Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
From the start, Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis: The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias.
A recent example appeared from the BBC, triggered by more evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. The egregious example is the BBC report on the first images from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2). See also Anthony Watts’ report from the AGU.
Figure 1
Preliminary evidence essentially exonerates humans as the source of CO2. That is a narrative unacceptable to the IPCC and all their media supporters. As a result the BBC, whose lack of journalistic integrity and political bias, was exposed in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), are obliged to spin the evidence. One comment in the article says,
It is possible to see spikes, too, on the eastern seaboard of the US and over China. These probably include the additional emissions of CO2 that come from industrialisation.
This misinformation is contradicted by the lower than average levels over the UK and Europe. Another comment on Figure 1 says,
Also apparent are the higher concentrations over South America and southern Africa. These are likely the result of biomass burning in these regions.
This misinformation is a contradiction because the area of southern Africa is mostly grasslands and desert. How does that generate “biomass burning”? Figure 2 shows a map of the climate zones of Africa, ironically, it appears in an article pleading for financial help to deal with climate change.
Figure 2
The claim that South American levels are due to forest burning is ridiculous. At any given time, only a small area of the forest is being burned. It was higher in the past because countries like Brazil were encouraged to provide tax incentives to farmers to clear land, with help from the World Bank. The idea was that a country must have a solid agricultural base for a viable economy. The practice was stopped when the environmental finger of rainforest destruction was pointed.
In 2006 a report exposed another misconception about sources and concentrations of atmospheric gases, especially so-called greenhouse gases. Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute determined that the rainforests were a very large source of methane. Keppler,
“…was surprised when he saw signs of methane being emitted by plants he was examining in normal air. “If we were following the textbook, we would have ignored it as a mistake,” he says.”
This is not surprising, given the structure and process of a tropical rainforest. They are an illusion because the soils that sustain them are among the most unfertile in the world. People wonder why agriculture doesn’t flourish, it is because of the poor soils. Many projects have failed with this illusion.
People are familiar with deciduous and evergreen trees. The former have leaves that grow and are discarded with the seasons. Evergreens have needles that remain attached year round but are ready to begin photosynthesizing quickly, thus maximizing the short growing season. Trees in the tropical rainforest are what I call deciduous evergreens. They always have leaves but are constantly shedding and replacing them. This means the leaf litter is constantly supplied to the surface but very rapidly rots, and the tree quickly takes up the nutrients. Laterite soils underlie the rain forest.
Laterite soils are reddish subsoils found in tropical regions that are formed by the rock layer breaking down and leaching through the soil. They are rich in minerals such as iron oxides and aluminum, and most don’t support plant life or vegetation well because they dry hard and compact, and lack organic matter. Laterite deposits can be a few inches or hundreds of feet thick and are normally horizontal. When very wet, laterite soils can be cut into bricks for building.
The important soil formation factors are high temperatures and constant rainfall that literally washes out most minerals essential for plant growth. The various shades of red depend on the percentage of iron.
When the vegetation is removed the soils bake iron hard. They are also very difficult to plow because of quartz particles that wear out a steel plow very quickly. Several schemes failed over the years because they ignored the physical realities of tropical soils. The first major one was Fordlandia, an attempt during the Second World War to grow rubber in the Amazon rainforest. Rubber, a crucial wartime resource, was no longer available from Malaya. They transferred the rubber plants back to South America but farmed it without care to the soil conditions. Look at the inappropriate formal row cultivation in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
After World War II, the drive for increased agricultural production, centered on production of vegetable oil. In Britain they created the Groundnut Scheme in East Africa. Groundnut is the English term for peanut. It was also a disaster, as a 1981 article titled, “The East African Groundnut Scheme: Lessons of a Large-Scale Agricultural Failure” explains.
Another scheme built on lateritic soils without care to their limits, was the 1967 brainchild of shipping billionaire known as the Jari Project. He built a massive processing plant (Figure 4) in Japan and had it towed to Brazil to process a fast growing tree (Gmelina) for pulp and paper. The project staggered along for some years but ultimately failed.
Figure 4
I am aware that there were other factors involved in the failure, but the common denominator and primary factor was the limitations of the tropical soil.
The few people that survive in the tropical rainforest know the limitations of the soils. They developed slash and burn agriculture in which a small are is cleared and the vegetation burned to provide briefly a higher level of nutrients sufficient to grow crops for one or two years. The area is then abandoned back the rainforest.
Methane (CH4) was targeted before CO2 in the environmentalists rush to blame humans for every change detected. Much of the focus was the role of cattle that received attention from Jeremy Rifkin’s fantastical book and campaign titled “Beyond Beef”. He effectively blames cattle for all the failures of civilization.
The problem was that methane was a minute fraction of the atmosphere and greenhouse gases. Methane is 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases and only 0.36% of the total greenhouse gases. Like CO2 they have inflated the warming potential by claiming it is 20 times more effective than CO2. Despite this, it can’t be very important because in an article about methane “leaking” from the sea floor, Andrew Weaver, Lead Author and contributor on computer modelling for four of the IPCC Reports said,
“[Methane] was not considered in any of the predictions at all.”
That didn’t stop the journalist from fear mongering.
“But one thing is certain: The fact it hasn’t been factored into previous global warming predictions means forecasts even as recent as the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are too conservative.”
A disturbing remark, but not as intended. If it isn’t factored in, then it indicates all previous estimates of greenhouse effects are wrong and the effect of other variables including CO2 are overestimated.
Other sources were blamed before cows, each tied to some human cause. A 1982 Science paper argued that termite numbers were increasing commensurate with clearing of forest and bush. Disclosure of a calculation error in the numbers pushed the termites aside. Increasing beaver populations briefly became the target. Expanding wetlands resulted from reduced trapping and the consequent population explosion. Thawing permafrost is raised occasionally as a source of increased methane, but a study by Georg Delisle rejects the alarmism.
He studied time periods from the last 10,000 years when the global temperature was warmer than today for several thousand years by as much as 6°C. Ice cores that had been extracted from Antarctica and Greenland provide exact information about the composition of the atmosphere during the these warm periods. His conclusion: ‘The ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica provide no indication of any elevated release of greenhouse gases at any time even though back then a deep thawing of the permafrost when compared to today would have been the case.’ This was clear to see on the poster he used for his presentation. Obviously CO2 and methane are much more stable in the ground also when it thaws (sic).
Reports of methane bubbling up in the Arctic Ocean triggered a new spate of articles. Most stories are alarmist.
“Far more of the greenhouse gas methane is seeping from seabed deposits in the Arctic shelf into the atmosphere than previously thought.”
Some reports take a reasoned view. A New Scientist article says,
“The trouble is, nobody knows if the Arctic emissions are new, or indeed anything to do with global warming.”
The reality is they don’t know how much there is.
“Estimates of how much is out there are vague. There could be anywhere between 500 to 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon in the hydrates and another 7.5 to 400 gigatonnes in the permafrost.”
Another problem that likely influenced decisions to ignore methane was the IPCC chart depicting global levels over time (Figure 5).
Figure 5
This underscores their failed projections shown in Figure 6 from Assessment report 5 (AR5).
It’s not surprising because all greenhouse gas numbers are very crude estimates for each source. The only table, to my knowledge, that pulls together the various “source” estimates, was produced by Dr. Dietrich Koelle for 2010 data.
The error range of two natural sources, Ocean outgassing (tropical areas) and Ground bacteria, rotting and decay, exceed the total human contribution. The latter supposedly includes what goes on at the surface under the tropical rainforest. It is a vast natural composting process producing nutrients to sustain the vegetation.
The satellite data is only a surprise to the IPCC supporters, because it completely contradicts their assumptions and narrative. Once again, as it has from the start, the evidence contradicts the consensus assigned to the IPCC hypothesis. Instead of acting in a scientifically appropriate manner and re-examining their science, they misinterpret and mislead through a compliant, politically biased messenger, the mainstream media.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s interesting that there seem to be large areas of ocean that exhale CO2. No surprise, but very interesting.
Notice also that it is very high over the land masses in the lee of the trade winds. Maybe accelerated outgassing from much warmer and moisture laden air. That it is very low over dry and arid areas and over the equator where winds are low and localized.
It is estimated that 80% of the Earth’s volcanos are on ocean floors, in association with sea bed ridges, where new tectonic plate material is formed, and subduction zones where one tectonic plate dives under another. As with any volcano, these volcanos emit CO2, but into water which is both very cold and under great pressure, so it can hold a LOT of CO2. Decades (? centuries ) later this water comes to the surface, ( see the Atlantic conveyor belt,) where it becomes warmer and under less pressure and so releases CO2. In addition, global temperatures increased by 0.7C over the 20th century. This would cause CO2 to be released by the oceans, and, since the oceans cover 7/10ths of the Earth’s surface to an average depth of 4kms, this would be a LOT of CO2.
That may well be the best guess but a guesstimate is not observation. What is evident (again) is that the actual evidence does not support the CAGW meme that is driving policy. (“Coal trains of death”. “The war on coal”. “Carbon pollution”. etc.)
If Man was on trial for the crime of CAGW the jury’s only possible evidence based verdict would be “Not Guilty”.
Jim Davidson
Good in theory but the CO2 and temperature just don’t line up well. So whether it comes from the oceans (I too think it does) or not doesn’t explain the temperature changes. Human or ocean output still cannot be distinguished from the other natural variations, however induced. Generally the evidence is stacking up more in favour of a water vapour/cloud mediated temperature than a CO2-mediated one. And certainly not methane – not so far anyway.
Gunga Din says —
If Man was on trial for the crime of CAGW the jury’s only possible evidence based verdict would be “Not Guilty”.
I say —
If Mann was on trial for the crime of CAGW the jury’s only possible evidence based verdict would be “Guilty”.
Eugene WR Gallun
Most of the dissolved CO2 in the oceans comes from the undersea volcanoes where CO2 dissolves in the cold water to be exsolved when that water comes to the surface and warms.
On the upper right of figure 1 is a large area of higher CO2 concentrations that is roughly the size of China but smack dab in the middle of nowhere southeast of Kamchatka in the Pacific Ocean. There is a similar area north of New Zealand.
These large area of CO2 do not appear to be the result industrial activity or burning, as the only land is small, widely scattered volcanic atolls in a very large ocean.
Indeed. Considering that human population is accountable (at leas to the Global Warmers) for (majority) of CO2 as result of industries, cars, power plants etc, one would be completely wrong in pointing to the most dense populated places in the world. Europe, US, notably India are showing low CO2 concentrations. We need to admit that we do not understand a single thing of this phenoma, nothing at all……. let alone be able to predict CO2 figures for future and how to lower it. But it is political…… not scientific at all.Instead of buying short sleeve shirts for when Global warming arrives, we better buy thermo undies for the cold!
There must be something wrong with their satellite. Everybody knows that CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere.
The sterility of tropical rain forest soils, is not a new revelation. The Brazil sugar cane madness for ethanol, has been roundly criticized for the same reason. After you clear the rain forest, nothing grows on the land, and the moisture patterns all shift as well; as in the snows of Kilimanjaro.
There’s gotta be a sound biological reason for bromeliads, and the like, that decide it is better to grow up in trees, than in the lousy surface soils.
But this first look at the CO2 scourge is sure illuminating.
Before the research BUT not beforet he slops were being poured into the trough..
I have been saying ALL ALONG that there is no actual proof that Increases in CO2 levels are not directly attributable to human activity. Even here, on WUWT, with regulars, I have been shot down.
To me this is a bit of exoneration.
To believe that we have a handle on all of the complexity of climate and atmospheric activity is demonstrably arrogant. We don’t. We’re only at the infancy of even examining it. Those who have repeatedly and smugly asserted the sources, sinks, and role of CO2 are understood are plain wrong.
Wording – there is no actual proof that Increases in CO2 levels ARE attributable…
Many “+”‘s.
We may know what we know but we don’t know much.
CodeTech, I agree and used to be quite confident that the rise in CO2 was due to outgassing of the Oceans following the 800 year lag from the MWP.
But I’ve shifted position. The isotope evidence does indicate to me that the rise is more probably due to fossil fuel burning.
No, that isn’t proven but – on balance – the rise seems to me to be more likely attributable in large part to fossil fuel burning.
However, has anyone ever said that all the CO2 rise was manmade? I certainly haven’t.
Yeah, until we start looking into the isotope argument and find it is based on various assumptions and guesses, as well as an avoidance of some of the inconvenient pieces of data. Then the human contribution aspect doesn’t look quite that strong.
The carbon in volcanic CO2 is the same isotope as ‘fossil fuel’ burning. So you need to rebalance your assumptions.
MCourteney, 1:00 pm : Isotope evidence as proof of fossil fuel burning? Maybe. Or it could be that we have cleared forests for farmland, lumber, cities and grass land and planted species that have a preference for one isotope over another (C3 versus C4 plants?). And given that 99.8% of the oxygen is 016, so what we are measuring is a variation in 0.2% of the total and we don’t even know if more O18 is associated with warmer or colder periods:
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol-412/oxygen%20Isotope%20fractionation.pdf
Further, as per the first sentence, croplands and grasses have a higher preference for 016 than forests. And why did the flora and fauna that produced fossil fuels have more 018 in the first place? Even Wikipedia shows a significant 018 variation with time. It also varies from the equator to the poles (natural fractionation)
After reading paper after paper, the only conclusion I can come to, along with much of the “Climate Debate” is that we are still in the early data gathering stage and it is too soon to draw solid conclusions. How good are our measurements anyway? Ice cores show the opposite of ocean sediments. Different appetites for different isotopes or location or environment or … ?
Of course, the continents were in a different place so maybe the difference in 018 in fossil fuels is because the plants were near the equator but then 018 varies with moisture and temperature and … ?
Some here may know, but my engineering background just lets me read all the different papers and draw no conclusions given there seems to be diverse opinions. Interesting all the same.
Wayne Delbeke, the difference is in the carbon isotopes, not in the oxygen isotopes. Plants prefer 12CO2 above 13CO2, which makes that the 13C/12C ratio in current and fossil plants (coal) is lower than in the atmosphere. That is expressed as per mil δ13C. Mass spectrometers are used to measure the difference. For oceans and carbonate rock, the per mil is around zero. The atmosphere is currently around -8 per mil, but was around -6.4 per mil in pre-industrial times. C3 plants are around -24 per mil and C4 plants around -15 per mil. Fossil fuels range between -24 per mil for coal to -40 per mil (and lower) for natural gas and oil is in between. Rotting plants and fossil fuel burning are in average around -24 to -28 per mil, but as the oxygen balance shows, vegetation is a net absorber of CO2 and preferential of 12CO2, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, thus not the cause of the 13C/12C decline… That humans are the cause is quite clear as one sees the increase of CO2 (about halve the human emissions) and the decline in δ13C:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
Ferdinand
Your analysis falls apart. You say plants prefer C12 to C13 but coal is plants.
Therefore, no difference between decaying plants and burning coal w/respect to CO2 isotopes. Decaying plants many times coal as CO2 source.
mpainter, it is possible to know the difference between recent and fossil CO2 plant emissions: fossil CO2 is completely depleted in 14C, while recent plant decay has its own 14C level, depending of its age. That can be used to trace e.g. the source of [soot] on ice.
The other way is the oxygen balance: each fossil fuel uses oxygen in ratio to its composition and fuel efficiency. As the quantities and efficiencies are more or less known, the net balance of the whole biosphere can be calculated: if more oxygen is used than from fossil fuel burning, then the biosphere releases more CO2. If it is reverse, then the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2. The latter is the case:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and more recent:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Okay…..Please answer me this…..Since the beginning of the industrial age there has been an increase of roughly 35 to 40% in the amounts of CO2 that are present in the atmosphere. Now, my question…..What has been the percentage increase in the aggregated global greenhouse effect that can be attributed to what many people appear to think could be considered a large increase in ambient CO2?
This is still speculative even using the best data and information that I have been able to find using internet searches: It appears to me that the amount of global greenhouse effect that can be attributed to water vapor and water droplets (clouds, fog) is so close to 100% of the total of aggregated global greenhouse effect that what is in reality such a miniscue increase in atmospheric CO2 would likely result in a temperature increase that would be so small as to be unmeasurable with any degree of confidence even using the best available technologies and measurement techniques???? And what would happen if CO2 was doubled???? Well, at least mathematically, when you double nothing you still have nothing. Just how badly have I gone adrift?????
ThomasJK, have a look at Modtran, an interactive tool where you can change CO2, CH4 levels and water vapor feedback:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
CO2 absorbs in an area where water vapor is not active, thus is additional to water vapor…
Ferdinand
C14 issues are separate and aside from the issue. Why do you introduce the topic?
Your assertions concerning O2 are based on a dubious proxy. Nature does not distinguish between anthropogenic CO2 and natural, I’m afraid.
It is also possible for fossil fuel CO2 emmissions to change the composition of atmospheric CO2 without changing the total. Always more questions than answers.
Interesting information Ferdinand; thank you very much; but it begs a question.
Just what it the 12C / 13C ratio in carbon that is known to not be biological in any way, such as from volcanic origins or other not biotic rock sources. ??
That would be nice to know, and of course some idea of the variability of that ratio from place to place.
There must have been a carbon isotope ratio, long before there was even a single biological organism.
Can we detect carbon isotope ratios in the sun for example or is the sun not yet able to make carbon ??
Joseph Murphy, that is theoretically possible, but in that case, the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn’t change, as the sinks are rapidly expanding to remove all extra CO2.
There is a pure theoretical possibility, if the in/out circulation of CO2 from the oceans increased enormously over time, dwarfing the human input, with as result a build up of CO2 pressure despite the rapid reaction of the sinks. But there is no sign of such an increase of the CO2 throughput in the atmosphere in not one observation (14C decline, 13C/12C ratio decline), to the contrary: the residence time of any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere slightly increased over time, which points to a rather stable throughput in an increasing mass of CO2…
george e. smith,
Out of my memory: deep oceans are at around zero per mil δ13C, ocean surface (due to biolife) at +1 to +5 per mil. Carbonate rock around zero per mil (was mostly sediment of the oceans). One type of carbonate rock, Pee Dee Belemnite, was used as the zero standard for δ13C measurements. Nowadays replaced by an official zero level (Vienna PDB).
Most carbonate rock is formed by biolife, but in contrast to the internal organics, the shells (of coccoliths) have the same δ13C ratio as the surrounding ocean waters.
Subduction volcanoes are around zero per mil (as that is mainly recycled carbonate rock). Deep magma volcanoes are somewhat lower around -4 per mil.
Thus one can say that the bulk of inorganic carbon has a near zero per mil δ13C level, while organic carbon has much lower δ13C levels and the atmosphere is in between.
ThomasJK,
You have not gone adrift. The GHE is not quantifiable because it depends on water vapor, just as you have observed,and that varies aaround the globe. The late warming trend circa 1980-97 has been shown to due to increased insolation, that due to reduced cloud albedo, as shown by the data from cloud records.
There is no evidence whatsoever that CO2 has caused warming.
There’s only one place where volcanic CO2 has been fully captured: Lake Nyos. If Nyos is typical, total volcanic CO2 emissions are at least an order of magnitude greater than claimed.
Ferdinand, in addition to the open questions about the isotope ratios (the answers to which are not quite as clear-cut as you represent), keep in mind that the fact a “human” signal is present in the atmosphere does not mean that the human emissions are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Particularly when the human quantity is swamped by both natural sources and sinks.
Are there some interesting pieces of data that might hint at a human factor? Sure. However, we are nowhere near a “but for human emissions” level of knowledge or certainty.
climatereflections, as all observations show that humans are the cause and every alternative explanation fails one or more observations, I am quite sure that humans are the cause of the increase…
Vegetation is a proven sink for CO2. The oceans can’t be the cause, as the 13C/12C ratio is too high and the increased atmospheric CO2 pressure should depress the release and increase the uptake. Warming oceans are not the cause as that gives not more than 8 ppmv/K and the increase is over 110 ppmv above equilibrium…
Ferdinand, it sounds like you have looked into the issue quite a bit, and I respect your opinion. However, I can’t shake the nagging doubts.
For one, I haven’t seen good atmospheric CO2 data that would properly reflect the decrease in human emissions during periods of significant economic contraction. Maybe that data is out there, but I haven’t seen it. Unless such a signal is clear and unambiguous and is always there when it should be, then we cannot say human activity is the driver of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels — at least not without resorting to ad hoc explanations and special pleadings for why the signal is not there in particular instances.
Second, your reply again focused on the fact that the isotope ratio has increased over time. That might — assuming for purposes of discussion that there is no other possible source for the particular isotope in question than human burning of fossil fuels (a questionable assumption, but let’s go with it for a moment) — that might tell us that the increase in the isotope ratio is due to human activity. But it does not tell us that the increase in atmospheric CO2 generally is due to human activity and that “but for the human activity” atmospheric CO2 levels would not have increased. These are logically distinct conclusions and should be carefully separated. Unfortunately, I regularly see them conflated by people who argue that human activity is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 generally.
climatereflections, nothing is 100% proof of the human contribution, but the fact that the increase in the atmosphere is lower than the human emissions is already a sufficient indication: all natural in/outs of CO2 together form a net sink for CO2, already at least 55 years long. No matter if that is mainly/only in the oceans, rock weathering or vegetation, nature is a net sink and its contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is negative, no matter if the seasonal and continuous exchange between atmosphere and the other reservoirs is 10 GtC in and out within a year or 100 GtC or 1000 GtC. At the end of a full seasonal cycle, nature has absorbed more CO2 than released…
The point is that human emissions are not part of the natural cycle. They are additional. The only way they can be removed is by increased partial pressure, which suppresses the release of CO2 from the (warmer) tropical oceans and increases the CO2 uptake by the cold polar oceans and in plant alveoli.
That is what happened over the past 160 years, of which the past 55 years were monitored with high accuracy.
I had a lot of discussion about this point with Bart and others, as IF the sinks react immediately on any change in concentration, the extra CO2 from humans wouldn’t make a difference. But the reaction of the sinks is not that fast, except for the ocean surface layer (the “mixed” layer) which is in close contact with the atmosphere. The ocean surface-atmosphere exchange is very fast (1-3 years half life time), but a 100% change in the atmosphere only adds 10% extra CO2 (mainly in form of -bi-carbonates) to the total carbon in that layer, due to the Revelle/buffer factor of chemical equilibriums.
The real decay rate of the extra CO2 above equilibrium is slightly over 50 years or a half life time of ~40 years. Much longer than the 5 years some skeptics use (which is the residence time, nothing to do with the decay rate) and much shorter than the hundreds of years as said by the IPCC, because that is based on the Bern model, which includes a huge factor for the saturation of the deep oceans, for which is not the slightest sign today… See more at my page:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
“the fact that the increase in the atmosphere is lower than the human emissions is already a sufficient indication”
The long ago discredited “mass balance” argument once again. You really must get some new material, Ferdinand.
The claim of burning in Africa seemed spurious from the outset. S. America, I guess it is possible, but seems unlikely from the central part of the continent.
How does it seem unlikely?
Because the vegetation (and climate) in the western Amazon is extremely wet – it won’t burn.
the very large band of higher CO2 concentrations that pretty much circles the globe just south of the equator, an area which lack industry, puts a lie to IPCC beliefs that fossil fuel burning is the major source of CO2.
the southern hemisphere lacks both land (vegetation burning) and industry (fossil fuel burning). something else must be the source of the excess CO2.
That is only if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are centered around CO2 outgassing/production. The satellite data is not necessarily telling us the source just its current location. The first thing that popped into my head is the plastic concentration in the pacific. Not the source, just the location.
When will they ever learn that empiri is real – corrected values and/or computer models not.
When will they ever learn that Consensus is a political term not existing in Theories of Science
When will they ever learn that Humans aren’t the centre of Universe….
Learn?…you don’t think they know this?
I am far more cynical than you, if that’s the case. “They” know this. If they every chose to actually admit/embrace it, it would be the end of their own (and many other) careers, along with ending their “15 minutes of fame”.
You might be right,
but I still have hope they learn one day and not only are trying to ignore it.
Not to mention all those emissions by those industrious termites.
Incoherent babble is seeping from the mouths of those at the IPCC.
The CO2 in the map above seems to be completely opposite of this animation NASA made a few years ago.
Animation. ANIMATION. MADE. MODELLED. That is all. The satellite data, at least, is DATA.
BINGO!
When will people learn?! Observation ALWAYS trumps models!!!
Not quite. Go look at the JPL NASA site for OCO-2 under the “Science” tab and read through the Measurement, Validation, Calibration pages. It’s still models because there are too many layers of stuff they’ve got to remove from and account for in the data before they can shove it into the model with the land side data that creates the output.
saw that then and they are completely out to lunch. But totally unapologetic how can this be.
75% of O2 is generated by sea base photosynthesis can this possibly be validated by this satellite.
Why does the area over northern Latin America have a significant daily “pulse”?
No problem. The measurements will be adjusted until they’ll match the model /sarc
You think that you jest, but I have no doubt that they are scratching their heads trying to figure out ways to do just that.
But there are observations of the observations.
We are watching.
mpainter, that’s exactly what they’re doing.
I had another look at the animation and it’s better than you might think if you only looked at the opening image. It’s highly seasonal and the high northern hemisphere CO2 levels fade out in May/June, and by Sept/Oct it looks a lot closer to the CO2 map for the same period. I guess they knew that before releasing the animation. The real test of the animation will come when more satellite data is released.
elmer,
maybe the co2 emissions maps and the computer modelled simulation you present are showing two different things. The top map shows emissions from the surface. You video show swirls and dispersals.
As you can see from the last sentence, a better understanding has been shown by that satellite image, as NASA have suggested.
The science is not settled on the ‘well mixed gas’ co2.
If CO2 is not well-mixed then taking readings from the side of a Hawaiian volcano seems to be somewhat ill-advised.
That was tongue in cheek. I put the phrase inside an apostrophes.
There is much in Lindzen’s statement: “The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”
BIG up tick to you Elmer! Where exactly is all the scary bright red CO2 which NASA showed us, swirling like a fire-storm of death? It doesn’t look like anything that on this new satellite measurement system! I look forward to seeing the NH summer data next year…
Wait for the CGI version to be released
The sattelite data doesn’t show above 60N where all the red is in the NASA video. In the winter, all of the Arctic would be off the scale on a short term sattelite map. The Arctic isn’t a source of this big plume. That CO2 is being delivered in the upper atmosphere from the southern tropics. It is interesting to see the few dark blue spots in the southern ocean that possibly indicate strong sinks of upwelling cold waters. Time will tell if they will be able to calculate emission and sink rates for specific areas from their mass of accumulated data.
If you make apples to apples comparison and take a look at the model output for October, they match pretty well. For other months, we’ll need to wait till the satellite spends a bit longer time in orbit.
First off, this seems to be spring in the northern hemisphere whereas the new animation is set in late fall. Second, we are looking at colors. You would want both color transforms matched before jumping out the window.
Thank you Elmer. Very amusing.
Elmer, you are looking at two complete different things: the animation is over a full year, that is over all seasons, the OCO-2 satellite data are over 1.5 month only, That is in Austral spring, when oceans start to warm up and release more CO2 in the SH. One need to look at the total CO2 movements over a full year. looking at 1.5 month of data where the bulk of the CO2 movements are seasonal is only fooling oneself, as Tim Ball frequently does…
“That is in Austral spring, when oceans start to warm up and release more CO2 in the SH.”
——————-
YUP, … and that occurs each and every Austral spring after the September 23rd Autumnal equinox …. which is “proof-positive” defined by the “saw tooth” pattern of the Keeling Curve Graph.
There is nothing else in the natural world that can explain that steady and consistent bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm ….. other than the changing of the equinoxes.
Nothing, nada, zilch, zero.
The image at top is extraordinarily different from the still on the YouTube display. But I wondered about this, as I recalled that the animation varied tremendously during the year.
Compare that to this much closer image from the animation, grabbed from near the beginning of the period studied by the OCO in the top figure:
A month later, the picture is entirely different, and more like the one displayed in your comment.
A few things occur to me:
• The annual variation, at least as they’ve modeled it, creates a huge variation in appearance.
• Despite this, the scale shows that this “huge” variation is only spanning a range of about 1.5%, or about 6 ppm, for most of the planet, though their color scale is badly chosen.
• Previous studies suggested disparities in distribution of up to 5% across the hemispheres.
• We should probably not get too hung up on this report, as it seems to “prove” little and is evidently reasonably consistent with their modeling of 2006.
==============/ Keith DeHavelle
The image is not supported, evidently. Here’s a link:
http://dehavelle.com/images/2014_12/NASA_CO2_20061004.jpg
Wow I’ll take it.
So no wonder the Aussies are saying nyet to kyotonomics.
I knew NZ was a carbon sink; not source; but I thought the Aussies were a coals to Newcastle source.
Tim, you need a comma to separate the BBC’s “… lack of journalistic integrity[,] and political bias…”
Or just rearrange: “… political bias and lack of journalistic integrity …”
Or really fix it: “As a result the BBC, whose political bias and lack of journalistic integrity [no comma] were exposed…”
I live in Central South America basically there are no fires its ALWAYS wet/HUMID. It has probably one the highest rainfalls in the world and probably the most fertile soil anywhere with extremely lush very green vegetation. Its a pleasure to behold in contrast to the cold grey miserable skies most of the “civilized” world lives in. So yes the Co2 map above is very correct we would expect to see high C02 where there is high Oxygen production DUH as Bart Simpson would say. We are in fact providing you guys in North America and the rest of the rotten world (just joking) with 80% of the worlds oxygen production so be nice to us LOL. We may decide to cut back LOL.
Eliza – did you bother to read this thread or what in effect ‘actually’ is happening in the new satellite data……the reverse is true. Methane and hence CO2 emissions are overpowering the neutralising effect of the rainforest – the modelled sequence posted by Elmer is therefore not supported by the latest information from the satellite. Contrary to alarmist reasoning the tropical rainforests are a major net contributor of CO2 and therefore not cleaning up the NH act as previously assumed
Eliza, most of the world’s oxygen production comes from oceanic phytoplankton. You also seemed to miss Tim Ball’s valid point about the poor soils of tropical rainforests, including those of South America. As to lush green, I invite you to contemplate the temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest; near to where I live.
Re Southern Africa, if memory serves, termites/ants are legion, and “burn” much of the savanna.
Quite right Fred. See this link: http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm
“”Termites produce more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) each year than all living things combined.””
… “all other living things”… I assume…
Termite and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Facts:
• Termites produce more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) each year than all living things combined.
• Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.
• Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.
• It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites.
Re previous: to make lots of oxygen as per in the Amazon you need a heck of a lot of C02
Mainly algae produce oxygen at the mouth of the Amazon River, where the waters are rich in organic materials brough by water.
I do not know what you mean with organic materials, but oxygen comes from photolysis of water.
Also, the energy and reducing power obtained during photolysis is used to fix and reduce CO2. Algae are autotrophic, they use CO2 as a source of carbon, not organic materials.
“The investigators hypothesize that large tropical river plumes with low N: P ratios provide an ideal niche for diatom-diazotroph assemblages (DDAs). They suggest that the ability of these organisms to fix N2 within the surface ocean is responsible for significant C export in the Amazon River plume. Their previous observations in the Amazon River plume helped reveal that blooms comprised of the endosymbiotic N2-fixing cyanobacterium Richelia and its diatom hosts (e.g. Hemiaulus) were a significant source of new production and carbon export. The previous work focused largely on the sensitivity of DDAs to external forcing from dust and riverine inputs, so the ecology of these organisms and the fate of their new production were largely unstudied. It is now known that DDAs are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 drawdown in the Amazon River plume, and floating sediment traps at 200 m measured 4x higher mass fluxes beneath the plume than outside the plume. This led the researchers to hypothesize that this greater export is due either to aggregation and sinking of DDAs themselves or to grazing of DDAs by zooplankton.”
http://dornsife.usc.edu/labs/capone/anacondas
CONCLUSIONS
The presence on the Continental Shelf of waters from the Amazon River is indicated by low salinity levels, together with high levels of nutrients and total particulate material. On the other hand, the presence of the oceanic waters is significant during the falling of discharge period.
During this period no large variations were observed in pH levels, the belt was always alkaline, and the dissolved oxygen values characterize the area as a saturated to supersaturated environment. Of the nitrogen cycle phases, dissolved organic nitrogen predominates, followed by total particulate nitrogen, nitrate, ammonium and nitrite, in that order, both for the euphotic and for the aphotic layers. The figures for nitrate and ammonium indicate a non-impacted area, and the anomalous negative values of the inorganic dissolved nitrogen in a large area of the Amazon Continental Shelf show that there is more removal than addition of this nitrogenated form.
The data for chlorophyll a in the eutrophic area indicate that there is sufficient nitrogen to withstand productivity in this area, though with DIN removal processes are faster than those of regeneration or mineralization.
Simulation results obtained with the bidimensional analytical approach MAAC-2D model confirmed that the main geophysical processes contributing to the horizontal distribution of nutrients in the Amazonian shelfis the temporal changes in continental rivers discharges associated to seasonal variability of NBC and tradewinds. During periods of transition between high and low discharges high phosphate and nitrate concentrations are present in the northern part of coastal area once nutrients are transported northwestward by a strongest NBC, while during the high discharge period phosphate and nitrate concentrates on the central and southern parts of the Amazonian shelf, as a result of the spreading of Amazon freshwater outflow.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001-37652008000400011
That map is very telling and no real surprise.
I always thought the most dangerous human induced co2 emissions comes from activists breathing out at UN ‘save the world’ cermons.
But the planet has factored it in. No surface warming for over 18 years.
This will not alter the course of Paris 2015.
AR5 is already in, and even if there are some papers, published next year, on the preliminary findings of OCO-2. these papers will not be reviewed by the politicians that come together to decide how the world should be screwed.
If no progress is made at Paris 2015, which seems probable, then this data may be relevant for AR6. However, a long time ago, I suggested that there would not be an AR6. The divergence problem between models and relaity, and the inconvenience that Climate Sensitivity must be towards the low end of the spectrum will be too embarassing for the IPCC to acknowledge. It will simply cease to function, and probably a new cause celebre will be found with much the same political ends.
Pity that the developed world will by then have been saddled with high energy costs, unreliable energy and inefficient industry.
“Pity that the developed Western Democratic world will by then have been saddled with high energy costs, unreliable energy and inefficient industry.”
——————-
Fixed.
This continues to demonstrate the lack of science practiced in the ‘climate community’. They have formulated their theory (more like a law in their minds), and then search for evidence that supports them. When evidence doesn’t support them, they spew excuses or they simply change the data.
Richard, I agree, going out and taking actual observations is horrible science. Models all the way down is the only way to go.
Great read. Thanks Dr. Ball.
Seconded.
And I’m no fanboy. I mean that sincerely.
I agree. This was a great article.
Carefull
Can you give a reference for the table cited, attributed to Dr. Dietrich Koelle? I’ve tried Googling Koelle, and see a Dietrich Koelle associated with spaceflight research – same person? Anyhow, would like a lit. citation so I can track it down.
-Jerry
Me, too.
Jerry Nelson,
Here’s one: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ballimage003.jpg, mentioned here: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/the-scandals-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/123
I thought there was evidence for human impact on atmospheric CO2 levels via carbon isotopes. Is this not the case?
See Wayne Delbeke December 21, 2014 at 9:01 pm Up page. Maybe. Maybe not.
The satellite data is another nail in the coffin of AGW. There is not the faintest whiff of NH industrial CO2 shown by the NASA image.
B Gates now has real cause to wet himself-
his cherished CAGW is now belly up.
The CO2 emission from industry is not seasonal, but continuous. If this image does not show it, then why should we imagine that future data will? I’m skeptical that NH manmade CO2 will ever be detected by this
Satellite unless they figure out a way to FIX it, as I feel assured that will be done if it can be, like ARGO, like satellite altimetry (sea level), and whatever. As I say, I’m skeptical. I have a profound skepticism about the product of all these fine scientists who are sniffing around for AGW signs.
mpainter, look again at China. Also parts of Japan and Malaysia. Eastern seaboard of the US, the parts of the West Coast where the big cities are.
The US Eastern seaboard, where manufacturing used to be until we closed most of it down and sent it off to the Orient.
jorgekafkazar,
Which on the face of it would tend to explain why the concentration over China is so much larger. They do have the “advantage” of having ~4.3 times more population, but their per capita CO2 emissions are about 50% ours (as of 2011): http://sagacommodities.com/files/custom/2011%20CO2%20emissions%20per%20capita.png
Interesting to note their per capita emissions have quadrupled since 1990, while we’ve reduced by what, 15% or so?
“where the big cities are.”
—————-
You are looking at the “heat islands”, ….. it’s always hotter in the city, …. ya know.
Samuel C Cogar,
Not always. I’ve seen some recent papers on Dubai, where human activities tend to increase, not decrease, albedo meaning they tend to warm more slowly than the surrounding undisturbed desert. Not meant as a rebuttal, more a point of interest. The main UHI effect is measurement bias and microclimate changes. The macroclimate effects are negligible as urban and semi-urban areas represent such a fractional percentage of the surface.
UHI are where temp. readings come from, and airports, all greatly disproportionately represented in the record. This is one reason why hadcrut, giss, and others run hotter than satellites.
mpainter,
You’d think someone would have thought about that by now and done something to identify and correct any biases.
Does your analysis take into account that the lower troposphere is not trending at the same rate as other layers higher up?
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
TLT 0.122 K/decadeTMT 0.077 K/decade
TTS 0.010 K/decade
TLS -0.273 K/decade
For more accurate GM temps, rely on satellite. The others have been tampered with., especially the CRU product from EAU, the dishonesty of Phil Jones being well-documented in the climate gate emails.
Hansen and Schmidt’s egregious bias toward fabrication is also well documented.
Out of real arguments, mpainter retreats to the ad hom.
As I pointed out in the other thread, they have only just begun the process of calibration, they have only done so against two (that’s 2) ground stations, and they themselves didn’t claim any level of accuracy, they said the results were “promising”. So WAY to early to be drawing any conclusions from this data.
That said, the assumption in the discussion seems to be that CO2 should be higher over industrialized areas. That seems logical to me, but I would certainly not assume it to be true without testing it, and for good reason. Consider the prevailing wind, and suppose it blows from a heavy agricultural area to an industrial area. A corn crop for example can easily exhaust the CO2 at ground level to the point where it can’t grow anymore until wind brings in surrounding air that hasn’t been exhausted, or caused mixing with higher elevation air. So suppose for a moment that the prevailing wind comes from an area of low CO2 concentration and then travels over an industrialized area where CO2 production is high, but only high enough to replaced the deficit being supplied by the prevailing wind. In that instance, we’d have a situation where CO2 levels are absolutely being elevated by human activity, but the industrialized area would show “normal” perhaps even “below normal” levels of CO2, leading to erroneous conclusions about industrial areas producing CO2.
The opposite could also be true. Consider an ocean expelling CO2 due to cold water being warmed, and the prevailing wind blowing it across a nearby desert. Everyone looks at the high CO2 level over the desert and starts wondering about fires or termites… I start wondering about prevailing winds and what other processes in the vicinity might be adding to local effects.
Its just a lot more complicated issues than looking at a map of uncalibrated results and trying to draw conclusions about where the CO2 is and where it came from.
davidmhoffer
You are right that it is far too early to draw any firm conclussions.
One will need at least 12 months of data, on a fortnightly or monthly basis, before we have any idea as to the annual CO2 cycle.
The scale is only 15ppm from highs to low, so we are only talking about small variations, and the source of these small variations is yet to be scientifically ascertained.
That said, the more detailed data that is collected, the more likely that the ‘theory’ will be undermined, not least because it will suggest that there are scientific uncertainties, and that not everything is known and understood.
This data brings with it dangers for the cult warmists..
I understand what you are saying, however this is a data stream and therefore conclusions can be made from it. We may not be able to conclude the amount of CO2 in any location but as a comparison with other areas it should be accurate – it just hasnt been calibrated to match other data sets .
It still shows very precisely where the concentrations of CO2 are and where they are not. That is what is surprising as the conditions in the tropical rainforests do not alter particularly significantly so why are the plumes over the rainforests and not the industrial N hemisphere with its currently dormant photosynthesis. That is going to take some explaining.
I also would have thought that it would be known if any major eruptions were happening on the ocean floor to cause a massive CO2 plume out in the ocean – especially such broadly circular ones – a volcanic plume would be a narrow band at that scale. Much more likely this is outgassing plumes caused by ocean current overturning
Same point that I have been trying to make. Where are the CO2 emissions of the NH industrial/transport/ power generation etc. etc.
mwh
I understand your point as to why can’t we see high concentrations of manmade CO2 over the industrial heartlands of the developed world.
However, manmade CO2 emissions only account for about 3% of the total CO2. In other words manmade emissions are dwarfed by the CO2 emissions from natural sources so without extremely fine resolution, we are unlikely to readily see manmade emissions showing up.
This is particularly so since manmade emissions are made up of many activities, eg. car transport, ship transport, air transport, industrialisation, crop burning etc. Each of these would have a different geographical ‘hot spot’ but one is then only talking of say 40% of 3% which would be just 1.2% of annual global CO2 emissions from all sources, or 20% of 3%, or 10% of 3% etc such that each ‘hot spot’ is only a miniscule proportion of total CO2 emissions being measured.
I do not know how sensitive the measurements are, and the results have yet to be properly callibrated and compared with some proper base line over some proper period.
My own take is that this data will tell us more about the carbon cycle, the carbon sinks and turn over etc.
MWH, Tim Ball is jumping to conclusions on 1.5 months of data. That has not the slightest interest for knowing what happens over a full year, that is over a full seasonal cycle. Indeed human emissions are ~10 GtC/year as CO2, while natural emissions are ~90 GtC in and out of the oceans and ~60 GtC out and in the biosphere (countercurrent of each other). That is about 7% of natural emissions. But what I never see from Tim Ball and other “skeptics” is the amount of natural sinks. Here the latest estimates (in = into the atmosphere):
Oceans:
90 GtC in, 93.5 GtC out of which:
50 GtC in, 50.5 GtC out for the ocean surface (seasonal)
40 GtC in, 43,5 GtC out for the deep oceans (permanently between equator and poles and back via the deep)
Biosphere (land and sea plants, bacteria, insects, animals):
60 GtC in, 61 GtC out
Humans (fossil fuel use):
10 GtC in, 0 GtC out
The total balance over the past 55 years is that humans are the sole contributors to the increase and nature is a net absorber over the full period:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Natural variability in sink capacity is +/- 1 ppmv (2.1 GtC) around the trend, that is less than halve the current human yearly emissions.
“It still shows very precisely where the concentrations of CO2 are ”
—————-
UH, actually, not so precisely. That satellite can not actually see that CO2.
“Here the latest estimates (in = into the atmosphere):”
—————-
Well now, …. my estimate is that all of your estimates are off by 49.274%
F Engelbeen if what you said was true then the Mauna Loa CO2 graph would be far more exponential (upwardly curving) than it is, the almost total lack of increasing rate after such recent increases in man made emissions would mean that natural sinks are increasing as well and containing the worst of the rise. The insistence that the increase is purely manmade just doesnt stack up with manmade output increases and the Mauna Loa CO2 graph being virtually linear
mwh, human emissions, sink rate and increase in the atmosphere are all three going up slightly quadratic. That makes that total emissions and increase in the atmosphere have a near perfect ratio over the past 111 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
I don’t know of any natural source that will mimic human emissions in such a perfect way and exact timing…
The positive point is that the sink rate still is in ratio with the increase in the atmosphere (within the large natural variability), which shows that the deep oceans and/or plants are not saturating in their CO2 uptake, rejecting the Bern model of the IPCC which implies such a saturation…
Good points. We live at 5000 ft near the Bighorn Mountains and summer brings smoke from forest fires. It does not take many hours of a change of wind direction to change the smoke content of the air and it is very visible. The usual prevailing winds from the north also send most of our mosquitoes to Colorado. One could assume, I would think, the same behaviour for CO2 concentrations.
David, the issue is net emissions, not regional variations. If corn farming absorbs all the CO2 emitted by regionally adjoining industrial activity, then the net emission approximates zero.
If industrial CO2 emissions are being absorbed by agriculture, the global atmospheric CO2 increase is from a source other than industrial emissions.
Wonder who gets to audit the “calibration” process over the next 12 months?
Davidhoffer,
I suggest that you look into the data of the Japanese JAXA satellite. Seems to show no NH net CO2.
“Looks promising” they told Holdren. They don’t have much wriggle room, do they? Not with JAXA as a check.
If OCO-2 works well it should still detect the source before any distant mixing.
not sure I agree. The maximum concentration should be at the source. Prevailing winds would only distribute and reduce the concentration, no?
The maximum change should be at the source. Until you know what the baseline is, you cannot tell if a particular region is going up or going down, let alone why. So we have a snapshot in time that is not calibrated and lacks year over year data, so has no baseline.
If someone showed up with satellite temps over a three month period that were poorly calibrated to just two land based stations and concluded that some areas are warmer than average and some less with this kind og granularity on a global scale, we’d be in hysterics.
one more time….
Drought causes elevated CO2 levels…
The congo has been in a drought….
The rainy season is usually Oct – May…
The rainy season was late…this was Oct 1 – Nov 11
Why do you think that droughts cause elevated CO2 levels?
What is your assumed source for said CO2?
Re The C02 map above:for the highly uneducated amongst us (joke). Try opening a bottle of coke left outside the fridge at room temperature in the tropics (26C) and then compare it with one opened from your fridge (at 4C). Hear the fizzzz and see the bubbkles in the hot one?. So yes the map above is totally correct. In warm areas you would EXPECTto see much higher atmospheric C02.
OT but I totally support Tim Ball he has been complete correct about his assertions everywhere he has published about the AGW scam. I applaud this site’s effort to support this wonderful person and his efforts.
Thanks, Eliza. Tim signed your check just this morning and I dropped it in the mail.
[Just kidding. John]