Evidence of variability of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 20th century
Geo-Ecological Seminar University of Bayreuth, 17th July 2008 (see here)
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol
Summary of the presentation (printable PDF available here)
In 1958 the modern NDIR spectroscopic method was introduced to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere [Beck 2007]. In the preceding period, these measurements were taken with the old wet chemical method. From this period, starting from 1857, more than 90,000 reliable CO2 measurements are available, with an accuracy within ± 3 %. They had been taken near ground level, sea surface and as high as the stratosphere, mostly in the northern hemisphere. Comparison of these measurements on the basis of old wet chemical methods with the new physical method (NDIR) on sea and land reveals a systematic analysis difference of about minus 10 ppm.
Wet chemical analyses indicate three atmospheric CO2 maxima in the northern hemisphere up to approx. 400 ppm over land and sea since about 1812. The measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1920 –1950 prove to be strongly correlated (more than 80 %) with the arctic sea surface temperature (SST).
A detailed analysis of the Atlantic Ocean water during the arctic warming since 1918 – 1939 by Wattenberg (southern Atlantic ocean) and Buch (northern Atlantic ocean) indicates a very similar state of the Atlantic Ocean (pH, salinity, CO2 in water and air over sea etc.) These data show the characteristics of the warm ocean currents (part of global conveyor belt) at that time, indicating a strong CO2 degassing from the Atlantic Sea, especially in the area of Greenland/Iceland and Spitsbergen. More than 360 ppm had been measured over the sea surface.
In 2004 Polyakov published evidence for a multi-decadal oscillation of the ocean currents in the arctic circle, showing a warm phase (strong arctic warming during 1918 –1940 with high temperatures in the Iceland/Spitsbergen area) similar to the current situation, and a cold phase (around 1900 and 1960). Today the Iceland/Spitsbergen area is known for a strong absorption of CO2.
This multi-decadal heating of the oceanic CO2 absorption area and larger parts of the Northern Atlantic Ocean was followed by an increase of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to approx. 400 ppm during the 30s and approx. 390 ppm today. The abundance of plankton (13C) and other biota supports this view.
Conclusion:
Atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with climate, the sea is the dominant CO2 store, releasing the gas depending on multi-decadal changes of temperature.
See several supporting graphs here: 180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
NOTE: While this paper presents some interesting findings, I and others do have some concerns with the older chemically derived sources of CO2 concentration data, which are obtained from a chemical analysis process that has some significant variability. Beck seems to think he has accurate enough data from these methods, and he has another essay on the process of chemical analysis of CO2 gas concentration in the atmosphere here. I’d recommend reading it also. My personal opinion on this paper is that I’m “on the fence with it”, and I encourage a rigorous debate, pro and con. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Francois
I have always thought that the reason for the low levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is because of the race between flora, which is desparatly trying to turn energy, water and CO2, (plus a few other things), into carbohydrates with oxygen as a byproduct, and fauna, which is trying to turn carbohydrates and oxygen into energy with CO2 as a byproduct.
I’ve even wondered if the fact that fauna is largely exothermic has anything to do with the fact that CO2 levels lag temperatures. As the temperature goes up, the fauana become more active and reproduce more, producing more CO2.
Francois Ouellette, I doubt bacteria are the predominate biomass on land. Anyone who has been in a broadleaved or tropical forest will tell you, all there is is trees and things that live off trees (which includes bacteria).
And concerning seasonal effects on CO2 levels. The Earth overall doesn’t have seasons, because one season in the NH has the opposite season in the SH.
Therefore, annual variation in CO2 levels must be due to NH SH differences and that is a difference in the amount of land versus oceans.
The large annual variation in CO2 (down in the northern summer and up in the northern winter), indicates to me that land is the primary CO2 sink and not the oceans.
Note that CO2 store and CO2 sink are not the same thing. It is feasible (and IMO highly likely) that while oceans are the primary store of CO2, land based organisms are the primary sink (over relevant timescales to the CO2 debate).
Keeling junior challenges Beck’s work and ends thus:
“A small number of the earlier observations may in fact have been done with sufficient attention to sampling and analysis methods. Nevertheless, interest in the early observations waned in the 1980s when it became clear that background concentrations in the past could be established more reliably from air archived in ice cores (8). Although Beck claims that the earlier data exhibit seasonal variations which correspond to modern observations, this claim is unsubstantiated. The diurnal variability that Beck documents is in fact a smoking gun for data being non-representative of the background.
“There is clearly no basis for assuming that meaningful background trends can be extracted by averaging the early data over 11-year intervals, as Beck has done. In effect, Beck has turned back the clock to before 1957, rejecting the notion of an atmospheric background, a concept which has stood the test of 50 years of scientific scrutiny.
“It should be added that Beck’s analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck’s 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally. Other CO2 swings noted by Beck require similarly large releases or uptakes. To make a credible case, Beck would have needed to offer evidence for losses or gains of carbon of this magnitude from somewhere. He offered none.
“The Beck article provides an interesting test case for E&E’s recently advertised willingness to serve as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” (E&E mission statement, Dec. 2006). The result was the publication of a paper with serious conceptual oversights that would have been spotted by any reasonably qualified reviewer. Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science? I suggest that some clarification or review of the practice is appropriate.”
These last sentences are telling. Pseudo-science indeed!
Beck answers every point here, and notes in addition that his paper’s purpose was to assess the QUALITY of the old measurements – an essential first step, if we are to re-assess our CO2 picture as much as Beck’s findings suggest. About this assessment of quality, Keeling is silent…
Today I read somewhere (rocket scientist? Hissinck?) an “obvious” solution to the ice core CO2 anomaly:- pressure drops when samples are taken, and ice that has CO2 over 280 ppmv cracks under pressure and releases it all… so we never get higher figures. Someone else mentioned bacteria that sequester the CO2…? Sorry I cannot quote exact refs!
Pamela Gray:
The second question I have is how much of this very possibly natural long-term variation in CO2 is influenced by human produced CO2 due to energy consumption? The stairstep to heaven chart is always depicted as entirely human caused. I think not and the graph should include a pie chart related to how much is natural and how much is energy consumed CO2 emission.
Table 1, (scroll down), on this site breaks the percentages down, ( http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html ). If correct, since the “pre-industrial baseline”, natural sources are responsible for the addition of 68,520 ppb, and human activities another 11,880 ppb. So we’re responsible for only 1/6th the increase in atmospheric CO2, up to the year 2000.
Pamela Gray (10:52:53) :
“Maybe what we need is measurements from satellites that could determine CO2 in the upper atmosphere where the models predict it to do its “damage”. Who knows, maybe there are even holes in CO2 like there are for ozone.”
Links for interesting satellite measurements are posted above. Have look at :
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowNews_DynamicContent&NewsID=10
and http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/CarbonDioxide/
It is just this this AIRS business seems to keep data for itself. They have only posted July 2003 data. They promise more in 2008, a 5 year delay from a government sponsored agency? Something up? Waiting to go commercial once carbon limits are imposed?
Mr Gardner said (05:42:27) :
“My view of Beck’s work is that it’s a fairly honest attempt to compile historical instrumental background CO2 data, and I’m amazed that he seems to have been the first person to attempt to do this, but I suspect that some of his rural locations may not be rural enough. It does look very suspicious to me that climate scientists prefer to use an elaborate proxy method like ice core data when it would appear to be simpler to use historical instrumental data and possibly then ‘correct’ it to allow for any discrepancy between modern and old-fashioned methods of measuring CO2.”
As a non-scientist I would have thought the best approach would be to look at every source of data and see whether they are consistent. It seems relevant not just to seek a “true” measure but also to see whether a trend can be established. If the various sources of data show the same trend but differ as to precise measurements it will be necessary to apply such knowledge as exists about the appropriate manner of adjustment of each source. But a consistency of trend should, I would have thought, have significance in itself. If, on the other hand, there is no consistency of trend the obvious conclusion is that one or more of the sources is unreliable.
OK, I’ll put the dunce’s cap on again; it was just a thought.
“I’ve been up to the Mauna Loa volcano crater a few times. It has to be at least a mile or two across, maybe more, with a very deep caldera. Since Hawaii is geologically active, I’ve often wondered why they would cite a CO2 monitoring station there. Wouldn’t you think that at least some of the CO2 indications must come from natural venting?”
Monitoring should get very interesting when Mauna Loa next erupts. Is there also a monitor station on Mauna Kea?
Julian in Wales (07:04:12) :
“Is it really true that human caused Co2 being absorbed into the sea might be sufficient to cause the oceans to acidify and melt the shells of sea life?”
We should find that ocean bound life can thrive within a broad range of parameters – just like earth bound life. Frailty is not a good trait in an organism (-;
As for the “contamination” of ice core/CO2 measurements ( ignoring the explosive decompression factor regarding ice core sampling – and the diesel lubricant) – I lost the only reference I had to a peer reviewed paper on the affinity of different gasses to cold water. If anyone has it could they post it please.
I need to straighten something out and being unable to remember which gas (N or O) has 30x more affinity to cold water than CO2, and which 70x, is holding me up.
Thanks.
anna v (21:03:08) :
“It is just this this AIRS business seems to keep data for itself. They have only posted July 2003 data. They promise more in 2008, a 5 year delay from a government sponsored agency? Something up? Waiting to go commercial once carbon limits are imposed?”
This thing bothers the heck out of me. Dr. Spencer said that Watson wanted to regulate CO2 about twenty years ago. Maybe Watson and Hensen had already been working together for years before to hijack the data. Was Mauna Loa hansenized 30+ years ago? I hope this isn’t the Volcano CO2 Island effect. VCI…
Why are these CO2 monitoring stations along the Pacific ridge?
Why the huge delay from the AIRS satellite?
Maybe I’m just paranoid, but this thing really stinks.
Jock,
Most all gasses are inversely soluble in water, i.e. cold water holds more in solution than hot water. You can find some of the information you want here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
The maximum (equilibrium at standard pressure) amount of gas that water will hold in solution at 0 degrees F is (numbers are taken off graphs so they are “about”):
CO2: 3.3 grams per KG of water
N2: 0.029 G/kG
O2: 0.07 G/kG
CO2 is about 100 X more soluble than N2 and 50 X more soluble than O2.
As I recall (and it has been a lot of years) water is a strong polar solvent so it will work better on a polar solute, like CO2 rather than a non-polar molecule like N2. Also, the CO2 is very slightly disassociated to form a small amount of carbonic acid: H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3− + H+ .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid
On the high end with polar molicules are:
NH3: 900 G/kG
SO2 : 230 G/kG
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Sorry about the error in my previous post. That is 0 degrees C, not F. I am still stuck in the operating world.
Steamboat Jack
[…] in what appears to be a natural CO2 cycle where the oceans absorb and gas off C02 every 60 years. From data that has been compiled and recently presented by Dr. Beck, we are entering an absorbtive phase and never reached the CO2 levels of 1940 or […]
I have read in many papers that CO2 becomes well mixed in the atmosphere. How do we know that? The 2003 satellite image sure doesn’t look like CO2 is well mixed. Here is just one reason: if CO2 interacts with water vapor it would make sense that CO2 is not well mixed because water vapor isn’t (I check it every day and water vapor is definitely not well mixed across the globe).
I agree with several posters above about the lack of data from satellites. And I sure as hell wouldn’t want to get involved in carbon trading schemes given the potential bias in CO2 stations. At the very least, as a business owner, I would get pretty pithy if I were forced to give up part of my business income for carbon offsets, given the current state of the (lack of and potentially biased) data. In fact, I would get so pithy that I would have to get a pretty darned good lawyer to do my pithing for me. Al Gore’s scheme will never get off the ground.
REPLY: Pamela, I’ve been wondering the same thing myself, and when I saw that sat image I wondered how that claim could be justified. Look for a post on this. -Anthony
hmmm. Wonder how that July 2003 graph of global CO2 distribution meshes with jet streams at the time, water vapor at the time, ocean conditions at the time, temperature at the time, etc, etc, etc. Twould be interesting to discover that CO2 measured in the Western part of the US originated in the Pacific Ocean outgassing areas and then blew into the US, twouldn’t it. So how twould Al go about getting a CO2 carbon offset payment from the Pacific Ocean? Maybe if Triton is still around he could get it from him for outgassing CO2 from the ocean, couldn’t he. Kinda matches the myth of AGW.
Headline.
NASA Holding Back Data on CO2
or
NASA CO2 Data Adjusted To Match Global Climate Models
Pamela Gray (10:29:39) :
“hmmm. Wonder how that July 2003 graph of global CO2 distribution meshes with jet streams at the time, water vapor at the time, ocean conditions at the time, temperature at the time, etc, etc, etc.”
Well, it is July now, and have a look at the satellite record of sea temperatures. Shows similar zone distribution. If the winds/weather systems are involved it would explain how the arabic peninsula has such high values, when it has no industries and not many sea surfaces about it.
Lucy Skywalker your 26th
Professor Zbigniev Jaworowski, a glaciologist from Poland, provided a written statement for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 19 March 2004. His research leads him to believe that the CO2 in the deep ice cores is transformed into gas hydrates under the high pressures existing in the deeper cores. He believes these escape during the drilling process returning to gaseous state. This has not been proven for lack of research funding (imagine that). Paraphrased from Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers.
Concerning run-away greenhouse effect. Venus is sometimes cited as an example as to what could happen to Earth. However Venus has no Moon. The Moon is the reason the Earth does not have a thick, (heat-trapping?) atmosphere like Venus. Apparently the gravitational attraction of the Moon allows excess atmosphere to escape into space.
The fact that Earth even has the Moon is considered an extremely lucky coincidence. Just one of many and here is a question:
If you walk into a room and there are 1 million pencils balanced on their points, what do you do? Walk very gently or assume that something or someone is keeping them balanced? (Thanks to Dr. Hugh Ross for above info and analogy.)
FWIW, there are large numbers of monitoring sites beyond those whose data is found at CDIAC, for example Shauinsland in Germany. They can separate the background signal from interferences from industry and agriculture by careful work, much in the same way that the Mauna Loa measurements are separated from any interference from the volcano. Details on the later can be found at Ryan, Chemical Geology 177 (2001) 201-211, it used to be on the net, but the link has died.
Notice that Beck does not continue the temperature curve beyond 1960, and except for the bump in 1940, the blue and red curves do not follow each other
FWIW
Having been to the Mauna Loa Observatory at 11,500 feet it interested me that it is directly DOWNWIND of the Kileaua Volcano that has been erupting for over ten years. Wouldn’t this have sometime to do with it’s measurements?
B.Gregg
“Having been to the Mauna Loa Observatory at 11,500 feet it interested me that it is directly DOWNWIND of the Kileaua Volcano that has been erupting for over ten years.” bob gregg
Wow! What a thought! Is CO2 possibly not rising despite massive use of fossil fuels? Is it being “sunk” faster than it can be “sourced”? Does the AGW theory not even have the fact of rising CO2 levels as an input?
Just asking.
The German article was interesting to say the least. If normal variation actually is equivalent to the proposed CO2 reduction in the European Union area, then at least for the EU, no real sacrifice will need to be made at the governmental level. It will be businesses that will carry the burden for this global program. Well, guess what. Business people get to vote governments in and out of existence.
The other thing that comes to mind is that I am wondering if CO2 measures have been completed for all ocean cycles. I think that before models have any hope of being predictive, they will need to take into account observed outgassing/sink periods of ocean decadal cycles and the subsequent changes in CO2 measures near sources.
But the best part is that by the time this stuff gets ironed out, the EU will be dealing with running out of heating fuel for those cold winters and cool summers coming their way. Bad ol’ CO2 will be put on the back burner.
Bob Greg,
The volcano emissions are supposedly factored out, called “normalized”
data. How they do that and maintain essentially the same record as other stations around the globe is beyond me.
“Though Mauna Loa is an active volcano, Keeling and collaborators made measurements on the incoming ocean breeze and above the thermal inversion layer to minimize local contamination from volcanic vents. In addition, the data is normalized to negate any influence from local contamination. Measurements at many other isolated sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, though no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
I’d include Keeling on the list of original alarmists. What interests me is the consistency of the different stations supposed data (below). Does CO2 mix very well and quickly on a global scale? I’m doubtful.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html
OK, now this really is weird. I just looked at the AIRS CO2 map again, and I believe that alot of the dark blue at the south pole is now light blue. Someone tell me that I am going nuts.
Mike:
The blue looks the same to me.
All: Note that it is a January depiction when all of the power plants, home heaters, and car engines are working harder for people to stay warm.
Notice the and the NH red areas with higher concentrations downwind off the eastern seaboard and east of the west coast urban areas.
The same is true of the European cities withe a slight deviation for wind direction.