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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dear Frank,
It all boils down to the basic assumption that temperature is causing not only the variability around the trend but also is responsible for the trend itself. That is the basic problem.
Take your interpretation of the CO2/temperature curve as base, your graph at
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/195405co2uah.gif
shows three different rates for CO2 increase for a change in absolute temperature:
1958-1967: -0.315 K + 0.95
1967-1977: +0.105 K + 0.95
1977-2005: +0.630 K + 0.95
With other words, the factor one need, to obtain the observed trend in CO2 is not constant, even starts negative, as the period 1958-1967 was below the (2008 obtained) zero line, thus should give a decrease in CO2, while an increase is found. Thus the absolute temperature influence on CO2 levels does only hold for the past 40 years, where temperature and CO2 levels both go up, or are above the zero line.
All together, the formula doesn’t fit any of the previous periods, be it 1958-1967 (negative factor!), the LIA and the ice age / interglacials. And deducing any consequences for the reliability of ice core measurements on a formula that only holds for the past 40 years is a little premature…
Further, what happens with the human emissions? If you plot the emissions together with the UAH/dCO2 curve, you will see that the emissions are about twice the yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
In your formula, the emissions have no influence on the trend at all. Well, that is physically impossible if you make a mass balance: if vegetation and oceans together were a net source, then we should find an increase in the atmosphere larger than the addition by the emissions alone. But the increase is less than the emissions, thus part of the emissions (not all, about 45%) is absorbed by the oceans and/or biosphere. From the oxygen and d13C balances, one may deduce that the biosphere absorbs about 1.4 GtC/yr and the oceans about 2 GtC/yr. No room for anything else than the emissions you left out in your formula to explain the increase in the atmosphere. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
Thus you formula simply is wrong. Does that mean that there is no relationship between temperature and CO2 levels? Not at all, there is a short time, fast, relationship of 3 ppmv/°C (note: NOT 3 ppmv/°C/year!) around the trend. That increases to 8 ppmv/°C for long term changes in temperature. With other words, a temperature increase gives slightly more CO2 in the atmosphere, until a new equilibrium between ocean release/absorption and biosphere aborption/release is established. The total formula then is:
dCO2 = F * dT(°C) + 0.55 * (accumulated emissions)
where F changes with duration from 3-8
And the lag of CO2 after temperature changes also increases with duration.
This formula holds for all circumstances (as long as the emissions increase) over the past near one million years. That includes the full 150 years of emissions, the LIA cooling and the ice age/interglacial transitions…
Regards,
Ferdinand
Sorry, made a mistake, the emissions/increase/temperature curve I have plotted is based on the HadSST temperature data, not from UAH, as these start only after 1979… That doesn’t change much in the relationship temperature-CO2, only the HadSST trend is somewhat higher in the overlapping period.
Dear Frank,
About the ice cores:
Most of what you write is what you have read from Jaworowski. To say it politely, take everything that he says with a lot of salt. He has obviously not read anything from the scientific literature since 1991, or he should know better.
Most of the objections he wrote (and still writes) were answered by the thorough investigation by Etheridge of the Law Dome ice cores:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml
Three ice cores with very high accumulation rates (1.5 m ice equivalent/year) for two of them, drilled with three different techniques (wet and dry), without clathrates or cracks in the ice, were compared. And they included measurements of CO2 in air from the firn from the surface to the closing depth of the air bubbles in the ice, again with different equipment. The ice CO2 and the firn CO2 at closing depth was identical in level, thus no fractionation of CO2 was found.
The ice age – gas age difference was established by following the CO2 level in firn, which showed a difference of 10 years with the surface at closing depth, while the ice at closing depth was 40 years old. Thus the ice age – gas age difference for the two fastest accumulating cores is about 30 years. Nothing arbitrarely shifted at all:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_firn.jpg
The average closing period was 8 years, thus the ice core CO2 in the bubbles is an average of 8 years of CO2 levels. Including this, there is an overlapping period of about 20 years between the ice core CO2 measurements and the south pole atmospheric measurements:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
That the ice core CO2 levels are reasonable for CO2 measurements can be seen as different ice cores at very different snow/ice temperatures, inclusions (coastal salts vs. inland salts content), accumulation rates, ice age – gas age differences,… show the same CO2 levels (within 5 ppmv) for overlapping periods of gas age.
See further my comment on Jaworowski at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Dear Frank,
About Beck’s data:
While I admire the tremendous amount of work Ernst Beck has done, we differ a lot in opinion about what to make of the historical measurements.
The main problem: most of the data were obtained from places where huge local sources/sinks (forests, industry, towns) are at work. Such places vary enormously in diurnal, seasonal and yearly averages. See e.g. modern measurements at Diekirch (Luxemburg) over a few days in summer:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/diekirch_diurnal.jpg
And compare that to the CO2 levels for the same days at Mauna Loa (or you can take data from anyware, away from local sources):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2005_hr_week.jpg
Note: while we used the same scale as for Diekirch, the MLO data are the raw hourly CO2 levels, without pre- or postprocessing, thus including local influences of upwind conditions (depleted by vegetation at about -2 ppmv).
The problem with the historical data (besides accuracy and repeatability and quality control questions,…) is that many of the series or single measurements were done at such places like Diekirch, which introduces a strong positive bias. Simply look at the wind speed – CO2 level of Diekirch: with wind speeds over 2 m/s, the CO2 levels are around the Mauna Loa values. That points to a better mixing with overlying layers of air, which have “background” CO2 level.
If one looks at the minima of the historical CO2 ranges in each year, these encompass the ice core levels, and the minima are (as in modern times) found at higher wind speeds. Most measurements over the oceans also are at the lower side and their averages are near the ice core CO2 levels, where the ranges overlap each other:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/beck_1930_1950.jpg
Further, if the averaging of CO2 measurements would be right, then the Law Dome ice core should show at least a part of the +80 ppmv rise in the period 1937-1950, with a 8 years smoothing. It doesn’t (even a dip, but that is within the error margin of the ice core measurement). Neither do stomata index data nor corraline sponges show a significant change if such a huge global increase and decrease of CO2 should have occured…
See further my detailed comments on Beck’s data here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Thank you Anna,
I have examined the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
Still, as Ferdinand points out, annual CO2 concentration keeps increasing at ~1.5ppm/year – even as CO2 fluctuates by up to ~16ppm/year in its natural seasonal sawtooth pattern.
Questions for discussion by all:
1. IF annual atmospheric CO2 declines in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling (or soon thereafter), what does this prove, if anything?
2. IF annual atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in the coming years contemporaneous with significant global cooling, what does this prove, if anything?
3. If CO2 drives temperature as the IPCC alleges, how is it that the only signal apparent in the data is that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months? See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
4. Is the aforementioned ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature consistent with the ~600 year lag in CO2 after temperature observed in ice core data?
Regards, Allan
Allan:
I provide my answers to your questions and anticipate different answers from others.
Questions for discussion by all:
1. IF annual atmospheric CO2 declines in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling (or soon thereafter), what does this prove, if anything?
A1.
It would “prove” nothing but would be useful information. Anyway, it is a hypothetical question and, therefore, of no real interest.
2. IF annual atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in the coming years contemporaneous with significant global cooling, what does this prove, if anything?
A2.
It would “prove” nothing but would be useful information. Anyway, it is a hypothetical question and, therefore, of no real interest.
3. If CO2 drives temperature as the IPCC alleges, how is it that the only signal apparent in the data is that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months? See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
A3.
I do not agree that CO2 drives temperature and, therefore, I cannot comment.
4. Is the aforementioned ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature consistent with the ~600 year lag in CO2 after temperature observed in ice core data?
A4.
Yes. There are several possible reasons for temperature to affect atmospheric CO2 concentration and they have different time constants. For example, the 9 month lag could be a change to release of CO2 from the ocean surface layer in response to a temperature change which would occur within months. And the ~600 year lag could be an effect of alterations to temperature and pH of the ocean surface layer induced by return from deep ocean of water that entered the thermohaline circulation ~600 years earlier.
I hope these answers are what you wanted from me.
Happy New Year.
Richard
TonyB (15:24:16) :
Hi Tony,
Anyone up for our own monitoring of co2 levels-if it is at all practical?
If the price of a measuring device came below 100$ I would get one if we were trying to make a moonshine CO2 net :). The cheapest I found on the net were 399$, and had battery power for less than 48 hours.
I am in Greece and have some mobility. My summer house is on a small peninsula of the Corinth gulf, and there are mountains around Athens I can easily access.
Allan M R MacRae (04:25:03) :
Questions for discussion by all:
1. IF annual atmospheric CO2 declines in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling (or soon thereafter), what does this prove, if anything?
That the turn around of CO2 is much shorter than the decades/aeons claimed by the AGW studies,
2. IF annual atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in the coming years contemporaneous with significant global cooling, what does this prove, if anything?
That there is a source of CO2: human, forest and carbon fires, volcanic, geothermal . Human connected wildfires should be a function of population and population rises. Maybe there is an increase in volcanic activity. It would have to be studied.
3. If CO2 drives temperature as the IPCC alleges, how is it that the only signal apparent in the data is that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months? See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
It proves that it does not drive temperature.
4. Is the aforementioned ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature consistent with the ~600 year lag in CO2 after temperature observed in ice core data?
Other sinks/sources than the obvious biological/solubility ones for the 9 months?
Dear Ferdinand!
Thank you for writing again, its very appreciated, and I find the dialog important.
You write: “It all boils down to the basic assumption that temperature is causing not only the variability around the trend but also is responsible for the trend itself. That is the basic problem.”
I dont say that temperature determines the long term trend of CO2 rise/year, where have you read that? We will get back to that.
In addition you have misunderstood my so called “rough” equation:
CO2 rise/year = 3,5 *TEMP(Kelvin) + 0,95.
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/195405co2uah.gif
1958-67:
0,67ppm/year = 3,5* TEMP(Kelvin) + 0,95 => TEMP near -0,09 Kelvin
1967-77:
1,07ppm/year = 3,5* TEMP(Kelvin) + 0,95 => TEMP near +0,03 Kelvin
1977-05:
1,60ppm/year = 3,5* TEMP(Kelvin) + 0,95 => TEMP near +0,18 Kelvin
The constant slope used is 3,5 all the way, and the constant used is + 0,95. For different temperatures we have different CO2 rise/year, but same constants are used.
You write your “version” of these:
“1958-1967: -0.315 K + 0.95
1967-1977: +0.105 K + 0.95
1977-2005: +0.630 K + 0.95
With other words, the factor one need, to obtain the observed trend in CO2 is not constant… “
It seems that you multiply the constant with the temperature and then obviously gets weird changing constants…? On this wrong approach you conclude a lot.
(The reason for my graphic at klimadebat was:
Someone misunderstood this in the debate and had the idea that a temperature below 0 K anomaly should then mean negative CO2 rise/year. But this is not the case, of course as long as Temp > -0,32K the CO2rise/year will be positive. )
Short term and long term trends.
Please take a look at the graphic 1977-2008 in the article above.
You can see the strong relationship between CO2rise/year and temperature, the “short term relation”. And you can see that the CO2rise/year curve and the temperature curve fits nicely from 1977 to 2008 except for the 0,5ppm/year that the long term trend shifts over the 30 years.
This means that the short term changes have a very large effect over for example a 30 year period compared to long term effects.
However, it seems that the ground level “long term trends” changes in a direction to eventually omit the short term relation. Equilibrium is constantly approached, and on the longer time horizon long term trend is probably very important.
You write:
“In your formula, the emissions have no influence on the trend at all. Well, that is physically impossible”
Short term trends:
The obvious short term CO2rise/year – temperature very strong connection has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with our glorious human race, im sorry. Or will you explain to me, how human emission can lead to a 4 ppm/year rise in 1998 and then a 1 ppm/year rise in the colder 1999?? Does humans systematically produce more CO2 when its hot??? Please explain that idea.
Long term trends.
No, I think we can agree that a human-emission-effect should be located in the long term trends only.
You say it is physically impossible that human emission is not changing CO2 levels?
Maybe so. But the human influence could be much smaller than what you can imagine physically possible.
Engelbeen, if humans never let out any CO2, and then suddenly let out 2ppm in the atmosphere, then of course you would see this CO2-boom in CO2 data. But this is not the case!
Humans lets out approximately the same amount of CO2 every year. Therefore its very likely that the biosphere many many years ago has adjusted for this, qrown bigger and thus capable of eating the extra ration of CO2 every year. So Engelbeen don’t say its physically impossible.
Example:
What happened if you year out year in puts a constant level of extra food into a big cage with 100 mice? Do you then think after 30 years the same number of mice would be there and the food would be lying around in huge piles? No of course not, the mice would amplify, adjust to the extra amount of food every year, all food would be eaten. Nature always adjusts, no accumulation of food – alias CO2.
But back the the subject: I mentioned the human emissions in my article, please read.
Allan, thankyou so much for your contribution!
Your question
“4. Is the aforementioned ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature consistent with the ~600 year lag in CO2 after temperature observed in ice core data?
”
If the rather quick response of CO2 rise/year just 5-9 months after temperature changes reflects equilibrium with the oceans, then we are only in physical contact with the upper meters of the ocean. But oceans has a turnover of 500 – 2000 years. This means, that “fresh” water is coming up from the lower layers constantly, and before the whole ocean is adjusted to new CO2 levels, it takes much longer time. There fore there is both a quick ad a slow response.
Yes yes, much more things influences, but i just mentioned an important mechanism.
Allan quest:
1. IF annual atmospheric CO2 declines in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling (or soon thereafter), what does this prove, if anything.
Well, that would be business a s usual, nothing “new” is proven. CO2 has followed temp ever since Mauna Loa measurements started. So a few more years showing that obvious connection does not really prove anthing that wasnt already proved.
2. IF annual atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in the coming years contemporaneous with significant global cooling, what does this prove, if anything?
Well, then CO2 for the first time in 50 years behavior radically suddenly changes. If CO2 suddenly is no longer closely connected to temperature for years in a row, this would normaly be seen during an extraordinary event, liek a vulcano etc.
BUT this boring answer is not what you ment.
No, If CO2 changes behavior, yes, i would be surpriced and then one would have to study the new situation.
Anna V
So you are on the Greek coast and I am on the UK coast, both good places for proper mixing of co2. In fact the mixing is a bit too lively for me at the monment giving us a wind chill temperature of -4C!
I will have a hunt around to see if there is anything out there.
tonyB
Dear all,
Ferdinand Engelbeen ist constantly repeating erroneous statements on “my ” CO2 data and ignoring what do not fit in his views. The historical CO2 data have been measured with high accuracy manifold on different areas over the Atlantic Ocean near coasts and so on. Where are the forests and power plants there? Since about 1880 to 1925 “my” data show the SAME slow rise as the ice core records documented in >80 series on different places. The main “problem” is the period between 1925 and 1950. Here again we have differnent series at different places e.g. 1935 measured near Spitzbergen several times >350 ppm over the sea!!!
Ice core records have a very bad resolution of about 20-30 years (ice age gas age) looking at the period 1925-1950, so it cannot resolve a possible CO2 peak.
Please check my statements in my data here:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/CO2databaserev3.pdf
Ferdinand, please stop your lies on my data. Nature is a nonlinear dynamic system, you are starring on the selected, smoothed linear Mauna Loa data in a 50 years time window at 4 km altitude. You will never find the truth.
Ernst
Hello Ernst
Thanks for the data you sent me recently concerning your new publication.
Having looked in detail at the 1930’s and 1940’s co2 measurements I can confirm they seem perfectly genuine. The methodology was good and the measurement related closely to the temperatures of the time. I will send you a link separately to an interesting item I have seen on co2 which may explain the previous variability as compared to todays relatively constant readings.
TonyB
Ernst, thankyou for setting things strait.
I took a look at the town Poona, india: Outside Poona around 1940 was a range of measurements of CO2 over 400 ppm.
It appears to be a city of around 10-20.000 thousand people. So what excuse is there that measurements in this area should be all wrong?
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~poyntz/India/images/PoonaKirkee1924.jpg
Dear all,
It is a pity that this blog doesn’t allow direct presentation of graphics, so I have to refer to the web.
About CO2 measurements near ground over land: for the first 20 m the CO2 sources and sinks are not mixed at all, except if there is sufficient wind speed. Thus any measurements near ground can reflect any value, depending of nearby sources, ranging from soil bacteria to car exhausts and factories. Thus measuring midst of villages, towns, grass fields or forests yield values which have no bearing with whatever can be measured in the rest of the atmosphere, above 1,000 m and far from sources, like over the oceans and in deserts. See the difference in CO2 levels from the intake of 20 m vs. 200 m at Cabauw (The Netherlands):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/cabauw_day_week.jpg
The diurnal and momentary variability of samples (over 100 ppmv taken 15 minutes apart) was the reason for Keeling over 50 years ago to look for better places where such disturbances didn’t exist or were far less important. That was found at Mauna Loa and the south pole. Later more stations for continuous monitoring were added and now over 70 stations measure CO2 at low contamination places. Plus 400 more at other places, where they try to calculate the flux of CO2 over the seasons in crop fields, forests and industrial areas.
The 10 base stations (and the 60+ others) plus regular air flights in both hemispheres and very recently the AIRS satellite all confirm that for 95% of the atmosphere there are seasonal changes which are largest near ground and in the NH, but the yearly average trends for all are near identical with an about 12 months delay between the NH and the SH.
In the 5% of the atmosphere over land up to 1,000 m, there is a lot of exchange and the measurements there are unsuitable for the calcuation of any form of “global” CO2 level. With a few exceptions: if you have a place above 1,000 m and enough wind speed (as is the case for Schauinsland, Germany for 10% of the time) or at the coast with wind from the seaside (that is a hint for Anna and TonyB!).
About what Ernst Beck writes:
Ernst only shows averages in his graph for a given year, not the spread.
As we know from modern data, higher wind speed gives a better mixing and shows lower values, which approach the MLO data for the NH and the south pole data for the SH. Thus if one plots all the minima of the different historical measurements, that gives a better impression of the real “background” CO2 level than the averages: see
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/beck_1930_1950.jpg
The same for ocean data and coastal data: all are around the ice core level.
Ernst is a little economical with the truth by refering to only the highest Spitsbergen measurements. The 1936 data series is from only 7 measurements and shows a range from 152-368 ppmv, average 278 ppmv, ice core at 307 ppmv…
As a comparison, the average of CO2 measurements over land near Bern by Dürst:
Bern, on a plateau of a hill slope, forest, average of three years, measurements once a week:
Spring: average minimum 238 (with rain, morning), 321 (dry, morning), noon about the same, 395 ppmv at evening.
Summer: morning 375, noon 355, evening 308 ppmv.
Fall: morning 630, noon 530, evening 793 ppmv.
Winter: morning 299, noon 391, evening 412 ppmv.
Overall average for Dürst/Bern: 427 ppmv. Lowest minimum 179 ppmv (with several days of rain).
For the fall values, the author explicitely describes a mechanism where outgassing CO2 out of the (still warm) soils is increasing CO2 levels with mainly stagnant weather as we see often in fall.
Thus while over the oceans in 1936 in average about 280 ppmv is found, in the same year in Bern the average is 420 ppmv, or a difference of 140 ppmv, with enormous (diurnal and seasonal) variations around the averages.
Ernst simply takes the averages, modern science simply (and rightfully) ignores the Bern data as completely unreliable, as these are the equivalent of measuring temperature on an asphalted parking lot…
And modern science also would question these particular ocean data series as abnormally variable (modern automated ships measurements don’t show more than 10 ppmv difference in the air over the oceans from the poles to the equator)…
And finally, as already said in a former message, the Law Dome ice core has a resolution of 8 years, coralline sponges 2-4 years and stomata index data less than a decade. Short enough to see a change of 80 ppmv in 15 years if there was one…
I will repeat myself.
The logic that we have to go and look at a place where the variable is not varying is evading me.
Why not measure global temperature in my basement instead of outside in the shade? Why not take the lower temperature from outside in the shade of night?
To push the “shade ” meaning up to Mauna Loa height is close to hubris against the biosphere, imo.
And this without attributing ulterior motives ( like supporting CO2 AGW), just wrong scientific intuitions.
Engelbeen, Please explain/answer:
Realclimate gives the example, that in the middle of the heaviest traffic in Paris anno 2008 they get around 120 ppm over ground level. In a green area – but still in the middle of Paris they get only 40 ppm CO2 over ground level.
When a green area in the middle of PARIS with 8 million people and indeed one of the most traffic-polluted spots in the modern western world, we only get 40 ppm over ground level.
OUTSIDE the little village of Poona, India, around 1940 we measure more years in a row around 420 ppm. If your Antarctic ice core where correct, the ground level was only 300ppm. So Outside village Poona you say we have all measurements 120 ppm over ground level.
1) Howcome a green area in PARIS 2008 gives 40 ppm over ground level, when OUTSIDE village Poona, India 1940 should give 120 ppm over ground level for years in a row?
2) Can we go to Poona today and measure still 120 ppm over ground level? That would be 505 ppm.
3) If not, WHY??
Please use numbers 1), 2) and 3) for answers.
Dear all,
Ferdinand is picking the data from single measurements series and did judgements without to consider the influence of location, the season and so on. I have done this in detail and I am working to publish this soon. Meanwhile everyone can inspect copies of the original sources on my webpage.
And Ferdinand ignores the most part of the historical data since accaptable precision from 1857 (Pettenkofer). Lets give this method some time of getting more precise and start from 1880 (comparable with th modern preindustrial data series).
Since 1880 to about 1925 more than 80 data series seleced by me to represent typical yearly averagees (when possible) we have nearly identical CO2 values than the ice cores shows!!! (same methods as critisized in the 3Os and 40s, different locations). The result was: no high averaged CO2 through the years!!!
The same sort of measurements supply higher data since about 1925 up to about 1948. And the same measurements show again the same low CO2 from the beginning of the Keeling era 1955. (please see Steinhauser 1957/58 in the northern part of Vienna in the weatherstation of Hohe Warte yearly average 325 ppm.
Lets forget Duerst´s measurements that are strongly influenced by the forests at Berne (evening wave of CO2>150ppm) or Misra strongly influenced by monsoon and vegeation. But both data series allow comparison with modern measured influences to quantify the influence.
Buch had measured as others very low CO2 near the limit of sea ice with very cold water and best CO2 absorption. Thats normal but not typical for a seasonal average.
Why Steinhauser has measured right, Kreutz wrong, Buch wrong, Haldane wrong Kauko wrong++++++++ and from 1925 back in time again right?
Only Ferdinand knows!
I also know: What cannot be cannot exist.
regards
Ernst
Dear Frank,
My fault and misinterpretation of your formula…
Anyway, we agree on the following: temperature has a huge short-term impact on year by year CO2 increase rate. Where we disagree is if that also is the case for the long(er) term impact, that is the impact of temperature on several years to millennia.
Your formula implies that about half the increase in CO2 (the 0.95 constant) over the past decades is a constant (whatever the cause), and the other halve is caused by the overall temperature increase vs. a zero level. Our formula gives near the same variability of the temperature/CO2 relationship for yearly variations, but only a few ppmv increase in CO2, due to the slight (0.6°C) rise in temperature over the last century. Where is the difference? In our formula we imply that the short time impact is fast and huge, but the long term impact is limited. In your formula, there is no limit of the impact over time.
What is wise, is not deducable from the curve, as both give the same result on short and longer periods (over the past decades). The problems arise for previous periods, but then we depend on other observations than the continuous measurements of temperature by satellites and CO2 at MLO or other base stations. All different observations of past CO2 levels have their own problems, be it chemical measurements, ice cores, stomata data or coralline sponges. But no matter what method one uses, in the period 1850-2008 CO2 levels are continuously increasing, with a questionable peak around 1942 in non-selected chemical measurements and a smooth increase in the other three methods.
Not so in your formula, for the period where temperatures are below the -3.2°C level which is for the whole period 1900-1930, where all four methods give an increase of 5-10 ppmv. And of course for the whole LIA, where CO2/d13C levels were fairly constant for fairly constant CO2 levels, far below the -3.2°C level.
Why the difference between our formula’s? Your example is a nice illustration of the difference in approach: If you feed a lot of mice with a constant amount of feed, there will be a (sawtooth) equilibrium between amount of feed and number of mice. If you double the feed supply, the number of mice will initially increase fast, but stop increasing as a new equilibrium is reached at about a doubling of mice counts. That is what our approach says: a change in feed gives an initial fast, but limited change in number of mice over time. Your formula doesn’t include any constraint in time and simply says that for a doubling in feed the number of mice increases each time period with the same number, indefinitely. That may be right for a limited time period but that doesn’t hold for longer periods.
So what happens in the real world? Nature indeed will react on disturbances in the same way for temperature as for human emissions. An increase in temperature will increase CO2 levels, until a new equilibrium between absorption and release of CO2 is reached. For short term (ocean surface, existing biosphere) that is about 3 ppmv/°C, for longer term (including increasing biosphere area, changes in ocean currents) the ratio is about 8 ppmv/°C.
The same holds for human CO2 releases: an initial increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to increased uptake by the oceans and biosphere, but a part of the increase will remain in the atmosphere, as long as CO2 is constantly added. A new equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level) can be reached, if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to increase the uptake by the oceans and biosphere to the same levels as the continuous addition. But as the emissions show a constant increase, there is no new equilibrium in sight, despite a constant increasing atmospheric CO2 level (at 55% of the emissions).
I hope this made my viewpoint clear, why your formula may be right for a short time span of a few decades, but doesn’t hold for longer time spans in the past, while our formula holds for any time span, from a few years to one million years…
Regards,
Ferdinand
Anna v,
The same logic as not measuring temperature on parking lots, near AC outlets or near barbeques. The measurements at MLO, Barrow, Samoa, south pole represent 95% of the atmosphere, where only seasonal variations and a continuous increase are seen, not (or limited) the influence of local/regional biological decay or uptake, car exhausts or chimneys as in 5% of the atmosphere over land where such variations are measured for other reasons than a global CO2 level…
Frank,
With your figures:
1) There is no connection between Poona and Paris, and little within Paris at one place (green area) and another place (traffic). The green area in Paris during the day uses CO2, while the traffic area adds a lot of CO2. How fast the excess from the latter area to the other flows can be calculated, but that is not easy stuff.
I don’t know the local circumstances of Poona in 1940, thus that is difficult to judge. And there is no direct connection between these two places for CO2 levels with the ice cores CO2 level, as the latter represents the well mixed atmosphere (only hemispheric influenced by seasonal changes and continuous additions) above 1,000 m and everywhere over the oceans. But…
2) There may be an increase of about 80 ppmv if one should measure at exactly the same place as in the 1940’s at Poona in exactly the same circumstances of wind speed and other natural points (temperature, sunshine) and surroundings (no change in urbanisation, energy use, cars, same crops in the fields, same level of trees,…).
3) Point 2) may be very difficult to obtain, but there is hope, I just yesterday found modern measurements of Giessen, Germany, one of the places which is responsible for the huge peak of 1942 in the historical averages. Some increase in CO2 levels compared to the 1942 level should be visible. More to come…
Suggested reading
Veizer, “Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle”, GeoScience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005.
http://www.gac.ca/publications/geoscience/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf
Ferguson & Veizer, “Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth’s climate system”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, Volume 112, 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
Also Veizer and Shaviv (2003) – I’ll see if I can find the url later.
Best, Allan
@ferdinand meeus:
Many balls in the air.. I start with Poona. You dont know how to judge Poona, fair enough, i did little digging:
Poona was a village area 170 km outside the metropol of Mombai. I have tried to find some pictures from the area. It appears not to be neither jungle or dessert. A green area not that far from vegetation like Maybe countryside in France?
http://static.flickr.com/18/23212005_823d0611bb_m.jpg
http://www.realadventures.com/listingimages/1106/1106710/m_1106710a.jpg
http://k53.pbase.com/v3/64/556764/1/51006860.coloredcowingreengrass_8952.jpg
Poona – has grown quite since 1940, today it looks like this:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/tarunchandel/SE1vSESm3rI/AAAAAAAABB0/FK2c1mH5aY0/s400/Beautiful%20City%20of%20Pune%20Tarun%20Chandel%20Pune%20Trip.JPG
The choice of region Poona for CO2 measurements, seems at first glance quite sensible:
– Near equator (NH has higher CO2 than SH – the same argument that makes Mauna Loa a good choice)
– Appear to be average vegetation.
– The region was no less than 170 km from big city area, sound very correct indeed to me.
– Not far from the indian ocean.
Ferdinand, we know that a greener area might influence CO2 measurements so that CO2 got TOO LOW and not too high… So continous measurements in Poona around 420 ppm in the 1940´ies, what logic can be used to say these measurement where all 120 ppm too high? – And not to low?
Is it not so, that the only reason for rejecting these data are that you have another idea of how data should be?
Imagine that data said 300 ppm for Poona 1940. Would you then through them away? And as Beck says, measurement from SPitsbegen seem to agree with the peak around 1930-40. how on earth…?
@ferdinand meeus: Thank you for reply. And this time I get the feeling that you really seek “the truth”.
Many balls in the air.. I start with Poona.
Poona is a village area 170 km outside the metropol of Mombai. I have tried to find some pictures from the area. It appears not to be neither jungle or dessert. A green area not that far from vegetation like Maybe France?
http://static.flickr.com/18/23212005_823d0611bb_m.jpg
http://www.realadventures.com/listingimages/1106/1106710/m_1106710a.jpg
http://k53.pbase.com/v3/64/556764/1/51006860.coloredcowingreengrass_8952.jpg
Poona – has grown quite since 1940, today it looks like this:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/tarunchandel/SE1vSESm3rI/AAAAAAAABB0/FK2c1mH5aY0/s400/Beautiful%20City%20of%20Pune%20Tarun%20Chandel%20Pune%20Trip.JPG
The choice of region Poon for CO2 measurement, seems at first glance quite sensible:
– Near equator (NH has higher CO2 than SH – the same argument that makes Mauna Loa a good choice)
– Appear to be average vegetation.
– The region is 170 from big city area, sound very correct to me.
– Near the Indian Ocean.
Ferdinand, we know that a greener area might influence CO2 measurements so that CO2 got TOO LOW and not too high… So continous measurements in Poona around 420 ppm in the 1940´ies, what logic can be used to say these measurement where all 120 ppm too high? – And not to low?
You are 100% that if measurements said 300 ppm CO2, you would also have considdered the actual measurements useless? You are 100% objective?
🙂 – scientists should be you know…
Anna : The logic that we have to go and look at a place where the variable is not varying is evading me.
FerdinandThe same logic as not measuring temperature on parking lots, near AC outlets or near barbeques.
Wrong analogy. CO2 comes from diverse sources, the sun is one direct and strong source. Satellites measure everything, also coming from parking lots and asphalt, and this is correct. In some sense this is more correct as the temperature integration should take in all the heat. If all the surface of the earth were measured there would be no problem with having a measurement of the asphalt. Actually it would be imperative to have a measurement of the asphalt. The reason it is criticized at present is because it cannot be considered part of an unbiased representative of N kilometer square of earth area since most of the earth area is not asphalt, as population sampling techniques go.
In contrast, most of the earth area is a source of CO2 and thus ground and sea measurements are representative of the CO2 of the surface, as long as the counter is not next to the mouth of a cow. A few meters away are enough. How is it possible to know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere if non representative points are taken for measurements? It is against any statistical population sampling techniques.
The measurements at MLO, Barrow, Samoa, south pole represent 95% of the atmosphere, where only seasonal variations and a continuous increase are seen, not (or limited) the influence of local/regional biological decay or uptake, car exhausts or chimneys as in 5% of the atmosphere over land where such variations are measured for other reasons than a global CO2 level…
How is it possible to know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere if non representative points are taken for measurements? It is against any statistical population sampling techniques. The earth is three dimensional, actually four, counting time.What is being measured in these select spots is the CO2 at those selected spots. Not global CO2 by any means. Might as well measure the temperature in those spots and call it the global temperature.
The whole thing is bizarre, in my books.