat-correlated fluctuations is very short even with rather large temperature fluctuations. If the oceans were performing net outgassing then the time constant would be long to meet your requirement you stated to me above, namely:

    “It is cumulative. Once you have a temperature offset, the accumulation of CO2 continues, whether the temperature changes again or not.”

    If oceans were net outgassing and accumulation slowly continues, then there would be no rapid following of CO2 (albeit small) to rather large fluctuations in temperature (e.g. the 1997/8 El Nino). What makes more sense in that case is that there is net in-gassing mostly independent of short term temperature changes but very slightly modulated by the temperature.

  270. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi: “The percentage remaining CO2 from human emissions hardly changed over the years, within the huge variability caused by temperature:”
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg

    Thanks , that graph is interesting. it shows that the deviation does indeed seem related to temperature. Could you explain exactly what your “emm-f(dpCO2)” means?

    This sort of think could be explained by a number of factors (increase of energy going into air-con installations, changes in out-gassing, greater deviation of atm CO2 from equilibrium ) but it’s interesting to look at.

  271. We need a source of C12 large enough to swamp the C12 emitted by our fossil fuel emissions thereby causing a decline in the proportion of C13 without our involvement.

    This is interesting:

    “Where cold waters well up from the depths (such as in the North Atlantic), the water carries 12C back up with it”

    from here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_carbon

    It has previously been proposed that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 might be linked to returning CO2 rich waters from the thermohaline circulation hence the time lag of 800 years or so between temperature changes and the atmospheric response.

    Could such returning C12 rich water be affecting the atmospheric isotope ratio ?

  272. eric1sceptic said:

    ” What makes more sense in that case is that there is net in-gassing mostly independent of short term temperature changes but very slightly modulated by the temperature.”

    For a stable system that would make sense because ocean life forms constantly sequester carbon to the ocean floor in their skeletons.

    However one should consider internal ocean behaviour modulated by temperature variations (probably solar induced) on that 800 year time lag.

    The ocean cycles would thus vary either side of equilibrium sometimes net absorbing and sometimes net releasing and in periods of net release it appears that the excess would be C12 rich due to more cold water upwelling from the depths.

  273. William Astley says:
    November 26, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    I had read the Humlum paper when it was published and several reaction on it thereafter, but couldn’t remember where I had seen the most important rebuttal.

    Anyway, from memory: by taking the DIFF12, Humlum e.a. effectively remove the long term trend from the graph and only look at the short term variations.

    It is the same for Bart, Salby and Humlum: they project the fast variations, where everybody agrees (warmists as well as skeptics) that they are caused by fast temperature variations to the longer term trend. But the fast variations and the long term trends come from different near independent processes, no matter if the second process is temperature related of human emissions related.

    Their conclusions therefore are not based on observations, which in fact contradict them:

    Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2

    Well, have a look at the difference in timing of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
    There is a lag of 6 months to 2 years between SH CO2 levels and NH CO2 levels, which points to a CO2 source in the NH, not in de SH.
    Which effectively shows that the conclusion of Humlum e.a. about the origin of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong.

    there is a significant source of low C13, CO2 in the deep ocean – it appears based on other analysis that the source of the CO2 is primordial CH4 which is very low in C13 that is then converted to CO2 by micro bacterial action.

    That is possible, but until now that has no measurable influence of the δ13C level of the deep oceans, which still is around zero per mil. When that water comes near the surface it brings lots of nutritients from the deep with it, increasing plankton growth and all subsequent biolife. The net result: a firm increase of δ13C(+1 to +5 per mil) in the ocean surface at the upwelling places and an increase of δ13C in the atmosphere (at -8 per mil) if CO2 from that source is released.

  274. “The net result: a firm increase of δ13C(+1 to +5 per mil) in the ocean surface at the upwelling places and an increase of δ13C in the atmosphere (at -8 per mil) if CO2 from that source is released.”

    Is there evidence in support of that ?

    The creation of more C13 by biological activity near the surface might offset some of the effect of upwelling C12 rich water but does it negate it completely ?

    My link also says:

    “when the plankton dies, it sinks and takes away 12C from the surface, leaving the surface layers relatively rich in 13C.”

    That might not happen if the 12C taken away from the surface is constantly replaced by even more C12 coming up. That C12 flooding up could leave the emissions to the atmosphere less rich in C13 than the average atmospheric level.

    A great deal could be explained if the upwelling C12 rich water does overwhelm the biological response. There are other factors that determine how much biological activity can occur.

  275. Greg Goodman says:
    November 26, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Thanks , that graph is interesting. it shows that the deviation does indeed seem related to temperature. Could you explain exactly what your “emm-f(dpCO2)” means?

    emissions minus the decay function of CO2 which is
    k*(Cobs – Ceq)
    where k = 4.5/230 GtC/yr/GtC
    and Ceq = 290 ppmv (1870) + k2*(T – T1870)
    where k2 = 8 ppmv/K

    This sort of think could be explained by a number of factors (increase of energy going into air-con installations, changes in out-gassing, greater deviation of atm CO2 from equilibrium ) but it’s interesting to look at.

    The emissions can explain the trend, while the short term temperature (and moisture) variation does explain the short term variation in the CO2 rate of change.
    The rather fixed ratio between emissions and increase in the atmosphere is more coincidental and probably caused by the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions. With fixed emissions, the increase in the atmosphere would go assymptotically to a new equilibrium…

  276. stephen wilde says:
    November 27, 2013 at 2:36 am

    Is there evidence in support of that ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
    look for “High productivity”

    That might not happen if the 12C taken away from the surface is constantly replaced by even more C12 coming up.

    The deep oceans at zero δ13C still are richer in 13C then the 13C level in the atmosphere, but poorer that the surface waters. Thus even if more CO2 is released directly from the deep oceans, that would slightly increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere, be it borderline.

    Nevertheless, the decline of δ13C in the atmosphere is so strong that there is no way that the oceans can have caused that, to the contrary: the higher δ13C from the CO2 circulation through the atmosphere reduced the δ13C decline in the atmosphere to 1/3rd of what can be expected from human emissions:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg

  277. Nick Stokes says:

    William Astley says: November 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
    “if the Bern model was correct, atmospheric C14 would have decline to a plateau as it reaches equilibrium with the smaller carbon reservoirs (land and surface ocean). That is not what is observed. The C14 drops to very low levels as it is mixing with the deep ocean reservoir.
    http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper1.pdf

    The paper you link to is no longer there. But I remember it from the time of Prof P’s original post. It was wrong, because it dealt with a Δ expressed in terms of the ratio of C14 to C. But we have been putting very large amounts of CO2 in the air from fossil fuels which has no C14. Δ would by now be substantially negative, relative to 1950, because of this dilution. So “low levels” are not surprising.

  278. Greg Goodman says:

    Ferdi: emissions minus the decay function of CO2 which is
    k*(Cobs – Ceq)
    where k = 4.5/230 GtC/yr/GtC

    ===

    Thanks. So that brings us back to the question of the 51 year time const that you have so far ignored on several requests:
    how do you derive k = 4.5/230 ; (and hence tau=230/4.5=51)

  279. Richard says:

    Phil Wrote:

    “I think that you must have done the calculations incorrectly then, because Ferdinand’s value is consistent with all the values I’ve seen published. Try using this on-line calculator, you’ll see much lower sensitivity than you’re suggesting”.

    The calculation, as I said above, is exceptionally straightforward, and I re-calculated it, and, got the same result: a change of 1°C alters CO2’s solubility by 3%, the result is also supported by graphs that have been posted, funnily enough, on this very site, see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/basic-geology-part-2-co2-in-the-atmosphere-and-ocean/ Try it yourself using the van’t Hoff temperature equation on Wikipedia’s Henry’s law page, and tell me what result you get. Also, you say that Ferdinand’s value is ‘consistent’ with the papers you have seen published. Would you mind citing these papers and perhaps pulling a few quotes out? Also, were those calculations of the entire ocean or just the surface layer? Anyway, the working out for my calculation can be seen on my blog here if you’re interested: http://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/it-is-often-asserted-by-cagw-advocates.html

  280. chipstero7 says:

    Just to point something out, the WattsUpWithThat article I cited above estimates a change in CO2’s solubility of 4% from a 1°C change which the article claims would “roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere”, whereas I calculated independently a 3% change using the equation on Wikipedia. I decided to stick with the conservative estimate of 3%.

  281. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 27, 2013 at 5:26 am
    Phil Wrote:

    “I think that you must have done the calculations incorrectly then, because Ferdinand’s value is consistent with all the values I’ve seen published. Try using this on-line calculator, you’ll see much lower sensitivity than you’re suggesting”.

    The calculation, as I said above, is exceptionally straightforward, and I re-calculated it, and, got the same result: a change of 1°C alters CO2’s solubility by 3%, the result is also supported by graphs that have been posted, funnily enough, on this very site, see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ and here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/basic-geology-part-2-co2-in-the-atmosphere-and-ocean/ Try it yourself using the van’t Hoff temperature equation on Wikipedia’s Henry’s law page, and tell me what result you get.

    The problem is is that the calculation is not ‘exceptionally straightforward’, Henry’s Law can not be applied the simple way you do for a gas which reacts with the solvent, which is the case with CO2 (see any Physical chemistry text). Consequently you have to allow for the shift in the chemical equilibria involved, this is what the Revelle factor does.
    Checkout the web calculator I suggested, notice the effect of pH.

    http://www.microcosmofscience.com/CO2%20and%20TIC%20calculator.html#pco2uatm

  282. Richard says:

    That’s rather vague Phil. The calculation to determine changes in CO2′s solubility due to temperature changes is indeed straightfoward and the graphs I have referenced from this site support my result. Also changes in pH will not change CO2′s solubility as you appear to be thinking it does, it merely changes the ratio of all species of CO2 expressed as DIC. Furthermore I have no idea what you mean when you say “Henry’s law cannot be applied” since I wasn’t even applying Henry’s law when I calculated the change in CO2′s solubility. Also what do you mean when you say “you have to allow for the shift in chemical equilbria involved” and “this is what the Revelle Factor does”. Could you elaborate here? If you don’t trust my calculations or can’t verify it independently for yourself my advice would be to take a look at that Watts-Up-With-That article I cited showing that a change of 1C in ocean temperature would be sufficient by itself to “roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere”.

  283. Greg Goodman says:
    November 27, 2013 at 3:51 am

    I thought that I had explained that on November 25, 2013 at 12:51 pm, or do you mean the figures themselves?

    The current increase in the atmosphere is ~110 ppmv (=230 GtC) above equilibrium. The current sink rate (emissions – increase in the atmosphere) is ~2.15 ppmv/yr (= 4.5 GtC/yr), which gives an excess e-fold decay rate of 110/2.15 or 230/2.5 or slightly over 50 years.

  284. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 27, 2013 at 9:36 am
    That’s rather vague Phil. The calculation to determine changes in CO2′s solubility due to temperature changes is indeed straightfoward and the graphs I have referenced from this site support my result. Also changes in pH will not change CO2′s solubility as you appear to be thinking it does, it merely changes the ratio of all species of CO2 expressed as DIC. Furthermore I have no idea what you mean when you say “Henry’s law cannot be applied” since I wasn’t even applying Henry’s law when I calculated the change in CO2′s solubility.

    That’s strange because you said that you used the Van’t Hoff isochore to calculate the dependence of the Henry’s Law coefficient which you then used to calculate the new solubility!

  285. Richard says:
    November 27, 2013 at 5:26 am

    Sorry Richard, seems that I have missed your first message…

    The calculation, as I said above, is exceptionally straightforward, and I re-calculated it, and, got the same result: a change of 1°C alters CO2’s solubility by 3%

    If we may assume that the 3% is the same for seawater as for fresh water (which is not the case, seawater can absorb about 10 times more CO2 – that is what the Revelle factor says), that means that the pCO2 of seawater increased with several %. Let us assume 3% (see further for the exact calculation).

    Then per Henry’s law, to bring seawater back into equilibrium with the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure need to increase with 3% and everything is back into equilibrium. 3% of the atmospheric pressure is ~10 ppmv. A little at the low side, but the 3% increase in pCO2 of seawater is not that exact.

    I have looked at your web page, but what you wrote is not exactly right: the mass difference of carbon in the atmosphere vs. oceans indeed is 1:50, but mass doesn’t play any role here. Henry’s law is about pressure differences, not about mass differences.

    To give an example: if you shake a bottle of coke of 0.5 or 1.o or 1.5 l, filled from the same batch, you will find (nearly) the same pressure under the screw cap at the same temperature…

    Now the exact calculation:
    From http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/LMG06_8_data_report.doc
    For regular seaship cruises, the pCO2 measurements at the instrument are corrected towards the real (in situ) seawater temperature with following formula:
    (pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]

    for a seawater pCO2 value of 400 μatm, an increase of 1 K temperature will give 417 μatm or an increase of 17 μatm. That will give an increase in inflow in the atmosphere from the oceans (and decrease in outflow), until the atmosphere also increased with 17 μatm:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

  286. Nick Stokes says:

    Phil. says: November 27, 2013 at 7:44 am
    “Checkout the web calculator I suggested, notice the effect of pH.”

    I have a more graphical version here.

  287. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    Ferdinand at 2:41am
    The rather fixed ratio between emissions and increase in the atmosphere is more coincidental and probably caused by the slightly quadratic increase of human emissions.

    I would have said that the roughly constant ratio of about 0.5 is due to having two large reservoirs, the atmosphere and the rest of the biosphere, which interchange CO2 at a large rate. If you add a comparatively small amount of CO2 to one reservoir, then you will end up with half of the increase in each, provided the rate of transfer between reservoirs is greater than the rate at which something is added to one.

  288. Richard says:

    “I have looked at your web page, but what you wrote is not exactly right: the mass difference of carbon in the atmosphere vs. oceans indeed is 1:50, but mass doesn’t play any role here. Henry’s law is about pressure differences, not about mass differences”.

    But the partitioning ratio for CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans is around 1:50 at the average surface temperature of 15°C, and as far as I understand, this is why there exists significantly more CO2 in the oceans, approximately 50 times, than the atmosphere. This partitioning ratio is governed by pressure differences, as you say, not mass, but the mass of CO2 in the oceans is still 50 times that of the atmosphere per meter squared. This implies that only about 2% of human CO2 emissions can stay in the atmosphere to be added to the CO2 greenhouse while the other 98% must be absorbed into the oceans. The arithmetic is straightforward and Henry’s law has been around since the end of the 19th century so I am a bit surprised that the climate science community seems to be largely unaware of it. Well, not all the scientific community. Prof Tom Segalstad has some good papers on Henry’s law that I would recommend you checking out. I dare say, you already have.

    “For a seawater pCO2 value of 400 μatm, an increase of 1 K temperature will give 417 μatm or an increase of 17 μatm. That will give an increase in inflow in the atmosphere from the oceans (and decrease in outflow), until the atmosphere also increased with 17 μatm”.

    I remember reading an article by Ed Caryl a few months ago on this very subject and him reaching a similar conclusion to me and you swiftly rebutting the article in question by saying the same thing you have told me, i.e. that Henry’s law implies an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 16ppmv in response to a 1°C change. However it’s not immediately obvious how you reached that conclusion. Would you mind showing your working out? You know, some good old-fashioned math? You see, the calculation I performed on my blog was to see how much a given temperature change would alter CO2’s solubility coefficient using the aforementioned van’t Hoff and then to calculate the subsequent change in CO2’s aqueous concentration using Henry’s law. The result I got from a 0.272°C change was a decrease from 1.259×10^5mol/L to 1.249×10^-5 mol/L. I still see no apparent problem with that calculation so far. But we’ve been here before Ferdinand, many times, when we discussed the validity of the ice-core data on Joanne Nova’s blog and the inapplicability of the Revelle Factor.

  289. Richard says:
    November 28, 2013 at 7:39 am

    Let us start with the mass difference:

    The ocean contains some 40,000 GtC
    The atmosphere contains some 800 GtC
    or a ratio of 50:1

    The exchange between deep oceans and atmosphere is quite slow (estimated at ~40 GtC/year in and out), but (near) unlimited in capacity. Thus the human emissions indeed will disappear in the deep oceans sooner or later and leaving an increase of ~1% in deep oceans and atmosphere when everything is in equilibrium. The estimated e-fold time is ~50 years, the half life time under 40 years.

    The exchange of CO2 between deep oceans and atmosphere simply goes in and out. As long as there is no difference between the influxes and outfluxes, there is not the slightest change in CO2 of the atmosphere or the oceans.

    Thus what happens if there is a gobal increase in ocean temperature?
    - first the pCO2 of the ocean water increases with 17 μatm for the same CO2 concentration at the upwelling and downwelling places.
    - the increase in pCO2 at the upwelling places increases the influx of the atmosphere with about 5% (as the difference in pCO2 between upwelling waters and atmosphere increases with ~5%).
    - the increase in pCO2 at the upwelling places decreases the outflux from the atmosphere with about 5% (as the difference in pCO2 between upwelling waters and atmosphere decreases with ~5%).
    - both the increase in influx and the decrease of outfluxgives an imbalance between inputs and outputs and thus increase the CO2 level (~pCO2) of the atmosphere.
    - an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere reduces the inflow from the oceans and increase the outflow into the oceans, thus effectively re-establishing the equilibrium in in/out fluxes, but at a higher pCO2 in the atmosphere.
    - the new equilibrium is reached if the pCO2 of the atmosphere is increased with 17 μatm.
    - the total amount of CO2 needed to increase the pCO2 in the atmosphere is about 37 GtC.

    Here the graph of what happened with fluxes and CO2 levels in the atmosphere after a sudden temperature rise of 1K:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

    Thus for 1 K increase in temperature, the deep oceans need to deliver 37 GtC to the atmosphere. or 0.1% of its carbon content. That is all. And everything is back in equilibrium…

  290. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 28, 2013 at 10:46 am

    Maybe I need to clarify the calculation a little further:

    The pCO2 at the upwelling places can reach 750 μatm at the upwelling places. That gives about 40 GtC/yr inflow in the atmosphere with a pressure difference of 750 – 400 μatm.

    If the temperature increases with 1 K, the pCO2 of the oceans gets 767 μatm and the influx increases with:
    40 GtC/yr * 367/350 = 41.9 GtC/yr or about +5%

    The reverse happens at the sink side. But when the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases, the differences go back to the old values…

    The result I got from a 0.272°C change was a decrease from 1.259×10^5mol/L to 1.249×10^-5 mol/L.

    That is right and shows what happens at the surface of the upwelling places. That is what increases the influx from the oceans in the atmosphere. But that is reversed when the pressure in the atmosphere is increasing. A higher pressure in the atmosphere does push more CO2 into the ocean surface (or gives less release).

    Think again at the three different sized Coke bottles: once the equilibrium pressure is reached (for changes in temperature), no more CO2 is going from the liquid into the atmosphere above it, no matter how much difference of mass there is in the liquid.

  291. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 27, 2013 at 9:36 am
    That’s rather vague Phil. The calculation to determine changes in CO2′s solubility due to temperature changes is indeed straightfoward and the graphs I have referenced from this site support my result. Also changes in pH will not change CO2′s solubility as you appear to be thinking it does, it merely changes the ratio of all species of CO2 expressed as DIC.

    Not true, you’re not doing the calculations correctly for seawater!
    E.g. “If the surface ocean PCO concentrations continue to increase in proportion with the atmospheric CO increase, a doubling of atmospheric CO from preindustrial levels will result in a 30% decrease in carbonate ion concentration and a 60% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. As the carbonate ion concentration decreases, the Revelle factor increases and the ocean’s ability to absorb more CO from the atmosphere is diminished. The impact of this acidification can already be observed today and could have ramifications for the biological feedbacks in the future [Feely et al., 2004].”
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml
    Also using: http://www.microcosmofscience.com/CO2%20and%20TIC%20calculator.html#pco2uatm
    Seawater, pH 8.05, temperature 16ºC, salinity 35 ppK, total alkalinity 2.4 mmole/L has an equilibrium pCO2 of 390.73 µatm and TIC of 2.1415 mole/L
    reduce the pH to 8.00 and you get pCO2 of 447.78 µatm and TIC of 2.1683 mole/L

    Furthermore I have no idea what you mean when you say “Henry’s law cannot be applied” since I wasn’t even applying Henry’s law when I calculated the change in CO2′s solubility.

    In your latest post you contradicted this: “You see, the calculation I performed on my blog was to see how much a given temperature change would alter CO2’s solubility coefficient using the aforementioned van’t Hoff and then to calculate the subsequent change in CO2’s aqueous concentration using Henry’s law.”

    Also what do you mean when you say “you have to allow for the shift in chemical equilbria involved” and “this is what the Revelle Factor does”. Could you elaborate here?

    “We derive explicit expressions of the Revelle factor and several other buffer factors of interest to climate change scientists and those studying ocean acidification. These buffer factors quantify the sensitivity of CO2 and H+ concentrations ([CO2] and [H+]) and CaCO3 saturation (Ω) to changes in dissolved inorganic carbon concentration (DIC) and alkalinity (Alk). The explicit expressions of these buffer factors provide a convenient means to compare the degree of buffering of [CO2], [H+], and Ω in different regions of the oceans and at different times in the future and to gain insight into the buffering mechanisms.”
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GB003407/abstract

    Your statement: “The arithmetic is straightforward and Henry’s law has been around since the end of the 19th century so I am a bit surprised that the climate science community seems to be largely unaware of it. “
    is frankly nonsense since Henry’s Law is well known in the field and is correctly applied along with the associated chemical equilibria as the referenced papers show.

  292. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 27, 2013 at 9:36 am
    Also what do you mean when you say “you have to allow for the shift in chemical equilbria involved” and “this is what the Revelle Factor does”. Could you elaborate here?

    Here’s a reference to a more detailed explanation and derivation of the Revelle Factor etc. It even explains the reaction kinetic equations in case you’re not familiar with them (section 2.2.x).
    http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf

    E.g. “The carbonate system in seawater comprises only a few components, essentially CO2, HCO3−, CO3–, H+, OH−, and may be described by equations derived from the law of mass action. Its behaviour in response to perturbations is not always easy to predict by intuitive reasoning:
    • A doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will not cause a dou-bling of the total dissolved inorganic carbon, DIC, at equilibrium. Instead it results in an increase of only ∼10%. This low increase is due to the dissociation of CO2 and the simultaneous change of pH (see discussion of the Revelle factor).”
    Emphasis mine.

  293. Richard says:

    “If the surface ocean PCO2 concentrations continue to increase in proportion with the atmospheric CO2 increase, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from preindustrial levels will result in a 30% decrease in carbonate ion concentration and a 60% increase in hydrogen ion concentration. As the carbonate ion concentration decreases, the Revelle factor increases and the ocean’s ability to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere is diminished. The impact of this acidification can already be observed today and could have ramifications for the biological feedbacks in the future”.

    I think Tom Segalstad may already have defused this possible riposte with his erudite discussion of the IPCC’s ‘Revelle factor’ which enshrines this principle. As I have argued on my blog too it doesn’t really make sense. In any case the Revelle Factor is a measure of the oceans capacity to absorb anthropogenic CO2 due to various dissociation constants changing the ratio of DIC as pH decreases and has nothing to do with CO2’s solubility as a direct result of a given temperature increase as my calculation covers. My calculation is just a measure of the decrease in CO2’s solubility due to a temperature change. That is all. Therefore the Revelle Factor, be it even correct, is irrelevant here. Also, pH doesn’t change CO2’s solubility in water either, it just alters the ratio of DIC. It may decrease H2CO3 relative to HCO3 and CO32, but it won’t change the actual amount of total DIC dissolved in water. Take a soda drink as an example. There exists the same – about 50 times the concentration – in the water of a soda drink at very low pH compared to the trapped air under the bottle-cap than there exists in the ocean relative to the atmosphere. The partitioning ratios are the same and yet the pH is greatly different. The principal environmental parameter that changes CO2’s solubility and hence its partitioning ratio, as far as I am aware, is temperature, and to a lesser extent, salinity.

    I think one main weakness of the Revelle Factor argument, if it were even correct to begin with, is that it would have to be transitory and would disappear permanently when equilibrium was reached. When equilibrium between DIC and atmospheric CO2 is reached, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans must be some 50 times greater than the atmosphere as determined by Henry’s law in accordance with standard physical chemistry. In the case of CO2 entering and outgassing from the oceans, the rate at which this can happen is surprisingly fast, depending on relative partial pressures of CO2 in atmosphere and oceans respectively of course. Bert Bolin 1982 for example has estimated an equilibrium time of only ¾’s of a year and Tom Segalstad estimates an equilibrium time between DIC and atmospheric CO2 at slightly over a year. This would imply that about 98% of human CO2 (in accordance with the 1:50 partitioning ratio at a temperature of 288K) would get absorbed ‘permanently’ annually, thereby discounting humans as a significant contributor to the atmospheric CO2-greenhouse. Toms Segalstad explains the significance of Henry’s law and why the Revelle Factor is ‘ideologically defined’ in his 1998 paper “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the Greenhouse Effect Global Warming dogma”.

  294. chipstero7 says:

    “That is right and shows what happens at the surface of the upwelling places. That is what increases the influx from the oceans in the atmosphere. But that is reversed when the pressure in the atmosphere is increasing. A higher pressure in the atmosphere does push more CO2 into the ocean surface (or gives less release)”.

    Thanks for your input Ferdinand, always nice to discuss AGW with someone as level-headed and polite as you. That said, I’m not sure what relevance ‘reversed pressure’ has to do with a straightforward change in CO2’s solubility due to temperature.

  295. Richard says:
    November 29, 2013 at 10:31 am

    There exists the same – about 50 times the concentration – in the water of a soda drink at very low pH compared to the trapped air under the bottle-cap than there exists in the ocean relative to the atmosphere.

    There is a small difference: soda water is saturated with 3-5 bar CO2, seawater with 0.0004 bar. In both cases the ratio between free CO2 in solution and in the atmosphere is in ratio with the atmospheric pressure. But the difference is in the dissociation: in fresh water 99% is free CO2 and the rest is bcarbonate and carbonate. In seawater 1% is free CO2, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. Thus a change in CO2 pressure gives exactly the same change in free CO2 in both solutions, but a far greater change in the rest of DIC, thus in total DIC.

    When equilibrium between DIC and atmospheric CO2 is reached, the concentration of CO2 in the oceans must be some 50 times greater than the atmosphere as determined by Henry’s law in accordance with standard physical chemistry.

    Here is the Revelle factor explained:
    http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf

    And be careful: it is not because the current partitioning between oceans and atmosphere is 50:1 that this is the “normal” ratio at equilibrium. Most of that carbon is in the deep oceans which are feeded with near freezing waters from near the poles, thus absorbing far more CO2 than the average ocean surface. Thus the deep oceans are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere, they are oversaturated. But the ocean surface layer is in near-equilibrium (an average 7 μ between air and water because of the ever increasing level in the atmosphere).

    Bert Bolin 1982 for example has estimated an equilibrium time of only ¾’s of a year

    That is for the surface layer only, not for the deep oceans. But the surface layer can only absorb some 10% of the change in the atmosphere. That is where the Revelle factor gets in. And as the total carbon content of the surface layer is about the same as that in the atmosphere, the uptake in the ocean surface layer is only 0.5 GtC from the 9 GtC that humans emit and of which about halve (as mass) remains in the atmosphere.

  296. Phil. says:

    Richard says:
    November 29, 2013 at 10:31 am
    I think Tom Segalstad may already have defused this possible riposte with his erudite discussion of the IPCC’s ‘Revelle factor’ which enshrines this principle. As I have argued on my blog too it doesn’t really make sense. In any case the Revelle Factor is a measure of the oceans capacity to absorb anthropogenic CO2 due to various dissociation constants changing the ratio of DIC as pH decreases and has nothing to do with CO2’s solubility as a direct result of a given temperature increase as my calculation covers. My calculation is just a measure of the decrease in CO2’s solubility due to a temperature change. That is all. Therefore the Revelle Factor, be it even correct, is irrelevant here. Also, pH doesn’t change CO2’s solubility in water either, it just alters the ratio of DIC. It may decrease H2CO3 relative to HCO3 and CO32, but it won’t change the actual amount of total DIC dissolved in water.

    Wrong again, I suggest you actually read the material I’ve referenced rather than reposting your incorrect statements!
    The Revelle Factor is the result of the correct application of the law of mass action in reaction kinetics, not ‘ideologically defined’, I’ve given you a link to the kinetics, explain where it’s wrong.
    Segalstad’s discussion gets it wrong because he treats the ocean as freshwater, a mistake you appear to perpetuate.

  297. chipstero7 says:
    November 29, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Thanks for your input Ferdinand, always nice to discuss AGW with someone as level-headed and polite as you. That said, I’m not sure what relevance ‘reversed pressure’ has to do with a straightforward change in CO2’s solubility due to temperature.

    Should have been more clear:
    If the temperature at the upwelling places increases, the partial pressure increasese for the same concentration in seawater and therefore the pressure difference with the atmosphere increases. The amount of CO2 released is directly proportional to the partial pressure difference water-air.
    Thus a temperature increase increases the outflux for the same upwelling concentration.

    The concentration loss of the upwelling itself is not that important, because it is continuously replaced by the upwelling waters from the deep.

    The increased influx (and the decreased outflux) gives an increase of CO2 concentration and thus partial pressure in the atmosphere. That reverses the initial increased partial pressure difference water-air until that is back to the original difference, and thus the original fluxes, be it at a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.

    Or in short: for a temperature induced decrease in solubility, an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere will fully compensate for the decrease if the increase in pCO2(atm) matches the increase of pCO2(aq) caused by the temperature increase.

  298. Bart says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    November 26, 2013 at 8:23 am

    “Bart, I’m very interested in evaluating this relationship but I don’t think over-stating the case like you do here or calling it almost “perfect” like you did on Hockeyschtick is very helpful at all. “

    It is as “perfect” as you ever get with real world data. There are a variety of reasons, several of which I have described in detail, that you cannot expect to get a 1:1 relationship. But, it is far, far better than the match between the derivative of atmospheric CO2 and the rate of emissions of which, there is indeed none.

    When you see a signal this prominent, this far above the noise, pushing to the fore, you know you have something very significant.It is like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 26, 2013 at 11:08 am

    “The problem is that Bart (and Salby) combine the short term variability with the long term trend which are (near) completely independent of each other.”

    The problem is that the dependence Ferdinand describes above is magical. He completely dismisses the effectively perfect fit between the slope of dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly without having any natural mechanism in mind which can actually perform such a feat.

    Physical systems do not work like this.

    “On the other side, the zeroed variability of dT/dt always matches the variability of dCO2/dt after integrating, no matter the slope of dCO2/dt.”

    Doesn’t. They are out of phase 90 deg. No match at all.

    eric1skeptic says:
    November 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    You are handwaving, and trying to convince yourself with words. None of them contradict the fact that the model

    dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)

    is effectively a perfect fit.

    stephen wilde says:
    November 27, 2013 at 1:40 am

    “Could such returning C12 rich water be affecting the atmospheric isotope ratio ?”

    Obviously, it could. The dC13 argument is merely narrative, not proof of anything.

  299. Bart says:
    November 30, 2013 at 7:15 am

    Hi Bart, missed you a few days…

    The problem is that the dependence Ferdinand describes above is magical. He completely dismisses the effectively perfect fit between the slope of dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly without having any natural mechanism in mind which can actually perform such a feat.

    Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C… The trend is caused by human emissions, not by temperature. The match between the two can be performed between any two straight lines with the right factor.

    Doesn’t. They are out of phase 90 deg. No match at all.

    Wait a minute, first you say that the match between the short term dCO2/dt variability and the dT/dt variability proves that dT/dt must be integrated to match the phases. Now that doesn’t count anymore?

    Calculated from Henry’s law, the increase of 0.6°C is good for an increase of 10 ppmv or 0.2 ppmv/yr over the past 50 years. That is all. Thus the integrated dT/dt variability gives the complete dCO2/dt variability with the right amplitude (whatever the slope of dCO2/dt), with a complete flat trend and an offset of 0.2 ppmv/yr.
    The slope of dCO2/dt is entirely caused by the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    The sum of these two independent processes is what you see in the atmosphere.

    Obviously, it could. The dC13 argument is merely narrative, not proof of anything.

    No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…

    Ocean waters are rich in 13C, poor in 12C compared to the atmosphere. Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm decrease in ratio with human emissions.

  300. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 30, 2013 at 8:29 am

    “Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C…”

    Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.

    “…first you say that the match between the short term dCO2/dt variability and the dT/dt…”

    There is no match between dCO2/dt and dT/dt, only between dCO2/dt and T.

    “Thus the integrated dT/dt variability gives the complete dCO2/dt variability with the right amplitude …

    It doesn’t. There is frequency dependence of the amplitude due to the integration. A sinusoid A*cos(w*t) when integrated becomes (A/w)*sin(w*t).

    “The slope of dCO2/dt is entirely caused by the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    That is a tautology, not a cause, and the slope of dCO2/dt matches the slope of the temperature essentially perfectly, when the temperature is scaled to match the variability.

    “No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…”

    Evidence, yes. Narrative, no.

    “Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.”

    We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.

  301. Phil. says:

    Bart says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:45 am
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    November 30, 2013 at 8:29 am

    “Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C…”

    Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.

    No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!

    “No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…”

    Evidence, yes. Narrative, no.

    “Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.”

    We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.

    We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured. ‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations

  302. Mario Lento says:

    MARIO LENTO!!!!!

    Am I glad to see you. HOW ARE YOU??

    I have been praying my head off ever since I saw your post (re: getting a medical for racing — lol, I knew that’s what it was (or some kind of machine operation).
    +++++++++++
    Hi Janice… I’m sorry you’ve been so attacked. It’s part of what we expect –attack the messenger syndrome of course.
    I passed the stress test. I’v not exercised in over 8 months, yet completed the stress test through the end, which the doctor said he doesn’t usually ever see. I sustained over 180 beats per minute (I’m just shy of 49 years old). They did show that I have a prolapsed mitro valve – which is a defect I’ve had since birth. Nothing I need to do. He said generally the condition gets better when people gain wait (what???). He recommended that I have an equivalent of 12 ounces of wine per day for general heart health — So I took that note with me to Jamaica and made sure I stayed inebriated for most of each day. That took an average of 12 alcoholic beverages per day.

    Just got back from my vacation last night!

    Mario

  303. Bart says:

    Phil. says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    “No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!”

    I do not acknowledge it because it is trivially wrong. There is no such constraint. Upwelling and downwelling occur at completely different locations, and the fluxes depend on local conditions.

    “We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured.”

    The ratio is an observation. The interpretation of that observation is a narrative.

    “‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”

    True enough. But, I have never claimed it is the mechanism by which the observation that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature arises. I have simply stated that it is a mechanism by which it could. That observation regarding the rate of change of CO2 disqualifies human attribution all on its own.

  304. Bart says:

    “‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”

    Moreover, it is not “contrary” to observations being, as it is, based on the observations.

  305. Phil. says:

    Bart says:
    December 2, 2013 at 9:20 am
    Phil. says:
    December 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    “No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!”

    I do not acknowledge it because it is trivially wrong. There is no such constraint. Upwelling and downwelling occur at completely different locations, and the fluxes depend on local conditions.

    There is such a constraint it’s the law of continuity in fluid mechanics. The Ocean is connected in three dimensions, by your approach ocean water would be piling up at the equator and getting lower and lower at the poles! An equal volume of upwelling balances the downwelling, we know both occur, you prefer to ignore downwelling completely because it suits your belief system.

    “We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured.”

    The ratio is an observation. The interpretation of that observation is a narrative.
    The ratios in both reservoirs are known and different, exchange between those reservoirs necessarily requires a predictable change in those reservoirs.

    “‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”

    True enough. But, I have never claimed it is the mechanism by which the observation that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature arises. I have simply stated that it is a mechanism by which it could. That observation regarding the rate of change of CO2 disqualifies human attribution all on its own.

    As pointed out before the relationship is consistent with continuous growth due to the anthropogenic source modulated by the temperature dependent ocean sink, therefore the observationh does admit a role for human sources.

  306. Bart says:
    December 1, 2013 at 8:45 am

    Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.

    There is no increase of upwelling CO2 observed. Not in the estimates of the residence time, not in the 13C/12C or 14C/12C ratio’s.

    There is no match between dCO2/dt and dT/dt, only between dCO2/dt and T.

    It doesn’t. There is frequency dependence of the amplitude due to the integration. A sinusoid A*cos(w*t) when integrated becomes (A/w)*sin(w*t).

    Yes, but there is also an amplitude dependency of CO2 vs. T, which may compensate for the change in amplitude.
    The problem with your matching of the slopes is far more fundamental: your amplitudes only match if the slopes of T and dCO2/dt are equal, while there is no reason at all that the slopes should be equal.

    We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.

    Bart, that the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans is a lot higher than that of the atmosphere is proven all over the world for all oceans at upwelling and downwelling places near the poles and at the equator. You can’t decrease a ratio by adding a substance with a higher ratio. That is rock solid.

  307. Bart says:

    Phil. says:
    December 2, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    “There is such a constraint it’s the law of continuity in fluid mechanics.”

    You’re arguing conservation of the flow of water is constraining the CO2 carried by it. That is very poorly thought out.

    “…exchange between those reservoirs necessarily requires a predictable change in those reservoirs. “

    It is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one.

    “As pointed out before the relationship is consistent with continuous growth due to the anthropogenic source modulated by the temperature dependent ocean sink, therefore the observationh does admit a role for human sources.”

    Wow, you’re almost there. The role admitted for human sources is, however, necessarily insignificant, for human sources are not temperature dependent.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    December 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    “There is no increase of upwelling CO2 observed.”

    And, there was no path of the Earth about the Sun observed in Galileo’s time. Most of the data indicated that the Sun went around the Earth. Lack of observation is not observation of a lack.

    “…while there is no reason at all that the slopes should be equal.”

    Exactly! Unless it is the temperature driving the rate of change of CO2. That is precisely how we can deduce the relationship – observations tell us the slope and the variations are effectively equal.

    “That is rock solid.”

    I wouldn’t build my house on it, if I were you. This is still not evidence. It is the formal logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam, encapsulated in the phrase “we don’t know any other way it could be this way.” Your not knowing any other way is not proof that your chosen explanation is the only one.

    Guys, there is a reason we have these structures for logic and catalogs of logical fallacies, all the “argumentum ad somethings” and the distinctions between necessary and sufficient conditions. Humanity has very often been led astray by jumping to conclusions without regard to the fact that actual proof is utterly lacking, only to find time and time again that nature is complex, and the seemingly obvious is very often a mirage. You need to come to grips with logical rigor. You, yourselves, need to work at falsifying your own pet hypotheses, and realize when an observation truly compels your conclusion, and when your conclusion is merely consistent with your chosen observations.

  308. Bart says:
    December 3, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Lack of observation is not observation of a lack.

    In this case there are several observations of a lack of extra O2 upwelling that should be there:
    - a shortening of the residence time
    - an increase in the 13C/12C raio instead of a decrease
    - a decrease of the decay time of the 14CO2 bomb spike over time.

    Exactly! Unless it is the temperature driving the rate of change of CO2. That is precisely how we can deduce the relationship – observations tell us the slope and the variations are effectively equal.

    Bart, the slopes are not equal. You need a factor to match the slopes of T and dCO2/dt. That factor has nothing in common with the factor needed to match the CO2 variability with the T variability. If the same factor matches both, that is pure coincidence.

    This is still not evidence

    Nothing can prove that adding some CO2 with a higher ratio in isotopes can’t lower the ratio in a mixture that is already lower. But if you have proof that it does, you will have turned the base of physics and chemistry on its head…

  309. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    December 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm

    “In this case there are several observations of a lack of extra O2 upwelling that should be there:”

    Let me rephrase that for you into what I think you intended: “In this case there are several observations of a lack that should be there if extra O2 upwelling is occurring.”

    That is only IF you have thought of everything. IF the measurements were performed over a representative volume which can be extrapolated globally throughout the atmosphere. IF the measurements are good quality, and the manner in which they were collected sufficiently uniform that they can be combined on an apples to apples basis. IF there has been no book-cooking in their collection and dissemination. IF we understand sufficiently all of the sources, and the diffusion processes involved.

    Those are a lot of IFs. One or more of them, or of others not listed, is not fulfilled.

    “Bart, the slopes are not equal.”

    When you match the variability by scaling, they are, to a very high degree of fidelity. Given the measurement errors, and the bulk quantities involved, the agreement is astounding.

    “That factor has nothing in common with the factor needed to match the CO2 variability with the T variability.”

    It does. They are very close. Given the above circumstances, astoundingly close.

    “If the same factor matches both, that is pure coincidence.”

    It’s always a coincidence when it disagrees with what you want to be true, but an amazing correlation when it agrees. I say the factor of 1/2 which matches emissions to concentration is a complete coincidence. The fact that this relationship is currently diverging weighs rather heavily against you. But, the rate of change remains highly correlated with the temperature. That weighs rather heavily in my favor.

    “But if you have proof that it does, you will have turned the base of physics and chemistry on its head…”

    That is hardly required. We just need a mechanism. I bet that, if you were as certain as I am that the isotope ratio does not implicate humankind as the source of the rise in atmospheric concentration, you could reason out an explanation for it.

  310. Bart says:
    December 3, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    When you match the variability by scaling, they are, to a very high degree of fidelity. Given the measurement errors, and the bulk quantities involved, the agreement is astounding.

    The agreement is not that good, but even if it was good, it is pure coincidence:

    The slope of T is caused by only T.
    The slope of dCO2/dt is caused by the curvature the CO2 increase, which is caused by T*X
    where X is the unkown upwelling. Thus while T is the common factor, T*X can be small, medium or large, depending of X.
    Any factor needed to match the slopes influences the amplitude of the variability in different ways for the difference in slopes.

    In all cases the variability of T causes the variability of CO2 around the trend, thus of the variability of dCO2/dt around its trend, without an influence of the slope (/deep ocean upwelling) on the variability…

  311. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    December 5, 2013 at 8:40 am

    It matches very well, given the quality of the data, and that would be an astounding coincidence. The variability of T integrates into the variability of CO2. If T must be integrated to match the variability, then you must integrate the slope in T as well to get the complete influence on CO2.

    Moreover, my hypothesis is consistent with how feedback systems typically behave, while the idea that CO2 levels maintained a steady level for centuries before humans came along, with such weak feedback as your favored hypothesis demands, is very atypical.

  312. Bart says:
    December 5, 2013 at 9:34 am

    The variability of T integrates into the variability of CO2. If T must be integrated to match the variability, then you must integrate the slope in T as well to get the complete influence on CO2.

    Not if the slope and the variability are from different processes, which they are anyway, regardless if the trend is caused by extra upwelling or extra human emissions.

    CO2 levels maintained a steady level for centuries before humans came along, with such weak feedback as your favored hypothesis demands, is very atypical.

    The e-fold time as observed today is ~50 years, slow enough to give a buildup of an extra mass of CO2 by the human emissions, and more than fast enough to maintain a strong T-CO2 relationship over centuries to multi-millennia from the small changes in temperature over thousands of years…

  313. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    December 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    “Not if the slope and the variability are from different processes…”

    If that were the case, phase delays would be evident in the data. They are not. it is a “perfect” fit across the entire band of frequencies.

    “The e-fold time as observed today is…”

    …not anywhere close to 50 years, which would not, in any case, be fast enough to maintain CO2 at steady levels on a timeline of decades, as is claimed they were pre-industrialization.

  314. Bart says:
    December 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    If that were the case, phase delays would be evident in the data. They are not. it is a “perfect” fit across the entire band of frequencies.

    Not if the phases are widely different: the short time variability has its frequency peak around 3 years, the long term change has a not even a measurable frequency and in any case, if natural, is longer than 600 years.

    …not anywhere close to 50 years, which would not, in any case, be fast enough to maintain CO2 at steady levels on a timeline of decades, as is claimed they were pre-industrialization.

    An e-fold decay of 50 years is by far fast enough to maintain a ratio of 6 ppmv/0.8 K over a period of 50 years. Or a ratio of 8 ppmv/K over a period of 5,000 years as is observed in ice cores. Real observations, be it smoothed with a resolution of 20 years (for the 50 years ) to 600 years (for the 5,000 years).

  315. Bart says:

    Sorry, no.

Comments are closed.