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?
Michael S, Peter bartner, Beck:
Besides the many mechanisms that limits CO2 content in icecores, These have another problem for recent years:
As many of you know, ice cores from around 1890 is supposed to hold Air from around 83 years later. Using this believe, that icecores hold 83 younger air made tha ice cores show results that continously fit the data of the 1970´ies.
Otherwise Antarctic data actually showed around 323 ppm for 1890 wich is nmuch too high. It should only show 290 ppm.
But this 83 year data transfer has another problem, i believe.
The argument tha cavities hold 83 yers younger air means, that there are cavities in the ice down to quite big depths. And therefore younger air can penetrade.
Hmmm.
If this is so, is it likely that exactly 83 year old ice-depths can obtain perfectly fresch air, and then 84 year old ice-depths suddenly are shut toatly of fresch air. This is of course extremely unlikely.
If air can come down at these depths, the realistic scenario is, that AIR FROM MANY DIFFERENT YEARS will be mixed. Air from perhaps 100 years earlier will meet and be mixed with air from today.
This means, that ALL smaller vatiations in the icecore air will not be seen. a peak like the one in the 1940´ies will have its extra CO2 mixed with maybe 100 years of atmospheres, making all peaks go away.
So this way, the Antarctis ice cores for sure will reflect very flat continuert curves only. a maybe 100 years-medium CO2 for each year.
So even if we knew a good factor for obtaining correct CO2 levels from Antarctic ice cores, the results would be way too flat.
@E.M.Smith (19:42:00)
Mr Smith, your writing is very interesting and learning indeed, and i can only reccoment everyone to “bookmark” this writing. Good points an usefull links to the subject. The C13/C12 ratio is an often used argument, so dont forget E.M.Smiths summarizing of the issue.
Thanks very much.
“Where do you get this stuff from?”
As noted, WUWT, the 13C:12C fraction of the seasonal signal and long term trends derive from the same source by virtue of presenting the same variance under F-Test. Therefore the ratio of neither can follow from the anthropogenic fluence, it is smaller than the error in measurement.
Freshman chemistry, the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean, 50,000 Gtons dissolved, 100,000 Gtons precipitate, varies with temperature. The oceanic partial pressure controls atmospheric abundance.
E-folding does not pertain (spectroscopy unnecessary here). Seagalstad surveyed a couple dozen estimates for mean CO2 residence from 5 to 12 years. While the fluence bears mightily on residence time, calculating the former from the latter is impossible.
AIRS and Mauna Loa raw data, AIRS showing 6ppm daily fluctuation at 25,000 feet. Knowing that 1/2 of the atmosphere falls below, and CO2 heavier than air and poorly mixed, then a daily fluence into and back out of the atmosphere of 1/2 of 1/20th 3000 Gtons conservatively yields 80 Gtons. The anthropogenic ‘estimate’ is 30 Gtons.
The Kauffman paper I linked is newer than the one I referred to from memory. Now I do make errors, but the point that the French volumetric method did include this dessication does not depend on that paper. Callendar and Keeling use their data for their putative historic ‘steady state’.
Now, if you have an intelligible argument, why can the ocean not absorb another 30 Gtons? I will accept that it is too cold.
Comments?
Look at the 1991-1993 flattening of atmospheric CO2, especially at Barrow. Coincides with the Pinatubo volcanic eruption. So a little more CO2 (and a lot more SO2) is emitted by a volcano and atmospheric CO2 levels flatten or even decline for two years… …hmmm!
Maybe this is a bit more complicated than the simple mass balance argument would indicate. With apologies to Mies: “More equals less”.
Barrow CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/brw/brw_01C0_mm.co2
Mauna Loa CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/mlo_01C0_mm.co2
American Samoa
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/smo/smo_01C0_mm.co2
South Pole CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/spo/spo_01C0_mm.co2
_______________________________
See also:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html
December 10, 2001 – (date of web publication)
LARGE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS HELP PLANTS ABSORB MORE CARBON DIOXIDE FROM THE ATMOSPHERE
New NASA-funded research shows that when the atmosphere gets hazy, like it did after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in June 1991, plants photosynthesize more efficiently, thereby absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted, scientists noticed the rate at which carbon dioxide (CO2) filled the atmosphere slowed down for the next two years. Also during 1992 and 1993, ash and other particles from the volcano created a haze around the planet and slightly reduced the sunlight reaching Earth’s surface and made the sun’s radiation less direct and more diffuse.
Many scientists previously thought the reduction in sunlight lowered the Earth’s temperature and slowed plant and soil respiration, a process where plants and soil emit CO2. But this new research shows that when faced with diffuse sunlight, plants actually become more efficient, drawing more carbon dioxide out of the air.
“There is evidence indicating that the drop in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate was probably too big to be explained by a reduction in respiration alone,” said the study’s lead author, Lianhong Gu, a researcher at the University of California Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management.
Gu added that the respiration rates of plants and soil are sensitive to temperature changes. But “in order to explain the drop in atmospheric growth rate of CO2, we would need an average drop in global temperatures of about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2° C), but the temperatures only dropped by about one degree (0.9) Fahrenheit (0.5°C) globally.”
Plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis in the day, and release it during respiration at night. But they don’t necessarily photosynthesize and respire at the same rates. Since decreased plant and soil respiration could not explain the drop in carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere in 1992 and 1993, Gu and his colleagues deduced that enhanced photosynthesis by plants must be involved.
After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun’s rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air.
“Diffuse radiation has advantages for plants,” Gu said. That’s because when plants receive too much direct light, they become saturated by radiation and their ability to photosynthesize levels off. In the layers of leaves from top to bottom, called the plant canopy, only a small percentage of the leaves at the top actually get hit by direct light. In the presence of diffuse light, plants photosynthesize more efficiently and can draw more than twice as much carbon from the air than when radiated by direct light.
Gu and his colleagues tested the CO2 uptake in various plant ecosystems around the world-including Aspen forests, mixed deciduous forests, Scots pine forests, tallgrass prairies, and a winter wheat field-based on the amount of solar radiation striking the leaves. From these analyses, they generated parameters necessary for evaluating impacts of the Pinatubo eruption. On clear days following the eruption, they found that in all of the ecosystems, photosynthesis increased under the diffuse light.
While large volcanic eruptions are rare, this research has big implications for more regular phenomena such as the effects of aerosols and clouds on an ecosystem’s ability to pull carbon from the atmosphere. Aerosols, or microscopic particles like soot or black carbon in the air, occur naturally but have also been increasing due to human activities since the industrial revolution. Gu’s research indicates that the maximum uptake of carbon dioxide by plant ecosystems occurs when cloud cover is about 50 percent.
The research will be presented at a poster session of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Calif. on December 14, 2001. A paper will be published soon in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Aside from NASA, the study was also funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy, and other organizations, through the FLUXNET program.
Editor’s Note: AGU Title, Time and Location
“Roles of Volcanic Eruptions, Aerosols and Clouds in Global Carbon Cycle”
Friday, December 14, 2001, 8:30 AM, Moscone Center Hall
Question:
Even if one does not agree that ice core CO2 is an accurate indicator of past absolute levels of atmospheric CO2, can one state that directionally, ice core data has some validity, notwithstanding its bias to minimize the actual CO2 concentration/variation at the time of ice deposition?
An analogy would be global Surface Temperature (ST) data – while ST is likely to have a strong warming bias, the “ups and downs” of ST data correlate quite well with those of Lower Troposphere (LT) temperature data.
Oh, help!
I had a background discussion with Frank Lansner a week ago. I was not aware that he published his work here, until today…
Well as a teaser, I have a much better formula for the temperature-CO2 relationship than Frank, that holds for any time period longer than a few years(even for the pre-Mauna Loa period):
dCO2(ppmv) = 3 * dT (over the full period!) + 0.55 * emissions (cumulative)
And Pieter Tans included precipitation. Together with temperature, this explains about 2/3rd of the variation of the increase speed of CO2 around the trend.
See: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Does the formula of Frank explain the trend? No way, temperature only does explain the variability around the trend. Even if you detrend the whole CO2 variability (as Allan MacRae did), you will find the same correlation (and a small lag) between CO2 and temperature. The trend itself is (near) independent of temperature, simply look at three different periods: 1959-1975 and 1998-2008 with near flat or even cooling temperatures and 1976-1997 with increasing temperatures. In all cases, CO2 simply goes up with 55% of the emissions.
That human emissions are the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere is simply a matter of mass balance: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emissions, there can’t be any other (net) source, as nature as a whole acts as a sink… See further a lot of supporting evidence:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Then the ice core data: These are far more reliable than Jaworowski tries to convince you. Jaworowski hasn’t read anything about ice cores after 1991, or he should know better. Like that Etheridge has answered all of his objections in the Law Dome ice cores investigation. There is even an overlap of about 20 years between Law Dome gas bubble CO2 and the South Pole CO2 data of the same age. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Then the historical data of Beck: most are at the wrong place (near huge sources) and wrong moment. Measurements at high wind speed and/or over the oceans show about the same CO2 levels as the ice core data of the same period. Other methods (stomata idex, coralline sponges) agree with the ice core data… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
I must admit that I am a little tired of too many discussions about the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed it looks like that too many are looking for alternative explanations (which all fail one or more observations), because that is one of the main points of AGW: if humans are not the cause of the increase, then GW is certainly not AGW…
But even if the increase in CO2 is human-made, that says nothing about the influence of the increase of CO2 on temperature. That should be the main focus of real climate skeptics, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a topic where we only can loose credit…
Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:03:51) :
I think there exists a real reason to question the CO2 measurements and knowledge of sources and sinks. If, for example, the real variation is much less than what is depicted by the hundred or so selected “stable” measurement sites the specter of AGW is diffused; if the real variation in time and space is much greater, the selective measurements become again suspect as being cherry picked within natural tendencies ( like the hockey stick).
Temperature measurements have huge variations in time and space and during the years. I have not seen anybody advocating the CO2 solution: choose “stable” locations and take the measurements at a time where they are low. Take stable background temperatures, like at night in the desert or on top of a mountain in the morning. Rather, global integration is attempted of the average between maxima and minima. Why is not the same solution taken for CO2?
The basic question I have is on the “well mixed”. The AIRS data show that it is not well mixed at 5000 meters or so, and Beck’s compilation of data shows it is not well mixed on the ground level. There is huge diversity in the biosphere of the oceans and I do not accept the argument that it is well mixed there. I am looking forward to the new satellite data which will be able to measure at ground level and find sources (like fires and volcanoes and geothermal vents, and nigh respiration, and cows and cities and …) and sinks ( like forests and plankton etc).
Dear Anna,
There is a huge difference between temperature data and CO2 data. Temperature varies everywhere: diurnal, with sun/clouds, at latitude and altitude. CO2 does the same over land up to the inversion layer (5% of the atmosphere) but does differ much less (less than 5 ppmv NH vs. SH), averaged over a year, in the rest of the atmosphere. Only the seasonal changes, mainly in the NH, gives a change which is higher near ground (+/- 8 ppmv) and more leveled (+/- 5 ppmv) with a 1-2 months delay at height (MLO, 3000 m).
AIRS data are less reliable than atmospheric measurements: accuracy is about +/- 5 ppmv, against NDIR measurements +/-0.1 ppmv. But are interesting to detect and quantify regional sources/sinks. BTW, the AIRS data show similar differences between MLO and the south pole as the local measured data for winter and summer. The “not well mixed” CO2 is mainly the difference of seasonal variations between the NH and the SH, averaged over a year there is little difference and near identical trends.
I have seen you message at the start about CO2 in the oceans: there are huge differences in pCO2 there, but not as much as expected from the solubility curves (which are anyway different from pure water). That is because temperature increases from the poles to the equator at one side, thus increasing pCO2, but biological life increases from the poles to the equator, using CO2, thus decreasing pCO2. That doesn’t fully compensate, but it is not a simple equation. More info can be found at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following pages.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (12:57:48) :
Thank you for your reply.
In my humble physicist’s opinion, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is one more variable in what is a system of coupled nonlinear differential equations. A prime candidate for a chaotic system. Also in my opinion, averaged global temperature has very little meaning, but such as it is, I would like to see the same methodology applied to all prominent variables and not start comparing temperatures globally with CO2 locally, as is happening now.
Hypotheses are fine, which seems to be much of the content of the link you gave me. They bridge over unknown knowledge and make sense of data. But hypotheses have to be backed by hard and real data and not arguments that seem plausible.
This is more so because we are not discussing the esoteric workings of a scientific discipline with small impact on society. Society is asked to commit economic hara kiri on the basis of these handwaved data, and it is imperative that they are checked in as many ways as possible with hard data that exist now. It is very good that a new satellite will give ground data of all green house gases, so maybe in a year or so we will know much better what is really happening.
Has anybody seen an AIRS plot showing integrated global CO2 versus year?
I just realized I have only seen the animations, that show Mauna Loa climbing and the world getting red. Where is the nitty gritty plot of global CO2 versus year?
Ferdinand:
You yet again promote your flawed mass balance argument when you write here:
“Does the formula of Frank explain the trend? No way, temperature only does explain the variability around the trend. Even if you detrend the whole CO2 variability (as Allan MacRae did), you will find the same correlation (and a small lag) between CO2 and temperature. The trend itself is (near) independent of temperature, simply look at three different periods: 1959-1975 and 1998-2008 with near flat or even cooling temperatures and 1976-1997 with increasing temperatures. In all cases, CO2 simply goes up with 55% of the emissions.
That human emissions are the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere is simply a matter of mass balance: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emissions, there can’t be any other (net) source, as nature as a whole acts as a sink… See further a lot of supporting evidence:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html”
Elsewhere I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your argument is based on a mathematical error and a circular argument.
And I have repeatedly explained to you that it is nonsense to assert – as you again do here –
“That human emissions are the main cause of the increase in the atmosphere is simply a matter of mass balance: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emissions, there can’t be any other (net) source, as nature as a whole acts as a sink.”
Your assertion is rubbish!
It is a mathematical fact that the net effect of changes to two unknowns cannot indicate the change to either or both of them.
The natural sinks and the natural sources may both have varied to provide the resulting observed increase to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The variation of the sinks and the variation of sources are two unknowns each year. In any time period (e.g. 1, 5, 10 or 50 years), the sources may have increased or reduced, and the sinks may have increased or reduced. The resulting net effect of their changes tells nothing about how much (or in what direction) either changed.
For example, the CO2 in the air would increase if the emissions and sequestrations both reduced if the sequestration reduced by more than the emission reduced.
But you assert:
“as long as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the emissions, there can’t be any other (net) source, as nature as a whole acts as a sink “
And it is important to note that in this assertion, when you say “the emissions” you mean “only the anthropogenic emissions”.
Your assertion is mathematically false because the natural emissions and the natural sequestrations may both be changing and the effect of their net change could be much greater than the anthropogenic emission.
Furthermore, it is an empirical fact that within each year the natural emissions and sequestrations do both change and by an order of magnitude greater than the anthropogenic emission (as I have repeatedly shown you).
Indeed, this is why I have repeatedly said to you:
“Any assessment of the causes of the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration over a period of years requires assessment of the changes that occur each year (because the annual increase to CO2 in the atmosphere is the residual of the seasonal changes to CO2 in the atmosphere).”
And I have said this because the natural emissions and sequestrations are seen to both change and by an order of magnitude greater than the anthropogenic emission within each year.
So, in summation, it is my contention that your entire argument is based on a mathematical error.
I have repeatedly explained this to you and you have never provided a proper answer but continue to promote your flawed mass balance argument (as you yet again do here).
Happy New Year
Richard
Hi Anna,
Here is NOAA’s data for monthly global CO2. I’m not sure if this is exactly what you want – it’s a result of several measurement points around the globe, and results are a bit less than those at Mauna Loa. Data goes back to 1980 and takes a few months to arrive – the latest month available as of now is September 2008.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt
You can copy the data into Excel, then use “Data>Text to Columns”; then insert a “decimal year” column, and run an Excel x-y plot. Or you can go to my paper and spreadsheet, somewhat dated now, at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
and
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
To see the large, attenuating natural annual variation in atmospheric CO2 from North to South, run the same plot for CO2 data for Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole. Run it all on the same graph, and then just wonder at the stunning beauty of this data.
Barrow CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/brw/brw_01C0_mm.co2
Mauna Loa CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/mlo/mlo_01C0_mm.co2
American Samoa
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/smo/smo_01C0_mm.co2
South Pole CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/spo/spo_01C0_mm.co2
Happy Holidays to all!
Allan
Hi Ferdinand and Richard,
I think it is safe to say that Ferdinand is convinced that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is definitely caused by fossil fuel combustion, while Richard and I regard this point as debatable.
Can we for the purposes of this note focus on what we agree upon.
Would you both agree that:
1. There is NO convincing evidence that global warming is driven primarily by increased atmospheric CO2.
2. There is significant evidence that global warming is NOT primarily driven by atmospheric CO2.
3. Global temperature increases and decreases are natural and cyclical.
4. Spending tens of trillions of dollars on CO2 abatement is a huge waste of scarce global resources.
Best regards, Allan
Thank you Allan,
Though this is not what I am looking for, it is interesting to look at.
I am sorry to say that I am not an EXCEL or any modern stuff adept, as my data analysis years, and therefore tools, ended in the year 2000 with retirement. Maybe old dogs can learn new tricks, but the motivation would have to be great 🙂
I am looking of an integration over the AIRS data, given vividly in http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/
a colorful month by month animation. AIRS has the advantage that it sees the whole globe at 5000 meters and thus could provide a real integration of global CO2 at that height with no monte carlo interpolations.
Dear Richard,
I don’t think that we ever will reach an agreement, as solid arguments seems not to reach you. The mass balance is a very solid argument, as what is emitted by humans doesn’t disappear by magic and is added to the atmosphere, even if one second later some of the human CO2 is absorbed by plants or by the oceans, that is at the cost of natural CO2 which should have been used instead. Thus human emissions increase the total CO2 content of the atmosphere, no matter if the emitted molecules are captured in other reservoirs (oceans, biosphere) sooner or later…
You assert:
As I have repeatedly said, the height and variability of individual natural flows or even the sum of all sources or all sinks has not the slightest interest for the endresult. What counts is the sum of all natural in and outflows together over a year, as that is what influences the increase or decrease in the atmosphere, not a change in any individual or total input(s) and/or output(s). And the sum of all natural in and outflows together is known with reasonable accuracy, as that is the difference between the calculated emissions and the measured increase in the atmosphere, which is negative over the past 50 years.
Thus even if no one knows the distribution of CO2 in the natural sources and sinks with sufficient accuracy, the net result over a year is known.
The mass balance for any number of years is:
dCO2 = sum of sources – sum of sinks + accumulated emissions
in average per year:
4 GtC +/- 2.5 GtC = sum of sources – sum of sinks + 7 GtC
Thus the sum of sources – sum of sinks = – 3 +/- 2.5 GtC
So where is the mathematical error?
That simply means that the sum of the natural sinks for any year in the past 50 years was larger then the sum of the natural sources. Or nature did add zero net CO2 to the atmosphere in the past 50 years. No matter if the seasonal or continuous sum of sources was 50 or 100 or 1,000 GtC within a year, or changed from 100 GtC in one year to 200 GtC next year… the difference with the sinks within the same year was always negative and between -0.5 and -5.5 GtC…
Happy New Year to all
Dear Anna,
The yearly averages also can be found at the CDIAC web site at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.html
But if you click on the individual sites, you will see an error message. That is because they are changing their file system. If you change the extension of the filename from .htm into .html everything works fine and you can use the data further in Excel or other programs.
I have made a plot of the yearly averages of a few base stations, including an outlier station (Schauinsland):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
As you can see, there is little difference between the stations, the largest difference of a few ppmv is between the NH and the SH, as the ITCZ hinders the exchange of air masses between the hemispheres. That also points to the NH as the main source of the increase. The average of these stations can be used as “global”, but many use the Mauna Loa data as these have the longest record.
It is true that there are a lot of non-linear processes at work in the carbon cycles, therefore is remarkable that the influence of temperature on CO2 levels over short (months) to long (millennia) time periods is surprisingly linear: on short term about 3 ppmv/°C, on longer term (ice ages – interglacials) about 8 ppmv/°C. See the Vostok plot here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
That the Vostok ice core CO2 is smoothed (about 600 years) plays no role for the ratio between temperature and CO2 level, as an interglacial holds at least 10,000 years and an ice age about 90,000 years…
“even if one second later some of the human CO2 is absorbed by plants or by the oceans, that is at the cost of natural CO2 which should have been used instead.”
Ferdinand Engelbeen
“as what is emitted by humans doesn’t disappear by magic and is added to the atmosphere, even if one second later some of the human CO2 is absorbed by plants or by the oceans, that is at the cost of natural CO2 which should have been used instead.”
There is a logical slip here: if instead of “one second later” you substitute “one day later” it is quite possible that algae and plankton will happily reproduced with the extra deltaCO2 coming from humans an extra deltaGrams and will absorb it fully. You are not accounting for the great flexibility of the biosystem to expand to fill the food source available, and CO2 is a food source for plants. Have you ever seen the icky plankton covering kilometersquare of sea because of the fertilizers coming down from the rivers?
I am not saying it is so. I am saying that one needs careful measurements to say what is happening, because this may be so.
It is true that there are a lot of non-linear processes at work in the carbon cycles, therefore is remarkable that the influence of temperature on CO2 levels over short (months) to long (millennia) time periods is surprisingly linear: on short term about 3 ppmv/°C, on longer term (ice ages – interglacials) about 8 ppmv/°C.
Also on the uniformity etc of the official data: The AIRS data over the globe is not uniform within 15ppm. I am suspicious of cherry picking in the uniformity, particularly as I learned that the time of day and the location etc are carefully picked, and also that corrections are applied for volcanic CO2 in Mauna Loa. I need independent data, and a plot of global CO2 from AIRS would be one such source.
In my view, Vostock etc data even if all the criticisms on the way things are measured etc, and there are many, do not hold, are good for measuring what the CO2 was at those times in Vostock.
I do not accept the “well mixed” dictum without further solid independent experimental proof.
@ferdinand meeus
Hi again, and thanks for mail conversation earlier, as you mention.
You write above:
“No way, temperature only does explain the variability around the trend. …. simply look at three different periods: 1959-1975 and 1998-2008 with near flat or even cooling temperatures and 1976-1997 with increasing temperatures.”
So you expect that FLAT temperatures should lead to something in the CO2 curve?
The relationship obvious from the graph was roughly:
CO2 rise/year = 3,5*Temp.anomalyUah + 0,95.
CO2 stagnation at approx -0,32 K
So this means, that CO2 rise/year is dependent on the temperature level.
NOT if the temperature curve is flat, rising or falling. No. The temperature level!
So a falling temperature can lead to positive CO2 rise/year if the temperature level is not too low – over minus -0,32K UAH.
BUT!!!
My main point is NOT to establish some quantitative excact relationship.
My point was to show that variations in temperature leads to variations in CO2rise/year. And just few years with a changed temperature level will lead to a difference in CO2 level bigger than seen in thousand years of Antarctic ICE cores. This, Ferdinand, have you not mentioned. But its the main point.
If you have any real arguments here, please “come forward”.
k.R. Frank Lansner
Allan:
You ask Ferdinand and me:
“Would you both agree that:
1. There is NO convincing evidence that global warming is driven primarily by increased atmospheric CO2.
2. There is significant evidence that global warming is NOT primarily driven by atmospheric CO2.
3. Global temperature increases and decreases are natural and cyclical.
4. Spending tens of trillions of dollars on CO2 abatement is a huge waste of scarce global resources. ”
I agree with each of your four points listed above.
I cannot answer for Ferdinand because he and I do not agree on so much that I would not presume to speak for him.
Ferdinand:
Elsewhere we have debated at length and repeatedly why I cannot accept your ‘mass balance assertions’. Here I have again explained why I am certain that your argument is based on a mathematical error. Solid arguments always reach me, but logical errors fall off me like water from a duck. And, as Anna says, arguments concerning “one second later” are – at best – “a logical slip”.
Above, you ask me:
“The mass balance for any number of years is:
dCO2 = sum of sources – sum of sinks + accumulated emissions in average per year:
4 GtC +/- 2.5 GtC = sum of sources – sum of sinks + 7 GtC
Thus the sum of sources – sum of sinks = – 3 +/- 2.5 GtC
So where is the mathematical error?”
I answer:
Your mathematical error is that the natural ‘sum of sources’ and the natural ‘sum of sinks’ are variables but you assume they are constants.
Both the variables are observed to vary by an order of magnitude more than the annual anthropogenic emission each year. Hence, is extremely unlikely that the residual of their change is less than the anthropogenic emission each year.
Indeed, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you elsewhere, the annual anthropogenic emission is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle. It is a very gross assumption that the carbon cycle varies by less than 0.02% p.a. because few – if any – other processes in nature are that stable.
Furthermore, as I have repeatedly explained to you elsewhere, the annual increase of the anthropogenic emissions is about 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 12 GtC in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the rapid natural sequestration processes can easily cope with the human production of CO2 at each of the observed locations.
You and I have debated these matters repeatedly with no progress. Hence, having stated my reasons for rejecting your ‘mass balance assertion’ I leave it to others here to evaluate those reasons and I withdraw from the debate.
But if anybody here can tell me why my reasons for rejecting your ‘mass balance assertion’ are wrong then I would be grateful to learn that. In fact, I would be very, very grateful because I want to know the cause(s) of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and – at present – there is no evidence that any of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration does or does not have an anthropogenic cause.
Richard
Dear Anna,
There is a relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the use of CO2 by the biosphere, mainly by land plants. But that is far from equal: a doubling of CO2 gives an increase of 1.2 to 1.8 in growth, all other necessities (temperature, sunlight, water, fertilisers, minerals) being available in sufficient quantities. But in many cases some of the other items is the limiting factor. For algues, iron and other minerals are the limiting factors and in most cases CO2 (as -bi-carbonate) is more than abundant available…
But CO2 is soluble in seawater and a higher pressure in the atmosphere will force more CO2 into the oceans. Again, as in many processes (natural or not), the system/cycle/process reacts against a disturbance, but that is seldom 100% in a short time.
Thus no matter what causes an increase in CO2, this will lead to a new equilibrium, which may be the old equilibrium after a one-time injection (e.g. volcanic) or an equilibrium at another level caused by a change in temperature or at a higher level caused by continuous emissions. Or never reach a new equilibrium if the emissions increase at a constant rate (which is the case by now).
The official data from continuous CO2 measurements are not uniform over the seasons. There is a relative huge variability near ground in the NH (Barrow), less at 3,000 m (MLO) and very low in the SH (south pole). This leads to differences of up to 6 ppmv between MLO and the south pole (and probably more between Barrow and SPO). The scale of the AIRS film is 15 ppmv, but that includes a 10 ppmv increase of CO2 levels in the period 2002-2008.
And I have looked for a comparison at specific months:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004.jpg if you compare specific months with the AIRS data, then we see a similar result:
For July 2003, the difference between Mauna Loa (20 N) and the South Pole (90 S) data is 3-4 ppmv. According to the satellite measurements, it is 3 ppmv
For May 2003, the difference between MLO and SPO data is 6-7 ppmv. According to the satellite: 4 ppmv
Not bad for the “local” data… Anyway, the yearly average trends are similar for all places all over the world, away from local sources. It doesn’t matter if one includes or excludes outliers due to upwind (vegetation depleted) or downwind (volcanic increased) conditions in the Mauna Loa data, or if one uses the data of the south pole, or Barrow, in all cases the trend doesn’t differ with more than a few tenths of a ppmv… And the averages within one hemisphere are not more than 2 ppmv different.
The AIRS data show the same trend: if one compares the color changes for one specific month over 5 years, that represents about 10 ppmv increase, similar to the station data…
Dear Frank,
There are a problems with your temperature level dependent CO2 release.
In no case of the past, there was a continuous release or uptake of CO2 caused by temperature changes. If there was no equilibrium, then CO2 levels would go to (near) zero, killing all plants during ice ages. And during the Eemian, the previous interglacial, temperatures were 1-2 degr.C higher than today, thus a constant increase of 5 ppmv/yr during about 15,000 years would give an increase of 75,000 ppmv CO2… That is physically impossible.
The same for even more recent periods. Depending of the reconstruction one prefers, we may assume that the LIA was about 0.8 degr.C colder than today (Moberg, Esper, Huang). Thus a decrease below “zero” level of about -0.5 deg.C * 3.5 ppmv/yr * 200 years gives a drop larger than the CO2 content of the atmosphere…
And the same for the most recent pre-satellite period 1945-1975. If we may take the HadSST sea temperature data as alternative (the curve is quite similar to the satellite curve, be it that the trend is somewhat steeper in the overlapping period), the temperature was about 0.2 degr. below zero line, which would give a drop of 21 ppmv, while we see a rise of 20 ppmv in that period…
You may object that, except for the most recent period, these were other circumstances than today. But as there is little change in the configuration of the continents over the past million years, we may assume that the same changes in terrestrial/solar cycles will have a similar effect on temperature. And that the effect of temperature on CO2 levels would be unique for the past 30 years would be quite strange.
The alternative formula, that a change in temperature causes a change in dynamic equilibrium between CO2 release and CO2 absorption is far more normal in nature: higher temperatures lead to a new equilibrium at a higher CO2 level. The fast response from oceans and vegetation (opposite to each other) leads to a change of about 3 ppmv/°C, while the long term response (including ice sheet/vegetation surface area and -deep- ocean current changes) is about 8 ppmv/°C. Thus a temperature change leads to a limited CO2 change, not a continuous one.
So, what is the source of that extra CO2? The human emissions are a clear candidate for that role, as the increase in the atmosphere is about 55% of the emissions over 100+ years and parts of it… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Ferdinand Engelbeen
It is not that I am saying you are wrong in your budget. I am saying that we do not have enough data to know whether you are right or wrong.
I am also saying that I do not trust the official data that are made by people with a clear AGW agenda, after the fiasco of the hockey stick. Before that I tended like most scientists to trust on the scientific integrity of the other scientific disciplines as I would expect them to trust in my discipline ( particle high energy physics). I had only seen political biases within the scientific community, n whose experiment would pass and that sort of thing, and the fights were above board and scientifically clear. I was rudely awakened byt the hockey stick fiasco, because I knew that there existed a mediaval warm period where Greenland was green. Why, it was not long ago that in the alps a mummy was found that showed that those passes were passable in the prehistoric past, and therefore warmer than now. So the hockey stick smelled from a mile away and made me start reading the IPCC report and start discovering more discrepancies with data.
So you will excuse me from not believing the CO2 compilations by people with vested interests until more data and from different people (like Beck’s compilation, and the new satallite) come to light. I do not trust handwaving and plots, I need hard numbers from the horse’s mouth.
BTW the scale is over 15 even if you stick to those July 2003 data which were the only ones published for years and years.
Allan:
You ask Richard and me:
“Would you both agree that:
1. There is NO convincing evidence that global warming is driven primarily by increased atmospheric CO2.
2. There is significant evidence that global warming is NOT primarily driven by atmospheric CO2.
3. Global temperature increases and decreases are natural and cyclical.
4. Spending tens of trillions of dollars on CO2 abatement is a huge waste of scarce global resources. ”
I agree to a large extent with these points, with some nuance: Based on physics, there must be a small influence of CO2 levels on temperature, but until now, that is not measurable in the data records (neither in detailed ice core records).
Richard:
I will show my viewpoint for the sake of new readers and refrain of further discussions, except for one point:
But I wrote:
Does that sound as assuming that the sum of sources (or sinks) was constant? The difference between sum of sources and sum of sinks is what is calculated as difference between calculated emissions and measured increase in the atmosphere and as that was always negative in the past 50 years, it shows a variability of sink capacity of nature between 0.5 and 5.5 GtC/yr. That is all. No matter how large the total in and outflows were. That is completely unimportant, only the difference between total inflows and total outflows is important. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
(1 ppmv is about 2.1 GtC)
That the year by year sink capacity variability is relative small (about 3% of the estimated total flows involved), may have to do with the fact that temperature works in opposite ways for oceans (higher gives more CO2 release) than for vegetation (higher gives more CO2 uptake), which makes that the overall variability is less than the individual variability…
As a much used example: You start a bussiness and add 1,000 euro to the cash register for the first day. After a lot of transactions (deliveries and sales) at the end of the day, you find 500 euro in your cash register. Next day you add 1,000 euro again to the cash register, thus starting the fresh day with 1,500 euro, to find back 1,000 euro after a lot of transactions at the end of the day. And so on… Bad bussiness anyway, as you will soon run out of credit…
Does one need to know (in detail or total) how much was sold or bought that day? Not at all, as the net result is obvious from what is counted in the cash register at the end of the day. And is anybody here thinking that there may be another source of the 500 euro per day increase seen in the cash register than the 1,000 euro of own money added each day, even if the 1,000 euro is only 0.02% of total sales/intake during the day?
Besides the mass balance, there are a lot of other indications that human emissions are the cause of the increase:
– the d13C decrease in the atmosphere and oceans: these exclude (deep) oceans as source, as deep oceans have a higher d13C level than the atmosphere, but levels are decreasing.
– the d14C decrease in the atmosphere: radiocarbon dating needed a correction after about 1870 for the addition of d14C depleted CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
– the decrease of pH in the oceans: this shows -again- that oceans are a sink for CO2, not a source.
– the oxygen use: oxygen use is slightly less than wat is calculated from fossil fuel burning. That means that the biosphere is a net source of oxygen, thus a net sink of CO2 and especially of 12CO2, thus can’t be responsible for the d13C decrease and total CO2 increase.
– the process characteristics: the whole CO2 balance behaves as a simple linear first order physical process on a continuous increasing disturbance, with a near-fit at 55% of the emissions. There is positive correlation with temperature when both go up, but a negative correlation if temperature goes down or is near flat, while CO2 levels are steadily rising.
More detailed reading at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
@Engelbeen
You write: “There are a problems with your temperature level dependent CO2 release. “
No there is not, mr Engelbeen.
You write: “If there was no equilibrium, then…”
I wrote: “The quick response up and down for CO2 trend shortly after temperature changes suggests that we see a “dance” around equilibrium conditions in nature. ”
You write: “thus a constant increase of 5 ppmv/yr during about 15,000 years would give an increase of 75,000 ppm CO2… That is physically impossible.”
I wrote in my first article, icecap that I know you have read: “Obviously much longer time trends could behave differently etc. But at least on the shorter scale no matter how you pick the data points…”
And then in the present WUWT article AND in the comments exactly the longer time trend has been discussed and analysed much further, for example:
“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”
“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”
Long term trends, visible over some decades:
More CO2 => Bigger biosphere => Bigger biosphere keeps CO2 from rising faster.
Less CO2 => Smaller biosphere => smaller biosphere eats less CO2 and prevents CO2 levels from falling too much.
(there has been suggested more influences than biosphere for long term trends, but biosphere so far gives the best fit wuth data)
Short term trends, visible from year to year:
CO2 is very dependent on temperature levels.
CO2 is sensitive to vulcanic eruptions etc.
So long term trends act as negative feedback on CO2 levels, and therefore your physically impossible scenario is impossible indeed and has nothing to do with my writings or opinions in any way.
Before writing more, please read the article and discussion, and then im very very interested indeed in what your inputs are.
Anna V
We have had conversations in various forums re Beck, Co2 levels and the official mauna loa figures. I jokingly said if Anthony could come up with a co2 analyser at a popular price he would make a fortune as;
a) People would find it interesting to take measurements of c02
b) Some of us are increasingly sceptical about ‘official’ figures-such as the nonsensical global temperatures since 1850, sea levels and co2 measurements.
As a similar project to Anthony’s surface stations project if we could get a reliable, cheap, and easy to use analyser-and I don’t know if such a thing even exists-it would be interesting to have a number of people in various continents comparing data. It doesn’t need to be expensively precise-plus or minus 3% is close enough.
It has to be more reliable than the weather station I got for Christmas though, which together with my watch weather predictor and my existing internal weather station, are all telling me its been raining steadily for the last two days when in fact its been gloriously sunny but with a fairly high humidity (we live next to the ocean)
Anyone up for our own monitoring of co2 levels-if it is at all practical?
TonyB