Guest post by Frank Lansner, civil engineer, biotechnology.
(Note from Anthony – English is not Frank’s primary language, I have made some small adjustments for readability, however they may be a few passages that need clarification. Frank will be happy to clarify in comments)
It is generally accepted that CO2 is lagging temperature in Antarctic graphs. To dig further into this subject therefore might seem a waste of time. But the reality is, that these graphs are still widely used as an argument for the global warming hypothesis. But can the CO2-hypothesis be supported in any way using the data of Antarctic ice cores?
At first glance, the CO2 lagging temperature would mean that it’s the temperature that controls CO2 and not vice versa.
Click for larger image Fig 1. Source: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
But this is the climate debate, so massive rescue missions have been launched to save the CO2-hypothesis. So explanation for the unfortunate CO2 data is as follows:
First a solar or orbital change induces some minor warming/cooling and then CO2 raises/drops. After this, it’s the CO2 that drives the temperature up/down. Hansen has argued that: The big differences in temperature between ice ages and warm periods is not possible to explain without a CO2 driver.
Very unlike solar theory and all other theories, when it comes to CO2-theory one has to PROVE that it is wrong. So let’s do some digging. The 4-5 major temperature peaks seen on Fig 1. have common properties: First a big rapid temperature increase, and then an almost just as big, but a less rapid temperature fall. To avoid too much noise in data, I summed up all these major temperature peaks into one graph:
Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.
The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown:
Fig 3.
Below is a graph where I aim to illustrate CO2 as the driver of temperature:
Fig 4. Except for the well known fact that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, the supposed CO2-driven raise of temperatures works ok before temperature reaches max peak. No, the real problems for the CO2-rescue hypothesis appears when temperature drops again. During almost the entire temperature fall, CO2 only drops slightly. In fact, CO2 stays in the area of maximum CO2 warming effect. So we have temperatures falling all the way down even though CO2 concentrations in these concentrations where supposed to be a very strong upwards driver of temperature.
I write “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect “…
The whole point with CO2 as the important main temperature driver was, that already at small levels of CO2 rise, this should efficiently force temperatures up, see for example around -6 thousand years before present. Already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 should cause the warming. If no such CO2 effect already at 215-230 ppm, the CO2 cannot be considered the cause of these temperature rises.
So when CO2 concentration is in the area of 250-280 ppm, this should certainly be considered “the area of maximum CO2 warming effect”.
The problems can also be illustrated by comparing situations of equal CO2 concentrations:
Fig 5.
So, for the exact same levels of CO2, it seems we have very different level and trend of temperatures:
Fig 6.
How come a CO2 level of 253 ppm in the B-situation does not lead to rise in temperatures? Even from very low levels? When 253 ppm in the A situation manages to raise temperatures very fast even from a much higher level?
One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”
This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2”.
But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.
– Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.
Fig 7.
Well, if CO2 should be reason to such “temperature-fall-slowing-effect”, how big could this effect be? The temperatures falls 1 K / 1000 years slower than they rise.
However, this CO2 explanation of slow falling temperature seems is not supported by the differences in cooling periods, see fig 8.
When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.
It seems that a longer warming period of the earth would result in a slower cooling period afterward due to accumulated heat in ocean and more:
Fig 8.
Again, this fits very well with Vostok data: Longer periods of warmth seems to be accompanied by longer time needed for cooling of earth. The differences in cooling periods does not support that it is CO2 that slows cooling phases. The dive after 230.000 ybp peak shows, that cooling CAN be rapid, and the overall picture is that the cooling rates are governed by the accumulated heat in oceans and more.
Note: In this writing I have used Vostok data as valid data. I believe that Vostok data can be used for qualitative studies of CO2 rising and falling. However, the levels and variability of CO2 in the Vostok data I find to be faulty as explained here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass PMI-001 exam fast using self study 70-290 guide and 350-029 tutorial.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (02:46:49) :
I agree, two solar cycles is quite short, but it seems that in both cycles a similar response of (low) cloud cover is visible, whatever the mechanism. That is empirical evidence.
As is so often the case when you find a coincidence based on a short stretch of data, with more data the effect goes away. This has happened with this coincidence too. The last ten years do not show the expected correlation.
Richard S Courtney (02:59:10)
Inspection of the Mauna Loa CO2 yearly emissions data indicate there isn’t really a steady (and “unwavering”!) 1.5 ppm base line rate of enhancement of atmosphereic CO2. During the early part of the record when emissions were a good bit lower (early mid 60’s) the rate of increase was low 0.7-0.9 ppm/yr, and as the rate of emissions rose throughout the 1970,s 80,s 90,s 00’s the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has risen too. They’re averaging closer to 2 ppm/yr now.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
That seems pretty clear. When emissions are low the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is low, and when emissions are high the rate of increase of CO2 is generally high. That’s entirely as we might expect.
How about the year on year variation? There’s nothing very mysterious about that either I think. There’s a very large literature that indicates that interannual variation in the enhancement of atmospheric CO2 relates to ENSO, and its effects on tropical forest growth largely, and thus is bound to correlate with the interannual temperature variation since the latter two phenomena (ENSO and global temperature anomaly) are correlated.
So during strong El Nino years and shortly afterwards, the tropical forests are water-limited and grow poorly (“pull own” of CO2 from the atmosphere inefficient) and prone to wildfires. El Nino years are associated with high annual addition of CO2 to the atmosphere in the later part of the season and following the El Nino, which supplements manmade emissions. On the other hand during, or shortly after La Nina’s, the tropical forests have more optimal growth conditions and are more efficient in withdrawing CO2 from the atmosphere. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere during the months after a La Nina is suppressed. We expect that the variation in CO2 increment to lag the temperature effect somewhat…and so they do by around 5 months.
Thus as our emissions add whatever yearly increment of CO2 to the atmosphere (the persistent and increasing rise in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial age), so internal climate variation, and especially ENSO, provides “noise” on the rising trend largely through ENSO-related effects on tropical forest productivity…
There’s lots of research published on this. A possible starting point is:
N. Zeng (2005) Terrestrial mechanisms of interannual CO2 variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 19, GB1016
p bartner (2/2/09)
I would like to caution you about taking reported co2 values from glaciers as being accurate. You might be able to observe trends, but certainly the accuracies of such values is put into grave doubt by z Jaworowski; z jaworowski, t v segalstad, n ono, “do glaciers tell a true atmospheric co2 story”, the science of total environment, 114 (1992) 227-284. z jaworoski is a veteran of about 12 ice core drillings. he mentions that up to 1985, that reported co2 concentrations varied rather evenly between 150 – 700 ppm with outriders over 1,000 ppm. after 1985, values over 350 ppm disappeared from literature which he claims is due to ignoring of up to 40% of the data. cooking the books is unethical and seems to be only tolerated in climate studies. he also states that shallow ice core values that can be related to direct atmospheric measurements are already 20 – 40% low. in this paper, he discusses the 20 some mechanical and chemical processes (fractionation) that greatly alter co2 values. just to mention 2; (1) the annual, reported formation of shallow pools of water a meter under the surface during the continuous solar radiation of summer that greatly alters the relative concentration of gases (co2 is approximately 25 times as soluble as o2 and 50 times as soluble as n2 in ice water), and (2) the gross contamination of the ice core in the extraction process brought about by the necessary introduction of a large, continuous amount of hydrocarbon (at vostok; jet fuel, tri-tetra cl ethane, mono ethy ether of glycol and their manufacturing impurities). these hydrocarbons are use in a failed attempt to maintain density, to lubricate the drill and as an antifreeze. contact with the ice core occurs just as large amounts of micro and micra cracks are forming from thermal and mechanical stress that allows penetration of the ice core, even to the very center.
Also look at ernst-georg beck compilation of over 90,000 direct measurements of co2 by the classical chemical method between the years of 1812 – 1961; “180 years of atmospheric co2 gas analysis by chemical methods”. energy & environment, vol. 18, no. 2 (2007). He states that when performed right, this method obtained an accuracy of better than 3% after 1857 (improved to 1 – 2% in the 20th century). His plot shows substantial variations (by 160 ppm) in co2 concentration during this period of 150 years and not the almost flat 280 ppm portrayed by the ipcc, which only shows a steady substantial increase in the 20th century. in fact, beck shows that the concentration of co2 reached a value of 450 ppm in 1942 before returning to 320 – 330 ppm in the 50s. this large peak being the result of the substantial warming of the 20s and 30s and the hugh amounts of co2 dumped into atmosphere by ww2. in the last 10 years of use, the classical method agreed with the newly developed instrumental method with a maximum disagreement of 10 ppm.
ccpo says:
So, what prevents it (I assume you are referring to the climate here) from getting out of balance? Also, what are the bounds, since your statement assumes them?
I guess one has to be beyond fifth grade to start to question what keeps the climate not too far from the straight and narrow.
I know this is off topic, but does anyone have a theory as to why the sunspots are getting lower in contrast?
Is it just weakening magnetic fields independent of Solar Cycle?
Peter Bartner said
“z jaworoski is a veteran of about 12 ice core drillings. he mentions that up to 1985, that reported co2 concentrations varied rather evenly between 150 – 700 ppm with outriders over 1,000 ppm. after 1985, values over 350 ppm disappeared from literature which he claims is due to ignoring of up to 40% of the data. cooking the books is unethical and seems to be only tolerated in climate studies. he also states that shallow ice core values that can be related to direct atmospheric measurements are already 20 – 40% low.”
I am rather sceptical of the ice core records as I tend to believe the historic co2 measurements which used proven technolopgy and showed levels at least as high as today. If co2 was only consistently 280ppm what is the main driver through the numerous warm and cool peeriods in mans history?
Do you know if the original data is available that jaworoski used and do you know of any definitive papers that explain how the ice core process is carried out step by step? It all seems highly theoretical to me and based on a lot of assumptions.
I am also curious as to how many expert people there are in ice core science and what qualifications are needed-Physics? Maths? Statistics? Chemistry? Modelling?
TonyB
Could you link to the works – especially the graphs – cited?
Thanks,
Bill
“Thus the mass balance still shows that the sole source of the increase are the human emissions…”
Huh? One year ago, here at WUWT, Spencer had a posting showing that the 13C:12C fraction of the MLO seasonal signal and long-term trends’ variance under F-Test were identical.
It is not possible to say, therefore, that proof exists that the anthropogenic contribution is empirically demonstrable.
Mass balance? How about if you begin with your experimental estimates of daily CO2 fluences, vis a visthe atmosphere, according to source and we’ll decide whether you have any clue at all?
George E. Smith (11:44:37) :
“” DAV (13:05:59) :
George E. Smith (11:09:07) : At Vostok Temperatures, the atmosphere has to be essentially devoid of water vapor or water in any form, and quite often it can be devoid of CO2 as well, with CO2 ice on the ground.
This is nonsense, there is no way to get CO2 ice there with a partial pressure of less than 0.001 atm! Check out the phase diagram of CO2:
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2_phase_diagram.gif
Re: Request for Beck citation: Nevermind.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
peter bartner – Thanks for the reference.
gary gulrud (09:53:42) :
“Thus the mass balance still shows that the sole source of the increase are the human emissions…”
Huh? One year ago, here at WUWT, Spencer had a posting showing that the 13C:12C fraction of the MLO seasonal signal and long-term trends’ variance under F-Test were identical.
Because he made an elementary mathematical error!
Richard Sharpe (08:30:43) :
So, what prevents it (I assume you are referring to the climate here) from getting out of balance? Also, what are the bounds, since your statement assumes them?
Two things prevent the climate “getting out of balance”, and these essentially constitute “bounds”. The first is that the insolation changes (Milankovitch cycles) provide a persistent forcing in both the warming and cooling phases that both drive and limit the effects (after all the total insolation during Milankovitch cycles hardly varies…it’s the pattern of insolation that predominates, and the insolation effects are cyclic rather than unidirectional, obviously).
Secondly the albedo contribution, which is a very significant feedback , is essentially self-limiting. Much of the albedo feedback (on the warming phase) is due to ice melt. This likely occurs very quickly on the rising (deglaciation) periods of the ice age cycles, since even a little surface melting in the absence of full melt greatly reduces the albedo, since meltwater on ice yields a strong reduction in ice reflectance. Once the ice has retreated back to the very low latitudes the positive feedback diminishes.
oops! another “blockquote” error.
The first paragraph following the italicised quote in foinavon (11:13:59) is Richard Sharpe’s, and it is that short paragraph to which I’m responding….
Peter Bartner,
Better use caution (and more than a pinch of salt) if you read the objections of Jaworowski on ice core measurements. Much of what he says is outdated, physically impossible, or the opposite of what he supposes… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
And Beck’s historical data need a lot of caution too. Most of the supposed peak value around 1942 is caused by measurements over land near huge sources and sinks. This gives in average a huge positive bias. See my comment on the historical data at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Robert Bateman (09:08:06) :
why the sunspots are getting lower in contrast?
Is it just weakening magnetic fields independent of Solar Cycle?
The physics is this: a lower magnetic field means that pressure balance must be achieved by a higher temperature. The contrast decreases as the temperature difference with the rest of the photosphere decreases.
Now, why the magnetic field should be lower, we don’t know.
Thank you, Leif.
Lower could mean just plain weaker, not reaching normal heights, directed elsewhere, cancellng out, or something else entirely.
Would then the magnetic field be lower for the whole Sun, or just in the spots?
Does anyone have a link to the actual data used in the CO2 – temperature graphs?
I think it would be productive to see if we can take a look at the effect of removing the forcing effect of CO2 using for instance the following relationship (from the Reference Frame).
Temperature = Temperature0 + ln(1 + 1.2 x + 0.005 x2 + 0.0000014 x3)
We can then adjust for a range of (non-CO2) feedback coefficients.
Cheers, 🙂
Oops, ‘x’ above refers to the concentration of CO2.
Sorry about that.
gary gulrud,
Please, see my reaction in the comments section of what Dr. Spencer wrote… The decrease of d13C over one year and several years is similar, simply because humans add so much low 13C CO2 in the atmosphere that the natural year by year variability plays no role at all (the seasonal variations themselves are not involved in this story).
Even if you don’t have a clue of what you have selled and bought over a day, if you start with adding 1,000 euro/dollar or whatever in your cash register and end the day with 500 euro, you don’t need any detail of the transactions to know that you lost 500 euro that day… If that is repeated every day, that you start the day adding more money than you see at the end of the day as increase in your cash register, you can be pretty sure that you are in bad bussiness…
Thus if humans emit 8 GtC/year and at the end of the year some 4 +/- 3 GtC is found in the atmosphere (over the past 50 years: 55% of the emissions), one can be sure that:
– nature (whatever the temperature variation) is a net sink for CO2 and adds nothing (in mass) to the atmosphere, but there may be huge exchanges of CO2 with oceans and vegetation within that year.
– humans are responsible for the increase.
But that doesn’t tell us anything about the effect of the increase of CO2 on temperature…
There are many more arguments for humans as source of the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
“The decrease of d13C over one year and several years is similar”
Ferdinand, the biogenic fluence is also at work here, expelling 13C as carbon is laid up and returning 12C on die off. Note the term ‘variance’, the pattern of variation at each data point. Suess believed the decrease in 13C was anthropogenic, but the F-Test proves that merely noting a decrease is inadequate.
My point is that this was the only extant method of ‘tagging’ the anthropogenic contribution. Looking at the MLO and AIRS daily fluctuations I believe the oceanic-atmospheric flux in CO2 could be as high as 80Gtons daily.
A tiny increase in oceanic supply of CO2 to the surface from below, or an increase in global average SST is more than enough to provide the change in “Mass balance”, invalidating your assertion. In any event, the anthropogenic fluence is so small it is evidently scrubbed from view; you are unable to honestly prove its presence.
Robert Bateman (11:40:00) :
Lower could mean just plain weaker, not reaching normal heights, directed elsewhere, canceling out, or something else entirely.
Bill L finds the darkest area within each spot and measures the field there. The field is pretty much radial and uniform there, so the measurement shows simply that the field strength is smaller.
Would then the magnetic field be lower for the whole Sun, or just in the spots?
This we don’t know. Conventional wisdom has it that the field we see spread out over the Sun comes from spots in the first place, so the two fields should go together, but we don’t really know.
Frank Lansner (00:32:00) :
Have a look at this 14C graph Frank, It shows clearly how the Sun went into grand minima mode over the previous 11000 years and shows how beyond 90 years duration is not likely. There is a very good reason for that, the disturbance that slows the Sun simply doesnt last longer than 90 years.
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/files/2009/01/c14nujs1.jpg
The base 14C detail is via Usoskin.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (14:48:44) :
The base 14C detail is via Usoskin.
And here is his explanation of what is going on:
Solar Phys. DOI 10.1007/s11207-008-9293-6
Grand Minima of Solar Activity and the Mean-Field Dynamo
I.G. Usoskin · D. Sokoloff · D. Moss
Received: 1 September 2008 / Accepted: 9 November 2008
Abstract We demonstrate that a simple solar dynamo model, in the form of a Parker migratory dynamo with random fluctuations of the dynamo governing parameters and algebraic saturation of dynamo action, can at least qualitatively reproduce all the basic features of solar Grand Minima as they are known from direct and indirect data. In particular, the model successfully reproduces such features as an abrupt transition into a Grand Minimum and the subsequent gradual recovery of solar activity, as well as mixed-parity butterfly diagrams during the epoch of the Grand Minimum. The model predicts that the cycle survives in some form during a Grand Minimum, as well as the relative stability of the cycle inside and outside of a Grand Minimum. The long-term statistics of simulated Grand Minima appears compatible with the phenomenology of the Grand Minima inferred from the cosmogenic isotope data.We demonstrate that such ability to reproduce the Grand Minima phenomenology is not a general feature of the dynamo models but requires some specific assumption,
such as random fluctuations in dynamo governing parameters. In general, we conclude that a relatively simple and straightforward model is able to reproduce the Grand Minima phenomenology remarkably well, in principle providing us with a possibility of studying the physical nature of Grand Minima.
I had a long look at all the Neutron Monitors that allowed or had info to display.
Would it surprise you to learn that there is a tendency for the counts to be higher the closer one got to the North Magnetic Pole?
Would really have to pull in all the stations to get a more definative look, but there is a possibility it might tell us more than we already know.
gary gulrud,
Dr. Spencer was talking about the year-by-year variability, that is over the seasons, not what happens as result of the seasonal changes. The seasonal changes in d13C surely are biogenic, but if you use that as base (and the change in oxygen levels as alternative), then you will see that about 50 GtC per year is exchanged with the atmosphere. That is not important. What is important is how much is left at the end of the seasonal cycle. That is about 1.4 GtC/year more sink than source. Thus vegetation is a net sink for CO2, thus a sink for preferential 12C, leaving more 13C in the atmosphere, in every year of the past 1.5 decade (before that a slight release by vegetation might have occured). See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
The same problem for oceanic CO2. Deep oceans have a d13C level of about zero per mil. Ocean surface, thanks to algues between +1 and +4 per mil (but decreasing). The atmosphere is currently at – 8 per mil. Even with a shift in isotope composition at release from the oceans, the ocean CO2 should give an increase in d13C of the atmosphere, not a decrease as seen now.
Thus the F-test only proves that the human “fingerprint” is much stronger than the much smaller effect of vegetation and oceans on d13C levels.
BTW you ar looking at AIRS monthly variations, not daily. CO2 variations over the seasons are huge, but oceans (90 GtC/yr) and vegetation (50 GtC/yr) work in opposite directions. That has as result that the world average (NH+SH) seasonal variation is about 5 ppmv/°C or 10 GtC/°C temperature difference. That is all. The short term influence of temperature on CO2 increase speed is about 3 ppmv/°C, the long term influence for the past near million years is about 8 ppmv/°C. That is all.
Anyway, as long as humans add more CO2 than is measured in the atmosphere, there is no room for any additional CO2 from nature. No matter how small or huge the rest of the circulating flows are. As long as no CO2 disappears to space…