Guest Post By Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
More words on the topic first presented here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf
I wrote:
It appears from this graph that CO2 concentrations follows temperature with approx 6-9 months. The interesting part is off course that the CO2 trends so markedly responds to temperature changes.
To some, this is “not possible” as we normally see a very smooth rise on CO2 curves. However, the difference in CO2 rise from year to year is quite different from warm to cold years, and as shown differences are closely dependent on global temperatures. Take a closer look:
For this writing I have slightly modified the presentation of UAH data vs. Mauna Loa data:
The relatively rough relationship between CO2 growth per year and global temperatures (UAH) is:
1979: CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,7
2008: CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 1,2
1979-2008:
CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,95
For 2007, a UAH temperature anomaly approximately – 0,32 K should lead to CO2 rise/year = 0 , that is, CO2-stagnation.
These equations are useful for overall understanding, but so far they don’t give a fully precise and nuanced picture, of course. On the graph, I have illustrated that there is a longer trend difference between CO2 and Temperature. Thus, the “constant” of the equation should be a variable as it varies with time (1979: 0,7 2008: 1,2).
The trend difference means, that from 1979 to 2008 the CO2-rise per year compared to the global temperatures has fallen 0,5 ppm/year, or the other way around: It now takes approx. +0,15 K global temperature anomaly more to achieve the same level of CO2 rise/year as it did in 1979.
How can this be? The CO2 rise/year now takes higher temperatures to achieve?
With the human emissions rising in the time interval 1979-2008, one could imagine that it would be the other way around, that CO2 rises came with still smaller temperature rises needed. But no, its becoming “harder and harder” to make CO2 rise in the atmosphere.
So generally, the human emissions effect appears inferior to other effects in this context at least.
Which effects could hold CO2 rise/year down as we see?
The fact that we today have higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere than in 1979 does not favour more CO2 release from the oceans. However the fact that we approx 500 million years ago had several thousand ppm CO2 in the atmosphere implies that the 385 ppm today hardly does a big difference.
My guess is, that what we see is mainly the effect of the growing biosphere.
In short: A period with higher temperatures leads to higher CO2 rises/year and thus of course after some years higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
In the period of rising temperatures and CO2 concentration, the biosphere has grown extremely much.
The results of trend analyses of time series over the Sahel region of seasonally integrated NDVI using NOAA AVHRR NDVI-data from 1982 to 1999:
Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
Even if we put every European in “Plant a tree”-projects we could never reach a fraction of what mother nature has achieved in Sahel alone over these few years. In Addition, in these areas lots of more precipitation is occurring now. ( If we here have a “point of no return” im not sure Africans would ever want to come back to “normal”. We Europeans want so much to help Africans – but take away the CO2? What kind of help is that? )
In addition, the seas are much more crowded with life, plankton etc.
The biosphere is blooming due to CO2: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
So today we have a larger biosphere. Every single extra plant or plankton cell will demand its share of CO2. It takes more CO2 to feed a larger biosphere. More CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere today than earlier. An enormous negative feedback on CO2 levels. Roughly: Any human CO2-influence would cause bigger biosphere that eventually omits the human CO2-influence.
A rather interesting scenario: What happens if temperatures go down below approx – 0,3 K UAH??
Well first it appears from my rough equation that CO2 levels will go down. We will have negative CO2 rise / year. But the bigger biosphere is still there (!!!) even though temperature and thus CO2 levels suddenly should drop and it will still demand its bigger share of CO2. And more, in these days of Cold PDO and especially more precipitation due to the solar condition, we might see more CO2 washed faster out of the atmosphere.
This adds up to my belief, that a cooling after a longer warming trend, mostly due to the bigger biosphere, could be accompanied by quite rapid fall in CO2 levels. Faster that temperature raise leads to CO2 rise? In short, I postulate: CO2 often falls quicker than it rises:
(I am very aware that the data Ernst-Georg Beck has gathered has had a lot of critic. I will not here be a judge, but I think its fair to show that Becks data to some degree matches my expectations, even though the level of CO2 appears high. But I am no judge of what is too high etc.)
So what to expect now? First of all, how about the present cooling??
We should be able to see the big Jan 2008 dive in global temperature in CO2? Well yes, this dive should 6-9 months appear thereafter. And if we take a look at Mauna Loa data released Aug 3, nicely in the 6-9 months time frame after Jan 2008, we saw a dive.
However, this dive was mostly removed from Mauna Loa data 4 Aug 2008, so its hard to judge anything about 2008.
Antarctic ice core data shows that in the period 1890-1940 there was a flat development approx 8 ppm from 300 ppm to 308 ppm.
We have seen first in this writing, that the CO2 is very responsive to temperature changes 1979-2008. So how come the warmer temperatures 1920-40´s has no effect at all on the extremely straight Antarctic CO2 curve?
Is there a mismatch between extremely flat Antarctic CO2 data on one side and Mauna Loa data/UAH data on the other side? If so, which data sets are correct? Mauna Loa/UAH or Antarctic ice cores?
And more, Engelbeen:
Your idea, that temperatures only limit CO2 WHEN temperature falls, and not DURING a flat minimum/maximum also has a third severe problem:
This would mean, that CO2rise/year should fast seek back to a clear trend line, just shortly after temperature has stabilized. This we don’t see in reality. (In 1979-2009 the trend line would be rather flat around 2-3ppm ).
This would also in many many cases mean, that CO2rise/year should act on its own, WITHOUT a previous temperature change.
The CO2 rise/year should all the time seek back to the 2-3 ppm/year trend line even BEFORE temperature does anything.
But Engelbeen, this is just not in compliance with the fact, that CO2 react AFTER temperature changes.
And then a fourth severe problem:
If we then had a 5 year dive of temperature where the temperature fall was homogenous, the temperature fell just as much every year, for example 0,2K fall per year in 5 years. Then what would your formula give?
Year1: CO2rise/year = 3*(-0,2) + 3 = 2,4 ppm.
Year2: CO2rise/year = 3*(-0,2) + 3 ppm = 2,4 ppm
Year3: CO2rise/year = 3*(-0,2) + 3 ppm = 2,4 ppm.
Year4: CO2rise/year = 3*(-0,2) + 3 ppm = 2,4 ppm.
Year5: CO2rise/year = 3*(-0,2) + 3 ppm = 2,4 ppm.
In this case, Engelbeen, your formula predicts a flat CO2 rise/year for the 5 years and we should not see CO2rise/year follow temperature down except for the first year… This is SO OBVIOUSLY NOT what data reflects. For longer slower changes in real data
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/lansner2.png
CO2 is no way flat. CO2 follows temperature up and down even if the changes are slower.
Your formula predicts that CO2rise/year follows the accelleration of temperature, and not the temperature itself. But the data shows that CO2 rise/year follows temperature and not the accelleration of temperature.
Therefore in many ways Mauna Loa /UAH data is not supporting your interpretation.
Dear Frank,
To begin with, you still haven’t answered my objections against the lack of matching the mass balance, the d13C/d14C balance and the oxygen balance of your formula, and you dind’t comment on the 20 years overlap of CO2 in ice cores and atmosphere…
The whole key in our difference is the “dT” contra “T”.
Agreed, or in other words the difference between dCO2/°C and dCO2/°C/year
About the one year to multiyear effect of a one time temperature change and stable temperature after that: The real first year sensitivity of CO2 for temperature will be 2-4 ppmv/°C, the second year it will not be zero, but a lot smaller, as a new equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels will be approached. But an average 3 ppmv/°C will do the job.
As bio-engineer, I suppose that you are familiar with solubility of CO2 in (sea) water and similar (dynamic) equilibrium reactions. Any increase/decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere is countered by a change in the equilibrium which tries to neutralise the change. Thus an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever the cause, will decrease the degassing of the warm parts of the oceans and increase the absorption by the cold parts of the oceans, even if warmer oceans were the initial cause of the increase.
An even better approach was done by Dr. Pieter Tans of NOAA, by including precipitation in the formula. He has several graphs indicating CO2 response to temperature and precipitation changes at:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
You believe CO2 responds only to the difference in temperature, but you do not consider the length of a given temperature change.
Indeed in my opinion, backed up by 420,000 years of data, there is an initial 3 ppmv/°C change on short term (one to a few years, over the past 50 years of MLO data), increasing to 8 ppmv/°C for long term changes. The first is a direct, fast response to fast temperature changes (El Niño, Pinatubo), the second involves slower ice / vegetation area changes and ocean current / sea ice cover changes.
See the Vostok data over 420,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
The 8 ppmv/°C is consistent over four ice age – interglacial intervals.
Some formula like yours need to be in the order of 80 ppmv/10°C/5,000 years (upgoing), thus 0.0016 ppmv/°C/year to match reality…
In all (historical) cases, the change of CO2 after temperature change is a ratio which is temperature change dependent (and somewhat larger over longer time spans), not absolute temperature dependent.
Thus the first year(s) temperature change is the most responsible for the first year(s) change in CO2 increase, but as the temperature influence is limited in time (a different, but constant temperature again gives a constant seasonal cycle, but at a different level), the next years that will not give a change in increase speed anymore.
As the MLO data don’t show any consecutive years with a flat temperature at all, there is no direct proof for your or my formula to be right or wrong. But the other observations show that human emissions are the cause of the increase, not temperature…
I didn’t say that it needs higher and higher emissions to overcome a lower temperature dependence of the increase in the atmosphere. I said that the increase in the atmosphere is practically independent of temperature and that it needs increased emissions to show up in increased CO2 levels. The increase rate is temporarely influenced by temperature, the increase itself hardly. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The temperature variability gives a variability around the CO2/yr trend, which is only about halve the emissions per year. The influence on the trend is near zero, as the variability indeed is around the trend of 55% of the emissions. But still, the CO2 rate of change reaction lags temperature changes with one to a few months and is (relative) huge for the first year(s). Again that is about the variability of CO2 increase around the trend, not about the trend itself. The increase follows the emissions, not the temperature…
Thus your formula, where temperature is the cause of the variability ánd the trend itself doesn’t match several observations, of which the mass balance is the most impossible…
Regards,
Ferdinand
I think CO2 measurements are taken out of context just like Arctic Ice behavior is taken out of context. The AIRS data tells us that CO2 is not well mixed. Therefore the Mauna Loa data should not be used to speak of global CO2 levels. Just like the mean ice extent and area in the Arctic should not be used to speak of the “Arctic”. The different ice areas in and around the Arctic behave differently to oceanic currents, local SST, land boundaries, weather systems, and wind. Each area should be considered separately. The average of all of the areas gives misleading impressions. So to CO2. Mauna Loa is not a measure of global CO2 and is therefore a misleading calculation if used in models.
Pamela,
One need to look at the AIRS data with some caution: what you see as “not well mixed” is in fact the seasonal variation, which is seen in the ground based stations too (the satellite data were calibrated by the stations and airplanes!). The seasonal variation is larger near ground near the north pole than at Mauna Loa and larger in the NH than in the SH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
The yearly averages don’t differ that much: less than 2 ppmv in each hemisphere and less than 5 ppmv between the NH and the SH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
More important, the trends are near identical. Thus while Mauna Loa doesn’t is really global, the difference with the “official” global data (an average of different stations) is small.
Ferdinand,
I made my rough formula
CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,95
on a basis of stunning match of the datasets CO2rise/year vs temperature.
Your formula
CO2 = 3*dT + 0.55*emissions, im sorry if i overlooked it, but could you link to a such graph? The thing is, i have tried loosely to sketch such a graph, and for what i can see, it look TERRIBLE …! Certainly not a convincing match. But probably im doing something wrong?
Can I see your graph again?
Frank,
I haven’t made a dCO2/dt graph with my formula, as the year-by-year variability of CO2 around the trend is of minor interest. Your formula is probably much better for short term. BTW, if you plot the year-by-year emissions together with the observed increase per year, you will see that the emissions are near double the increase. Thus what is the cause of the increase?
Dr. Pieter Tans has a better formula, based on the response of oceans and vegetation on temperature changes ánd precipitation. See the second last page of his presentation at:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
As you can see, the variability around the trend is largely explained by temperature and precipitation, while there is (near) zero influence on the trend itself…
Frank,
Sorry, my memory isn’t anymore what it was a long time ago. I did make a comparison between CO2 increase/year levels and my formula a few years ago (but didn’t remember that…). Here it is:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_calc_trends.jpg
It is less detailed as yours, as the emissions are only given per year, not per month. All together, the trend and variability don’t look that bad… Anyway, the trend of accumulation in the atmosphere is far more of interest than the year-by-year increase and the variability around the increase…
@Engelbeen
Thankyou!
Ok, as i understand you and Tans writing, approx 2/3 of the fast response in CO2rise/year is due to temperature. My graph seems to show that practically all this short term variation of CO2 appears quite clearly result of temperature, so i dont agree.
Example: Just after temperature rises in 1998 CO2rise/year rises around 2ppm. Should we then understand on Tan, that around 1,3 ppm of the rise that came after temperature was due to temperature rise? But then why did the rest – the 0,7 ppm – also occur when temperature rose? Why are the whole 2ppm sunchronous with temperature, if only 1,3 ppm is due to temperature?
What causes the rest, the 0,7 ppm, and WHY is it sybnchronous with temperature?
Anyway, you DO agree at least that the 2/3 of the temperature synchronous peak is due to temperature.
OK. Imagine that temperature stayed up for 5 years. Then the temperature graph i showed you in the beginning of my article predicts that CO2 will keep having a big CO2 rise/year. There is nothing in the graph that gives any clue that a longer temperature deviation would only have effect the first year(S).
You accept the short term very large direct impact of temperature on CO2rise/year. But if the warming persist more than a year you dont think that there will still be roughly the same temperature effect.
1) Why is that? What mechanism in real nature suggests that this is likely?
2) Could you tell me exactly where in my graph you see evidence that its only the first year of a temperature trend that influences CO2rise/year? Because i see all trends one year and multi year trends reflected FANTASTIC well in the CO2 trends. Yes both one year and mulit years.
As i have asked many times before, please explain this in very down to earth straigh forward logic. please. Note, i do NOT ask of you to show a proxy graph etc, im asking you to answer the question clearly. And im afraid i wil keep asking you until i see I a logic clear answer 🙂
@Engelbeen
– addition: I think i will make an illustrated writing about these things. Its easier for me to explain the problems i see in your argumentation.
You and Tan´s use of dT rather than T has immense problems.
– If you DONT want me to refer to your thinking in an article, please let me know.
Dear Frank,
Here we go again…
First a question: please plot the result of your formula against the real CO2 increase over the period 1960-2008 (whatever the “constant”), as Pieter Tans and I have done for our formulas. That should give a more fair comparison.
1. We (many people at the AGW side and a lukewarm skeptic like me) agree with you (and a lot of hard skeptics) that temperature has a huge short time influence on CO2 levels with a lag of a few months.
2. We disagree on the long(er) term influence of temperature on CO2 levels. According to you and others, the long term influence of temperature is responsible for (near) the full trend seen in the MLO (and other station) data 1959-2008, which is an order of magnitude higher than the short time response. According to us, the trend itself is fully caused by the emissions and the temperature increase 1959-2008 results in only a very small increase of CO2, of the same order as the short term influence seen around the trend.
Thus indeed the dispute is about the longer term effect of a sustained temperature difference. That needs a more in depth analyses of what the effect is of of higher temperatures on oceans and vegetation.
A. The effect of temperature on oceans:
An increase in (upper) ocean temperature will increase the release of CO2 in warm parts and decrease the uptake of CO2 in cold parts of the oceans. That happens in short time periods like seasonal variations and can be measured as a change in pCO2 of the oceans, relative to the pCO2 of the atmosphere. So far so good for the short term.
On longer term, this effect is countered by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: more CO2 in the atmosphere means a higher pCO2, thus a smaller difference in pCO2 over the warm oceans, thus reducing the outgassing of CO2. A higher pCO2 in the atmosphere gives a higher pCO2 difference over the cold oceans, thus increasing the uptake of CO2. All together, an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere acts opposite to the initial disturbance. That is a basic rule for any equilibrium reaction, of which the solubility of CO2 in water is an example (be it for seawater far more complicated than for pure water).
Thus a constant higher temperature increases CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but the increase in the atmosphere counteracts the change. The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).
For cooling events the same approach is applicable in reverse sense.
B. The effect of temperature on vegetation:
A short term temperature increase, all other necessities (minerals, water, fertiliser, sunlight,…) available in sufficient quantities, may increase the uptake by plants, but that is a non-linear effect: some plants are below optimum temperature/growth, others are already over that optimum. And drought, insufficient water also may play a role. In general there may be some increase of plant growth on short term, but quite limited compared to the oceans. That reduces the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere somewhat, but as there is still an increase, the oceans are more important as temperature/CO2 regulator on medium term, while vegetation is faster on very short term (over the seasons CO2 goes down with temperature, over a year, CO2 goes up with temperature).
On longer term, a change in total area and total vegetation density may occur at sustained higher temperatures, but that is really very long term work over decades to centuries to millennia (melting of glaciers/ice caps, occupation by plants).
C. How do we know which causes the longer term trend: temperature or the the emissions?
C1. The mass balance.
Simply look at the quantities: you add about 8 GtC (4 ppmv) per year to the atmosphere. According to your formula, that needs all to be absorbed somewhere (as the main increase is caused by temperature). Over the past 150 years, humans have added over 400 GtC (200 ppmv). If temperature is the cause, oceans can’t be the huge absorbers, as oceans are the main source of the extra CO2 due to higher temperatures. Thus vegetation should be the main absorbers. That means that all vegetation on earth should have increased with about 1/3rd in the past 150 years, not very likely with the destruction of tropical forests…
C2. The d13C decrease.
Both release of CO2 from the oceans (slightly) and CO2 uptake by vegetation (strongly) increase the 13C content of the atmosphere. Thus higher temperatures mean higher d13C and reverse. But we see that d13C levels in the atmosphere and the oceans are decreasing…
C3. The ice core ratio’s.
Long term, sustained cooler and warmer periods over 420,000 years of the Vostok (and other) ice core(s) show a quite constant ratio of about 8 ppmv/°C.
While the absolute level of temperature is discutable, the CO2 levels are quite accurate (+/- 5 ppmv). What is important is not the exact ratio, but the fact that the ratio is quite constant over the full 420,000 years. Thus the four warm periods and the cooler periods in between show the same ratio. As a consequence we can say that there is no migration of CO2 with pressure (at depth) and the ratio is independent of the height of the temperature, only depends of the difference in temperature. The increase in CO2 during the about 5,000 years increase from an ice age to an interglacial is about 0.0016 ppmv/°C/year, and is essentially zero over 10,000 years when the warm period is reached, if we apply a similar formula as yours.
D. Conclusion:
The influence of temperature on CO2 levels is strong on very short time periods but fades when approaching a new equilibrium. The mass balance and d13C balance shows that vegetation as sink is not large enough to absorb all human CO2 if the oceans are a source and ice cores show that CO2 and temperature go to a (surprisingly linear) new equilibrium for every change in temperature level, not a sustained increase or decrease.
On the other hand, an increase caused by humans, where oceans and vegetation together act as sinks for about halve the emissions, complies with all known observations. Temperature in that case only modulates the year by year sink capacity of the oceans and vegetation and has little influence on long term CO2 levels.
Dear Frank,
No objections against a new article, I see only one problem: comments don’t allow the incorporation of graphics, which makes an illustration of our point of view less visible…
@Engelbeen
Just a short question. In your many lines – thankyou – i found the key argument how you can be convinced that the temperature only creates variation for a very short time:
YOu write:
“The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).”
Yes, you would have to have an equilibrium reached within a year or so for your opinion to be correct.
Can you show me some documentation that theres is indeed reached equilibrium so fast after temperature change? There is absolutely nothing in the graph from my article that indicates such a fast equilibrium, on the contrary. take a look, one of many examples: From second half of 1998 and 2 years forward Temp and CO2 goes down together. They stay down together until temp slowly rises again. But the rise is slow, and there is NO sign that the CO2 should have reached an equilibrium and is on its way up one milimeter more than dictated by temperature! I see no sign of your fast-equilibrium opinion in real data. So, could you document the fast-euqiibrium opninion of yours?
K.R. Frank
@Egelbeen:
– for the example above, the temperature is actually down 3-4 years 1998-2002 and no sign of your returning to a fast-equilibrium as you believe. No sign of ANYTHING else than a CO2rise/year – Temperature relationship. I don’t believe in coincidence that are statistical impossible.
The only thing that fits more good in your graph is the main trend between CO2rise/year and dT + Faktor*Human emissions.
I hope you know, that it is easy to construct a graph that resembles the main trend of the CO2graph or the CO2 rise/year graph almost never mind what you use as basis, Example:
CO2 = dT + X * (sqrt(number of icebears))
CO2 = dT + X * (number of employees at Novo Nordic)
The proof value of this is indeed tiny as long as its just a rather flat basic trend * factor that really fits.
Besides trend match, It is obvious that the CO2rise/year-temperature link is so much a better match than the dCO2-dT match of yours. I dont understand how on earth you can prefer the dCO2-dT match.
You prefer an obvious much poorer data-fit (that supports the CO2-idea).
I prefer the best fit of data, and I think it’s the objective thing to do.
And beyond any discussion, the dCO2-temperature is the best fit.
@Engelbeen
– to your repeate mentioning of C13: As long as we havent come to any kind of understanding of what my article basically actually shows, and how it should be interpreted, I think the dialog would be even more confsuing if we also discussed the proxies, and the basis of their use.
As long as we disagree so much on the core issues, there is ENOUGH to debate withot dragging proxies in.
If you want to see some points that i support on the issue, see the SPLENDID writing here in this debate by E.M.Smith (19:42:00) 23/12.
Its fine that you mention these, but i dont agree in all your conclusions, and the use of proxies are also very secondary compared to real data. So for now i focus on the central issues.
Dear Frank,
“The net result is that a new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) is reached in relative short time, between a few months (seasons) to a few years (sustained higher average temperature level).”
This is the case, if we would be near equilibrium, but the “old” equilibrium was about 280 ppmv, we are now at 380 ppmv (thanks to the emissions)…
But let us assume that we should stop today to emit any more CO2. What will happen with the CO2 level in the atmosphere? According to your formula, CO2 levels would increase at infinitum as long as the temperature remains at about the same (or increased) level. According to me, we would see a drop of about 4 GtC in the first year, a little less in the second year,…
Further, I am talking about absolute levels of CO2 which may reach an equilibrium, you are looking at the derivative, the increase per year…
Have a look at the seasonal changes at Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo_co2_seasons.jpg
The influence of temperature is clear: warmer in this case means more CO2 eaten away by vegetation and reverse when temperatures in the NH drop. Thus a change of temperature of in average 1°C in the NH causes a rapid change of +/- 2.5 ppmv in CO2 levels to both sides: up and down, or about 5 ppmv/°C. The shape over many years is near identical. Thus for the same temperature change, we have about the same CO2 change. Does that imply that a sustained summer would decrease the CO2 levels indefinitely? No, there is a limit in what vegetation growth can do on short term.
Besides that, you see a continuous (but variable) increase over the years. According to you, both the seasonal variability and the increase over the years are the result of temperature increases, but the short term increase is only 5 ppmv/°C… In our opinion temperature variability over the seasons is a matter of temperature and the variability of the CO2 increase is a matter if temperature (of the same order as for the seasons), but the increase is the result of the emissions.
More…
(I need to be shorter in my comments…)
From second half of 1998 and 2 years forward Temp and CO2 goes down together. They stay down together until temp slowly rises again. But the rise is slow, and there is NO sign that the CO2 should have reached an equilibrium and is on its way up one milimeter more than dictated by temperature!
My formula has no problems with the up and down change in temperature, see the period 1997-2004 in my graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_calc_trends.jpg
neither has the formula of Pieter Tans:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
But I am still awaiting your graph where your formula and reality are compared…
Dear Frank,
I prefer the best fit of data, and I think it’s the objective thing to do.
And beyond any discussion, the dCO2-temperature is the best fit.
Again you are mixing up the fast response of CO2 on temperature in short term with the cause of the long term trend. Even if you detrend the dCO2-temperature curve (that means zero contribution to the trend), you will find the same fit. But that is an excellent fit for the variability of the trend, not the trend itself!
I prefer the trend of the accumulated emissions, which is a near perfect fit for the observed accumulation in the atmosphere, above the temperature trend which is not so perfect…
See and compare:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
with:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Which one is the cause of the trend?
The d13C trends matter in this case, as these prove that neither the oceans nor the biosphere are the cause of the trend.
d13C levels are not proxies, these are measured in air and water and for longer time frames in air from firn and ice cores. For the oceans, coralline sponges deposit the calcite with the same isotopic composition as in seawater of the moment of deposit. Again direct measurements, no proxy.
The discussion of what E.M.Smith copied would need a whole blog, but is not relevant here. What is relevant here:
– higher temperatures give more CO2 from the oceans which, even after fractionation at the sea surface, has a higher d13C level than the current atmosphere.
– higher temperatures give more CO2 uptake by vegetation, which prefer 12C, this increases the d13C level of the atmosphere. The increase of biological uptake over decay is confirmed by a slight deficiency in oxygen use measured in the atmosphere.
Thus higher temperatures cause an increase of d13C in the atmosphere. But we see a continuous decline of d13C (diluted by the seasonal exchanges). That excludes oceans and vegetation as sources of the increase. Thus what causes the increase?
@Engelbeen: you write
“What will happen with the CO2 level in the atmosphere? According to your formula, CO2 levels would increase at infinitum as long as the temperature remains at about the same (or increased) level.”
Nonono…
My rough formular was just to show the CO2-sensitivity to temperature, the gradient of 3,5.
So lets go back again and heres what I wrote in the article:
“CO2 growth (ppm/year) = 3,5 * Temp.anomaly(K) + 0,95
For 2007, a UAH temperature anomaly approximately – 0,32 K should lead to CO2 rise/year = 0 , that is, CO2-stagnation.
On the graph, I have illustrated that there is a longer trend difference between CO2 and Temperature. Thus, the “constant” of the equation should be a variable as it varies with time (1979: 0,7 2008: 1,2).”
and
“So today we have a larger biosphere. Every single extra plant or plankton cell will demand its share of CO2. It takes more CO2 to feed a larger biosphere. More CO2 is pulled out of the atmosphere today than earlier. An enormous negative feedback on CO2 levels”.
And Engelbeen I described many many times in the article and for you here and in mails, that there seems to be changes in long term trends but these in real life changes over some decades. And too that the long term trends seems to omit the temperature changes after some decades.
In long term trend lies human emissions and changing biosphere.
I have given you the graph of the hadcrut/co2 connection that shows that longterm trend changed around 1978. in 1978 there was a max in CO2 accumulation compared to temperature. Since 1978 there has been less and less CO2 accumulation for the same temperature. So even though humans have been emitting more and more CO2, less and less is accumulated.
A factor seems to drag more and more CO2 out of the atmosphere. And a growing biosphere seems to be a good explanation. This indicates as I have written in the article and told, that the BIOSPHERE quite naturally and obviously grows with growing CO2 and thus allways makes an effective BUFFER for variations in CO2.
So Engelbeen, your writing “According to your formula, CO2 levels would increase at infinitum as long as the temperature remains at about the same (or increased) level”
Makes me sad as I understand you really really havent tried to understand what I have been saying for so long now.
@Engelbeen
– thanks for interesting word on seasonal changes in CO2. Im not quite sure what your point was, but i will look at it some more.
-C13: I think we can agree that this subject too would take a whole blog, so..later..!
And then you request a graph. Nice, then i will have to make one!! 🙂
The difficulty is, that if i am right (the dCO2 / temp link is correct) , then YOUR claim to some extend wil appear correct too as dT and T is related.
There are frequent changes in temperature and thus dT will jump around synchronously with T. So.. the challenge for me will be to somehow seperate the things. I want to compare years with less temperature changes to years with more temperature changes. hmmm….
But you still havent documented that CO2 equilibrium can be reached within like a year. (Or was your seasonal CO2 an attempt to do this?).
The big problem for dT:
5 years of cold temps:
Only first year during the temperature dive dT has a value. All the next years cooling will have no effect on CO2 rise/year.
We need some severe documenting on this one Engelbeen… 🙂
BUT i admit your last graph IS striking.
Dear Frank,
The seasonal trend is what it shows: CO2 levels follow temperature up and down with a fast response, again to a new (temperature) equilibrium. That causes two opposite streams: oceans 90 GtC in and out, biosphere 50 GtC in and out, difference 40 GtC in and out for about 1°C change (the effect is less than that, as a part is continuous exchanged and doesn’t add to the variation).
The year by year increase is 1.5-2 GtC, of a complete different nature: continuous adding over every month of the year (as the emissions do), only modulated, again, by temperature changes. Thus while CO2 and temperature are thightly coupled and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the seasonal cooling within a month, the other factor, the emissions independently increases the amounts, pushing the setpoint of the equilibrium to higher levels.
The current difference in pCO2 between atmosphere and oceans is about 7 ppmv (again proof that the oceans are NOT a source of extra CO2), see:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
Again, as neither the oceans (despite increasing temperatures), nor the biosphere (a proven sink) are the source of the increase in the atmosphere, temperature is the cause of the variability around the trend, but can’t be the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
More in next message…
Hi Engelbeen, Heres a dCO2/dT/T plot.
I think the dCO2 / T appears better connected than dCO2 / dT.
But the differences here hardly prooves anything, i agree.
http://www.nofeestamps.net/climate/TDThadcrut.gif
If T is the correct match with dCO2, then as mentioned the dT will appear with the same timing in variation as it is releted strongly to T. So its hard to proove much this way.
@Engelbeen
You write: ” Thus while CO2 and temperature are thightly coupled and CO2 levels in the atmosphere follow the seasonal cooling within a month”
So, if you have cooling, already after few months the dCO2 is influenced. But then you are saying that after this fast influence, there will be no more influence of the cooling on dCO2 the coming months and years. But an influence within a few months could only affect a few meters of the upper ocean? It is vey likely that the waters on the surface in the next years will be shifted out, and therefore the temperature (And not only dT) should be important for longer period.
When the whole ocean is mixed, then you can really talk about equilibrium. It takes around 600-1000 years, and: The last years are likely to have lowest impact of the new temperature level. So a new temperature level should have an effect for a while, but yes less and less effect each year until the whole ocean is in equilibrium.
Something tells me, that ”the truth” on this matter is somewhere in between the dCO2-dT and the dCO2-T links. Another thing: Regardsless what the source is for the rising trend of CO2, its the temperature sensitivity of CO2rise/year that gives the flat Antarctic curves problems. The CO2-temperature link.
Engelbeen, you do not see any logic in the following:
More CO2 => bigger biosphere => bigger withdrawel of CO2 from the atmopshere (both from plankton and plants) => less CO2
?
What in this logic have you argumented well against?
@Engelbeen
quite 100% honestly:
If the dCO2 / T relationship is just a coincidence, and not correct, dont you think its a rather impressive “coincidence” when comparing the red and the blue below??
http://www.nofeestamps.net/climate/TDThadcrut.gif
Dear Frank,
This is a test message…