Now it’s the fungi carbon footprint that isn’t in climate models

From a long line of missing things in climate models and the University of Texas at Austin:

Symbiotic fungi inhabiting plant roots have major impact on atmospheric carbon, scientists say

This is a photo of the fruiting body of an ectomycorrhizal fungus associated with the roots of a Hemlock tree in Harvard Forest.

AUSTIN, Texas — Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere, according to a University of Texas at Austin researcher and his colleagues at Boston University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.

Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.

“Natural fluxes of carbon between the land and atmosphere are enormous and play a crucial role in regulating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, in turn, Earth’s climate,” said Colin Averill, lead author on the study and graduate student in the College of Natural Sciences at UT Austin. “This analysis clearly establishes that the different types of symbiotic fungi that colonize plant roots exert major control on the global carbon cycle, which has not been fully appreciated or demonstrated until now.”

“This research is not only relevant to models and predictions of future concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but also challenges the core foundation in modern biogeochemistry that climate exerts major control over soil carbon pools,” added Adrien Finzi, co-investigator and professor of biology at Boston University.

Averill, Finzi and Benjamin Turner, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, published their research this week in Nature.

Soil contains more carbon than both the atmosphere and vegetation combined, so predictions about future climate depend on a solid understanding of how carbon cycles between the land and air.

Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis in the form of carbon dioxide. Eventually the plant dies, sheds leaves, or loses a branch or two, and that carbon is added to the soil. The carbon remains locked away in the soil until the remains of the plant decompose, when soil-dwelling microbes feast on the dead plant matter and other organic detritus. That releases carbon back into the air.

IMAGE: This Eastern Hemlock stands at Harvard Forest.

Click here for more information.

One of the limits that both the plants and the soil-dwelling microbes share is the availability of nitrogen, an essential nutrient for all life. Most plants have a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi, which help extract nitrogen and nutrients from the soil and make that nitrogen available for the plants to use. Recent studies have suggested that plants and their fungi compete with the soil microbes for the nitrogen available in the soil and that this competition reduces decomposition in the soil.

There are two major types of the symbiotic fungi, ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. EEM fungi produce nitrogen-degrading enzymes, which allows them to extract more nitrogen from the soil than the AM fungi extract.

Examining data from across the globe, Averill and his colleagues found that where plants partner with EEM fungi, the soil contains 70 percent more carbon per unit of nitrogen than in locales where AM fungi are the norm.

The EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.

“This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact. We need to think of these systems holistically,” said Averill.

The researchers found that this difference in carbon storage was independent of and had a much greater effect than other factors, including the amount of plant growth, temperature and rainfall.

###

Averill is a student in the ecology, evolution and behavior graduate program in the lab of Christine Hawkes, associate professor in the Department of Integrative Biology.

Additional contact: Lee Clippard, media relations, University of Texas at Austin, 512-232-0675, clippard@austin.utexas.edu

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon footprint, Modeling and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Now it’s the fungi carbon footprint that isn’t in climate models

  1. DEEBEE says:

    SO we can grow fungus at the feet of the wind turbine and get a make wind energy commercially viable. But wait, what will happen when those turbines fall and kill the poor fungus, or kill poor birds and they fall and kill the poor fungus. That would definitely be a positive feedback increasing climate sensitivity.

  2. Patrick says:

    The obvious question is, as I cannot see it in this text about this study, was this study based on models for models?

  3. richardscourtney says:

    Anth0ny:

    The article reports

    “This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact. We need to think of these systems holistically,”

    said Averill.

    The researchers found that this difference in carbon storage was independent of and had a much greater effect than other factors, including the amount of plant growth, temperature and rainfall.

    So, we have to think of the carbon system “holistically”
    and
    we are only starting to understand carbon exchange mechanisms in the carbon cycle
    and
    it is not possible to make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling in the absence of the knowledge we are now only starting to obtain.

    Well, I am gobsmacked! NOT!
    See
    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Richard

  4. Txomin says:

    Fungi must in denial. The science is settled.

  5. DirkH says:

    ““Natural fluxes of carbon between the land and atmosphere are enormous and play a crucial role in regulating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, in turn, Earth’s climate,” said Colin Averill, lead author on the study and graduate student in the College of Natural Sciences at UT Austin.”

    Here, Averill hands out conjecture for truth; as he silently implies that the CO2AGW theory is fact – a conclusion at which he can only have arrived by assuming that GCM’s work – but they have already been falsified by the last 17 years of non-warming.

    I’d give him an A for gullibility and an A for propaganda; slipping in untruths like that is masterful.

  6. David Coe says:

    Don’t be too quick to mock this work. Climate models are all based upon the assumption declared by the IPCC that atmospheric CO2 is in an equilibrium state of zero Net Biome Production. That is Net Primary Production (atmospheric CO2 removal by photosynthetic activity) is perfectly balanced by Heterotrophic Respiration (respiration and decomposition of organic matter). CO2 levels are rising, it is claimed, because this balance is being skewed by the release of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If it turns out that the assumption of a zero Net Biome Production is false, and that more CO2 is being stored in the land, then all bets are off concerning predicted future CO2 levels.

  7. Twobob says:

    Its a Wonderfull World.
    The hubris is that we understand it in an eye blink.

  8. Nick Stokes says:

    “From a long line of missing things in climate models”
    It’s missing for a good reason. GCM’s don’t determine non-water GHG gas concentrations; they are supplied as forcings (scenarios). This would apply also to fungal respiration.

  9. M Courtney says:

    Nick Stokes

    GCM’s don’t determine non-water GHG gas concentrations; they are supplied as forcings (scenarios).

    Wouldn’t it be an improvement if they did relate to the reality of non-water GHG gas concentrations instead of just being inputted?
    If CO2 absorption is all lumped in as a black-box of “other processes” then aren’t you just wiggle-matching the past?
    How can that have any meaning for the future?

  10. richardscourtney says:

    David Coe:

    As you say in your post at January 9, 2014 at 3:11 am, this paper is yet more evidence for something some of us have been saying for a long time.

    I copy your post here for emphasis

    Don’t be too quick to mock this work. Climate models are all based upon the assumption declared by the IPCC that atmospheric CO2 is in an equilibrium state of zero Net Biome Production. That is Net Primary Production (atmospheric CO2 removal by photosynthetic activity) is perfectly balanced by Heterotrophic Respiration (respiration and decomposition of organic matter). CO2 levels are rising, it is claimed, because this balance is being skewed by the release of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If it turns out that the assumption of a zero Net Biome Production is false, and that more CO2 is being stored in the land, then all bets are off concerning predicted future CO2 levels.

    Yes! Indeed so!

    And the subsequent (in this thread) attempt at damage limitation from Nick Stokes is plain wrong.

    Richard

  11. ROM says:

    As a retired farmer I say by all means study soil fungi as they are a vital component in every plant species and it’s survival and have a huge role to play in ensuring that the world’s food needs provided from plants of every description will be met in the decades ahead.

    And thats where this total nonsense and outright scientific stupidity plus the full blown demonstration of abject ignorance by the whole of the climate activist powered scamming global warming industry about their so called and badly mis-named “Carbon”, should stop right there ..

    Unfortunately once again this study is just another in an almost infinite array of never has so much of Other Peoples Money been spent by so many unqualified scientific “experts” for so little benefit or so little evidence of so little in actual results and so little in the way of beneficial and useful outcomes .

    In short I am, along with I suspect a vast and increasing number other ordinary tax paying citizens, getting completely fed up to the back teeth with this mindless crap that now passes for so called science today.
    Along with the fact that we, the common people are forced to pay for this scientific crap without ever being allowed to have any say in who and where and if the second and third rate so called scientists who are no more than overpaid parasites upon society are allowed to have any access to our taxes.

    That great unwritten 200 year old contract between science and society was that science agreed to do everything in it’s power to improve our lives and in return we as a society agreed to finance science and give science an unfettered right to go where it liked to the limits of the human mind in it’s research, A right and a privilege that has been granted to very few others in our society.
    And for 200 years both parties held to that contract to the immense benefit of us all as we can see around us.

    Now just the opposite is occurring
    So many of these parasitical climate science drones instead of finding ways to improve society, those so called [ climate ] scientists are instead demanding and advocating and using political influence to reduce and destroy so many of the advances we have achieved in the decades past such as totally reliable energy, advances that the science and scientists of the past in co-operation with all the other sectors that make up society have created over the last two centuries.

    At the behest of climate science and so called climate scientists with an ad mixture of other third raters who call themselves climate scientists [ eg; Turney et al ] and based entirely on science biased unproven climate models only and with absolutely no perceivable proven, observed hard evidence whatsoever of mankind’s emissions of CO2, that misnamed “carbon” so called even by apparently ignorant climate scientists, is having any influence on the global climate let alone a deleterious effect. the science fraternity, nearly the whole damn lot of them are persisting and often vehemently demanding that we now destroy that incredible reliability of our energy systems of the past.
    They are demanding that we forsake centuries old traditions on the use of resources of every type.
    Some of them are demanding that we go back as a civilisation to the caves from where we have expended so much in blood and time and resources to drag our selves up the ladder of civilisation.

    Instead those same scientists are advocating the creation of grossly expensive, totally unpredictable and therefore totally unreliable and increasingly unaffordable renewable energy systems that have done nothing whatsoever in any way to reduce that nefarious “carbon” .

    Instead those numerous scientist backed and science advocated forced changes on our society have created great societal distress through the loss of jobs and industry, the creation of power generation that is no longer affordable, the creation of major economic problems, the shifting of money from then poor to the rich on an unprecedented scale, the destruction of wealth and resources on a global scale beyond comprehension ie; a billion dollars a day on climate change and the benefits, absolutely nothing, zilch and cannot be identified, Plus the creation of immense divisiveness and societal conflict and the list goes on and all for what?

    These are the legacies of today’s increasingly corrupt and out of touch science who have negated their long held contract with society to always try to improve our lives, to a position where they, the scientists are now increasingly looked upon with scorn and with expectations that their next utterance will contain yet another nefarious prescription advocating even further strictures and further nefarious imposts and further financial and societal strictures on the citizens and society.
    All to justify and satisfy their own personal agendas and ideologies and with nary a thought for the where their generous salaries and lavish perks are coming from and consequently who they are ultimately responsible too, the tax payers that they in the elitism believe they can patronizingly treat with total condescension.

    I have been a science supporter all my life of 75 years but now I have had a gutsfull of what science has become, It is just another greedy grasping tax payer funded boondoggle for an elitist few that turns out total crap like the paper headlined above.

    And they, those same scientists in their total arrogance then have the total gall to grab with their grasping greedy hands held right out demanding yet more of the the ordinary and humble citizen’s hard earned income to continue funding their own quite lavish well travelled life styles.

    End of rant !!

  12. Psalmon says:

    It all has nothing to do with that 2E30 kg fusion fireball, 93 million miles away however.

    Let’s send some fungi to Venus. It’ll be a paradise.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    So much for the “Science is settled”

    Seems they left out a big factor.

    And Nick, if they got that big black box correct Lord Monckton and others wouldn’t be having so much fun mocking the models.

  14. Joe says:

    Isn’t it a shame that valid and interesting (in it’s own right) research like this has to hang itself off climate change? It sometimes seems that if it ain’t climate it ain’t science nowadays :(

  15. Greg says:

    I used to be a fun guy, got married had kids, now I’m more like fungi. What scares me is that someone will suggest spreading the ‘good’ fungi everywhere, and we’ll end up taking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere or some other unintended consequence.

  16. Peter Ward says:

    Whatever the truth, you can be sure that when models are changed to incorporate this it will be portrayed as a positive forcing.

  17. Alan the Brit says:

    So the outcome seems to be that the programmers of said GCMs, DHAF clue? Excuse my French, please! May the Lord preserve us.

    Richard Courtney you are far to polite – become an engineer! ;-)

  18. jakee308 says:

    Magic Mushrooms now?

    Or are they just clutching to straws?

  19. Steven Devijver says:

    @ROM amen brother.

  20. Ian W says:

    There is no evidence of any description that CO2 causes any change in the real world atmosphere – none at all. If there was this evidence would be available and published.

    Instead we have spin doctors changing CO2 to ‘carbon’ and global warming to ‘climate change’ and then to ‘climate’ with no science behind their demands for taxes. The academic departments wanting funding for research in any abstruse areas are directed that ‘carbon footprint’ has to be part of the research or no funding. So we see these research projects all the time with genuflections to ‘carbon’.

    Yet there still is no evidence of any effect of anthropogenic or other CO2 causing any warming – which is the only way that it could have a climatic effect. Until such evidence is produced these studies based on the assumption that more CO2 is dangerous are just money laundering exercises.

  21. Kurt Granat says:

    I heard Sherwood Idso in the early 1990 and soil biology was one of the many items he mentioned that the climate models either skip or simplify beyond recognition. Oddly, in Climate Science, such identified errors seem to linger for decades.

  22. cnxtim says:

    Happy to hear more about CO2, but do not agree with the fanciful premise first postulated in the late 19th century by a geologist who pretty much everything else wrong – that it has anything of significance to do with climate change.

    Still, for those who “do believe”, can someone explain how CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels, makes it s way to the upper atmosphere?

  23. heysuess says:

    Will we now be asked to deduce that the ‘missing heat’ is stored in all this carbon (dioxide) within the fungi-ridden soils rather than hiding in the deeps with Captain Nemo?

  24. Alan Robertson says:

    Any impact this research may have on modern large- scale agriculture, will be far down the road. At this stage of our understanding, the lucrative farm’s web of life includes the implement dealer and the geneticist and the chemist. The soil is regarded primarily as a place for the desired crop to thrive, sterile to everything else.

  25. bwanajohn says:

    I may be missing the point but it seems that CO2 concentrations are following the projected paths, it is the T response that is not following. While interesting, this study would need to explain an error in expected CO2 levels and to my knowledge the levels are at expected levels.

    So is this saying that we can expect future CO2 levels to drop significantly due to the fungi interchange? What am I missing?

  26. heysuess says:

    ROM = one smart cookie, not born yesterday. Well done!

  27. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    So many times the discussion has got close my line of thinking yet never quite made the connection.
    This time it has nearly everything, soil organic matter, nitrogen and atmospheric co2.
    Here goes Pete’ theory of Global Warming.
    We all know the shape of the Mauna Loa CO2 graph and how it rumbles along fairly level UNTIL the mid 1940’s. It picks up from that point and paints a sawtooth line, rising by ~4ppm then dropping back by 2pp every year – something seasonal is going on.
    What happened in the 1940’s = WW2 ended and huge amounts of nitrate, previously made for and used in explosives was given to farmers. And the farmers (certainly in Europe) were vehemently encouraged to use it. They did.
    As this article states, nitrate is the limiting nutrient in soil – it feeds the intended plants but also drives the soil bacteria into massive feeding frenzy. Their waste products are in two main parts, acids that dissolve the rock fraction of the soil supplying trace nutrients for the plants and also CO2.
    In the case of a forest, all this is good because a forest has deep roots and also puts a canopy over the soil to catch the CO2. The canopy collects as much as possible before it can blow away. Several commentators here have mentioned the recorded fact that CO2 levels on a forest floor reach 600ppm, 500ppm half way up the trees and 400ppm at the very top. There’s the process in action.
    Also, the soil bacteria feeding on the soil organic matter are VERY temperature sensitive and it seems a huge co-incidence that the leaves fall off as temperature drop. Low temps mean very little CO2 to catch.
    Also on this point, we have the work of Murray Salby who has found a definite correspondence between temps and the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2.
    Now enter the world’s farmers growing mostly annual crops – they have to because perennial crops do not guarantee the yield. But, the crop plants are still tiny when the temps have risen and the soil bacteria, pumped up with nitrogen fertiliser are going full tilt. In summer when the crops are active and ‘large’, they can keep up with soil bacteria output and actually suck more CO2 from the atmosphere, hence the CO2 graph dips during Northern hemisphere summertime. In autumn though, the crop effectively die and are harvested, again in high-ish temps while the bacteria are still working so, the CO2 graph picks up again.
    Also, farmers plough and cultivate vast areas of the planet’s surface and always areas of high organic matter. This repeatedly exposes ancient buried organic matter to sunlight and oxygen, its got nothing else to do but become CO2. Again, forests had that angle covered. Whenever there is a bright sun, the trees shield the soil. There was an article here describing a forest (killed by beetles) where the temperature had risen by 1 deg C
    I’ve lost the link but: a study near me (actually in SW Scotland) simply ploughed an ancient pasture field and left it with a few CO2 sensors dotted around. They left it untouched for 2 years and in both years it released 10 tons per acre of CO2.
    Here is a study of some vegetated ground that released 3.4 tons per acre per year. Those figures are vast enough (dwarfing fossil fuel emissions) as it is before being multiplied (how many times) by the addition of nitrogen fertiliser.
    As a grassland farmer and having tried to educate myself on AGW to explain changes on my farm, I suddenly saw exactly what is happening. Effectively the subsoil is coming to the surface. Myself, my neighbours, my father and all theirs, are slowly but surely desertifying our land – what else is a desert but a place of low soil organic matter?
    Subsoil will be either very porous (sand/gravel) or impervious to water clay as I am or solid rock)
    In either case, the effect on rainfall will be the same, it will pour off or drain through the ground much faster than if a lot of organic matter was there. You will know the effect even from keeping a pot-plant on your windowsill. Looking around England I see the effect everywhere. I see puddles and lakes that remain for months in cultivated field, I see light coloured and shiny soil behind ploughs (good organic soil should be almost black). I know that it is essential to use 4-wheel drive machinery on farms now and I wonder how my grandfather managed with horses and carts. They would be entirely unusable and endlessly mired on almost all of England’s modern-day farmland.
    I also see rivers turn into raging torrents within an hour of rainfall starting and returning to normal within hours of rainfall stopping. The peak rainfall in my little river used to be 24 to 30 hours after the rain started – I know having watched it for 40 years.
    As we have going on now in the UK, we hear of floods and supposedly record rainfall. As Paul Homewood has pointed out several times here on WUWT, the record rainfall amounts are basically an urban myth. I’ve been and got the data from the Met Office, I downloaded stuff from Wunderground; rainfall is almost unchanging. What is changing is the way the land handles that rainfall. The word ‘run-off’ has entered everyone’s vocabulary, it never used to be yet is the ‘norm’ now and universally accepted. This is typically called Flash Flooding and is typical of deserts is it not?
    That explains the rising atmospheric CO2 and the apparent floods but also ‘rising’ temperatures and sea level. The organic matter that was previously in the soil retained huge amounts of water (2” of rainfall per foot depth). If the organic mater is not there, neither is the water and where is it? Surely back in the world’s ocean and explains the slow creep/rise in sea-level.
    Also and as Willis endlessly points out, water controls the temperature. If the water is not there (in the soil), temperatures can vary more than they previously did. Is that not exactly what we are seeing. Summertime always seems to set new high temp records and winter-times set new low temperature records. What is going on in N America right now? Did (I think) Pamela Gray very recently mention her farmer boyfriend and how he’d noted that there were more excessively hot days and also excessively cold days for whatever crop he was growing?
    So there we have it (my theory of AGW)
    The CO2 is the symptom, not the cause of ‘global warming’ and it is frustrating (to me at least) how so many commentators here have been so close yet never made that final step. It all instinctively fits and once you know what to look for, flash floods, record (high and low) temperatures, water sitting in fields, light coloured soil in those fields, the changes in farming practices, the increase of tracked machinery on farms because organic matter held the soil structure together. (it didn’t turn to mud so easily and could support things that exert a high ground pressure (=horses and carts)).
    Also, run the calculations yourself, that 10 tons per acre figure completely blows human fossil emissions right out of the park even before you put a double/triple/quadruple factor in for the effect of nitrogen fertiliser. The final thing that ‘did it’ for me was learning that the topsoils of the (Great) Plains were once 12 feet thick and are now 4” thick. Remember, that soil was bulldozed off Canada by the Laurentide ice sheet so the organic matter in it was ?? old.
    Thats my piece, I’ll shut up now.

  28. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Interesting. I’ve seen one estimate that as much as 25% of total world biomass is fungi, so their impact on the rest of the ecosystem is substantial. Maybe even even more than cow farts :-).

  29. dabbio says:

    I share bwanajohn’s concerns. I’d like to believe that these neglected carbon sources and sinks figure into the picture. In that connection, it would be good to have some mass estimates on fungal carbon input/output to throw into the carbon cycle mass balance. But more important, it seems to me, is the fact that there is this steady upward creep in atmospheric CO2, regardless of whether you think it has much effect on climate. Does the existence and weight of a fungal carbon component imply that the Keeling curve would be differently shaped, or have a different absolute level without that component?

  30. M Courtney says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says at January 9, 2014 at 6:14 am:
    Interesting idea.
    I would add in that nitrate fertiliser ends up in the Oceans via that run-off. And that would surely boost marine algae. Whether that raises or lowers CO2 release, I don’t know. But it is another impact outside of the soil.

  31. Alan Robertson says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:14 am

    “So many times the discussion has got close my line of thinking yet never quite made the connection.
    This time it has nearly everything, soil organic matter, nitrogen and atmospheric co2.

    ______________________
    We are birds of a feather.
    ————————————

    Also on this point, we have the work of Murray Salby who has found a definite correspondence between temps and the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2.
    _________________
    Salby’s work holds under scrutiny?
    ———————————

    “The final thing that ‘did it’ for me was learning that the topsoils of the (Great) Plains were once 12 feet thick and are now 4” thick.
    __________________________________
    It isn’t unusual to drive across the Great Plains at certain times and see towering plumes of dust, visible from 50 miles. The source? A farmer in his tractor
    ——————————————

    “Thats my piece, I’ll shut up now.
    ________________________________
    Please don’t. You’re just getting started.
    ———————-

  32. Alberta Slim says:

    ROM says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:26 am
    Great rant ROM………………………..
    Well said and so true.

  33. tc says:

    In the early days before Man, when trees appear so did the fungi – no problems. Now with Man ways and BS – global warming (ice all over) so must come out with other reasons like fungi. We are the problem – Stupid global warming quackers

  34. hunter says:

    From freshwater systems to fungi to claiming the oceans are at once warming and ‘acidifying’, to sea level rise that is not cooperating, to confusing weather with global warming/climate change/climate weirding, the AGW movement is facing a lot of things to ignore- certainly a great test of faith in any belief system.

  35. dmacleo says:

    ROM says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:26 am
    ************************
    you nailed it.

  36. Dave Yaussy says:

    It hadn’t occurred to me, until I read this post, how likely CAGW proponents are to sink their own boat. Leaving aside the value of this study, whatever it may be, its authors are just some among the many researchers trying to tie their findings to climate change, presumably to gain attention and grant dollars. But as they highlight new physical processes that they believe should be considered in the climate models, or that are not properly accounted for in the models, they call into question the models’ accuracy. Even if all these new processes are represented as positive forcings, they only drive the models’ projected temperatures higher at a time temperatures are flat. In any event, they’re no help to model proponents.

    As everyone tries to get on the gravy train (to change the analogy) it eventually becomes overloaded and grinds to a halt. Not a new idea here at WUWT, but one that this study brought home to me.

  37. JJ says:

    Nick Stokes says:

    “From a long line of missing things in climate models”
    It’s missing for a good reason.

    There. Fixed that for ya.

    GCM’s don’t determine non-water GHG gas concentrations; they are supplied as forcings (scenarios).

    Then they have no ability for recursion on that parameter. Post time-step one, they become wrong even with respect to the scenario, and become worse with each iteration. And said scenarios are already far too dodgy on that point, given the fact that the carbon budget is nowhere near closed.

    This would apply also to fungal respiration.

    And thus to fungal sequestration, and (per this article) to fungi mediated sequestration. Of course, sequestration is only important to the climate when it provides you an opportunity to force other people to hamstring the economics of their power generation with it, right?

    Happily, all of this doesn’t really doesn’t matter. Gaping holes in the ability to predict future CO2 partitioning could only matter to a climate model if that model accurately simulated the affect of CO2 on climate. To date, none do. Whew! Bullet dodged!

    Isn’t it a wonderful attribute of “climate science” that it has sufficient immunity from the effects of cognitive dissonance that it can build a model that simultaneously assumes that global climate is primarily determined by the attributes of one component of the biosphere (people), and that the balance of the biosphere is yet ignorable?

  38. michael hart says:

    ROM, that seems like fair comment to me. I think policymakers need to realise that they should not fund research which appears to be primarily looking to confirm new potential disasters. If you pay people to look for new problems, then guess what?… They will find them. I could come up with a plausible new problem for every day of the year.

    And it’s not like there is a shortage of pre-existing problems.

  39. Jimbo says:

    The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.

    Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.

    The science was settled?

    It seems as if every couple of months some new factor comes into play either unaccounted for, plays a bigger role or lesser role in our climate / carbon cycle. How on Earth (literally) can the IPCC project temperature for 2100 with reasonable accuracy? To date there is a yawning gap between observations and the vast majority of the CAGW models used by the IPCC.

    The science is not settled, the debate is not over.

  40. Max™ says:

    Let’s not forget that fungal mats are among the most massive lifeforms on the planet.

  41. higley7 says:

    As long as the climate models are based on CO2’s negligible effect, pretending it is the major driver of climate, these bozos are going to be finding and pointing a finger at anything that has a metabolism.

  42. Alan Robertson says:

    ROM says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:26 am

    “…”
    ________________________
    Please sir, I want some more.

  43. higley7 says:

    I notice that they entirely ignore the oceans of the world, which contain 50 times the CO2 of the atmosphere. They conveniently pretend that CO2 is entirely driven by land and soil. How myopic of them. Simply a change in ocean temperatures can have enormous effects on atmospheric CO2, far beyond any fungal activity.

    “Moore funding, please,” should be the title of the paper.

  44. dabbio says:

    See my comment above, which pertains to many of the others’ comments also. We need to be realistic in addressing the CAGW critique of enthusiasts for carbon cycle sources and sinks. If fungal carbon, or oceanic carbon, or any other input has a massive effect on atmospheric CO2, how come it does not SEEM to affect the Keeling curve? Maybe these other sources/sinks ARE affecting it, but I don’t see an explanation as to how, why, or why not.

  45. Jimbo says:

    Does anyone know whether changes in the dominance between microbes and the fungi affects tree rings?

    Here is Time spreading the gloomy news.

    Time Magazine – Nov. 20, 2009
    Are the Earth’s Oceans Hitting Their Carbon Cap?
    ……But a new paper published in the Nov. 19 issue of Nature demonstrates that the oceans’ ability to absorb man-made carbon may be dwindling — and that has worrying ramifications for future climate change…….

    Here is Time spreading the brighter news. And so on over the coming years. New paper finds……..it’s worse than we thought! New paper finds……….a surprise to scientists. :-)

    Time Magazine – Jan. 08, 2014
    Why Some Mushrooms May Be Magic for Climate Change

    The soil contains more carbon than all living plants and the atmosphere combined. Now a new study says that a certain type of fungi can help soil hold up to 70% more carbon—with potentially big impacts for the climate

    \Nature is full of tricks. Maybe that’s why when co2 was well over 2,000ppm the Earth survived and even thrived for some odd reason. / sarc

  46. Col Mosby says:

    Hard to stop feeling “So what?”

  47. Jimbo says:

    Not only are these fungus able to store up to 70 more carbon IN the soil but we also have the greening biosphere and arid areas becoming greener. This is the balance of nature, the Earth is active, plenty of capacity to soak it right up.

    Here is another model, not used by the IPCC I presume (deadline issues maybe). ;-)
    site:http://www.ipcc.ch “A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation”

    Abstract – 2013
    P. B. Holden et. al.
    A model-based constraint on CO2 fertilisation
    Using output from a 671-member ensemble of transient GENIE simulations, we build an emulator of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration change since the preindustrial period. We use this emulator to sample the 28-dimensional input parameter space. A Bayesian calibration of the emulator output suggests that the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%. It is important to note that we do not represent all of the possible contributing mechanisms to the terrestrial sink. The missing processes are subsumed into our calibration of CO2 fertilisation, which therefore represents the combined effect of CO2 fertilisation and additional missing processes.
    doi:10.5194/bg-10-339-2013

    This paper is probably wrong, but base on the last couple of decades of observations on greening they might be on the right track.

  48. Mushroom George says:

    Note that the relationship is symbiotic. There is a whole community of stuff down there, plants are like the tip of the iceberg. The plants benefit from better chemistry, protection from pathogens and increased transport of nutrients. The shrooms get carbohydrates and a place to live. Expect to find a complimentary increase in nitrogen fixing bacteria down there as well. As we recover from starvation levels of CO2, life responds with gusto. You could have just asked your local indoor medical marijuana grower 20 years ago. 1,400 ppm CO2 and Sunshine Mix #4 (inoculated with fungi) seems close to optimum. If we can get the Luddites out of the way, we are just about to eliminate world hunger by accident. Go to http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php pick a letter from the list and check out the astounding response rates. Returning CO2 levels to normal may just be the reason why Gaia invented us.

  49. joe lori says:

    There is some very sloppy writing here. At least twice the text includes ‘the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.’ I don’t think ‘carbon’, is what is released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is. The liberal media uses carbon in place of carbon dioxide to demonize CO2 all the time. Scientific pubs should be more accurate.

  50. Latitude says:

    good grief…
    Every time they discover a new carbon life form…
    ….it has a MAJOR impact on atmospheric carbon

    …and they are not the slightest bit embarrassed to say it

  51. Jimbo says:

    ROM says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:26 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1530286

    Well put! Deserving of a full post, you have uttered what many of us feel. I like the 200 year unwritten contract bit, I never thought of it that way, and you are right. CAGW scientists are moving away from presenting their evidence to advocacy and investing in ventures to benefit them directly. See Dr. Turkey stuck in Antarctica.

  52. Very sad in fact, Austin Texas, and the whole of the University of Texas system has gone full moon bat now for years and years. They get all that money from the West Texas Oil play that was given to them to do good things with, yet they bite the hands that feed them.

    Full Moon Bat Cur Dogs.

    You have to see it up close to understand how bad it is.

    I have been there, it is BAD.

  53. tadchem says:

    The ‘biomass pyramid’ is a term that describes the fact that smaller life forms are so much more numerous than the larger ones in the same environment that they outmass the larger ones. When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next, typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is dissipated as heat.
    In marine environments (totalling several times larger than all terrestrial ones combined) corals, calcareous phytoplankton, mussels, snails, sea urchins and other marine organisms use calcium (Ca) and bicarbonate (HCO3) in seawater to construct their calcium carbonate (CaCO3) shells or skeletons. When these organisms die their shells/skeletons sink to the sea floor, forming lime sediments that eventually become limestone. By taking bicarbonate out of the water they act as a biobuffer to moderate the carbonate/bicarbonate concentrations in the water as well as the pH.
    This results in the largest carbon sink on the planet – one not accounted for in either the models or the ‘acidification’ arguments.

  54. Also on UT and other Universities.
    They are so into the redistribution of wealth operation they can not see the truth for the lie wall they and their prior family built up.

    These Universities in turn have done great damage to the National Labs at Sandia, Livermore, Los Alamos etal. If you just read to public publications printed from any one of the labs you can tell what is going on. All of the publicantions are 100% into “The Climate Change” fraud. Many if not an amount of 60% or more of the professional staff at the labs are true belivers in the cult of CO2 kills.

    It is in fact a national security risk. They are telling the Generals and Admarils to build “climate OK ships and tanks” to defend U.S. . Nuts.

  55. Paul Benedict says:

    Another factor I think is inadequately accounted for in climate models is the precipitation of inorganic carbonates in the soil. As atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (and therefor the soil air as well) it reacts with soil solution cations (particularly Ca++ and Mg++) to precipitate fairly insoluble carbonates that sequester the CO2 in the soil.

  56. Jimmy Haigh says:

    It’s a pity there isn’t some tax free haven we can all move to… In the tropics.

  57. Alan Robertson says:

    fobdangerclose says:
    January 9, 2014 at 7:25 am

    Very sad in fact, Austin Texas, and the whole of the University of Texas system has gone full moon bat now for years and years. They get all that money from the West Texas Oil play that was given to them to do good things with, yet they bite the hands that feed them.

    Full Moon Bat Cur Dogs.

    You have to see it up close to understand how bad it is.

    I have been there, it is BAD.
    __________________________
    Yes, with Lyndon Johnson this and Barbara Jordan that, it’s easy to see that UT is a prominent home of moon battery. It’s not so much political that all of that oil money flows to Austin, it’s more for the hopes that Texas will be able to beat Oklahoma in football, at least once every few years.

  58. Dave in Canmore says:

    ROM: Three cheers for a expressing what so many of us feel! Well said.

  59. Tim Clark says:

    “Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere”

    Microscopic fungi and bacteria that are associated with plant roots, either in close proximity in the soil nearby, inside the suberized root cells, or on the soil surface play…..

    fixed

  60. JJ says:

    dabbio says:

    I share bwanajohn’s concerns. I’d like to believe that these neglected carbon sources and sinks figure into the picture. In that connection, it would be good to have some mass estimates on fungal carbon input/output to throw into the carbon cycle mass balance.

    Per this article, it isn’t the carbon in the fungal biomass that is the interesting quantity. It is the carbon in the dead biomass (mostly from vascular plants) that isn’t being decomposed by soil microbes, because the mycorrhizal fungi are bogarting all the bioavailable nitrogen.

    But more important, it seems to me, is the fact that there is this steady upward creep in atmospheric CO2, regardless of whether you think it has much effect on climate. Does the existence and weight of a fungal carbon component imply that the Keeling curve would be differently shaped, or have a different absolute level without that component?

    No one knows. The carbon budget isn’t closed. The Keeling curve is an observation without a rigorously defensible explanation.

    If fungal carbon, or oceanic carbon, or any other input has a massive effect on atmospheric CO2, how come it does not SEEM to affect the Keeling curve?

    It does.

    About 50% of the carbon that humanity is allegedly foisting into the atmosphere every year simply vanishes, and does not show up in the Keeling curve (or anywhere else, for that matter). How? The people who are the least interested in the answer to that question are those that think CO2 is the most powerful molecule in the universe. The resolution of that apparent paradox is called “politics”.

  61. richardscourtney says:

    bwanajohn and dabbio:

    Thankyou for your excellent comments on the subject of the paper. They are only excelled in this thread by the superb post from ROM concerning how so-called ‘climate science’ is damaging the reputation of science.

    I write in attempt to answer your points, and – to save others needing to find them – I copy your posts.

    At January 9, 2014 at 6:04 am bwanajohn says in total

    I may be missing the point but it seems that CO2 concentrations are following the projected paths, it is the T response that is not following. While interesting, this study would need to explain an error in expected CO2 levels and to my knowledge the levels are at expected levels.

    So is this saying that we can expect future CO2 levels to drop significantly due to the fungi interchange? What am I missing?

    dabbio replied to that at January 9, 2014 at 6:25 am with a post that began saying

    I share bwanajohn’s concerns.

    Then followed that with a post at January 9, 2014 at 6:58 am which says in total

    See my comment above, which pertains to many of the others’ comments also. We need to be realistic in addressing the CAGW critique of enthusiasts for carbon cycle sources and sinks. If fungal carbon, or oceanic carbon, or any other input has a massive effect on atmospheric CO2, how come it does not SEEM to affect the Keeling curve? Maybe these other sources/sinks ARE affecting it, but I don’t see an explanation as to how, why, or why not.

    I write to provide a brief reply to your concerns.

    Firstly, the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis consists of three premises; viz.
    1.
    Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (notably CO2) are accumulating in the atmosphere to increase the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere.
    2.
    Increase to GHGs in the air raise global temperature significantly.
    3.
    The observed increase to GHGs in the air from accumulation of HGs in the air will raise global temperature so significanrtly that great harm will result.

    There are reasons to doubt each of these three premises, but if any one of them were shown to be wrong then the entire AGW-hypothesis would have been falsified.

    Many people including the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have assumed that Point 1 is true and have acted on that assumption. They use scenarios to estimate how civilisation will develop to produce future anthropogenic GHG emissions then model the future accumulation of the emissions in the air. The IPCC uses the ridiculous Bern Model to do this.

    Secondly, Point 1 may be wrong. There are people who have often posted to WUWT who are certain it is right (e.g. Ferdinand Engelbeen) and others who are certain it is wrong (e.g. Bart). But I do not know if it is right or wrong in part or in whole.

    If Point 1 is not completely right then the ‘projections’ of AGW are plain wrong.

    Thirdly, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere does not match with the increase being an accumulation of the anthropogenic CO2.

    The seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 is low at Mauna Loa but is still much larger than the annual increase; see the graph at
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    The annual increase is the residual of the seasonal variation.

    If the anthropogenic emission were accumulating because it was overloading the sinks then the seasonal sequestration would slow as the sinks began to fill. But that does not happen; the CO2 rises rapidly for half the year then plummets rapidly before reversing to again rapidly rise.

    Furthermore, the annual anthropogenic CO2 emission does not match the annual rise of atmospheric CO2.

    Typically the annual rise of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 emission. But in some years almost all the anthropogenic emission seems to be sequestered while in other years almost none seems to be sequestered. There are reasons why smoothing of the data may be needed to obtain agreement between the emissions data and the atmospheric increase. Different countries may use different 12-month periods for assessment of their annual emission so 2-year smoothing is justifiable. And in some years CO2 emissions of a year may be incorrectly accounted as being from an adjacent year so 3-year smoothing can be justified.

    But the IPCC uses 5-year smoothing to obtain agreement between the anthropogenic CO2 emissions data and the atmospheric CO2 increase. Smoothing of more than 3 years is not justifiable but the IPCC uses 5-year smoothing because less smoothing fails to obtain the agreement.

    One of our 2005 papers (referenced in my first post to this thread) attempted to falsify that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration was natural or was anthropogenic.

    We assumed that the system of the carbon cycle had altered its equilibrium state and is adjusting towards its new equilibrium state. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium. This would explain the dynamics observed in the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The seasonal variation is induced by equilibrium change with time of year, and the lowest concentration of each year is the quasi-equilibrium obtained at that time as the system continues to adjust.

    Our paper reports attribution studies we conducted that used six different models to emulate the causes of the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century. These numerical exercises are a caution to estimates of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The three basic models used in these exercises each emulate different physical processes.

    The three basic models were each used to assess if the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be attributed to an anthropogenic cause (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) and if it could be attributed to a natural cause (e.g. the global temperature rise of the early twentieth century). Thus we assessed 6 models.
    Each of the models agrees with the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. They each demonstrate that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of, for example, desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it. Furthermore, extrapolation using these models gives very different predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentration whatever the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Each of the models in this paper matches the available annual empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.

    So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.

    Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are

    (a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
    but
    (b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

    Hence, as the above article says, we need to obtain a holistic understanding of the carbon cycle if we are to understand likely future atmospheric CO2 concentration. And much of what happens in the carbon cycle is not known.

    For more information about this I suggest you use the WUWT Search facility and find items about Salby then read the discussions in the threads.

    I hope this brief answer about a large subject is clear and adequate.

    Richard

  62. DMA says:

    Dabio says ” Does the existence and weight of a fungal carbon component imply that the Keeling curve would be differently shaped, or have a different absolute level without that component?”
    Once again I point out Murry Salby’s work that found no correlation between total atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions. He shows total CO2 closely correlated to the global temperature and soil moisture.

  63. Jimbo says:

    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:24 am

    Interesting. I’ve seen one estimate that as much as 25% of total world biomass is fungi, so their impact on the rest of the ecosystem is substantial. Maybe even even more than cow farts :-).

    It gets stranger.

    Strange but True: The Largest Organism on Earth Is a Fungus
    The blue whale is big, but nowhere near as huge as a sprawling fungus in eastern Oregon
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-largest-organism-is-fungus

    It’s a tree killer!

  64. Stephen Richards says:

    Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing, Bing. My BS detector is going mad.

  65. David, UK says:

    Was this one of those “known unknowns,” or an “unknown unknown?” Who knows?

    I don’t know.

  66. Gail Combs says:

    bwanajohn says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:04 am

    ….this study would need to explain an error in expected CO2 levels and to my knowledge the levels are at expected levels.

    So is this saying that we can expect future CO2 levels to drop significantly due to the fungi interchange? What am I missing?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Corruption.

    Explained here: Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

  67. mogamboguru says:

    When you have to grasp at fungi to somehow keep your CAGW-agenda afloat, you are toast…

    Is this the fungus that will break the camel’s back?

  68. Gail Combs says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says: January 9, 2014 at 6:14 am
    Very well put. The term for it is “mining the soil”

    One part of rotation used to be turning your crop fields into pasture to add organic matter to a worn out field. Now the blooming idiots are villifying farm animals that do so much for the soil. We have “Modern Farming” aka monoculture by large corporations who don’t give a hoot about the long term health of the soil instead of farmers who looked at the land as the legacy for their heirs.

  69. Gail Combs says:

    fobdangerclose says: Full Moon Bat Cur Dogs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes that describes the Ag college I went to . It was a darn good school but already headed into activist LaLaLand in the late 1960’s

  70. mpainter says:

    all carbon cycle estimates are invention. Organic material oxidizes spontaneously as it decomposes and so releases CO2. There is no way to measure this and do not forget that the estimates that we have are provided by those who show little regard for scientific rigor.

  71. Gunga Din says:

    Latitude says:
    January 9, 2014 at 7:24 am

    good grief…
    Every time they discover a new carbon life form…
    ….it has a MAJOR impact on atmospheric carbon

    …and they are not the slightest bit embarrassed to say it

    ================================================================
    For those who have put an agenda or a paycheck first, the science is always settled in the present no matter how unsettled the science previously used for those purposes has become.
    Embryology? Nebraska Man? The Tree Ring? Hansen’s testimony?

  72. richardscourtney says:

    mogamboguru:

    Your post at January 9, 2014 at 8:34 am says in total

    When you have to grasp at fungi to somehow keep your CAGW-agenda afloat, you are toast…

    Is this the fungus that will break the camel’s back?

    It could be “the fungus that will break the camel’s back”.

    It seems you may have got the wrong end of the stick.
    The finding about fungus undermines a basic tenet of the AGW scare as promoted by e.g. the IPCC.

    Please see my post at January 9, 2014 at 8:14 am. This link jumps to it
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1530462

    Richard

  73. David Coe says:
    January 9, 2014 at 3:11 am

    Don’t be too quick to mock this work. Climate models are all based upon the assumption declared by the IPCC that atmospheric CO2 is in an equilibrium state of zero Net Biome Production.

    Climate models are not based on any equilibrium NBP, they are based on net uptake of increased CO2 by the biosphere as well as the oceans.

    mpainter says:
    January 9, 2014 at 8:55 am
    all carbon cycle estimates are invention. Organic material oxidizes spontaneously as it decomposes and so releases CO2. There is no way to measure this and do not forget that the estimates that we have are provided by those who show little regard for scientific rigor.

    Indeed decomposing organics give CO2, but that process uses oxygen. The uptake of CO2 produces oxygen. Similar releases and uptake by the oceans don’t need or release oxygen. That makes it possible to calculate how much CO2 is released or taken away by the whole biosphere: from plants, fungi and microbes to insects and animals:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    That shows an increasing uptake of CO2 of ~1 GtC/year by the whole biosphere. Compare that to the 9 GtC/year human emissions…

  74. Tim Clark says:

    [ Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 9, 2014 at 10:30 am
    Similar releases and uptake by the oceans don’t need or release oxygen. ]

    Internal and externally forced variability in oceanic oxygen (O2) are investigated on
    different spatiotemporal scales using a six-member ensemble from the National Center
    for Atmospheric Research CSM1.4-carbon coupled climate model. The oceanic O2
    inventory is projected to decrease significantly in global warming simulations of the 20th
    and 21st centuries…… Recent observations of oceanic oxygen changes show
    decreasing trends over the last decades in the circumpolar
    region, in middle and high latitudes of the North Pacific, in
    the eastern South Pacific and in the North Atlantic [Emerson
    et al., 2004]. Stramma et al. [2008] reported a decline in O2 in
    tropical oceans and an expanding of Oxygen Minimum
    Zones during the past 50 years. However, there are also
    regions where oxygen has recently increased such as the
    southern Indian Ocean [McDonagh et al., 2005] and the
    boundary region between the subpolar and subtropical gyres
    in the North Pacific [Mecking et al., 2008], possibly
    reflecting natural variability. The observed changes over
    the last several decades in dissolved oxygen range from
    about 80 to +10 mmol kg1, and can amount to up to 50%
    of the total dissolved oxygen in oxygen-poor regions.
    Whether observed changes in dissolved oxygen are the
    result of natural variability or of anthropogenic influences
    is still an open question.

    GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 23, GB1003, doi:10.1029/2008GB003316, 2009

    I haven’t seen the correction for increased ocean life forms.

  75. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:14 am

    Here goes Pete’ theory of Global Warming.
    —————

    Pete, I enjoyed your theory of GW but there are a few things therein I would like to offer my learned opinion on.

    The first being the Mauna Loa CO2 graph. You are right, there is “something seasonal” that is driving that sawtooth line …. and it begins in 1958 simply because that is when Charles Keeling first began to make accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2. And I am absolutely sure that same sawtooth line would be there if accurate measurements were being made during the previous 100+ years.

    And to be more precise, the bi-yearly (seasonal) cycling of that sawtooth line rises an average of 8 ppm during the Northern Hemisphere’s fall and winter month and decreases an average of 6 ppm during the spring and summer months. This cycling is actually triggered by the Autumnal (September) and Vernal (March) equinoxes. In other words, when the Sun makes its bi-yearly crossing of the Equator. And just like “clockwork”, the CO2 reaches its high point about mid-May of each year and its low point about the 1st of October of each year. Reference: NOAA’s complete (55 years) monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    Now the difference between the bi-yearly 8 ppm average increase in CO2 and the 6 ppm average decrease in CO2 …. equals a 1 to 2 ppm average yearly increase in CO2 which accounts for the name and th upward slant of the “Keeling Curve” ….. and is a direct result of a gradual warming of the ocean waters that has been in progress ever since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800’s.

    And it cycles just like “clockwork”, which is “triggered” by the equinoxes, simply because it is being “driven” by the water temperature of the Southern Hemisphere oceans. When the Sun crosses the Equator (northward) on March 20/21st the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere really starts cooling down and thus starts ingassing CO2 from the atmosphere (Henry’s Law). And when the Sun crosses the Equator (southward) on September 22/23rd the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere really starts warming back up and thus starts outgassing CO2 into the atmosphere. Just like “clockwork” for the past 55 years and counting. Reference: Keeling Curve Graph with equinoxes and ppm notations http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

    Now there is absolutely nothing that occurs in the Northern Hemisphere that could or would account for that steady and consistent “clockwork” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm.

    Leaves don’t fall off of vegetation because of decreasing temperatures. They fall off because of decreasing hours of daylight. The majority of all microbial rotting and decaying of biomass occurs during the warm and moist Spring and Summer months (mid April thru mid August). Not during the dry and cool Fall months (mid August thru October) or the cold and freezing winter months (November thru mid April) …. because it would be in violation of the Refrigerator/Freezer Law …. which inhibits and/or prevents most all microbial ingestion of biomass. Those little buggers refuse to work iffen its too dry or too cold (like below 60F and fer sure below 42F).

    And that’s nuff of my opinion for now.

  76. Nik says:

    Are we then likely to see the outlawing of truffle hunting and eating, considering ithe truffle’s carbon fixing properties?

    Add the carbon emitting properties of champagne and the tragedy is total.

  77. Samuel C Cogar says:

    The above article states, to wit:

    “This analysis clearly establishes that the different types of symbiotic fungi that colonize plant roots exert major control on the global carbon cycle,

    The EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.

    “This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact.
    ———————-

    Now I hate to be picky but, the author should not have stated “trees and decomposers” in the above paragraph ….. but should have continued with saying “plants”.

    And I say that because the roots or root system of the majority of all trees are located deep within the soil, …. say 10 inches to several feet, ….. and thus are well below the top-most layer of dead biomass and/or the upper biomass rich layer of soil.

    Thus, in heavily forested areas the microbes would not have to compete with said “plant root colonizing” EEM fungi for the available nitrogen in the biomass.

  78. Janice Moore says:

    Along the lines of the observations of Dirk H. (at 3:05am) and Greg (at 5:13am) and M Courtney (at 6:30am),

    Given this from the article: “… carbon remains locked away in the soil until the remains of the plant decompose, … EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.”

    The Envirostalinists will TRY (won’t succeed, for truth always prevails — always) to use this type of study to control our economies using anti-nitrogen regulations. “Ooo, don’t use THAT fertilizer or do THAT process, it will result in releasing more CARBON and KILL THE PLANET.”

    They tried this with nitrogen in the 1970’s and 1980’s (and beyond?) — trying to limit our liberty by misusing the true-but-no-need-to-prevent it fact that increased algae “kills” lakes.

    These socialist con-artists are DISGUSTING.

    Go, WUWT Science Giants! Truth, in the end, wins.

  79. Janice Moore says:

    Yes, preventing algae growth from ruining swimming and boating and other desirable things IS a good thing, but, there is no need to force people (ultimately, at the end of a barrel of a gun) to do this.

  80. Max™ says:

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/

    If you wanna see some visualizations of CO2 distribution rather than the single Keeling curve.

  81. Scarface says:

    My null-hypothesis is: “CO2 doesn’t drive climate or temperature”.

    So far, I have not seen one test that has falsified that. Nor one study that makes me start to fear CO2 for any another reason. A study like this on fungi may add some knowledge about fauna and flora but not to climate science. The only reason it gets attention is because CO2 has gotten a bad name. Unfortunately, since CO2 is plantfood. Nothng more, nothing less. I love CO2.

    The CAGW hypotheses on the other hand gets falsified on a daily basis.
    Still, the money keeps flowing and the demonizing of CO2 continues.

    We live in a truly absurd timeframe.

  82. PiperPaul says:

    Replace “programming language” with “CAGW alarmism”: [http://www.fullduplex.org/humor/2006/10/how-to-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-in-any-programming-language/]
    “The proliferation of modern programming languages (all of which seem to have stolen countless features from one another) sometimes makes it difficult to remember what language you’re currently using. This guide is offered as a public service to help programmers who find themselves in such dilemmas.”
    C 
You shoot yourself in the foot.
    C++
 You accidentally create a dozen clones of yourself and shoot them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical assistance is impossible since you can’t tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying, “That’s me, over there.”
    JAVA 
After importing java.awt.right.foot.* and java.awt.gun.right.hand.*, and writing the classes and methods of those classes needed, you’ve forgotten what the hell you’re doing.
    Ruby
 Your foot is ready to be shot in roughly five minutes, but you just can’t find anywhere to shoot it.
    PHP 
You shoot yourself in the foot with a gun made with pieces from 300 other guns.
    ASP.NET
 Find a gun, it falls apart. Put it back together, it falls apart again. You try using the .GUN Framework, it falls apart. You stab yourself in the foot instead.
    Perl
 You shoot yourself in the foot, but nobody can understand how you did it. Six months later, neither can you.
    Javascript
 You’ve perfected a robust, rich user experience for shooting yourself in the foot. You then find that bullets are disabled on your gun.
    CSS
 You shoot your right foot with one hand, then switch hands to shoot your left foot but you realize that the gun has turned into a banana.
    FORTRAN
 You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run out of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-handling ability.
    COBOL
 Using a COLT 45 HANDGUN, AIM gun at LEG.FOOT, THEN place ARM.HAND.FINGER. on HANDGUN.TRIGGER and SQUEEZE. THEN return HANDGUN to HOLSTER. CHECK whether shoelace needs to be retied.
    LISP
 You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which
you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which
you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which
you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which
you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds ….
    BASIC 
Shoot yourself in the foot with a water pistol. On big systems, continue until entire lower body is waterlogged.
    FORTH
 Foot in yourself shoot.
    APL 
You shoot yourself in the foot, then spend all day figuring out how to do it in fewer characters.
    Pascal
 The compiler won’t let you shoot yourself in the foot.
    SNOBOL 
If you succeed, shoot yourself in the left foot.
If you fail, shoot yourself in the right foot.
    HyperTalk
 Put the first bullet of the gun into the foot of the left leg of you.
Answer the result.
    Motif
 You spend days writing a UIL description of your foot, the trajectory, the bullet, and the intricate scrollwork on the ivory handles of the gun. When you finally get around to pulling the trigger, the gun jams.
    Unix
 % ls
foot.c foot.h foot.o toe.c toe.o
% rm * .o
rm: .o: No such file or directory
% ls
%
    Paradox 
Not only can you shoot yourself in the foot, your users can too.
    Revelation 
You’ll be able to shoot yourself in the foot just as soon as you figure out what all these bullets are for.
    Visual Basic
 You’ll shoot yourself in the foot, but you’ll have so much fun doing it that you won’t care.
    Prolog
 You tell your program you want to be shot in the foot. The program figures out how to do it, but the syntax doesn’t allow it to explain.
    Ada
 After correctly packaging your foot, you attempt to concurrently load the gun, pull the trigger, scream and shoot yourself in the foot. When you try, however, you discover that your foot is of the wrong type.
    Assembly
 You try to shoot yourself in the foot only to discover you must first reinvent the gun, the bullet, and your foot. After that’s done, you pull the trigger, the gun beeps several times, then crashes.
    Python 
You try to shoot yourself in the foot but you just keep hitting the whitespace between your toes.

  83. Tim Clark says:
    January 9, 2014 at 10:46 am

    I haven’t seen the correction for increased ocean life forms.

    The increase (or decrease) of uptake of CO2 in the oceans by life forms is included in the oxygen balance. Most of the releases and uptake of CO2 by the oceans is direct (chemical) solubility and that doesn’t need/produce oxygen. But temperature plays a (small) role in the oxygen balance too: oxygen solubility of course is temperature dependent.

  84. katio1505 says:

    ROM

    As a retired Soil Scientist, I can say that was a very good ‘rant’.

  85. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:04 am

    Now there is absolutely nothing that occurs in the Northern Hemisphere that could or would account for that steady and consistent “clockwork” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but it aren’t the oceans that cause the seasonal swings in the NH, it is vegetation. The mid to northern forests start to grow new leaves progressively northwards in spring and reach their maximum growth end summer when the cold starts getting in and progressively goes southwards. Meanwhile fallen leaves and debris from previous years is decaying all year round, somewhat more in summer and especially fall, but even under snow in the forests of Alaska…
    That vegetation is leading the dance can be seen in the opposite swings of δ13C in the NH:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
    where the average 1990-2012 was caculated by zeroing the values on January of each year.

    The southern hemisphere has a lot less land/vegetation and has very little seasonal variation:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg

    Neither are the oceans or vegetation the cause of the increase: 1°C increase in temperature gives maximum 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere (Henry’s law, solubility curve of CO2 in seawater) and any release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease…
    And vegetation is a proven sink for CO2, not a source…

  86. joe lori says:
    January 9, 2014 at 7:22 am

    There is some very sloppy writing here. At least twice the text includes ‘the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.’ I don’t think ‘carbon’, is what is released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is. The liberal media uses carbon in place of carbon dioxide to demonize CO2 all the time. Scientific pubs should be more accurate.

    There is a simple reason that carbon is used and not CO2: while it is CO2 in the atmosphere, most CO2 in the oceans is not CO2 anymore, but bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Even more problematic in plants and food/feed: sugars, starch and cellulose, oils/fats and lots of other carbon containing molecules…

    It is a lot simpler to refer to carbon, as that stays the same everywhere, in whatever form it may be transformed. It is carbon that must be in balance…

  87. bwanajohn and Dabbio rightfully question the impact of this research on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    One need to make a differentiation between what the climate models use and what they don’t use.
    Climate models are not based on the carbon cycle. They are based on the Bern model, which describes the main speed of uptake by different sinks for any increase (natural or not) of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Bern model is an empirical model, which may be right or wrong (my take on it: right and wrong…).
    Based on different scenario’s of future CO2 releases from fossil fuel use by humans, the climate models calculate the residual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the following decades up to the year 2100.

    The Bern model takes into account several reservoirs, each with their own uptake speed and their own maximum uptake. The different uptake speeds seem quite right, but the problem is in the maximum uptake. The ocean surface is the fastest: an exchange speed which is high (1-3 years), that indeed has a limited uptake of CO2 (10% of the increase in the atmosphere), due to the buffer/Revelle factor. But there is not the slightest view on any limits of uptake by the deep oceans and vegetation, only limits on the uptake speed. That makes the Bern model and the resulting extremely long tail in uptake of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere rather questionable.

    What is the influence of the carbon cycle on this all? The carbon cycle in the past was quite stable, even if it did take several thousands of years to reach the equilibrium between the three main reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans and vegetation. Only temperature did change the setpoint and CO2 followed temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C over the last near million years with a variable lag. Even today: the Keeling curve shows a global seasonal variation of 5 ppmv/°C over 6 months and there is a CO2 response to temperature changes over 1-3 years (El Niño/ENSO), again with 4-5 ppmv/°C.

    Thus in all cases, all underlying natural causes of CO2 changes, temperature related or not (volcanoes), by quite different processes lead to a modest change in CO2. But we see some 110 ppmv CO2 increase, while there is hardly any temperature increase, there are no extreme volcanic events (the Pinatubo even caused a drop in CO2 increase rate) and no massive burning of one third of the world’s forests to give such an increase…

    Human CO2 emissions since the start of the industrial revolution are about double the observed increase in the atmosphere. All observations are consistent with a human input. Vegetation is a proven sink for CO2 and the oceans are too high in δ13C to be the cause and don’t give more than 10 ppmv increase for the temperature increase since 1960 per solubility curve of CO2 in seawater…

    The carbon cycle is only of academical interest, to know what processes are involved and where the CO2 sinks are: the partitioning between oceans and vegetation for the difference between emissions and the residual of CO2 in the atmosphere… It doesn’t matter that fungi/roots are double the sinks they were thought or that volcanoes emit 10 times more CO2 than earlier estimates. Somewhere halve the human emissions are stored and that is all that counts.

  88. richardscourtney says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    At January 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm you say

    What is the influence of the carbon cycle on this all? The carbon cycle in the past was quite stable, even if it did take several thousands of years to reach the equilibrium between the three main reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans and vegetation. Only temperature did change the setpoint and CO2 followed temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C over the last near million years with a variable lag. Even today: the Keeling curve shows a global seasonal variation of 5 ppmv/°C over 6 months and there is a CO2 response to temperature changes over 1-3 years (El Niño/ENSO), again with 4-5 ppmv/°C.

    Assertion is not evidence.

    The ice core data support your assertions of stable and low pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration but the stomata data don’t.

    There are good reasons to dispute both the ice core and the stomata data. Sadly, they are each championed by people who ignore one and reject the other. In reality, both provide useful information but each is a faulty proxy indication so neither can be used to make stark assertions as you do e.g. in the paragraph I quote in this post..

    What can be said is that ice core data lack sufficient temporal resolution to be able to indicate whether or not the stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration existed as you claim, and the stomata data indicates the concentration was both higher and more variable.

    So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.

    We need to understand the carbon cycle and how it operates. Until we do understand that we cannot know why atmospheric CO2 concentration is changing now and how it is likely to change in future. But, as the above article clearly illustrates, we know little about the carbon cycle and we understand little of what we do know.

    Richard

  89. RoHa says:

    This article is about microscopic fungi, but what about us larger mushrooms who are kept in the dark and fed

  90. Mike Rossander says:

    Interesting. One of the great arguments in the CO2-dominant models is that anthropogenic CO2 has outstripped the ability of the natural systems to absorb it. I wonder if there is any correlation is between the increase in agricultural fungicides and the changes in the carbon level.\

  91. Janice Moore says:

    Re: Mike Rossander at 6:45pm today

    For the best lecture to date on this topic (in English after Deutsche intro.), see video below. To give you an idea of what it covers, a sample of my notes on this video:

    [33:47] What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks
    [36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
    [37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
    *Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
    [37:34] Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”

    Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, Germany, April 18, 2013

    Notes:
    1) If you are a non-scientist as I am, watch it more than once and you will understand it.
    2) Bart and many other of WUWT’s finest scientist commenters (NOT F. Englebeen who is a fine person, but not helpful on this topic, imo) have commented favorably on Dr. Salby’s research and conclusions.

  92. I’ve changed the metaphorical “Carbon Footprint” terminology to the scientifically accurate “Carbon Dioxide Footprint”. Look for this new rhetoric to take effect in future scientific publications.

  93. Mac the Knife says:

    ROM says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:26 am

    ROM,
    You know, you’re amongst friends here. You don’t have to ‘hold back’ – Say what you really think!!
    };>)
    Epic Rant… and Spot On!
    MtK

  94. gymnosperm says:

    NEVER, underestimate the fungi.

  95. Bart says:

    JJ says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:39 am

    “Then they have no ability for recursion on that parameter. Post time-step one, they become wrong even with respect to the scenario, and become worse with each iteration.”

    If they included that, the models would blow up. That is because increasing temperatures unequivocally increase the concentration of CO2 in the air, and if you couple that with increasing CO2 increasing temperatures, you have a positive feedback loop, leading to runaway warming and CO2 concentration.

    And that, in a nutshell, is why the sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 cannot be significant. There is no powerful negative feedback available to counteract that positive one, and the Earth would have fried eons ago.

    Jimbo says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:40 am

    “It seems as if every couple of months some new factor comes into play either unaccounted for, plays a bigger role or lesser role in our climate / carbon cycle.”

    Yes, and if they’ve missed these factors, how many others are still missing?

    dabbio says:
    January 9, 2014 at 6:58 am

    “If fungal carbon, or oceanic carbon, or any other input has a massive effect on atmospheric CO2, how come it does not SEEM to affect the Keeling curve?”

    The Keeling curve has only a superficial resemblance to half of what would be the accumulated human CO2 emissions. It is an illusion, and not even a very good one. CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly driven by global temperatures, as the excellent fit between these two curves signifies.

  96. Bart says:

    “There is no powerful negative feedback available to counteract that positive one, and the Earth would have fried eons ago.”

    Note the premise here. If temperature is as sensitive to CO2 as is claimed, then it follows that there is no powerful negative feedback to counteract the instability. If there is a powerful negative feedback, then temperature is not sensitive to CO2 overall.

    This is a “local”, in a mathematical sense, phenomenon, holding in the current state of the planet. It does not say that there is no greenhouse effect, or that all things being equal, the greenhouse impact of CO2 could not be significant. It says that all things are not equal, and the sum total impact of CO2 on temperatures is insignificant.

  97. cnxtim says:

    It beggars belief that anyone with a scintilla of science or chemistry in their schooling would accept carbon dioxide being called carbon. If you were to do so in any elementary high school exam it would earn you a fail mark.

    And as for AGW, it is not merely “in the air” but must be in the upper atmosphere in order to earn the epithet of being a “greenhouse gas” pray tell ANYONE, how does CO2 created at ground level by the burning of fuels make it’s way “up there”?

  98. I hope this doesn’t result in some stupid plan to sequester carbon in a few species of fungi rather than have it in the atmosphere where it belongs aiding in photosynthesis and maintaining the abundance and diversity of more-complex orders of life.

  99. richardscourtney says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    The ice core data support your assertions of stable and low pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration but the stomata data don’t.

    Ice core data, which are direct measurements, not proxy’s, are far more reliable than stomata data, but have a worse resolution. The repeatability of ice core CO2 measurements is 1.2 ppmv for the same part of one core and less than 5 ppmv for different cores for the same average gas age. The resolution varies from less than a decade over the past 150 years to 560 years over the past 800,000 years.
    Stomata data include a bias compared to the “background” CO2 levels because by definition they grow near ground over land. The local/regional bias is accounted for by calibrating the stomata (index) data against… ice cores and direct measurements over the past century. But there is no possibility to know how the local/regional bias changed over provious centuries due to land use changes in the main wind direction. Thus if there is a difference in average over any period longer than the resolution of the ice cores, the SI data are certainly wrong…

    What can be said is that ice core data lack sufficient temporal resolution to be able to indicate whether or not the stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration existed as you claim

    The resolution over the past 1000 years and especially the past 150 years is more than sufficient to show that there is no similar increase in the past comparable to the past 150 years. Even the worst resolution ice cores (Vostok – 600 years and Dome C – 560 years) would show the increase over the past 160 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
    There is even an overlap of ~20 years (1960-1980) between the high resolution Law Dome ice cores and the direct measurements at the South Pole:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg

    Moreover, the decrease in temperature (~0.8°C) between the warm(er) Medieval times and the cold Little Ice Age triggered a drop of not more than 6 ppmv in the 20-year medium resolution Law Dome DSS ice core with a lag of ~50 years and sustained over ~200 years:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
    A similar increase in temperature since the LIA thus is good for not more than 6 ppmv of the 110 ppmv increase…

    So, there is no need to understand the carbon cycle in detail. Al we know is that we are currently way above the pre-industrial equilibrium, which triggers a counter reaction from the different equilibrium processes between atmosphere and oceans/vegetation. But of course it still is of scientific interest to know the carbon cycles in detail…

  100. Janice Moore says:
    January 9, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    [33:47] What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks

    Agreed!

    [36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
    [37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
    *Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2

    Small problem here: native sources: 96%, native sinks: 98%, net native: 2% more sink than source. Humans emissions: 4%, twice the net native (and its variability):
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
    Not in one year the natural imbalance overwhelmed the human emissions…

    [37:34] Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”

    Almost all native sources are higher in 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. That excludes the oceans and most volcanoes as sources of the extra CO2, as we see a firm decline in a very nice ratio with human emissions of fossil fuel CO2.
    Vegetation decay is the most important possible source, but the oxygen balance proved that the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2… Thus not the cause of the increase.

    NOT F. Englebeen who is a fine person, but not helpful on this topic, imo

    Janice, even a nice person can have his doubts on what Dr. Salby writes. I have been to his lecture in London (Parliament) and asked a few pertinent questions, unfortunately there was little time for discussion and his answers were rather evasive.

    Main problems with his points of view:
    There is no way that a small, sustained increase in temperature in itself can trigger a sustained, constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as Salby and Bart insist. That violates Henry’s law.
    Salby calculates a theoretical migration of CO2 in ice cores to support his theory, a migration which simply doesn’t exist if one looks at the data over the past 800 kyears…

  101. cnxtim says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:48 pm

    It beggars belief that anyone with a scintilla of science or chemistry in their schooling would accept carbon dioxide being called carbon. If you were to do so in any elementary high school exam it would earn you a fail mark.

    As said before, one is looking at the carbon balance, not the CO2 balance, because CO2 in the atmosphere is not CO2 in the oceans, as most carbon in the oceans is in the form of bicarbonates and carbonates. Worse for vegetation: CO2 after intake is transformed into sugars, starch , cellulose, fats, and lots of other chemicals. Thus how would you make that in a CO2 balance? Carbon remains carbon, in whatever molecule it is incorporated. It is the carbon which must be balanced…

  102. Tim Clark says:

    { Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    It doesn’t matter that fungi/roots are double the sinks they were thought or that volcanoes emit 10 times more CO2 than earlier estimates. Somewhere halve the human emissions are stored and that is all that counts. }

    I think you missed my point.
    I couldn’t care less about the accuracy of CO2 measurements and the contribution of man. It is what it is, i.e.of miniscule effect on temperatures (which is a pi$$ poor metric). Without elaborating, calculations of your “somewhat half” in my opinion are erroneous. My analysis suggests the net % immobilization of CO2 in sinks (of any variety) is increasing with temperature. More fungi, more deposition in ocean “cycling”, etc. This necessarily implies the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is greater than estimated, but sink immobilization is also greater and increasing. A shift in the graphical ordinate, if you will.

  103. Tim Clark says:

    Forgot–
    In my estimation, that is what this study validates, and the one I posted previously.

  104. “The soil contains more carbon than all living plants and the atmosphere combined.”
    – perhaps much more.

    @ Ferdinand Engelbeen

    Ferdinand Engelbeen should definitely refresh your sources of knowledge about the carbon cycle.

    “… the three main reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans and vegetation …”

    POC, DIC, DOC – yes, but it is not true that “vegetation”. Vegetation is mainly an “operator” C, but relatively small (550 – maybe 1000, especially Marine Biota – 2-4 Pg C) reservoir. Large land reservoir it remainders – detritus – dead biomass (mainly in the permafrost and forest-steppes of 1,200 – 2,100) + soil. They should be treated as one. They provide a direct connection even larger reservoir (organic sedimentary: carbonates, fossil fuels etc..,) Removing (adding people) carbon from – to the annual cycle.

    The differences between the estimates for (only) the soil extend c. 800 Pg C (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKwHxOvTsceKVDo5x-rMzFZ-fgJF6iEuiJPvaW33yVPlHZL3ei – 1500-2300 – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Carbon_cycle.jpg/460px-Carbon_cycle.jpg) … That difference alone was as much as under an atmosphere or slightly more.
    About soil respiration recent work (2010) said that it was 98 + / – 12 Pg C.

    “The carbon cycle in the past was quite stable …”

    It is also not true.
    Even the creator of Bern model are large (as for Them) doubt.
    Here: Temporal Shifts in Terrestrial Uptake of Atmospheric CO 2 (http://cmi.princeton.edu/annual_reports/2010/carbon_science/sink.php) in the context of the supposed deficiency of N), they write: “Last year, the Sarmiento Group detected an abrupt increase in the net land uptake of CO2 after 1988.”
    “The increase in uptake (0.8 Pg C/yr) seems to be linked to the atmospheric growth rate, and ENSO variability and volcanic eruptions were shown to have been insufficient to cause the shift.”

    “… terrestrial NPP is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in predicting future atmospheric CO 2 , in part due to parameterizations of plant physiology and carbon allocation. Ecosystem models currently require numerous parameters which are typically assigned one of many possible values [!] from the literature [...].”

    Of course, interannual changes by this study for land-based sources is max 2 PgC, but: “… it was not possible to determine the exact timing and nature of the increase robustly by visual inspection …”
    “Thus, a sophisticated statistical methodology was developed and applied to objectively determine the nature and timing of the shift in the net land uptake.”
    Probably with a big participation estimates based on ice cores a la Frank et al. 2010 …

    “Additional efforts are necessary to further investigate this step change in terrestrial carbon uptake and its causes. The NASA Carbon Cycle Science Program has awarded a grant to the Sarmiento Group and collaborators at JPL and UCLA for the detection and attribution of rapid large-scale shifts in the terrestrial carbon cycle.”
    The Gentlemen, however, I no longer believe …

    „… if nitrogen supplies were sufficient …”
    And this is no one really knows …

    “Neither are the oceans or vegetation the cause of the increase: 1°C increase in temperature gives maximum 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere (Henry’s law, solubility curve of CO2 in seawater) and any release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease…”

    It is also in part (ocean “biological”) is not true – a very big mistake.
    We do not know practically nothing about the size of a gross (not net) sources such as upwelling, which in the past (it changed rapidly) was several times greater than the value derived from physical Henry’s law.
    If Ferdinand Engelbeen give me a reliable size of the source (of course, gross, net upwelling is probably sink) …

  105. Bart says:
    January 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm

    The Keeling curve has only a superficial resemblance to half of what would be the accumulated human CO2 emissions. It is an illusion, and not even a very good one. CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly driven by global temperatures, as the excellent fit between these two curves signifies.

    Round 5 of the battle…

    For bwanajohn and dabbio: this discussion between Bart and me is ongoing for a few years now.
    In short: everybody (including the IPCC and others at the other side of the fence) agree that short-term variations in temperature induce short term variations in the CO2 rate of change (in fact in the sink rate, not the source rate…). The discussion is about the decadal trend. According to Bart and Salby, temperature is also the cause of the trend. According to me (and a lot of other skeptics, like Willis Eschenbach, Fred Singer and others), the trend is caused by human emissions…

    First compare the trend in CO2 rate of change with the trend of the derivative of the temperature.
    There is no trend in the temperature derivative at all. And the derivative shows the same variability as the variability in CO2, only with a lead of 90 deg. That is easily explained: Any change in temperature is followed by a change in CO2 level, following a sinusoid in the temperature with a lag of ~90 deg. The derivatives of T and CO2 shift everything back with 90 deg, with still the same 90 deg lag of dCO2 after dT. That also makes that the variability in T matches the variability in dCO2 perfectly in timing. But that has not the slightest physical meaning.

    Anyway, dT has no slope, thus is not the cause of the slope of dCO2, but is certainly the cause of the variability of dCO2 around its slope.

    Why is there a match between T and the slope of dCO2? Because both are near linear over the past 50 years. One can match any two linear slopes simply by choosing the right factor and offset…
    The problem is in the amplitude of the variability: the larger the difference in slopes, the more the amplitude of the calculated variability of dCO2 differs from reality…
    See here for the correct factor between T and dCO2 with the same data of Bart.
    There is no such a problem in matching the amplitudes if one uses the direct effect of dT on dCO2…

    Why is there a slope in dCO2? The reason is that the increase in the atmosphere was slightly quadratic over time, as human emissions also increased slightly quadratic over time at twice the rate of increase in the atmosphere:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
    That makes that the derivative of the CO2 increase has a linear slope and that the derivative of T has zero slope…

    Bart has an alternative theory: at the same time that temperature increased, the deep ocean upwelling increased too, which combination is the cause of the increase of CO2.
    Besides that that violates about all known observations, the main problem would be that that leads to an increase in circulation of all CO2 through the atmosphere (but still overall ~4 GtC more sink than source), thus leading to a decrease in CO2 turnover in the atmosphere. But there is not the slightest hint of a decrease in residence time in the atmosphere, to the contrary…

  106. richardscourtney says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    In reply to your post at January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm which accurately stated

    The ice core data support your assertions of stable and low pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration but the stomata data don’t.
    your post at January 10, 2014 at 5:12 am begins by saying

    Ice core data, which are direct measurements, not proxy’s, are far more reliable than stomata data, but have a worse resolution.

    This is a clear demonstration that I was correct when in my post I wrote

    There are good reasons to dispute both the ice core and the stomata data. Sadly, they are each championed by people who ignore one and reject the other. In reality, both provide useful information but each is a faulty proxy indication so neither can be used to make stark assertions as you do e.g. in the paragraph I quote in this post..

    The ice core data are direct measurements of the gas trapped in the ice.
    The ice core data are NOT direct measurements of the CO2 concentration when the gas was trapped in the ice.
    There are several reasons for this but one is sufficient to demonstrate that the ice core data are proxy data and not direct measurements.

    The ice solidifies from fern which is porous. This porous layer builds up until the ice solidifies. During this time the air is pumped in and out of the layer by variations in atmospheric pressure (i.e. weather). This mixes the air in the layer until it solidifies. And the IPCC says that Siple takes 83 years to solidify.

    Thus, the trapped air contains an average of the CO2 concentration which existed over 83 years. The effect is to provide CO2 concentration indications similar to those which would exist for a year if the ice solidified each year but the measurements were subjected to an 83-year running mean.

    The Mauna Loa data is the longest time series of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements. It has been collected since 1958 (i.e. only 56 years) so it is not possible to obtain an 83-year running mean of it. Indeed, if one applies a 56-year average of the Mauna Loa data one only obtains a single value of atmospheric CO2 concentration which provides no indication of a change.

    Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.

    There are other reasons why ice core data is not “direct measurement” of atmospheric CO2 concentration, too. And similar points can be made about the stomata data.

    I now anticipate a long diatribe of excuses about why the ice core data are “direct measurements” (they are not) and stomata data are proxy data ( they and ice core data are proxy data).

    The reality is as I said in my post

    What can be said is that ice core data lack sufficient temporal resolution to be able to indicate whether or not the stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration existed as you claim, and the stomata data indicates the concentration was both higher and more variable.

    So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.

    We need to understand the carbon cycle and how it operates. Until we do understand that we cannot know why atmospheric CO2 concentration is changing now and how it is likely to change in future. But, as the above article clearly illustrates, we know little about the carbon cycle and we understand little of what we do know.

    Richard

  107. richardscourtney says:

    Sorry about the formatting error in my post at January 10, 2014 at 7:20 am.

    I hope it is intelligible.

    Richard

  108. richardscourtney says:

    Clearly, the error made my post unintelligible.

    This is a repost

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    In reply to my post at January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm which accurately stated

    The ice core data support your assertions of stable and low pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration but the stomata data don’t.

    your post at January 10, 2014 at 5:12 am begins by saying

    Ice core data, which are direct measurements, not proxy’s, are far more reliable than stomata data, but have a worse resolution.

    This is a clear demonstration that I was correct when in my post I wrote

    There are good reasons to dispute both the ice core and the stomata data. Sadly, they are each championed by people who ignore one and reject the other. In reality, both provide useful information but each is a faulty proxy indication so neither can be used to make stark assertions as you do e.g. in the paragraph I quote in this post..

    The ice core data are direct measurements of the gas trapped in the ice.
    The ice core data are NOT direct measurements of the CO2 concentration when the gas was trapped in the ice.
    There are several reasons for this but one is sufficient to demonstrate that the ice core data are proxy data and not direct measurements.

    The ice solidifies from fern which is porous. This porous layer builds up until the ice solidifies. During this time the air is pumped in and out of the layer by variations in atmospheric pressure (i.e. weather). This mixes the air in the layer until it solidifies. And the IPCC says that Siple takes 83 years to solidify.

    Thus, the trapped air contains an average of the CO2 concentration which existed over 83 years. The effect is to provide CO2 concentration indications similar to those which would exist for a year if the ice solidified each year but the measurements were subjected to an 83-year running mean.

    The Mauna Loa data is the longest time series of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements. It has been collected since 1958 (i.e. only 56 years) so it is not possible to obtain an 83-year running mean of it. Indeed, if one applies a 56-year average of the Mauna Loa data one only obtains a single value of atmospheric CO2 concentration which provides no indication of a change.

    Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.

    There are other reasons why ice core data is not “direct measurement” of atmospheric CO2 concentration, too. And similar points can be made about the stomata data.

    I now anticipate a long diatribe of excuses about why the ice core data are “direct measurements” (they are not) and stomata data are proxy data ( they and ice core data are proxy data).

    The reality is as I said in my post

    What can be said is that ice core data lack sufficient temporal resolution to be able to indicate whether or not the stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration existed as you claim, and the stomata data indicates the concentration was both higher and more variable.

    So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.

    We need to understand the carbon cycle and how it operates. Until we do understand that we cannot know why atmospheric CO2 concentration is changing now and how it is likely to change in future. But, as the above article clearly illustrates, we know little about the carbon cycle and we understand little of what we do know.

    Richard

    PS I hope this is right this time.

  109. Tim Clark says:
    January 10, 2014 at 6:42 am

    No problem with increased uptake of carbon in the biosphere with higher temperatures, but the uptake by the oceans is less with higher temperatures: temperature plays a role in increased biolife but that is less than the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
    The main increase in sink rate for both oceans and land vegetation is by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is far more important than temperature at the equatorial source and polar sink places: 1°C increase in temperatur equalizes with 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere, but the increase in the atmosphere is already 110 ppmv (70 ppmv since 1960)…
    The same for the uptake of CO2 by land plants.

  110. Richard

    Like you I have had long conversations with Ferdinand-who I resect greatly-concerning co2 and ice core data..

    In looking at other proxy data such as tree rings and valves, it is clear they have some merit when compared to a 50 year average of a data set such as CET.

    In figure 2 you can see there is indeed some correlation.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/16/historic-variations-in-temperature-number-four-the-hockey-stick/

    However, they don’t pick up at all on the natural variation that we see in the equivalent annual and decadal record. Climate is FAR more variable than it appears from the 50 year record. I would liken it to a coarse sieve through which the finer grains can fall

    I suspect that ice core data smooths and changes data in such a way as to make it worthless as an accurate record, just as other proxies such as tree rings have a tenuous grasp on climate reality

    350ppm was not at all an uncommon measurement from the old chemical analysis (yes I know the supposed problems Ferdinand) and 400ppm was considered the norm in the warm 1930’s.
    tonyb

  111. richardscourtney says:
    January 10, 2014 at 7:37 am

    The ice core data are direct measurements of the gas trapped in the ice.
    The ice core data are NOT direct measurements of the CO2 concentration when the gas was trapped in the ice.

    Still the ice core data are direct measurements of CO2 in the gas bubbles, compared to stomata data which are proxies: there is some (rough) correlation between stomata data and CO2 levels in the previous growing season, but in no way they are direct measurements of CO2 levels. Which makes a world of difference.
    Ice core CO2 data are quite accurate measurements of the CO2 levels over a mix of years, that is true. But the average CO2 level doesn’t change over the period of the resolution when one mixes several years.

    Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.

    There is no problem at all to compare the ice core data of Law Dome with Mauna Loa or South Pole data: there is an overlap of ~20 years between the 2 datasets (1960-1980). The resolution of 2 out of 3 of the Law Dome ice cores is about a decade: the average gas age at bubble closing depth is only 7 years younger than in the atmosphere above it:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
    Any sustained increase of 2 ppmv over a decade can be detected in the Law Dome ice cores or a peak of 20 ppmv lasting only one year would be detected…
    The same for a 2 ppmv drop in CO2 sustained over 20 years for the third Law Dome ice core (taken downslope, resolution ~20 years, going back ~1000 years in time). That made it possible to see the CO2 drop between the MWP and LIA of only 6 ppmv…

    Anyway, the resolution of all ice cores, even those with the worst resolution is good enough to detect any increase of CO2, even much less than the current one, over the past 800 kyears, which is not the case. And certainly not the case over the past 10,000 years, where we have ice cores with a resolution of ~40 years (Taylor Dome):
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg

    So, it is an error to build an edifice of theory from assumptions of low and stable pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration which may or may not have existed.

    If you can find any peak of 110 ppmv (or even much less) like the current one, in any ice core, you may have a point. But there are hardly any changes in the ice cores of any resolution over the past 10,000 years… One can discuss about the variability within the resolution of the ice core, which may go undetected, but the low pre-industrial CO2 levels are rock solid…

    Again, the carbon cycle is of high interest, but plays a minor role in the cause of the current increase, except for the remarkable linear increase in sink capacity over time…

  112. semczyszakarkadiusz says:
    January 10, 2014 at 6:49 am

    I am not sure that I understand all your objections, but by “vegetation” I do include the whole biosphere and its derivatives: plants, fungi, microbes, insects, animals… The oxygen balance measures the net result of the whole biosphere, as well on land above and below ground as in the oceans. Plants absorb CO2 and at the same time produce O2 in stoichiometric quantities. When plants die or are eaten, oxygen is used and CO2 produced. by soil bacteria, insects and animals, again in stoichiometric quantities.

    Oxygen use for fossil fuel burning can be calculated from fuel sales x burning efficiency. The difference between the calculated and observed O2-decline is the net balance of the whole biosphere… The balance shows a net deficit of oxygen use, thus the whole biosphere is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferentially 12CO2. No matter where the real sink is situated: the greeening earth (density, area) or in roots and more permanent storage of debris (peat, browncoal, coal)…

  113. mpainter says:

    Ferdinand Englebeen:
    You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.I do not have the grasp of the subject that you and others do, but I am acutely aware that this whole business of AGW is based on false assumptions, which assumptions are based on inadequate appreciations of natural processes. The theoreticians simply assume that they have the complete and true picture and spin out the theory and calculations accordingly; the whole of their work erected on an flimsy foundation.

  114. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 7:19 am

    “According to Bart and Salby, temperature is also the cause of the trend.”

    You must first define the variable. The trend (or, first order polynomial component) in the rate of change is caused by temperatures. The trend in absolute concentration is merely modulated by temperatures.

    “There is no trend in the temperature derivative at all.”

    Immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is not a direct function of temperature, but of its integral.

    “But that has not the slightest physical meaning.”

    It has profound physical meaning. It indicates that CO2 is related to the integral of temperature.

    “Anyway, dT has no slope, thus is not the cause of the slope of dCO2, but is certainly the cause of the variability of dCO2 around its slope.”

    No, it is not the cause of the variability. It is 90 deg out of phase. T is the cause of variability in dCO2.

    “One can match any two linear slopes simply by choosing the right factor and offset…”

    But, this factor is precisely the same one needed to match the variability.

    “See here for the correct factor between T and dCO2 with the same data of Bart.”

    The relationship of bulk, globally averaged variables is not precise. This is a limitation of the observations. But, the implications are still readily discernible: temperatures drive the rate of change of CO2.

    “Why is there a slope in dCO2? The reason is that the increase in the atmosphere was slightly quadratic over time…”

    The reason is that there is a slope in temperatures.

    “Bart has an alternative theory…”

    As you say, it is an alternative theory, actually an hypothesis. But, I do not claim it is the theory. Results such as this article documents could indicate that the originating temperature modulated dominant source is biota of the land and/or seas.

  115. Bart says:

    mpainter says:
    January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    “You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.”

    Yes, and treating highly uncertain data as precise and comprehensive leads to circular reasoning.

  116. richardscourtney says:

    tonyb:

    Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 10, 2014 at 7:41 am.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531548

    I, too, have great respect for Ferdinand, but on the subject of the carbon cycle he adopts a blinkered view which supports his ‘true belief’ in an anthropogenic cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. His belief may be right or it may be wrong, but he closes his mind to anything which challenges his belief.

    For example, in my post at January 10, 2014 at 7:37 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531543
    which your post comments, I wrote

    Clearly, ice core data is proxy data which cannot be directly compared to the Mauna Loa data.

    There are other reasons why ice core data is not “direct measurement” of atmospheric CO2 concentration, too. And similar points can be made about the stomata data.

    I now anticipate a long diatribe of excuses about why the ice core data are “direct measurements” (they are not) and stomata data are proxy data ( they and ice core data are proxy data).

    At January 10, 2014 at 8:22 am Ferdinand has replied to that with a long diatribe of debateable excuses and assertions about why the ice core data are good and the stomata data are not.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/now-its-the-fungi-carbon-footprint-that-isnt-in-climate-models/#comment-1531590

    Richard

  117. Leo Smith says:

    Mushroom carbon management

    Leave them in the dark and feed them bullshit…it all makes sense…

  118. Janice Moore says:

    GO, BART! #(:))

    (I was so pleased to see you deftly wielding your devastating Sword of Truth after I had mentioned you in my post that I just had to say so! Glad you made an appearance. I hope all is well in that semi-hostile workplace… have you found anyone of like mind there, yet? Pretty lonely, no doubt. Hang in there (and hang OUT, here! We need you) ihopethisdoesn’toffendyoubutyouareoneofthoseiregularlyprayfor)

    Take care.

    J.
    *********************************************
    Dear Richard, glad you are back. I hope Sue is much, much, better, now. J.

  119. Janice Moore says:

    @ Piper Paul (re: 1:21pm yesterday) — I’m sorry I took so l long to tell you this: SUPER-WITTY and fun post (some of it was over my non-software engineer-head, but enough was comprehensible to this computer science — business (you know how little Comp. Sci., I, thus, know, heh, heh) major to “get” a lot of it).

    Thanks for the humor!

  120. richardscourtney says:

    Janice Moore:

    Thankyou for the interest in Sue. She is much better, thankyou. Prognosis is now very good.

    I again left because my mere presence was attracting trolls so my contributions were providing net harm to WUWT. I feared this was happening again in one thread but that turned out to be only a crook trying to rob people. I hope to stay this time.

    We need differing opinions and ideas from honest contributors so, for example, debate between
    Ferdinand and Bart deserves to be encouraged for the benefit of us all. Trolls attempt to prevent rational discussion and need to be slammed.

    Richard

  121. mpainter says:
    January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.

    To the contrary, I am fully aware that a lot of details of the carbon cycle are not even known, let it understood. But the point is that you don’t need any detail of the carbon cycle to see that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere. That is what the carbon balance shows: the overall levels. Not the details. The figures (for 2011):
    increase in the atmosphere = emissions + natural releases – natural sinks
    4.5 GtC = 9 GtC + natural releases – natural sinks
    natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC
    or the natural carbon cycle has 4.5 GtC more sink than source and thus its contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is zero, nada, nothing. No need to know any individual carbon flow in or out. No need to know where the 4.5 GtC more sink than source is going to.

    There is one exception on this reasoning, as Bart insists: if the natural inputs increase at an enormous rate, with very fast sinks, the increased circulation would increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, without help of human emissions.

    But that violates about every observation:
    The source can’t be the biosphere: that is a proven sink for CO2, not a source, neither is there any indication of a huge increase in the seasonal cycle.
    The source can’t be the oceans: the 13C/12C ratio in the oceans is higher than that of the atmosphere, including the air-water isotopic fractionation. Thus any substantial extra release from the oceans would INcrease the ratio in the atmosphere, but we see a firm DEcrease in 13C/12C ratio in atmosphere and ocean surface layers:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
    If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, as Bart indicates, then the increase must parallel human emissions in exactly the same ratio and exactly the same time frame. That would imply a threefold increase in circulation 1960-2011, for which is not the slightest indication in the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere…

  122. Janice Moore says:

    Richard — that is wonderful news. Thanks for responding. Janice

  123. Chris R. says:

    To climatereason:

    You wrote in part:

    Like you I have had long conversations with Ferdinand-who I resect greatly-concerning co2 and ice core data..

    You resected him?! And greatly? Outrageous! Get out your scalpel
    and restore him to normal at once!

    For the non-medical folks here, that’s a joke–a “resection” is a surgical removal
    of all or part of an organ.

  124. Tim Clark says:

    { Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Tim Clark says:
    January 10, 2014 at 6:42 am }

    1. The oceans aren’t warming.
    2. The article I first posted states that aquatic biolife is increasing.

  125. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 9, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Sorry to disappoint you, but it aren’t the oceans that cause the seasonal swings in the NH, it is vegetation.
    ————–

    Your mimicry of piffle doesn’t impress me any. And I do not think that “seasonal swing” is limited to the NH …. but you can prove me wrong by citing a reference to equivalent monthly Mona Loa CO2 data that is/was recorded at the same latitude/altitude in the SH.

    And don’t be forgettin that Mona Loa, Hawaii is located at 20°N latitude and 3,758 miles southwest of the US west coast and 6,196 miles east of the Asian coast …. which is a fer piece from any vegetation growth in the NH.

    The mid to northern forests start to grow new leaves progressively northwards in spring and reach their maximum growth end summer when the cold starts getting in and progressively goes southwards.
    —————-

    Me thinks you are in dire need of a “crash course” in Botany 101.

    First of all, the mid to northern forests do not constitute all of the vegetation growth in the NH.

    Spring vegetation growth (new leaves) across the Gulf Coast and California (and on around the earth) begins 1st of January and moves progressively northwards to June 15th. Initial “new” growth is accomplished via sugars that are stored in the roots and only after the leaves develop is CO2 absorbed. Thus atmospheric CO2 begins being absorbed in massive quantities about mid-January and increases exponentially as the “new growth” moves steadily northward in sync with the Sun’s northward movement toward the Spring Equinox (equator) and onward to its June Solstice position at latitude 23.44° N.
    Reference map: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/wildseed/info/6.1.html

    And the above in no way correlates with the yearly max CO2 ppm that occurs in mid May of each and every year.

    And the growth of annuals stops long before end-of-summer because next-year’s supply of sugars has to be stored in the roots. And the “cold getting in” does little more than slows up the photosynthesis, regardless of whether said cold occurs in the Spring, Summer or Fall. It is the progressively decreasing hours of daylight that “shuts down” plant growth and/or photosynthesis as the Sun moves farther south toward the Equator.

    Meanwhile fallen leaves and debris from previous years is decaying all year round, somewhat more in summer and especially fall, but even under snow in the forests of Alaska…

    ————-

    Just mimicry of piffle and more piffle, that was.

    Now you are in dire need of a “crash course” in bacteriology, fungi, molds and mildews. Or you could just tell me the reason and/or purpose for which you own/use a refrigerator/freezer. And please don’t tell its sole purpose is for keeping your beer cold and for making ice cubes for your soda pop.

    And biomass “under the snow” in Alaska or Siberia will NOT decay any faster than the biomass you have in your refrigerator, which is pretty damn slow and will keep for weeks and weeks iffen it weren’t for those silly molds that slowly grow in those cold temperatures. And any biomass you have stored in your freezer will not rot or decay for a year or two or three. It might get “freeze-dried” but it won’t spoil rot or decay. Ask your Mother, she will tell you the same thing.

    And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall …. and that’s because it is either too damn dry or too damn cold for the microbes. Why don’t you collect 4 or 5 bushel of those dead leaves and twigs and debris … and chock your refrigerator full with half of it and dump the rest of it on the kitchen floor and then watch it for the next 12 months to see which one of the two rots or decays the quickest.

    That vegetation is leading the dance can be seen in the opposite swings of δ13C in the NH:
    ——————

    Well you sure as ell aren’t seeing any opposite swings of δ13C that is the result of fall or winter rotting and decaying of dead vegetative biomass.

    The southern hemisphere has a lot less land/vegetation and has very little seasonal variation:
    ————————–

    Yup, but 80% of the SH is ocean … and the ocean is the greatest CO2 sink in existence. And the Northern Hemisphere is only 61% ocean.

    Neither are the oceans or vegetation the cause of the increase: 1°C increase in temperature gives maximum 17 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere (Henry’s law, solubility curve of CO2 in seawater)
    ——————————

    Only need an 8 ppm increase not a 17 ppm increase …. but you can multiply that 17 ppmv CO2 by 20% more ocean surface times the temperature change of the surface water in the SH to see how much CO2 is being ingassed and outgassed between summer and winter.

    and any release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease…
    ————————–

    Gimme a break, the ingassing/outgassing of CO2 by liquid water is NOT isotope dependent. Besides, you really don’t know the actual source of the atmospheric CO2.

    And vegetation is a proven sink for CO2, not a source…
    ——————–

    Silly man, if it’s a sink then it is also a source. Or did you forget you were arguing against my Refrigerator/Freezer Law?

  126. Bart says:
    January 10, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is not a direct function of temperature, but of its integral.

    Over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was a direct function of temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C. It still is on all time scales, including the recent 1.5 century in the modulation of the variability around the increasing CO2 levels. But in no time frame CO2 levels were the result of the integral of temperature.

    If that were right, the increase in temperature during a deglaciation over 5000 years would need the integral of an increase of 0.0024°C/year over a temperature span of 12°C, thus every year at the end of the 5000 years integral should give more and more CO2 addition, while the overall increase is only ~8 ppmv/°C, and the reality is a straight increase of CO2 after temperature, not an increasing increase when the temperature increases further away from the (glacial) baseline.

    During a 10,000 years interglacial and during the 100,000 years glacials, there is near zero temperature integral in both, despite a difference of 12°C in baseline temperature.

    But a difference of 0.6°C over the past 50 years should be responsible for an increase of 70 ppmv, or over 100 ppmv/°C?

    But, this factor is precisely the same one needed to match the variability.

    No it is not: if you match the slopes of T and dCO2, the factor involved is too small for the variability. The steeper the slope of T vs. dCO2, the smaller the variability of dCO2 gets…

    No, it is not the cause of the variability. It is 90 deg out of phase. T is the cause of variability in dCO2.

    T is the cause of the variability in CO2 with a 90 deg. lag. That is what the process tells us, based on Henry’s law.
    Therefore T and dCO2 match in phase and dCO2 lags dT with 90 deg. Which doesn’t prove that T is the cause of dCO2. Neither does that disprove that dT is the cause of dCO2…

    Results such as this article documents could indicate that the originating temperature modulated dominant source is biota of the land and/or seas.

    Neither the oceans or biota: increased temperature in general increases uptake by biota mainly in the extra-tropics, but temporarely opposite in the tropical forests (which is the main cause of the 1-3 years variability). Oceans are too high in 13C/12C ratio…

  127. Tim Clark says:

    Ferdinand;……

    Soils contain more carbon than that in the atmosphere and three times more
    than is stored in all the Earth’s vegetation. Many of the studies on increased plant growth focus on the harvested product not including the stover, which can be much greater than the harvested product (by dry weight). If CO2 increases plant growth, as we know it does (at least us plant physiologists), thus leaving more to decay, some of that carbon goes into humus.

    Humus refers to any organic matter in the soil that has reached a point of stability, where it will break down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries, if not MILLENIA. Does that figure in your equation.
    You need to be less intransigent.

  128. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 11:28 am

    “All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere.”

    The dreaded “mass balance” argument once more enters the fray. It is trivially wrong.

    “The source can’t be the biosphere: that is a proven sink for CO2, not a source, neither is there any indication of a huge increase in the seasonal cycle.”

    You just used the “mass balance” argument to prove that the mass balance argument is correct. This is circular logic.

    “If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, as Bart indicates, then the increase must parallel human emissions in exactly the same ratio and exactly the same time frame.”

    No, it only has to be such as to induce a nearly linear increase in the rate of change. Affine functions are always affinely similar to one another, and the lowest order polynomial expansion which fits a given process is by-definition an affine function, so this is not at all an unlikely scenario. The fact that the slope is approximately the same as that of 1/2 the human emissions would be against a priori odds, but as an a posteriori observation, there is nothing improbable about this either.

    “That would imply a threefold increase in circulation 1960-2011, for which is not the slightest indication in the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere…”

    Nobody has a good handle on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates range from 5 to 5 thousand years.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    “Over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was a direct function of temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C.”

    With a time lag of many centuries. Salby has shown how this is consistent with the model of CO2 being related to the integral of temperature.

    “But a difference of 0.6°C over the past 50 years should be responsible for an increase of 70 ppmv, or over 100 ppmv/°C?”

    In the integral model, this is entirely consistent. You are trying to shoehorn the dynamic system into a simple, memoryless linear law. That is not what it is.

    “No it is not: if you match the slopes of T and dCO2, the factor involved is too small for the variability.”

    But, on the wrong side for you. Aside from that, you are simply demanding too much of the data here. As I explained: “The relationship of bulk, globally averaged variables is not precise. This is a limitation of the observations.”

    “T is the cause of the variability in CO2 with a 90 deg. lag. That is what the process tells us, based on Henry’s law.”

    Henry’s Law is a constant of proportionality. It has zero phase response.

  129. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 5:39 am

    There is no way that a small, sustained increase in temperature in itself can trigger a sustained, constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as Salby and Bart insist. That violates Henry’s law.
    ————–

    It doesn’t violate Henry’s law if that “small, sustained increase in temperature” is the temperature of the ocean.

    And even NASA says the ocean has been warming for the past 133 years, to wit:

    This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. ….. Data source: NOAA, 2013
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html

    But in actuality it has been warming for more like 183 years, …. recovering from the effects of the LIA. Warming enough to cause the Mauna Loa measured “average yearly CO2 ppm” to increase during each of the past 55 years. Now the data shows a 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase but the actual ppm increase attributed to said “ocean warming” would have to be “teased” out of the Mona Loa data.

  130. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    but you can prove me wrong by citing a reference to equivalent monthly Mona Loa CO2 data that is/was recorded at the same latitude/altitude in the SH.

    At your service:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
    and pick any station in the SH or NH, on land, sea or airborne…
    Besides the South Pole, there are no stations in the SH at a similar height as Mauna Loa, but as air masses travel rather fast with height, there may be a lag of 1-2 months between near sealevel and at 3400 m altitude.
    Have a look at Goabeb, Namibia, 456 masl, 23°S and ask for the seasonal cycle:
    +1 -2 ppmv or a seasonal swing of 3 ppmv.
    And compare that to Mauna Loa, Hawaii, USA, 3397 masl, 19°N
    +3 -4 ppmv or a seasonal swing of 7 ppmv, double the SH swing at the same latitude.
    According to the NOAA web site, the “background” CO2 levels at 20°N have an amplitude of ~8 ppmv. That is at sealevel.
    Further of interest are the 13C/12C ratio’s at the same places. These show where the swings originate: biosphere or oceans. These can be plotted too.

    which is a fer piece from any vegetation growth in the NH

    You may have heard that CO2 is readily mixed in the atmosphere. Which doesn’t mean that at every moment at every place the same CO2 levels can be measured. But the seasonal changes are dispersed within weeks at the same latitudes and altitudes. Between altitudes and latitudes it takes 1-2 months and between the hemispheres it needs 6-months to 2 years…

    Me thinks you are in dire need of a “crash course” in Botany 101.

    I only looked at the δ13C changes over the seasons at different stations: that is what shows what happens in the biosphere: more uptake or more release. The largest seasonal variaiton is in the mid-to north latitudes: the seasonal swing (both CO2 and δ13C) is about the same at San Fransico (California) than at Barrow (Alaska). But if you have a more detailed insight of what happens where at what time of the year in this part of the carbon cycle, I am eager to learn…

    And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall

    Not of the previous years, but of the current year and it doesn’t stop in winter, even not in Alaska under a snow deck. But CO2 uptake stops in winter for all deciduous trees, which makes that more low-13C CO2 is released by the biosphere than is taken away.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/uoca-ncu090303.php
    and
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1552607?uid=3737592&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103229534311

    Only need an 8 ppm increase not a 17 ppm increase …. but you can multiply that 17 ppmv CO2 by 20% more ocean surface times the temperature change of the surface water in the SH to see how much CO2 is being ingassed and outgassed between summer and winter.

    The 17 ppmv is at full quilibrium, which takes a lot more time than a season. The seasonal swing in the ocean surface – atmosphere system represents about 50 GtC in and out. But the seasonal swing of the biosphere – atmosphere system represents about 60 GtC out and in. Opposite of each other. It is the difference between these two which causes the resulting seasonal swing…

    Gimme a break, the ingassing/outgassing of CO2 by liquid water is NOT isotope dependent. Besides, you really don’t know the actual source of the atmospheric CO2.

    There surely is a isotopic differentiation at the water-air border, or where do you think that the temperature proxy in ice cores, stalagmites, sediments etc. is based on. But that is not the point. The point is that any important release of the oceans will INcrease the δ13C level of the atmosphere. Thus IF the increase in the atmosphere is caused mainly by ocean releases, that would give an increase, but we see a firm decrease of δ13C levels…
    We don’t know all the sources of natural CO2 in the atmosphere, but we know that humans add low 13C CO2 and that about halve these added amounts (as mass, not original molecules) increase in the atmosphere, thus the other halve is somewhere absorbed and nature is no net contributor to the increase…

  131. Tim Clark says:
    January 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Humus refers to any organic matter in the soil that has reached a point of stability, where it will break down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries, if not MILLENIA. Does that figure in your equation.

    The oxygen balance only shows the difference between uptake and decay, where the ~1 GtC more uptake than decay (and growing) is what is extra stored. If that is in more wood and/or a larger growth area, or in more permanent storage like humus, peat, etc… that is an open question…

  132. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Tim Clark says:
    January 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    Soils contain more carbon than that in the atmosphere and three times more than is stored in all the Earth’s vegetation.
    ————–

    Now don’t you all forget the 200+ years of carbon that is stored both above and below ground in man-made wood products such as houses, buildings, furniture, infrastructure, etc., etc.

  133. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    PiperPaul says: (January 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm)

    Re: Programming Languages.

    In a conversation with P. J. Plauger one time he compared Pascal and C thusly:

    Pascal puts a lot of limitations on what you can do, many of them arbitrary. C lets you get away with murder, usually your own.

    I can attest to the absolute truth of that comparison.

  134. Bart says:
    January 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    You just used the “mass balance” argument to prove that the mass balance argument is correct. This is circular logic.

    That the biosphere is a net sink is based on the oxygen balance, which is independent of the mass balance, except for using fossile fuel sales / CO2 releases in the calculation. No influence of other natural carbon cycles. The oxygen balance is confirmed by the δ13C balance, which is mainly influenced by the same two sources.

    Nobody has a good handle on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates range from 5 to 5 thousand years.

    The latter can’t be the residence time as defined by mass in the atmosphere/throughput as that would mean hardly any exchange with other reservoirs at all.
    But most empirical evidence for a RT is between 5-10 years. The only exception is the decay time for the 14C bomb spike at ~15 years, but that is strictly spoken not a RT, as part of the pre-bomb 14C is returning to the atmosphere, lengthening the adjustment time.

    Salby has shown how this is consistent with the model of CO2 being related to the integral of temperature

    Based on a theoretical extreme migration of CO2 in ice cores which doesn’t exist…

    Henry’s Law is a constant of proportionality. It has zero phase response.

    The phase response is an effect of Henry’s law. When the temperature increases, the proportionality is broken and more CO2 is released from the oceans until the proportionality is restored.
    If the temperature changes as a sinusoid, that gives a 90 deg lag of the CO2 sinusoid.
    If that happens at upwelling or downwelling places, the resultant CO2 fluxes (and thus the CO2 increase/decrease in the atmosphere) are modulated at 90 deg lag after temperature…

  135. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    No, no, no…

    “If the temperature changes as a sinusoid, that gives a 90 deg lag of the CO2 sinusoid.”

    No. The 90 degree phase lag of such a system would only occur beyond the passband. Since the 90 deg phase lag is seen at all frequencies reflected in the record, the bandwidth must be low enough that, for all practical purposes, it is an integration over the observation time interval.

  136. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    It doesn’t violate Henry’s law if that “small, sustained increase in temperature” is the temperature of the ocean.

    Welcome to the club of believers in a permanent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by a sustained small increase in temperature of the oceans.

    Let’s see what Henry’s law says:
    At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid

    OK no problem with that.
    Let us start with an ocean and an atmosphere in equilibrium.
    In the case of the oceans, that is a dynamical equilibrium, as as much CO2 is released by the deep ocean upwelling at the equator, as is taken away by the cold sinks for water and CO2 near the poles.
    The estimated amosphere – deep ocean – atmosphere cycle is ~40 GtC/year. The abolute heigth is not of interest here, but is based on the 14C bomb spike decay and the 13C decay from human emissions.

    Now we increase the temperature of all ocean surfaces with 1°C.
    Per solubility of CO2 in ocean waters, that increases the equilibrium pCO2 of seawater with ~17 microatm. That makes that the pCO2 difference between ocean surface at the upwelling places and the atmosphere increases and the incoming flux (into the atmosphere) increases.
    The opposite happens at the downwelling places: the atmosphere – ocean pCO2 difference is reduced, leading to less uptake by the sinking waters.

    The net result: an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far so good. But an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the pCO2 difference at the upwelling places and increases the uptake at the sinks. At an increase of 17 ppmv in the atmosphere, the original fluxes of before the temperature increase are restored and no further CO2 increase in the atmosphere happens:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

    Thus there is no permanent release of CO2 from the oceans for a sustained increase in ocean temperature alone.

    The 800,000 years temperature-CO2 ratio is about 8 ppmv/°C, as that includes the opposite reaction of the biosphere on increased temperatures…

    Thus the maximum 1°C warming since the Little Ice Age is good for 17 ppmv increase (oceans only) or 8 ppmv increase (oceans + biosphere) of the observed 110 ppmv increase…

  137. Bart says:
    January 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    No. The 90 degree phase lag of such a system would only occur beyond the passband. Since the 90 deg phase lag is seen at all frequencies reflected in the record, the bandwidth must be low enough that, for all practical purposes, it is an integration over the observation time interval.

    If I remember well, PaulK calculated that the response of CO2 to T variations lags T with 90 deg for all short term frequencies which are a lot smaller than the lower frequency. As the trend – if that is a sinusoid at all – has a wavelength of at least 600 years and the short term frequencies are 1-3 years, I don’t see the problem.

  138. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    [quoting Sam C]: “And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall.”

    Not of the previous years, but of the current year and it doesn’t stop in winter, even not in Alaska under a snow deck.
    ————–

    Now just why in hell did you change your claim to “current year” when you originally stated “previous years” which was what I was responding to in my above statement? Was that a CYA ego “thingy” just so you could accuse me of being in error, or what? fer shame, fer shame

    Of course it don’t matter one twit because your statement is still FUBAR. The leaves and debris from the CURRENT YEAR are even less likely to rot or decay because they are pretty much dried out when they fall to the ground. And I dun tolt you that DRY biomass won’t rot or decay. It will last for years n’ years. REF: houses, furniture & .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    But if you have a more detailed insight of what happens where at what time of the year in this part of the carbon cycle, I am eager to learn
    ————–

    HA, given you above devious shenanigans I seriously doubt your eagerness to learn, but on the contrary, it appears you are eager to prove me wrong …. and tout yourself as being correct and infallible. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.

  139. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    “Welcome to the club of believers in a permanent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by a sustained small increase in temperature of the oceans.”

    I hope you have paid attention enough not to number me among that club.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    “If I remember well, PaulK calculated that the response of CO2 to T variations lags T with 90 deg for all short term frequencies which are a lot smaller than the lower frequency.”

    You are mis-remembering. That is quite impossible, and it is not what he did.

    “As the trend – if that is a sinusoid at all – has a wavelength of at least 600 years and the short term frequencies are 1-3 years, I don’t see the problem.”

    That would be a real problem for AGW!!! (And, for we humans).

  140. Bart says:
    January 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    I hope you have paid attention enough not to number me among that club.

    Salby anyway is, but doesn’t show an underlying mechanism, but you do indirectly too: temperature itself can’t give a sustained increase in the atmosphere, except in combination with another process, which must give a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 for the combination with temperature. That combined process must mimic the human emissions at exactly the same rate and timing over the past 160 years, which is highly unlikely…

    You are mis-remembering. That is quite impossible, and it is not what he did.

    From Paul_K at Bishop Hill’s blog:

    The output response is phase-shifted relative to any sinusoidal temperature input; as response times get larger, the phase shift asymptotes to a shift of exactly pi/2. Hence, putting any realistic (i.e. long) transient response in place brings temperature exactly into phase with dCO2/dt. All that is required is that ocean equilibration for a change in temperature is a longer term process than the longest periodicity of the temperature cycles we are considering here. This seems to me to be a very safe assumption.

    As the longer term process has a periodicity (if any and if T related at all) much longer than the longest short-term frequency, all short term processes are pi/2 shifted in CO2 vs. T and dCO2/dt matches T at exactly the same phase.

    That would be a real problem for AGW!!! (And, for we humans).

    Not if the increase is not temperature related. If it is temperature related and the current increase rate is weakening (which is hardly visible), then we are near 1/4th of the wavelength and the total wavelength is over 600 years and we may expect a further increase for some 160 years for the next peak. Which is likely for human emissions, but not for a temperature related process…

  141. Samuel

    This is what I said:
    Meanwhile fallen leaves and debris from previous years is decaying all year round, somewhat more in summer and especially fall, but even under snow in the forests of Alaska…
    That wasn’t completely right: in fall new leaves add to the total amount of decayable debris.

    And I am eager to learn, but it must be based on verifyable facts. As you tell me that fallen leaves are dryed out, that is right, but that these don’t deteriorate because they are dry isn’t right: fallen leaves in general are wetted by rain and dew and if you put that on a heap, the volume can be seen shrinking all fall and winter, leaving less than halve the volume after winter, as I can see in my own garden. Even if it has been freezing during months (which is seldom here, but it happens).
    The first of the links I gave about the Alaskan CO2 emissions in winter show that a combination of fungi and bacteria is working especially in winter under the snow deck and the bacteria die out in summer.

    But this all is an aside for the main point of this article:
    Does the carbon cycle, and specifically the fungi/bacteria/roots combination affect CO2 levels in the amosphere?
    It may, but that depends:
    The total amounts of carbon stored in vegetation/soils (or deep oceans) have no influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as long as there is no exchange.
    The exchanges of carbon between carbon stored in vegetation/soils (or deep oceans) have no influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as long as there is no difference between inputs and outputs.

    Thus all what counts is the difference between total inputs and outputs of all natural fluxes + human emissions, which is quite accurately known: some 1 GtC/yr extra sink in the biosphere, some 0.5 GtC/yr in the oceans surface layer and the remainder of the difference between the emissions (9 GtC/yr) and the increase in the atmosphere (4.5 GtC/yr) in the deep oceans: 3 GtC/yr. The latter is not/hardly measurable, but as other sinks (like rock weathering) are much smaller/slower, the bulk of the difference is going into the deep oceans.

    That answers the question of the influence of the above article on the carbon balance: there may be an influence (if there is a trend over the years), but that is incorporated in the overall increase of CO2 uptake by the biosphere as a whole.

  142. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 11, 2014 at 2:06 am

    Samuel

    This is what I said:
    ————–

    Really now! Tell someone else, they’ll believe you.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    Thus all what counts is the difference between total inputs and outputs of all natural fluxes + human emissions, which is quite accurately known:
    ————–

    Which is horsepucky, because you don’t have a clue what those actual figures are.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    some 1 GtC/yr extra sink in the biosphere, some 0.5 GtC/yr in the oceans surface layer and the remainder of the difference between the emissions (9 GtC/yr) and the increase in the atmosphere (4.5 GtC/yr) in the deep oceans: 3 GtC/yr.
    ————–

    Sure nuff, to wit:

    [(9 GtC/yr) – (4.5 GtC/yr)] – [(1 GtC/yr) + (0.5 GtC/yr)] = 3 GtC/yr
    (4.5 GtC/yr) – (1.5 GtC/yr) = 3 GtC/yr increase in CO2.

    But I can play a more accurate game than yours, to wit:

    Via the Mona Loa data the yearly increases in CO2 ppm was, to wit:

    2011 5 2011.375 394.21 – 1.17 ppm increase from May 2010
    2012 5 2012.375 396.78 – 2.57 ppm increase
    2013 5 2013.375 399.76 – 2.98 ppm increase

    And given the fact that the:
    Average mass of the atmosphere = 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.
    Amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in atmosphere was = 396.78 ppm or 0.039678%

    Therefore:
    (5 quadrillion mtA) x (0.00039678C/A) = 1.9839 trillion mtC

    Then:
    (1.99 trillion mtC) / (397 ppmC) = 5GtC per 1 ppmC

    Thus:
    (2.57 ppmC increase) X (5GtC/1 ppmC) = 12.85GtC increase in CO2 in year 2011/12

    And that calculated 12.85GtC increase in CO2 …. is 4 times greater …. than your guesstimated 3 GtC/yr increase in CO2.

    Lord a mercy, …. did I make mistakes in my calculations ….. OR WHAT?

    NAH, the proponents of CAGW got the same results of 5GtC per 1 ppmC that I did, … but then they did some “reverse” mathematical calculations so that their guesstimated “quantities” of their CO2 emission sources would all add up to equal the 5GtC figure.

    But the CO2 kept increasing, ….. but their average temperatures didn’t …. and thus “BIG trouble in CAGW City”. The heat is missing, the heat is missing.

  143. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 11, 2014 at 1:14 am

    “That combined process must mimic the human emissions at exactly the same rate and timing over the past 160 years, which is highly unlikely…”

    An a posteriori observation is never improbable. It just is. The probability waveform has collapsed with the measurement.

    “As the longer term process has a periodicity (if any and if T related at all) much longer than the longest short-term frequency…”

    It doesn’t. By your own admission, the rise in CO2 is a 20th century and later phenomenon. For the trend induced by temperature to have settled out to the point it would be undetectible, you would need a time constant on the order of 10 years or less. There are, e.g., twenty year cycles readily apparent in the data. You would see massive phase distortion in those cycles if the transfer function were as wideband as you are claiming. There is no distortion at any scale.

    “If it is temperature related and the current increase rate is weakening (which is hardly visible), then we are near 1/4th of the wavelength and the total wavelength is over 600 years…”

    This is gibberish.

  144. Bart says:

    “..which is hardly visible…”

    Which is blatantly visible.

  145. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Bart,

    THANK YOU for sharing those excellent graphs (linked at 10:45pm today). You go, O Science Giant! (and impeccable writing style Giant, too)

    Janice

  146. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:07 am

    Via the Mona Loa data the yearly increases in CO2 ppm was, to wit:

    The exact data over the past 50+ years from Mauna Loa and the emissions (from EIA) are here in graph form up to 2011 (the last year of the published emissions):
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

    ~9 GtC/yr emissions is ~4.15 ppmv/year
    The difference with the increase of ~2.15 ppmv (trendline in 2011) is what goes into the sinks. The whole biosphere accounts for ~1 GtC/year, based on the oxygen (and 13C/12C) balance:
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
    The ocean surface is another fast sink, but limited to 10% of the change in the atmosphere, due to the buffer/Revelle factor. The increase in the atmosphere being ~4.5 GtC/year, the increase in the ocean surface accounts for ~0.5 GtC/year (the ratio carbon atmosphere/ocean surface is ~800/1000 GtC). The increase in carbon (DIC) in the ocean surface layer can be seen in a few longer series, here at the Bermuda’s:
    http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
    Fig. 5 shows the increase in total inorganic carbon (DIC).An increase of 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
    The rest of the sinks is highly probably in the deep oceans via the THC…

    (1.99 trillion mtC) / (397 ppmC) = 5GtC per 1 ppmC

    The ppmv is CO2, not C. You need to divide the 5 GtC by 12/44. But the real ratio for the current atmosphere is 2.12 GtC/ppmv.

    But the CO2 kept increasing, ….. but their average temperatures didn’t …. and thus “BIG trouble in CAGW City”. The heat is missing, the heat is missing.

    I agree, and I don’t think that CO2 has such a high influence on temperature and natural variation has a much larger influence on temperature than incorportated in the models. But that doesn’t imply that humans aren’t the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…

  147. Janice Moore says:
    January 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Janice, you are great admirer of everybody who gives food to your own ideas of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if Bart uses a common fault in what I have read some time ago in a book titled “How to Lie with Statistics”.

    Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph (where Mt C = 2120 x ppmv). That gives a false impression on the average reader like yourself. If you plot the two variables on the same scale, you will see the real ratio:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
    With the emissions about twice the increase in the atmosphere… Still the calculated increase of CO2, based on a linear increase of the sink rate with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium (the red line in the graph) is largely within the natural variability caused by the short term temperature variability.

  148. Bart says:
    January 11, 2014 at 10:41 am

    It doesn’t. By your own admission, the rise in CO2 is a 20th century and later phenomenon. For the trend induced by temperature to have settled out to the point it would be undetectible, you would need a time constant on the order of 10 years or less.

    If and only if the trend is induced by temperature, for which you need to violate Henry’s law and a couple of other observations… The peak frequency is around 3 years. Beyond that there is hardly any peak visible.

    We are back on the same dead end…

  149. Bart says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:22 am

    “Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph”

    So did Ferdinand, implicitly, in the similar plot he produced which he did not link to here. He just didn’t label the other axis. And, he performed his fit across the entire data set, so that it gave a misleading impression of a constant trend, which was basically just an exercise in showing that least squares trending is robust, something we already knew well.

    But, even then, he cannot disguise the fact that the rate of change of CO2 has been flat for the past decade, in precisely the time period that temperatures have been flat, and you can readily see that in the plot he linked. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions have continued accelerating.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:28 am

    “If and only if the trend is induced by temperature…”

    No. The temperature trend was also established in the last century.

    “…for which you need to violate Henry’s law…”

    Fully consistent with Henry’s Law, as I demonstrated here.

    “The peak frequency is around 3 years.”

    The Fourier transform shows strong frequency content across the entire Nyquist band. Particular formations with ~20 years periodicity and longer can be readily observed in the plot.

    “We are back on the same dead end…”

    Patience, my friend. The divergence between emissions and overall concentration is already stark. It will not take much longer – a decade at the most – to become extremely pronounced, at which time you will be forced to make a reevaluation of your position.

  150. Bart says:

    “No. The temperature trend was also established in the last century.”

    As was the emissions trend.

  151. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 12, 2014 at 3:03 am

    The exact data over the past 50+ years from Mauna Loa and the emissions (from EIA) are here in graph form up to 2011 (the last year of the published emissions):
    ————–

    And here is a really, really purty graph that you can use to get the exact data for your next published scientific paper, to wit: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    The ocean surface is another fast sink, but limited to 10% of the change in the atmosphere, due to the buffer/Revelle factor.
    ————–

    HA, now you have morphed from being utterly silly to being down right ridiculous. Was that a severely miseducated statement or just blowing smoke at me?

    Educate yourself, Ferdinand, as to why your “10% limitation” is FUBAR, to wit:

    Natural Acidity of Rainwater
    Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic). The acidity of rainwater comes from the natural presence of three substances (CO2, NO, and SO2) found in the troposphere. As is seen in Table I, carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater.

    http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

    Of course you will probably claim that all the CO2 (carbonic acid) that is in the rainwater that falls on the oceans every year (and every place else) ….. has all been measured and accounted for …. and is thus ignored because it doesn’t amount to enough to worry about.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    The ppmv is CO2, not C. You need to divide the 5 GtC by 12/44. But the real ratio for the current atmosphere is 2.12 GtC/ppmv.
    ————–

    I don’t need to do anything because we both know what my equations and commentary were stating ….. and if that was the only “fault” you could find with said then apparently you agree with 99 32/44ths of what I posted as being factual.

    Ferdinand, since we are on the subject of CO2, …… I wasa thunking that youse might enjoy reading a short commentary that I penned several years ago, … so enjoy, to wit:
    ——————–

    The CAGW secret they don’t want you to know.

    There is a nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.

    There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits the CAGWers to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.

    The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.

    Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them an important scientific tool that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits them to measure the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused”, and 2) it permits the CAGWers to calculate the number of degrees increase in Average Temperatures (monthly, yearly, globally) that are directly attributed to human activity.

    As an added note, oftentimes you may hear someone refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and/or ”rural CO2” because the CAGWers can’t deny the fact that “it is always hotter in the city”.

    And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.

    Yours truly, Eritas Fubar

  152. Bart says:
    January 12, 2014 at 8:44 am

    “Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph”
    So did Ferdinand, implicitly, in the similar plot he produced which he did not link to here. He just didn’t label the other axis.

    Which one was that?

  153. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 12, 2014 at 8:57 am

    And here is a really, really purty graph that you can use to get the exact data for your next published scientific paper, to wit: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

    I have no problems to admit that I have made an error if you show it. But by refering to data which has nothing to do with what is said by me, you make yourself impossible to believe… The geocarb data are not exact data, they are based on proxies with large error bars and what happened 60 million years ago and before has nothing to do with what happens today.
    You have already found the Mauna Loa data, here is the source for the emissions, which are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels:
    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

    HA, now you have morphed from being utterly silly to being down right ridiculous. Was that a severely miseducated statement or just blowing smoke at me?

    If you never have heard of a buffer solution, you may ask it at someone who has studied chemistry, or you even can find it on Wiki… Fresh water has a very low solubility for CO2, because a CO2 solution is slightly acidic and that prevents further uptake of CO2. Seawater is slightly basic and can contain about ten times more CO2 in different forms than fresh water. That is the Revelle or buffer factor. Even so, a change of 30% in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will give not more than 3% change in total carbon in seawater. Just try it yourself: make a saturated solution of soda or baking soda and see what happens if you add some acid (vinegar will do the job).
    For a background chemical explanation of the Revelle factor, see:
    http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf

    carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater.”

    If you should have calculated the total amount of CO2 dissolved in fresh water (as I did), you should have known that that is about negligible in the carbon balance. The solubility of CO2 in fresh water at 1 bar CO2 is 3.3 g/kg at 0°C. See:
    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

    But CO2 is 0.0004 bar partial pressure in the atmosphere, that means that at equilibrium 1.32 mg/kg CO2 is dissolved in rainwater at 0°C. Less at height and less if warmer, even less if stronger acids like SOx and NOx are present.
    As 1 kg rainwater needs 400 m3 saturated air, the uptake of 1.32 mg CO2 from that volume simply is unmeasurable. If the 1 kg rainwater falls on earth and all water evaporates, setting all CO2 free, that increases the CO2 level of the local 1 m3 of air with less than 1 ppmv… Again about negligible.
    But as the total amounts of water circulating through the atmosphere and precipitation are enormous, there is some effect in dissolving (carbonate and silicate) rocks. But even that needs millions of years to dig the nice caves one can find in a lot of places…

    and if that was the only “fault” you could find with said then apparently you agree with 99 32/44ths of what I posted as being factual.

    That small error renders the rest of your calculation void…

    The story about the “human” CO2 is nice, but “human” CO2 can be distinguished from “natural” CO2 because it is lower in 13C/12C ratio and it doesn’t contain any 14C anymore…

  154. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. Englebeen,

    You have forgotten … that I said this of you: Englebeen who is a fine person, … .” ( Jan. 9, at 7:08pm)

    I admire Bart and Murry Salby and others because their fine minds have presented in a lucid manner:

    1) evidence that you have yet to refute; and
    2) reasoning that I can, for all my averageness, see is impeccably logical.

    In short, Bart and Salby, et. al., have persuaded me and you have not.

    You have still not explained away this fact:
    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    Incidentally, that one can explain such a topic to a non-science person like I proves one has mastered that topic, for only a master of a subject can teach it to an “average reader” like myself.

    I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

    Oliver Cromwell (1650)

    You, being a scientist, know that this is what all genuine scientists do: remain open to the possibility that they may be mistaken. No one will think the less of you as a man for admitting a mistake, dear Englebeen. On the contrary, it would elicit from the hearts of anyone whose opinion is worth anything, great admiration, for, only a man of great heart and broad shoulders and shining integrity has the courage to stand up and say before the world, “I was wrong.”

    Your WUWT truth-in-science ally (generally speaking),

    Janice

  155. richardscourtney says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    At January 12, 2014 at 11:50 am you say

    “human” CO2 can be distinguished from “natural” CO2 because it is lower in 13C/12C ratio and it doesn’t contain any 14C anymore…

    You know that is not true so why say it?
    It is not worthy of you.

    Richard

  156. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 12, 2014 at 11:50 am

    here is the source for the emissions, which are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels:
    ————–

    Ferdinand, the geocarb data AS YOU SEE IT on that graph I provided the link to ….. is probably 300+% more accurate than …… your sources for the world’s emissions of CO2 that are based on fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency for the different fuels.

    Ferdinand, here is just an inkling of how enormous your problem is at trying to calculate world wide human emissions of CO2 vi the above said. To wit:

    Pennsylvania Fossil Fuel Subsidies: An Overview

    There are exemptions for the use of fossil fuels, such as exempting gasoline purchase from Sales and Use Tax, which make these fuels more attractive by lowering their costs to the consumer. There are also exemptions that benefit distributors of fossil fuels, such as exempting natural gas sales from the Gross Receipts Tax, thereby reducing the tax burden on distribution companies …
    http://www.pennfuture.org/UserFiles/File/FactSheets/Report_FossilFuelSubsidy_201112.pdf
    ————–

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    The story about the “human” CO2 is nice, but “human” CO2 can be distinguished from “natural” CO2 because it is lower in 13C/12C ratio
    ————–

    Really now, lower? And here I was thinking that C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Sure they do.

    And iffen they do, then you can’t distinguish human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere by a lower 13C/12C ratio because humans emit both types..

    And one reason you can’t is that you don’t have any “CO2 emission figures” ….. for/from the world’s production of beer, wine and soda pop, ….. bakery goods (breads, cakes, rolls), …… or cheeses and other dairy products, …… all of which are human CO2 emitters.

    And the second reason is, C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants …… but you don’t have any production figures to know how much of each type that humans produce.

    The C3 plants that humans produce include: beans, rice, wheat, potatoes, woody trees, lawn grass,

    The C4 plants that humans produce include: maize (corn), sugar cane, millet, sorghum, lawn grass, feedstock grasses and desert plants.

    Reference: http://www.uni.edu/bergv/pp/unit_2/pp092-11.html

    Forty-six percent of grasses are C4 and together account for 61% of C4 species. These include the food crops maize, sugar cane, millet, and sorghum
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
    ————–

  157. Samuel C Cogar says:
    January 13, 2014 at 11:23 am

    There are exemptions for the use of fossil fuels, such as exempting gasoline purchase from Sales and Use Tax

    Which doesn’t say that the fiscal people don’t know how much is sold… But of course, there are under-the-counter sales. But that does only add to what is burned. Thus the probability of underestimating human emissions from fossil fuel sales is much higher than overestimating it. I haven’t heard of anybody who paid taxes for fuel he/she didn’t buy…

    Really now, lower? And here I was thinking that C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Sure they do.

    Well let’s count the bodies:
    oceans, deep: 0 to +1 per mil δ13C
    oceans, surface: +1 to +5 per mil δ13C and fast declining
    atmosphere: -8 per mil δ13C and fast declining
    fossil fuels: average mix: -24 per mil δ13C
    C3 plants: average mix: -24 per mil δ13C
    C4 plants: average mix: -12 per mil δ13C
    current plants mix: about -22 per mil δ13C

    Thus any release from the oceans (including the water-air border fractionation) would increase the δ13C ratio in the atmosphere.
    It is impossible to make a differentiation between fossil and recent plant releases on the base of the δ13C ratio, as even C4 plants would decrease the δ13C of the atmosphere. But it is possible to know how much CO2 the whole biosphere adds to or substracts from the atmosphere: the oxygen balance.

    The oxygen balance shows that the whole biosphere, which includes beer, wine and backery goods, human breath, growing and decaying C3 and C4 plants,… is a net sink for CO2: ~1 GtC/year.
    That means that all C3 plants and all C4 plants absorb relative more 12CO2 than 13CO2 (C4 less than C3, but both more than what is in the atmosphere), leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere.

    But the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer and all plants on earth) show a declining δ13C level in ratio to the burning of fossil fuels… Which thus isn’t from the oceans and not from baking goods or C3 or C4 plants growing and decaying or eaten…

    If not from humans, then where is it coming from?

  158. richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 11:08 am

    You know that is not true so why say it?

    That the 14C content of fossil fuels is zero is true, because much too old. Recent plants contain recent incorporated 14C, so do their users (microbes, insects, animals), detectable up to 60,000 years. The oceans return slightly depleted 14CO2 as ~1000 years old.

    The 13C/12C ratio is explained in the reaction to Samuel C Cogar…

  159. richardscourtney says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    Thanks for your reply to me in your post at January 13, 2014 at 12:30 pm.

    We have discussed the 13C/12C ratio on WUWT in the past. Anyone wanting to see that can use the WUWT Search facility for it.

    I refuse to get involved in discussions with Samuel C Cogar. I have twice made that mistake: he lacks both the integrity and the logic which you display.

    I agree about the 14C isotope information but don’t see how that is pertinent. The anthropogenic 14C was released by nuclear bomb tests and is ‘long gone’.

    Richard

  160. Janice Moore says:
    January 13, 2014 at 10:51 am

    You have still not explained away this fact:
    CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.

    I don’t need to explain that: In my opinion there is little effect of more CO2 on temperature and that natural variability (PDO) has a larger influence. I think that we agree on that.

    But that is also one of the reasons that I don’t think that Salby and Bart are right: if the temperature is flat, there is no reason that the CO2 levels still go up unabated. They should go down, as the total CO2 level in the atmosphere increases and thus pushes more CO2 into the (deep) oceans and vegetation, except if humans are the cause of the increase…

    Further such a non-human increase must come from somewhere. There are two main fast sources: vegetation and oceans. Both can’t be the cause. Volcanoes? Not likely: even the Pinatubo did give a drop in CO2 increase because more CO2 was absorbed (cooling, increased plant growth?) than was released and for most volcanoes the δ13C is too high…

    And I have not the least problems with admitting that I made a mistake. But as far as I can see, I haven’t made any…

  161. richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 12:38 pm

    I agree about the 14C isotope information but don’t see how that is pertinent. The anthropogenic 14C was released by nuclear bomb tests and is ‘long gone’.

    Richard, sad to hear your wife has been ill and thanks for the info about Samuel.

    The lack of 14C content has already been used to make a differentiation between the origins of soot contamination from fossil or recent fuels and it was used to detect how much CO2 is released from fossil fuels around towns (Salt Lake City), in combination with the changes in 13C/12C ratio…

  162. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 13, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    …. and thanks for the info about Samuel.
    ————–

    AAAWWW, the British Degreed elitists are ganging up on poor ole Samuel C.

    Kinda reminds me of that bunch from ICL Ltd. when they sent their managers over here to take over control of Cogar Corporation, Information Systems Division after purchasing it from Singer Corporation.

    But anyway, ……

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    January 13, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    The oxygen balance shows that the whole biosphere, which includes beer, wine and backery goods, human breath, growing and decaying C3 and C4 plants,… is a net sink for CO2: ~1 GtC/year.
    ————–

    Explain to me what the “oxygen balance” has to do with calculating the “net sink” for CO2 given the fact that, to wit:

    Evaporation and condensation are the two processes that most influence the ratio of heavy oxygen to light oxygen in the oceans. Water molecules are made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Water molecules containing light oxygen evaporate slightly more readily than water molecules containing a heavy oxygen atom. At the same time, water vapor molecules containing the heavy variety of oxygen condense more readily.
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/
    ————–

    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    But the atmosphere (and the ocean surface layer and all plants on earth) show a declining δ13C level in ratio to the burning of fossil fuels… Which thus isn’t from the oceans and not from baking goods or C3 or C4 plants growing and decaying or eaten…

    If not from humans, then where is it coming from?
    ————–

    Now Ferdinand, I was justa thinking …. that prior to the advent of the Industrial Revolution the Northern Hemisphere non-polar land masses were highly vegetated with massive forests of woody trees in the Temperate Zones and a mix of vegetation in the Tropic and Sub-Tropic Zones.

    But that all began to change in the early 1800’s when those great forests began being “clear-cut” of their virgin timber and the sawed lumber was used to build homes and businesses locally but the majority was shipped by water and rail to build the great cities and factories for the increasing population of laborers and workers. And the land from which that timber was cut was then cleared of all tree stumps, rocks and brush and was used to raise cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, geese and horses, …… and also used to grow food to feed those animals, to feed one’s family and to feed the increasing populations in the great cities.

    And that process continued well into the early 1900’s as urbanization of the cities increased and then in the mid-1900’s suburbanation of the farm land began. Said suburbanation became possible because starting in the early 1940’s the “family farms” began disappearing like snowflakes on a hot pavement and the woody trees and other greenery started growing again with gusto and the landscape has now become much “greener” with woody trees, etc., than it was pre-1940.

    And the reason I am telling you this, Ferdinand, is because of what I found when searching for info concerning your “δ13C” statement, and what i found was, to wit:

    Differences in altitude are also known to affect terrestrial plant carbon isotopic signatures (δ13C) in mountain regions, since plant δ13C values at high altitudes are typically enriched (Körner et al. 1988; 1991) compared to the carbon signatures of plants from low altitudes. Soil organic matter also show enrichment in 13C with soil depth, which is suggested to be a consequence of humification and the loss of the lighter isotope (12C) via respiration, thus concentrating 13C in the soil organic matter (Kramer et al. 2003). This might be transitional to temperature and differences in decomposition. Moreover, the isotopic carbon signatures of autochthonous and allochthonous food-sources in aquatic ecosystems are generally separated, which is also reflected in the consumer community. Stable isotope analysis is therefore a useful method for determining the autotrophic or heterotrophic character of lake food webs (Karlsson et al. 2003; 2007).
    http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:303212/FULLTEXT01.pdf
    ————–

    Ferdinand, the re-growth of the forests are sequestering the C13 in the soils and their respiration is emitting the C12 back into the atmosphere ….. and that is potentially where your declining δ13C level is coming from. But what do I know, I’m not a degreed expert like the British elite.

    And Ferdinand, if you want to see what some of that virgin forest looked like, …. after it was timbered, …… just click the following url jpg link. The picture was taken in Clay County, WV, circa 1910.

    http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1917MountainHomeinClayCounty.jpg

  163. Samuel C Cogar says:

    And ps, Ferdinand, iffen those heavy oxygen H2O molecules condense more quickly and evaporate more slowly ….. are you sure they that don’t also have a preference for the C13 atoms that are in the CO2 molocules when it comes to them absorbing it? That would cause your declining δ13C level, ……. woodn’t it, woodn’t it??

  164. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Here ya go Ferdinand, … just in case Richard Scourtney informs you that I was surely BS’ing you, to wit:

    Outside the UK, ICL’s offices around the world were mainly sales and marketing operations, with some application development for the local market. The exceptions were development and manufacturing sites arising from acquisitions, such as Utica in the United States from the Singer merger,” ….. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Computers_Limited

  165. mpainter says:

    says:
    January 10, 2014 at 11:28 am
    mpainter says:
    January 10, 2014 at 9:17 am

    You seem as one who does not allow for any possibility that the carbon cycle is not yet fully understood.

    To the contrary, I am fully aware that a lot of details of the carbon cycle are not even known, let it understood. But the point is that you don’t need any detail of the carbon cycle to see that humans are the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere. That is what the carbon balance shows: the overall levels. Not the details. The figures (for 2011):
    increase in the atmosphere = emissions + natural releases – natural sinks
    4.5 GtC = 9 GtC + natural releases – natural sinks
    natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC
    or the natural carbon cycle has 4.5 GtC more sink than source and thus its contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is zero, nada, nothing. No need to know any individual carbon flow in or out. No need to know where the 4.5 GtC more sink than source is going to.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Thanks for your reply which proves my point.

    You put : natural releases – natural sinks = -4.5 GtC

    Let us take your math one step further:

    natural releases = natural sinks – 4.5 GtC

    By this, natural sinks swallow more than what is naturally released. Just think, in the future, as in the past, all atm CO2 was swallowed up. But no. Another error born of unwarranted assumptions. When you calculate upon nebulous quantities and incompletely understood processes, you wind up with such absurdities.

Comments are closed.