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.
Foinavon:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong.
As I have repeatedly said above, there are two components to the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration: viz. the variation that is directly related to mean global temperature (i.e. Calder’s ‘CO2 thermometer’) and the steady rise of 0.4 per cent per year. As you say, Calder’s CO2 thermometer seems to be ENSO-related. Hence, it is the steady rise that we need to understand.
And, as I have repeatedly explained to you, that steady rise does not relate to the anthropogenic emission. It is an empirical fact that is does not not relate to the anthropogenic emission. Indeed, how could it when that rise is steady and the anthropogenic emission is very variable?
Furthermore, in response to my citing one of my peer reviewed publications on the subject, you wrote:
“Not really….if one wants to understand scientific issues surely we should be addressing the science.”
Bluntly, that is grossly offensive. If there is any flaw in our work then state the flaw.
You did not discuss our work in any way but, instead, you implied that our work is not “the science” and then cited other literature without any mention of its content or how it disputes our findings.
I would accept an apology.
Richard
“year-by-year variability”
Ie., not variance at all? You know, Ferdinand, if you took as long to understand your counterpart’s argument as you do in composing your very long comments you might elicit the patience to read your blog.
Telling me that the size of a fluence is less important than the ending balance is “putting the cart before the horse”, jumping to the answer without doing the work.
Balance equations(as those in chemical equations) are laughably inadequate for studying CO2 fluences. Navier-Stokes equations are required.
foinavon, as EM Smith stated (way) above, you’re backward AFA the progression of the interglacial melting, at least for this current interglacial (and I’d bet for previous ones too).
The current interglacial started ~15k-10k yrs ago when the northern hemisphere had max sunlight during the summer — the southern hemi was then obviously in “min” summer warmth. This makes sense as most of the global glaciers were in the north & subject to summer melting.
Right now the north is in minimum summer warmth, and perhaps just on the “tipping point” for a new glaciation, judging from the pattern of the Vostok ice-cores.
George E. Smith (16:32:30) :
Is the magnetic field not just the effect of a rotating mass of plasma.
Although [some] sunspots do rotate [slightly] , the magnetic field is not simply due to whirling charges. On the other hand, movements of solar plasma are responsible for formation [and later dispersion] of sunspots. That said, the simple question of how spots are formed and their magnetic field maintained has not yet found a satisfactory answer. Ken Schatten has some new ideas here http://www.leif.org/~leiforg/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
Beng says:
Is this related to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit such that at some times the north is closer to the sun during summer and the south then further away, and at other times the south is closer to the sun during its summer?
Congratulation Anthony for the winning scientific website. I try to post here for the first time, beg your indulgency.
Discussion on this thread is very fast for an old (70) retired French botanist formerly in an agronomic school. I have spent pastime for long on Excel with numbers from Petit e. a. and Barnolla to get and mind on Frank’s fig 1.
First minding on the temp curve, it is, as Courtney says for CO2, a smoothed curve also for Temp because each point represents the mean deuterium content for different length of time, due to stacking of the ice but also to height of snow precipitation for same time length. I obtain this proxy by subtracting from the age of each meter, the age of the succeeding, because at Vostok we have the mean age and mean deuterium content for each meter. Plotting this numbers give curbs everywhere (Vostok or GRIP …) which mimic almost exactly deuterium or 18O (Temp) ones, exept for stacking. Warm periods = few years/meter contrary to cold ones, whichever the periodicity, from ~30y to ~100ky. Variations are around 50y at 10ky BP and around 90 to 100y during the last glaciation. So temp data are smoothed but not equally along the core, and so, almost for me, difficult to detrend.
Second, for CO2, Vostok measurements are given for ~110 points for the last 140ky, where we have ~3310 points for ice age and deuterium content and the 110 CO2 data are not regularly but evenly picked (cherry?) on the core. I wonder why?
Each sample comprise 4 columns 1)data for depth in m, 2) ice age, 3) air age, and 4) CO2 content of air in ppmv. Differences between ice and air ages vary along the last 140ky of the core from ~2000y to ~6000y, younger for air. For getting deuterium deficit you must see the corresponding meter of the sample. To plot deuterium and CO2 one must attribute to each its proper mean age. So for D it is mean content of 1m, representing as we have seen 30-100 years.
For CO2 my former use is actually puzzled by Fd Englebeen reflections. I used to postulate that mean age of air covers age of all bubbles in the sample from the oldest, same age as ice, to the youngest, age of the last closing, when porosity is sealed. For instance, at 173.1m, ice age is 6828, air age 3634. The difference 3194y, being the lapse to bubbles mean age, correspond to a meter of ice at 105m which is the depth of mean air age so that IMHO the youngest bubbles were closed another 3194y later corresponding to the 20th meter under surface. If this reasoning is true, the mean age is for a portion of core about 152 m long and 6388y duration.
Two main statements could then be done: 1) for comparison with D content one must use the mean content upon the same portion of core, 152m, 6388y plotted at the same mean age of 3634y.
2) One cannot use data when 2xdifference between ice and air is upper than the surface, (greater than ice age of the sample) because all bubbles are not closed.
Could someone tell me where is my mistake?
For Frank, using this kind of plotting give overall graphs supporting his main observations for which he must be congratulated.
I apologise for my too bad French-English.
Michel
Gary,
I have the impression that you don’t see the forest by the trees (if that is the right expression in English, in Dutch we have a similar expression). A shareholder is not very interested in the turnover of a factory (he should better do,…), but is mainly interested of what the gain or loss is at the end of a quarter or year.
For CO2 over a year we have a reasonable estimate of the emissions and a quite accurate measurement of the CO2 increase:
4 GtC/year atmospheric increase = 8 GtC/year emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
whatever the real height of the sources and sinks, the net result at the end of the year is:
natural sources – natural sinks = – 2 GtC/year
No matter if the sum of all natural sources over a year is 10, 100 or 1000 GtC, in all cases the sum of all natural sinks together is 2 GtC larger than all natural sources together. There is no need at all for any detailed knowledge of any individual flow within a year…
Conclusion: nature doesn’t add any net amount of mass to the atmosphere over a year, which is true for all years in the past 50 years.
Richard,
To repeat the long standing discussion on this point:
Any two variables will seem to agree if they are given sufficient smoothing. As I said, the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is directly causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year.
The accumulated emissions agree with the accumulation in the atmosphere without any smoothing as a near fit over 100+ years.
There is not the slightest reason for any process that in a mix of variables, one variable must show a direct correlation between cause and effect over a short period. That is a matter of noise to signal ratio. For the human CO2 signal, one need about 3 years to see it emerge out of the (temperature) noise, for d13C changes, one need about 8 years and for the trend of sea level one need over 25 years before one can conclude if the trend is up or down or flat, for a few mm change within several meters of tidal amplitude…
I haven’t been able to track down where I read this. The basic idea, of course, is obvious: When the earth’s orbit becomes more elliptical, there will be large differences in solar radiation throughout the year but, averaged over the year, there will tend to be cancellation between the times when it is closer and the times when it is further away, so that the average amount of radiation received is pretty much the same as for the less elliptical case. The only question is how good this cancellation will be…i.e., is the total amount of radiative forcing unchanged to an accuracy of 5 W/m^2 (which could actually still result in a reasonably significant radiative forcing), 1 W/m^2 (which would be a pretty small perturbation relative to the other forcings like the albedo change although not completely insignificant, or only a fraction of a W/m^2 (which would make it pretty much insignificant). I thought I recalled that the answer was in the “insignificant” or at least “pretty small perturbation” category although this is what I have not been able to find an explicit reference for.
Richard S Courtney (05:23:30) :
.
We understand the steady rise Richard…and it isn’t “0.4 per cent per year, btw, is it. One can understand this by inspecting the Mauna Loa record in the light of our emissions….
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
we can understand it further by assessing the high resolution of atmospheric Co2 in the Law Dome cores in the light of our emissions since the start of the industrial age:
Meure CM et al. (2006) Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP. Geophys. Res. Lett. L14810
Ferdinand has illustrated the relationship between our emissions and the steady rise of atmospheric CO2:
see links here [Ferdinand Engelbeen (02:54:18)]
It’s pretty straightforward isn’t it? The steady rise in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial age correlates rather well with our emissions, especially if one factors in the proportion (35-40%) of these that have been forced into the oceans. When our emissions have been low, the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere has been low….conversely when our emissions have been highest (around now!) so has the rate of accumulation been highest. Otherwise the interannual variability is understood pretty well. It seems largely to be due to ENSO-related effects on tropical forest productivity…
There’s a truly vast amount of relevant research on this subject in the scientific literature. Since well-informed policymakers and their scientific advisors are sourcing their information from these sources, we’d be silly to ignore them! We’re likely to end up with viewpoints that (a) don’t accord with the evidence, and (b) be progressively out of kilter with informed decision-making…
*******
Richard Sharpe (07:38:43) :
Is this related to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit such that at some times the north is closer to the sun during summer and the south then further away, and at other times the south is closer to the sun during its summer?
*******
Yes, this is orbital eccentricity which reverses the pole receiving the most summer sun every ~10k-15k yrs. Obviously, eccentricity alone doesn’t dominate the glacial cycles, but likely is a “trigger” when combined w/the other orbital changes.
Dear Michel,
I used to postulate that mean age of air covers age of all bubbles in the sample from the oldest, same age as ice, to the youngest, age of the last closing, when porosity is sealed.
As far as I have read in the excellent, detailed work of Etheridge:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml
The bubbles don’t start closing at the same age as the ice phase, but much later. In the case of the fast Law Dome ice cores, the bubbles were closing at about 72 m depth, where the ice is 40 years old, but the gas phase still is more or less in equilibrium with the atmosphere. The total closing period is about 8 years and the average gas age (compared to the surface) was about 10 years. That makes that the ice age – gas age difference is about 30 years, but independent of that, the average of the gas age in the bubbles is 8 years. In the case of Law Dome, the accumulation is very high (1.5 m ice equivalent per year), thus any sampling for CO2 measurements covers only ice from one year’s deposit, thus no more than 8 years average gas age.
For Vostok, with a few mm of ice equivalent per year, that makes that the gas age – ice age difference is much larger and more variable, dependent of colder (less snow) and warmer (more snow) periods. That also applies to the average smoothing of the bubbles and additional, with depth the layers are thinner and thinner, so that the same size of sample, necessary for the measurements, is the result of more years in average. But anyway a lot smaller than when you start the count from the ice age.
I have read somewhere that bubble closing at Vostok needs about 600 years, but I may be mistaken…
foinavon:
There. Fixed it for you. And:
Fixed that one, too. Who are you trying to kid? This isn’t RealClimate, you know.
Smokey (09:12:16)
Thanks for the link for solar irradience.
Leif keeps saying that the 1Watt decrease/increase at the beginning of the plot is not enough to explain the little ice age or the maunder minimum, but the correlation is there. So the irradiance may not be the direct cause and might be correlated with the direct cause, could be the magnetic fields or lack thereof affecting albedo, or some other cause not yet discovered. It is better correlated than the man induced CO2, though.
anna v (09:31:46) :
Leif keeps saying that the 1Watt decrease/increase at the beginning of the plot is not enough to explain the little ice age or the maunder minimum, but the correlation is there.
Only in the very broadest of terms. The LIA began long before the Maunder Minimum and lasted long after. The number of degrees of freedom is very small [too small, IMHO] with such long period variations to make the correlation meaningful. If the correlation is there with minima, it should also show up with maxima. Solar activity was not markedly higher [some even talk about the Oort minimum at that time] during the MWP which also lasted centuries.
beng (07:07:43) :
O.K. fair enough. I was referencing Stott et al (see below), who show a very close “averaged mean longitude spring insolation (21 August to 20 November) at 65°S insolation” compared to the “Dome Fuji ice core temperature deviation (Tsite) relative to the mean of the last 10 thousand years” (see Figure 3 of that paper). So the insolation changes in the Southern hemisphere Spring season match rather well with the temperature rise that occurred at the start of the deglaciation which is represented in Antarctic cores from around 20-18,000 years ago, and somewhat later in Greenland cores.
I don’t think these issues are tied down conclusively by any means. However the ice core data does indicate that warming in the S. hemisphere preceded warming in the N hemisphere during the interglacial and so the pattern of S. hemisphere variation in Spring insolation seems relevant.
L. Stott et al. (2007) Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming. Science 318, 435-438.
The rise in Southern Ocean temperatures coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice and high-elevation glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (36, 37). The explanation for the early warming in the Southern Hemisphere could involve increasing springtime solar insolation, which is well correlated with the retreat of sea ice and with the history of sea-salt accumulation in the Antarctic Dome C ice core (fig. S5). We suggest that the trigger for the initial deglacial warming around Antarctica was the change in solar insolation over the Southern Ocean during the austral spring that influenced the retreat of the sea ice (38). Retreating sea ice would have led to enhanced Ekman transport in the Southern Ocean and decreased stratification due to stronger air-sea fluxes.
Smokey,
The steady rise in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial age correlates rather well with
our emissionssolar irradiance.While I agree that solar irradiance and temperature correlate quite well over the past 400 years (since the Maunder Minimum), the change in CO2 between MWP and LIA is only 6 ppmv for about 0.8°C. The increase in temperature since then is about similar, thus solar/temperature is good for 6 ppmv of the 100 ppmv increase since 1850…
Something similar can be seen in the 600 years d13C record in air and ocean surface: near flat until 1850, with a slight variation around the Maunder Minimum, and a steep decline thereafter, faster and faster with increasing emissions. See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
So what do you think that is the cause of the increase of CO2?
Smokey (09:12:16) :
foinavon:
The steady rise in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial age correlates rather well with our emissions solar irradiance.
There. Fixed it for you.
Even Judith Lean herself (the author of the data you cite) no longer regards that data as being reliable and has subsequently published rather different results. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/429689
“The increase in cycle‐averaged TSI since the Maunder minimum is estimated to be 1 W m−2.”
I’m sure that Leif will give you a source for more appropriate TSI data.
As Freeman Dyson repeatedly points out, microscopic biological activity has an enormous effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. Now it appears that biological activity in the oceans has a huge effect, too: click
And why wouldn’t microbiological activity in the oceans have a big effect on the atmosphere? There are more than a billion organisms in every square meter of the ocean’s surface in the top one meter alone. They are constantly taking in CO2 to build their shells, and the algae are emitting O2 as a waste product.
The ocean is alive, and it produces far, far more carbon dioxide than all human activity combined. Even the annual variation of ocean-produced CO2 is greater than the amount produced by humans.
[Fascinating article… but disregard the last sentence in the last paragraph. The author is clearly grant trolling.]
“I have the impression that you don’t see the forest by the trees”
No, Ferdinand, I am most definitely a forest person. Dr. S. is a trees person. I am at a loss to make you out, however, perhaps a leaf person?
For those musing galactic influences, Science News 1/31/09 had an article regarding the mass of the Milky Way has been re-estimated to be 50% greater, from observations that put the spin rate ~15% greater than previously estimated. In poking around the web looking at related stuff, I found that NASA has redefined the layout of our galaxy from four major arms, to two major arms and two minor arms. Rotational rate may affect climatic timing (my supposition). Also the minor arms are mostly new stars, the major, a mix of old and new stars. This could affect the timing/density of extra-solar-system radiation getting to us when the solar wind is at a minimum (my supposition). The online link to the article is: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/39709/title/This_just_in_Milky_Way_as_massive_as_3_trillion_suns
Old galaxy pic from MIT: http://i41.tinypic.com/6glqn5.jpg
New galaxy pic from NASA: http://i42.tinypic.com/24c9ybo.jpg
@Leif
– You said that 20.000 years of zero solar activity would result in 0,05 temperature decrease.
How much of the maunder minimum do you expect that the low solar activity led to? Just roughly of course.
K.R Frank
Ferdinand Engelbeen (10:02:38) :
So what do you think that is the cause of the increase of CO2?
Guessing:
I cannot check your numbers of how much CO2 is coming from the heating oceans.
You are using what data to make the claim about MWP and LIA?
I presume one would use the chemical solubility versus temperature to get a lower bound?? I am surprised, as just the yearly variations at Mauna Loa are of such an order of magnitude. Maybe the proxies are off.
This small number would ignore the biological activity that increases with temperature .
What about the 800 year CO2 delay from the MWP? Maybe we are getting that, as somebody has observed here, which may be the reason you do not see much increase between MWP and LIA. CO2 from MWP started coming last century. Presumably then our next LIA and our present peak will have an equally small difference.
George E. Smith (16:32:30) :
Is the magnetic field not just the effect of a rotating mass of plasma.
Ken Schatten has more in a very recent paper:
http://www.leif.org/research/Modeling%20a%20Shallow%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf
In looking at the glaciated and not time periods, and considering the minimum sealevel around maximum glaciation times, I wonder: What is the effect on vulcanism especially in and around the oceans between minimum sealevel and adding the weight of 350-400 feet of water onto the crust. I come up with about 5.8 X 10^8 Kg/m^2 (Using fresh water at 1gm/cm^3, seawater is heavier). Is sublimation greater or less at plate boundries? Is there a shift in heat released from volcanos and seamounts? What about the hot water vents?
Shifting to modern day perspectives, what is the effect on the El Nino/La Nina conoditions? Looking at the water temperature flow in time series of El Nino development and undersea hot spots, those waters flow east to west over a midocean volcanic ridge and seem to rise in an area surounded by hotspots. Does this affect the water temperature?