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
Oops!
July not January 2003. The downwind effects are still apparent and perhaps higher in winter.
Keith
Keith,
Isn’t it odd that NASA calls it January in one place and July in another? Also, why can’t we see all the data? This stuff has been available to NASA at least since 2003, and according to NASA it can be reconstructed from data since the launching of the AIRS satellite.
If CO2 is the stuff that will change the world, why won’t they release the data now?
This thing still stinks.
Does someone need to file a freedom of info request?
Notice the plume of red CO2 in southern South America. Isn’t that where a volcano is?
Take a look at the trend charts here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
Several CO2 stations are no longer active. It seems that on my first look, those that showed downward trends have been taken off the active list. At least it looks like that since the data for these downward trending sites seem to end generally around 2000. hmmmm.
I posted a comment that had a website address in it. It probably was sent to the spam filter folder. It is a great site to look at CO2 trends for all stations that are either current or have been taken off the list.
I read once that when lost at sea, one should head toward rain clouds since it rains most often over LAND. I was stunned by that statement. Imagine, fresh water mostly falls where it can do some good! Using the same logic, it seems that CO2 would be concentrated where it could feed plants. Therefore, I would not expect CO2 to be well mixed in the atmosphere. I wish I could find that 2003 CO2 map. Perhaps just wild speculation.
[Reply: Here’s what you are looking for.~Charles the moderator.]
On further investigation, CO2 comes in three isotopes; 12, 13, and 14. These isotopes vary not in electrons but in the composition of the nucleus. Different kinds of isotopes dominate CO2 based on the source of the CO2 and cosmic ray influences. It is possible that the relative ratio of these three isotopes would vary depending on fluctuating conditions. It is also possible to measure that ratio historically by looking at tree rings and ice core data. Plants have a preference for which CO2 it will use. Geologic activity produces yet another change in ratios. Burning anything produces yet another change. For example Fossil fuels contain no 14CO2 and the greater source of 12/13CO2 is coal, not gas or oil. The ratio measurements are what GW’s use to talk about human-caused CO2 increase and therefore global warming. However, the argument to its end point is assumptive, not cause and effect. Regardless of whether or not the composition of CO2 is changing as well as overall increasing, does not explain temperature changes nearly as well as other factors, based on correlation data among all these various factors and temp change.
“Notice the plume of red CO2 in southern South America. Isn’t that where a volcano is?”
I read a European? volcanologist’s paper via Googling months back stating that H2O and CO2 totalling upto 20% of the ejecta in mass were required to support a plinian column.
His measurements of outgassing found CO2 to range <<0.05 to 0.5 of the vapor content.
With no plinian eruptions yearly outgassing is supposed to be 0.2 Gtons and is dismissed. My rough calculations (I wouldn’t trust them), however, indicated Pinatubo, a VEI 6, or ca. 16 km^3 would have output 4 Gtons of CO2 at 4*10^-4 crustal proportion.
Note Tambora’s, VEI 7, date of 1815 on Beck’s curve.
“Though the carbon buried in the ocean by storms won’t solve global warming, knowing how much carbon is buried offshore of mountainous islands such as Taiwan could help scientists make better estimates of how much carbon is in the atmosphere — and help them decipher its effect on global climate change.”
[…]
“If more carbon is being buried in the ocean than scientists once thought, does that mean we can worry less about global warming?
“I wouldn’t go that far,” Goldsmith said. “But if you want to build an accurate climate model, you need to understand how much CO2 is taken out naturally every year. And this paper shows that those numbers could be off substantially.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724084745.htm
I thought it was already known how much carbon is in the atmosphere.
There is station bias, big time, in that stations that were used as controls are not reported, while those stations that show increases are media-ready. There is also the notion that some CO2 isotope forms are good, ie natural, and some CO2 isotopes are bad, ie from fossil fuel. Still, the bottom line end game, were I an AGWer, is to state that CO2 in general is increasing and that is bad. So in one breath, the argument is that some forms of CO2 are good, and all CO2 is bad. It is becoming a twisted argument that is collapsing on its own weight.
What I find amazing is, given the massive global political, economic and scientific importance of atmospheric CO2 levels, that they rely on just one measuring station!
Peter, they have more than one measuring station , but the equipment is all calibrated by the Scripps Institute ( with an Agenda derived from the Alarmist Keeling), and it is a really crude way of collecting changes measuring parts per million.
PhillpB. “it appears possible that bio activity alone will limit CO2 concentrations, irrespective of human emissions.” I think Ocean Temp is a long term (800 year) reservoir, and flora is a short term (almost immediate) reservoir. There are studies of plant growth relative to CO2 levels, but I’ve never seen a number put on the atmospheric effect.
All,
I see that I have missed this discussion…
I have had a lot of personal discussions with Beck about the validity of the historical data. While I admire his tremendous work, I totally differ in conclusions.
To make it short: there is very little doubt that humans are fully responsible for the recent rise in CO2 (whatever the historical data were).
But that doesn’t say anything about the effect of that increase on temperature.
For more, very detailed, information about that, have a look at my page:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
and another one
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html