Basic Geology Part 2 – CO2 in the Atmosphere and Ocean

Guest Post by Steven Goddard part 1 is here
Ice cores clearly demonstrate the close relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, as seen below.
https://i1.wp.com/www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif
This relationship has been well understood by geologists for longer than Al Gore has been alive.
As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater declines.  Thus increasing ocean temperature moves CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, and decreasing ocean temperatures move CO2 out of the atmosphere and back into the ocean.  As you can see in the graph below, a 10C shift in temperature causes about 30% reduction in dissolved CO2.  Closely corresponding to what we see in the measured ice core graph above.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/co2_solubility_h2o.jpg

Ice ages are driven by orbital cycles of the earth, and as ocean temperatures change, atmospheric CO2 levels respond – in accordance with the laws of chemistry.  The relationships are uncontroversial.

Unfortunately, some educators besides Al Gore have taken liberties with the ice core data.  Children’s global warming author Laurie David published the incorrect graph below, which shows that CO2 levels changed prior to the temperature levels.  The graph misleads children into believing that ice ages are driven by changing CO2 levels, rather than the other way around.  It is difficult to understand how this error could have happened accidentally.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/other/graph1.gif

This week is National Engineering Week in the US, when elementary school children are encouraged to learn math and science.  Don’t they deserve and need accurate information? Are Laurie David’s book and Al Gore’s movie acceptable in a science classroom?
Whether or not you believe that the burning of fossil fuels significantly affects the earth’s temperature, the ice core data offers no evidence to support that – no matter how big the graph is.
Advertisements

143 thoughts on “Basic Geology Part 2 – CO2 in the Atmosphere and Ocean

  1. Well, Steven… Didn’t Larry David leave Laurie and when he came home, alone,
    he switched all the lamps with old bulbs on … and hence warming this poor planet even
    more….[from another “Steven”…]

  2. Typo in the article. This sentence :

    As you can see in the graph below, a 10C shift in temperature causes about 30% reduction in atmospheric CO2.

    should read:

    As you can see in the graph below, a 10C shift in temperature causes about 30% reduction in dissolved CO2.

  3. I had to laugh when I saw in a review that David’s book claims that hungry polar bears have been spotted in “Halifax” (the city in Nova Scotia where I live) and “Ontario, Canada” (a province which extends north to Hudson Bay and would therefore be part of the polar bear’s normal range) scrounging through garbage cans.

    Halifax is south of 45 and we do not ever see polar bears. 8-]

  4. Soon there won’t be any ice cores to study. I expect Polar sea ice to diminish somewhat because of the increased ocean current velocities, but the recent Antarctic chart from NSIDC is troubling. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    When comparing today’s ocean temperatures around Antarctica now with earlier years in the archives at Unisys Weather I don’t see justification for the present graph. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html .

  5. It’s always nice to see how a graph and a relative small text make a rock solid case.

    I am afraid that that an exhaustive repeat of known doctrines and endless recitals of crooked IPCC reports will haunt this posting for the remainder of the day.

    I could even mention the names of the posters who will pull every trick in the book to convince us that CO2 emission have to be cut in order to prevent the greatest disaster in history but… who am I to intervene in the quest for “discussion” to prevent the AGW science from being “settled”.

    I rather prefer the numerous honest and intelligent discussions about untainted climate science that promote factual knowledge and provide useful insights about the real climate drivers and how they are inter linked. The real WUWT.

  6. Besides, don’t you know that Laurie David is a scientist and understands climate science better than us shills? How dare you doubt the Gospel of the Goracle and the Green Gods!

  7. I blogged on a similar issue recently …

    I have borrowed this issue and parts of the story from Joseph D’Aleo and his website ICECAP. I feel the matter is important enough that it needs to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible. I do not intend to steal ICECAPS thunder….. Please visit his site ICECAP to read the full details / full story.

    Books and videos for the ‘teach in’…… read mental conditioning and brainwashing session.

    On video: Jon Isham and Eban Goodstein talk about their recent books on building the global warming solutions movement– Fighting for Love in the Century of Extinction (Goodstein) and Ignition (Isham and Waage)

    Gary Braasch’s Earth Under Fire

    Gary and Lynne Cherry’s How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming,

    Laurie David’s Down to Earth Guide

    Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendrick’s Apollo’s Fire and Fight Global Warming Now from Step it Up.

    HERE is a LINK to the PDF for the program.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/National_teach-in.pdf

    As the note on ICECAP says:
    Icecap Note: this is another attempt to present a biased, flawed and failing story on global warming to brainwash young America AND influence congress in order to try and accomplish alarmist goals.

  8. The author mentions a 10C degree shift in ocean temperatures. Is he referring to the temperature gradient of the oceans between the tropics and the poles? Or is the temperature difference occuring between the ice ages and today’s climate?

  9. Religious and political indoctrination of children is not new. It has proven over time to be very successful. It is therefore not at all surprising to find the same strategy adopted by the foremost political and religious movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries – environmentalism.

    If Nazism, Communism and the religious isms of the 60’s and 70’s are to to be used as yard sticks of the sticking power of childhood indoctrination, we will likely see the lingering effects for several generations – long after the climate/CO2 connection is fully, and publicly, debunked.

    Then again, maybe it is my own indoctrination in logical thinking, science and technology from the 50’s and 60’s that is clouding my ability to accept the reality of the new truth.

  10. Recently we started a home fish aquarium and this fact, solubility of a gas in water, is something that I’ve run across in making sure the fish have adequate dissolved oxygen levels. As I studied the temperature and dissolved CO/O levels possible it became painfully obvious and CRYSTAL clear that increased CO levels in the atmosphere are BECAUSE of higher temperatures and not the cause… Warmer temperature water simply cannot hold as much dissolved oxygen or carbon dioxide. It’s unfortunate that so many have manipulated information (and taken advantage of public scientific ignorance) to mislead the general public for their own purposes.

    Thanks for the excellent article!

  11. If there are polar bears in Halifax, they would be at the zoo. I definitely saw two of them in Vancouver, BC (also at a zoo).

  12. Fresh from ICECAP.US

    Feb 20, 2009
    Satellite Data Show No Warming Before 1997. Changes Since Not Related to CO2
    By Arno Arrak

  13. A simple explanation: For some reason Lurie David has allowed time to go right to left (we all know that it always moves right, don’t we?). But she has not changed the diagram, thus reversing the causality. Or?

    Gösta Oscarsson
    Stockholm

  14. Mike Campbell Wrote:

    “I had to laugh when I saw in a review that David’s book claims that hungry polar bears have been spotted in “Halifax” (the city in Nova Scotia where I live) and “Ontario, Canada…”

    Mike had you seen this:

  15. Regarding the Laurie David graph, you state “It is difficult to understand how this error could have happened accidentally.” Laurie David has stated that it was an accidental mislabelling of the graph which will be corrected:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/the-childrens-book-that-_b_64998.html?page=2&show_comment_id=9940902#comment_9940902

    I agree that it was a bad error which should have been picked up before publication, but actually find it easy to understand that such an error could happen accidentally. Sloppy work, but not evidence of deliberate misrepresentation.

    I ckecked out the site from which you got the image, SPPI, and find them recommending for children the book “”The Sky’s NOT Falling” by Holly Fretwell –

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_ewire_10_11_2007/should_laurie_david_s_new_kids_book_be_renamed_an_inconvenient_error_.html

    In this book Fretwell states (p.34):

    “Most of the two largest ice sheets today, in Antarctica and Greenland, flow over the ocean and are already below sea level. If they were to melt, sea level would not rise very much.”

    – now that is indeed an example of extraordinary disinformation that it is very difficult to understand being the result of accident.

    Do you think Fretwell’s book is acceptable in a science classroom? Will you be drawing attention to its errors as you have drawn attention to David’s mislabelled graph?

  16. I might add that anyone who has ever opened a warm beer is aware of the fact that CO2 solubility decreases with temperature.

  17. I have previously posted this graph here which seems particularly relevant in view of this thread. It covers Hadley CET to 1660 and historic co2 measurements taken from the work of Ernst Beck. The blue line along the bottom is man made co2.

    http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/man_vs_nature.xls

    The UK has a relatively low mean average temp (on left hand side) It varies betwen around 7C during the little ice age depths up to around 10.5C today. Most of the co2 action takes place between 270 and 400ppm (with a few outliers)

    The Uk sea temperature varies from around 8C in mid winter to around 18C in high summer although obviously this depends on depth and location. Now the atmospheric co2 and co2 dissolved in sea water is not a direct correlation but surely the considerable peaks and troughs Beck recorded worldwide since 1820 (greater than Mauna Loa since 1958 in a constantly outgassing Pacfic ocean) become more credible if the formula Steve gives is correct?

    TonyB

  18. RH (08:42:42) :

    “Soon there won’t be any ice cores to study.”

    Just when is soon, tomorrow, next month, next year? I thought the Vostoc ice cores record about 450,000 years of history, with thousands of years where the earth was warmer than it is now or will be in the next century (even in the most alarmist “models”), and you are telling me they will now suddenly disappear?

  19. On thefull size graphic Steven links to

    each pixel equates to around 570 years.
    Just thought it might help people visualize the timescales involved.

  20. RH (08:42:42) :

    “Soon there won’t be any ice cores to study. I expect Polar sea ice to diminish somewhat because of the increased ocean current velocities, but the recent Antarctic chart from NSIDC is troubling. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    When comparing today’s ocean temperatures around Antarctica now with earlier years in the archives at Unisys Weather I don’t see justification for the present graph. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html.”

    RH,

    I am sorry to disagree with you but we will be in ice over our ears.
    Your statement under the current conditions that show a massive increase in Ice volume at both of the pole’s can only be qualified as pure alarmist at the least.
    Just take a look at the sat images and you know you’re wrong, very wrong.

    And for your claims of the near future?
    You will not live the day to see either of the Pole’s without ice.

  21. Whatever Laurie David’s explanation is, the use of the graph by Al Gore and herself is misleading, because the graph tells us nothing about how recent increases in CO2 will affect temperature. If they understood that, Al wouldn’t have stood on a ladder next to a 20 foot high graph of the Vostok data.

  22. Steven Goddard
    I was being sarcastic. I want to know what is happening to the NSIDC Antarctic ice chart. I don’t believe the chart is factual.

  23. RH (08:42:42) :

    Soon there won’t be any ice cores to study. I expect Polar sea ice to diminish somewhat because of the increased ocean current velocities, ….

    Ice cores are taken over land, especially in Greenland and Antarctica. North Polar ice moves around and drains from the Arctic Ocean and so is way too young for building up a good history. Cores are take where there is deep ice cover, whcih implies high altitude, which implies little if amy melting. (And they are taken at sites with little if any melting to get a complete record.)

    —-

    “Error” in Steven’s text:

    “some educators besides Al Gore:” Al Gore is a politician, not an educator. Sheesh. We finally get Steven to realize that Al isn’t a scientist and now this. :-)

  24. Without knowing the answer, will the solubility of carbon dioxide in water at a given temperature be significantly affected by a doubling or trebling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or is the kinetics of the process not significantly affected by that?

    And how about a ten-fold increase?

  25. Ric,

    Al Gore is an educator. His movie is shown in schools throughout the world. He is also a Nobel prize winner and inventor of the Internet. His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.

    While Vice-President, Al Gore also worked hard to make sure that all private encryption keys were available to the US government, so that the US government could spy on all Internet activity.

  26. Steven Goddard
    Thanks for the info on the satellite. I had noticed though that corrections were made to the Arctic graph after it took a dive. I wonder why NSIDC can’t make similar adjustments to the Antarctic graph, or just remove it from the website.

  27. the graph tells us nothing about how recent increases in CO2 will affect temperature

    ‘Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR. What’s going to happen when more IR is absorbed? The graph (when correctly labelled!) is an indication of the extent of temperature change in response to small initial changes in solar forcing, with CO2 change showing as a feedback. Whether or not you accept the basic physics of IR absorption is, of course, up to you.

    Can I take it that you’re not bothered by Fretwell’s statement that the melting of the ice sheets would not raise sea level? That’s ok for telling to children?

  28. RH,

    Apparently that aren’t aware of it because Anthony hasn’t blogged specifically about the Antarctica image.

    OK, sarcasm off.

    Assuming the sharp linear drop is due to the same issues identified for their Arctic graph, there is no excuse for NSIDC to be having this image still available on the web. I’m reluctant to speculate about the efforts NSIDC are undertaking to fix the data and its online presentation to the public but the fact that this image is still there does not reflect well upon those efforts.

  29. OT, but related to Antarctic temperatures: AGW supporters make a big deal about their fear that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will break off due to rising temperatures and will slide into the oceans, “drowning” tens of millions of people (or at least their home countries).

    Now, I know that ice can exist in several forms, depending on temperature & pressure conditions. Are the high pressure conditions at the bottom of the Antarctic Ice Sheet sufficient to create ice six or ice seven, which melt at much much higher temperatures that 0 C?

    Phase Diagram, etc
    http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/jupiter/images/Ice_phase_diagram_b_gif_image.html

    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ice_vii.html

  30. Steven Goddard (10:09:04) :

    Ric,

    Al Gore is an educator. His movie is shown in schools throughout the world. He is also a Nobel prize winner and inventor of the Internet. His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.

    While Vice-President, Al Gore also worked hard to make sure that all private encryption keys were available to the US government, so that the US government could spy on all Internet activity.

  31. Steven Goddard (10:09:04) :

    > His scientific reputation is so distinguished that he is allowed to make keynote speeches at AAAS meetings, and before Congress.

    (and other impressive list of accomplishments omitted.)

    Ah yes, guess I had a brain hiccup there. It won’t happen again. In fact, I feel inspired to sit at his feet and learn how to design an energy efficient home.I shall gaze upon him as I would an all-knowing Big Brother. :-)

  32. I am ashamed to say that I have never looked at science texts used in my son’s school. He is in third grade at a fairly conservative private school so I have never thought it would be a problem.

    I wonder, if a kid goes to a school that teaches climate alarmism, what standard is applied to their laboratory reports. Do they still need to write them up so as to be reproducible or are they peer reviewed.

    This whole matter, CAGW alarmism and the influence of politics on science will be an interesting study in years to come.

  33. Ric,
    I thought god Gore is supposed to be worshipped and receive tithes and offerings. How else will he continue his carboniferous life style that you, of course, must sacrifice for his maintenance.

  34. So where does the ‘acidification’ of the oceans come from?

    Are the oceans actually becoming more acidic through absorbing CO2? A warming ocean should become less acidic, of course, because it’s losing dissolved CO2.

    The oceans haven’t been warming lately, of course. But I’m trying to understand if ocean acidification is another AGW ocean myth or is it based on actual, recorded measurement? It seems contradictory to basic science shown in the post.

  35. Notwithstanding my strong belief that the ocean is a huge and wonderful buffer for CO2, I must note that the ocean was not 10C colder during the ice ages; the average temperature today is closer to 3C.

  36. “Error” in Steven’s text:

    “some educators besides Al Gore:” Al Gore is a politician, not an educator. Sheesh. We finally get Steven to realize that Al isn’t a scientist and now this. :-)

    I seem to recall Al being made a professor at Columbia in 2001. (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/01/gore.html)

    That does qualify him as an educator, does it not? I’m a part-time professor at the local community college, so I’m equally qualified for that title, BTW. (Shudder)

  37. Simon Evans

    To comfort you I can certainly say I would be even less likely to use Fretwell’s book than Laurie David’s. My goal would be to teach science not junk from either side.

    Saddly because of political correctness and funding issues the pro AGW junk is very abundant in the actual school systems.

    Fretwell should have said that melting of ice that is already floating like in the arctic ocean will not raise sea level. His statement as quoted is a worse error than the one cited in the original article.

  38. Not sure if someone has an answer to this Q… ?

    Many alarmists are claiming that increased CO2 will cause acidification of the oceans and dissolve coral reefs. The basis of their claim is related to increased carbonic acid caused by more dissolved CO2 in the oceans.

    My point here is that if the oceans release CO2 as they warm then how can levels of carbonic acid rise ? Would we expect to see increased ph levels and not reduced under our cuerrent scenario ?

  39. John Galt (12:19:17) :

    So where does the ‘acidification’ of the oceans come from?

    Are the oceans actually becoming more acidic through absorbing CO2? A warming ocean should become less acidic, of course, because it’s losing dissolved CO2.

    The oceans haven’t been warming lately, of course. But I’m trying to understand if ocean acidification is another AGW ocean myth or is it based on actual, recorded measurement? It seems contradictory to basic science shown in the post.

    Well, that’s one of the problems with the “basic science shown in the post”. If the ocean is saturated then warming it would net release CO2, but if it is not, as remains the case, then increasing atmospheric CO2 will still be buffered by ocean uptake even though it has warmed over the same period of increase. Soon enough the ocean’s capacity to buffer will be used up and further warming would lead to net outgassing.

    The issue of ocean acidification arises from the pace of CO2 uptake, such that pH declines before the carbonate buffer can balance it (which eventually it would do, but after thousands of years). However, that’s been extensively discussed on another thread, and I’m sure S.G. continues to think that ocean mixing to depth is effectively immediate. Yes, acidification is based on “actual, recorded measurement”, IMV though not in SG’s, but again I’d best refer you to discussion of that here (all 701 comments of it!):

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/

  40. Re: Bob Shapiro (11:10:30) :

    In a word, no, though the pressure is high enough to cause basal melting under parts of the icecap.

  41. Simon Evans,

    Can you name one school where Fretwell’s book is used?
    Can you name one school which hasn’t shown Al Gore’s Sci-Fi flick?

    The point of this article is not to debate global warming, but rather to demonstrate that the widely used Vostok data adds little or no value to the discussion.

  42. Regarding the 10C temperature decline during the ice ages, they are only talking about surface temperatures or temps on the top of the glaciers.

    The polar ocean cannot get 10C colder.

    It is already -2C to 3C and it would have to freeze right to the bottom to get 10C colder. In which case, I don’t think we would call it ocean anymore.

    It is a little strange but liquid ocean temps during the ice ages could not have been much colder than they are now without turning into sea ice.

    Maybe the surface was frozen far from the poles and was thicker than now, but underneath, the ocean temps didn’t decline very much, maybe 1C at most.

  43. Ozzie John (12:56:50) : “Not sure if someone has an answer to this Q… ?”
    You are right: So they are really saying: temperatures are decreasing, dissolved CO2 increasing and pH decreasing…but, in any case, CO2 won´t decrease pH lower than 6,8

  44. In response to some of the comments here…

    A breakdown of our planet’s total store of ice: click
    [scroll down]

    And whatever happened to the “acid rain” threat? click

    Finally, China does not seem worried about pollution: clicky

  45. Simon Evans (10:28:50) : says

    “Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR…….”

  46. Steven Goddard:

    Children’s global warming author Laurie David published the incorrect graph below, which shows that CO2 levels changed prior to the temperature levels. [click] The graph misleads children into believing that ice ages are driven by changing CO2 levels, rather than the other way around. It is difficult to understand how this error could have happened accidentally.

    Interesting. It appears that Laurie David altered the chart — which was produced by the same organization that produced this chart: click

  47. Sorry about that, I accidentally sent the post before finishing it.

    Simon Evans (10:28:50) said:

    ‘Basic Physics’ tells us that increased CO2 will absorb more IR. Your ‘Basic Geology’ argument tells us that increasing ocean temperatures will lead to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (it’s not quite as simple as that, of course, since you’ve ignored the potential of changes in the biological pump). That increased CO2 will, of course, absorb more IR…..”

    Simon Evans “basic physics” is so basic that he neglected to mention that the absorption characteristic of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear, it is logarithmic. The major effect in infrared absorption is in the first 100 ppm of CO2. As the concentration rises above this amount, the absorption becomes less and less. In other words, at present concentrations, CO2 is a spent force in climate variability. Only by invoking positive feedback of dubious provenance can AGW be made into a scary scenario.

  48. Steven Goddard (13:28:18) :

    Can you name one school where Fretwell’s book is used?

    I’ve no idea – have you? So, if it’s not to your knowledge being “used” in a school you don’t feel the need to agree that a book aimed at 9 -12 year olds, and promoted by the site which you got your Laurie David graph from, contains appalling misrepresentations of the truth? Ok, fine. I thought your article was expressing concern about misleading children – silly me.

    The point of this article is not to debate global warming, but rather to demonstrate that the widely used Vostok data adds little or no value to the discussion.

    Care to respond to my points about basic physics, Steven? Do you think that increased CO2 absorbs more IR or do you not? It’s a straight question – would you like to give a straight answer?

  49. To clarify, I was referring to glacial/interglacial phases pf Ice Ages, which is what I believe Stephen Goddard was referring to.

    Ice Ages proper, which last tens of millions of years are likely caused by the position of the continents.

    The problem with the orgital cycles explanation of glacials/interglacials is the ice core record shows a change from a cycle length of about 40,000 years to 100,000 years, while there has been no such change in orbital cycles.

    It’s fair to say, we don’t know what causes glacial/interglacials and its one of the big mysteries in our climate..

  50. One need to be prudent with the solubility graph of CO2 in water, as the graph presented is for pure water, not for seawater. The solubility of CO2 in seawater is quite different, and includes a lot of reactions, as result of total salt content, pH, bi/carbonate content, temperature and last but not least biological life.

    All together, while the solubility of CO2 in ocean water from poles to equator (under zero to 26°C) decreases with about a factor 4, biological life increases with about a factor 4. Not fully compensating for the decrease, but just warning that it is not a simple solubility calculation…
    See a lot more detailed information by Feely e.a. (including measured/estimated water-air exchange rates) at:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml

    Further, the ratio between (mainky SH ocean) temperature is about 8 ppmv/°C over the full 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core. The previous warm period (the Eemian) was about 2°C warmer than this period, and the CO2 levels were around 300 ppmv. Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 levels were about 280 ppmv, with a dip of about 6 ppmv from the MWP to the LIA (-0.8°C, thus again about 8 ppmv/°C). The conclusion thus is that the recent 100 ppmv increase is NOT from warming oceans (maximum 6 ppmv caused by warming of the oceans since the LIA), but from the use of fossil fuels.

    There are many more reasons why humans are quite sure to blame for the increase in the atmosphere (not the same as to blame for GW, a complete different topic). That includes the measured increase of CO2 in the oceans, the decrease in pH of the oceans, the decrease of d13C in atmosphere and oceans (which excludes the oceans as main source), the deficiency in oxygen use, which excludes the biosphere as main source and last but not least the mass balance: We emit twice as much CO2 as what is found in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by nature as a whole, which by definition of non-destruction of mass excludes nature as source of the increase…

    As a teaser, have a look at the collection of CO2 levels in ice cores:

    Compare the timing (including the Maunder Minimum and the trend since the start of the industrial revolution) to the d13C levels in coralline sponges (completely independent of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere):

    Further detailed information at:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

  51. I think Laurie David should curb his enthusiasm for scaring children with bodgy graphs. Or is this a different comedian? :)

  52. A few years ago, one of my daughter’s teachers was required to show Gore’s movie to the class. The teacher turned off the sound and switched the subtitles to Spanish because she said it was the only way she could ensure the kids learned at least *something* from watching the film. In many classes, the kids have been required to see the movie so many times that the teachers simply play the movies with no sound (or subtitles) and they continue to teach the class while the movie plays, ignored.

    This doesn’t mean skepticism abounds in the schools, not in the SF Bay Area anyway. My daughter is often the only skeptic in her classes, but the others are starting to listen. Anthony’s blog is helping, giving us better data and better ways to discuss climate.

    My daughter does wish Scientific American would publish a realistic article about things like, say, how the aging sensors on satellites are requiring agencies to write compensatory algorithms in order to find *some* value in the inaccurate data, the whole bit about accuracy and consistency and trends, or how scientists measure temperatures of ice, volcanoes, the troposphere, the sea, etc. If I could write articles about these things, I would. As is, I’m only qualified to write about textiles. What will be necessary to get Sci Am, for instance, to publish an article about one of the topics Anthony’s been covering here?

  53. Robert Austin (14:28:22) :

    “Simon Evans “basic physics” is so basic that he neglected to mention that the absorption characteristic of CO2 in the atmosphere is not linear, it is logarithmic. The major effect in infrared absorption is in the first 100 ppm of CO2. As the concentration rises above this amount, the absorption becomes less and less. In other words, at present concentrations, CO2 is a spent force in climate variability. “

    I am perfectly well aware of the logarithmic response, Robert. Roughly speaking (and it is rough, since at much lower levels of concentration the response is closer to linear, as is currently the case for other trace GHGs), each further doubling of CO2 will have the same forcing effect as the previous doubling. You may note that the variation in CO2 during the glacial cycles was in the region of a 66% increase from minimum to maximum, as indicated by Vostok cores. Do you think this would have had a warming effect or do you not? Your notion that CO2 is a ‘spent force’ because the response is logarithmic is curious – what do you think the effect of a further doubling would be in comparison to the last doubling?

    Smokey (14:17:19) :

    Interesting. It appears that Laurie David altered the chart — which was produced by the same organization that produced this chart

    SPPI has the LD chart in its cache in association with their critique of the LD book here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/childrensbookerror.html

    They did not originate the chart – they have copied it from the LD book to make their criticisms.

  54. Simon Evans (14:37:01):

    The feedback of CO2 on temperature has a physical base, but the absorption lines cause not more than 0.86°C temperature increase for 2xCO2, with water feedback that increases to 1.3°C temperature increase, all theoretical. The rest of the forcings/feedbacks as currently incorporated in GCM’s is rather questionable in magnitude and even in sign (clouds, aserosols,…)

    For a 30% change in CO2 level during the glacial – interglacial transitions and back that means about 0.5°C “proven help” from CO2 for an about 10°C increase/decrease in temperature, not very huge (and much less than the 40% from Hansen’s estimates). More important, there is not the slightest influence from a CO2 feedback on temperature visible, not even in the most detailed ice cores, see Epica Dome C:

    With thanks to Andre van den Berg who provided the graph…

  55. Most of the two largest ice sheets today, in Antarctica and Greenland, flow over the ocean and are already below sea level. If they were to melt, sea level would not rise very much.”

    – now that is indeed an example of extraordinary disinformation that it is very difficult to understand being the result of accident.

    Simon Evans,

    The Antarctic ice sheet is indeed mostly over the ocean. We have recently discovered through radar images that Antarctica is not the contiguous continent we thought it was and most of the Antarctic ice sheet rests on the ocean. See link below.

    So the claims of x meters rise in sea level if the Antarctic were to melt (which of course it won’t) should be revised down by around 50% on the basis of this new evidence.

    What is disturbing is the way AGW advocates ignore new scientific discoveries and cling to their outdated and now disproved dogma.

  56. Ferdinand,

    No one is disputing that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are caused by man. That discussion is irrelevant to this article.

    Do you have any links to raw data showing that ocean pH is decreasing? Note that I asked for raw data, not interpretation.

  57. Looking at the Atmospheric CO2 and temperature trend graphs it would be easy to conclude that the oceans are always at CO2 saturation and simply in-gas or out-gas as temperature rises and falls. This is what we see in both historical proxy data and currently observed data. Even seasonal variations are tracked accurately.

    Is it possible that the decreased ph of the oceans has another driver ?
    Our current observations would make this a likely scenario !

  58. Ferdinand Englebeen makes a good point.

    The oceans floors are generating limestone, etc. through sedimentation of biological organism skeletons, made up of CaCO3. This is where a lot of CO2 goes to.

    And, unless we paved the whole planet in several hundred feet of cement, we will never get to release most of the CO2 that was originally around and is now holed up in the limestones and chalks, etc.

  59. Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:55:47)

    As a teaser, have a look at the collection of CO2 levels in ice cores:

    Beautiful graph but a little dramatic with the y axis not starting at zero. It is also interesting that the “hockey stick” blade starts at about 1800, not post WW2 when it is deemed that the CO2 emissions are to have skyrocketed. I am not defending Jaworowski, but how sure can we be that ice cores perfectly preserve ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Without independent scientific confirmation from other proxies, should we place 100% faith in ice core reconstructions?
    Nevertheless, thank you for your most stimulating posts.

  60. Philip_B (14:44:01) :

    Ice Ages proper, which last tens of millions of years are likely caused by the position of the continents.

    The problem with the orgital cycles explanation of glacials/interglacials is the ice core record shows a change from a cycle length of about 40,000 years to 100,000 years, while there has been no such change in orbital cycles.

    It’s fair to say, we don’t know what causes glacial/interglacials and its one of the big mysteries in our climate..

    There’s no doubt that the positioning of a landmass over the South pole and significant land mass in the Arctic are important for glaciation.

    Hower the Milankovitch cycles account very well for the glacial-interglacial oscillations within the glacial period of the last million-ish years. There are actually three cycles [~100,000 year (eccentricity), 41,000 year (obliquity) and 23,000 year (precession)], and since these are out of phase, the pattern of inslation variation is quite complex.

    However if one takes the parameters of delta-temperature or delta 18O from the Vostock or Dome Fuji cores and Fourier transforms these with respect to time, strong peaks at frequencies at 111 kyr, 41 kyr and 23 kyr stand out pretty clearly in the power spectrum[***]. So the changes in frequencies in the glacial cycles may relate to the dominance of eccentricity in more recent periods compared to earlier periods where the obliquity cycle dominated….I’m not sure whether that “switch” of dominance is well understood or not…

    [***]e.g. see Figure 3 of: Kawamura et al (2007) “Northern hemisphere forcing of climate cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years” Nature 448, 912-919

  61. RE: CO2 levels in ice cores:

    As Robert Austin points out, most of the CO2 rise pre-dates the increase of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels post WW2.

    Which says to me that the CO2 levels in ice cores is an artifact of recent ice layers (ie, the last 200 years of ice cores give misleading data on atmospheric CO2). The other possibility is a changes is agricultural practices since the early 1800s.

    Anyway, burning fossil fuels cannot possibly be the cause of most of the (apparent) CO2 rise found in the ice cores, because most of the CO2 rise pre-dates the fossil fuel burning.

  62. Philip_B (15:24:11),

    Thanks for that interesting link! In one click, you have reduced the alarmist contingent’s [bogus] scare over catastrophic sea level rise by half.

    Of course, the AGW/CO2 scaremongers don’t realize this information cuts them off at the knees. To them, it’s still only a scratch: click

  63. Philip_B (15:24:11) :

    The Antarctic ice sheet is indeed mostly over the ocean. We have recently discovered through radar images that Antarctica is not the contiguous continent we thought it was and most of the Antarctic ice sheet rests on the ocean. See link below.

    So the claims of x meters rise in sea level if the Antarctic were to melt (which of course it won’t) should be revised down by around 50% on the basis of this new evidence.

    What is disturbing is the way AGW advocates ignore new scientific discoveries and cling to their outdated and now disproved dogma.

    Philip, there’s nothing revelatory about the fact of Antarctic bedrock being below sea level – especially the WAIS. This is a cause for concern, not complacency! It does not mean that the ice sheet – – which averages about a mile thick – is displacing its weight in water. It is supported by the bed-rock, whether below sea level or not, and not supported by the ocean. Please imagine a bridge whose weight is supported by the foundations below the water level, and not by the water itself. It’s uncontroversial that if the ice sheet were to melt the land beneath would rise, being relieved of the weight.

    Whichever way you think about it, we have good knowledge of sea levels when there were no ice sheets. Unless you think the water has disappeared somewhere else then such levels can broadly be anticipated if the ice sheets were to melt (which I don’t happen to think they’re about to do any time soon).

    But I’m conscious of posting too much on this thread, so shall say cheerio. All the best :-)

  64. If you will compare the Atmospheric CO2 numbers from here:

    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

    You will see a very definite correlation between temperature, and the amount of CO2 retained in (gassed into?) the Atmosphere. The biggest example is 1998 vs 1999, and 2000. The most recent example is “right now.” CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere at about a 1.60 ppm/yr rate, down from the approx 2.00 ppm/yr rate it was running at prior to 2008.

  65. Philip_B (16:49:58) :

    RE: CO2 levels in ice cores:

    As Robert Austin points out, most of the CO2 rise pre-dates the increase of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels post WW2.

    Not really. Most of the rise in atmospheric CO2 post-dates the post-war industrialisation, especially the period from the early-mid 60’s.

    so in 1800 [CO2] was near 284 ppm (the medieval levels were in the range 275-282 ppm)

    in 1900 it was near 299 ppm
    in 1940 it was near 308 ppm
    in 1960 it was around 319 ppm
    it’s around 385 ppm now.

    so in the 800-ish years to 1800 [CO2] levels rose by a few ppm nett.
    1800 to 1900 gave us around 15 ppm altogether (about 20 ppm cumulative)
    1900 to 1940 gave us around 9 ppm altogether (around 30 ppm cumulative)
    1940 til now gave us around 77 ppm (107 ppm cumulative)

    Data are from:

    D. M. Etheridge et al (1996) “Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn J. Geophys Res. 101, 4115 -4128.

    and direct measurement from the Mauna Loa station from 1959

    Column 1 is the year, column 2 is the [CO2] in parts per million, and column 3 is the yearly increment in the period from 1959. Ice core data from Etheridge (up to 1959) from a series of Antarctic (Law Dome) cores.

    1006.0000 279.4000
    1046.0000 280.3000
    1096.0000 282.4000
    1146.0000 283.8000
    1196.0000 283.9000
    1246.0000 281.7000
    1327.0000 283.4000
    1446.0000 281.7000
    1499.0000 282.4000
    1547.0000 282.8000
    1589.0000 278.7000
    1604.0000 274.3000
    1647.0000 277.2000
    1679.0000 275.9000
    1720.0000 277.5000
    1760.0000 276.7000
    1796.0000 283.7000
    1825.0000 285.1000
    1845.0000 286.1000
    1861.0000 286.6000
    1877.0000 288.8000
    1882.0000 291.7000
    1891.0000 294.7000
    1899.0000 296.5000
    1905.0000 299.0000
    1912.0000 300.7000
    1926.0000 305.0000
    1936.0000 307.9000
    1948.0000 311.4000
    1954.0000 314.7000
    1959.0000 315.7000
    1959.0000 318.2000 0.9400
    1960.0000 319.2000 0.5000
    1961.0000 319.7000 0.9600
    1962.0000 320.7000 0.6500
    1963.0000 321.3000 0.7400
    1964.0000 322.0000 0.3000
    1965.0000 322.4000 1.0700
    1966.0000 323.4000 1.2600
    1967.0000 324.7000 0.6800
    1968.0000 325.4000 1.0400
    1969.0000 326.4000 1.3700
    1970.0000 327.8000 1.0000
    1971.0000 328.8000 0.7800
    1972.0000 329.6000 1.7900
    1973.0000 331.4000 1.1800
    1974.0000 332.5000 0.7600
    1975.0000 333.0000 1.0900
    1976.0000 334.0000 0.9000
    1977.0000 335.3000 2.0700
    1978.0000 337.4000 1.3400
    1979.0000 338.7000 1.6400
    1980.0000 340.0000 1.8400
    1981.0000 342.0000 1.4400
    1982.0000 343.6000 0.7100
    1983.0000 344.0000 2.1600
    1984.0000 346.4000 1.3500
    1985.0000 347.8000 1.2200
    1986.0000 349.0000 1.5100
    1987.0000 350.0000 2.3500
    1988.0000 352.8000 2.1100
    1989.0000 355.0000 1.2800
    1990.0000 356.2000 1.3100
    1991.0000 357.6000 0.9900
    1992.0000 358.5000 0.4500
    1993.0000 359.0000 1.3100
    1994.0000 360.3000 1.8900
    1995.0000 362.2000 2.0100
    1996.0000 364.2000 1.1900
    1997.0000 365.4000 1.9800
    1998.0000 367.4000 2.9500
    1999.0000 370.0000 0.9100
    2000.0000 371.2000 1.7800
    2001.0000 373.0000 1.6000
    2002.0000 374.6000 2.5500
    2003.0000 377.1600 2.3100
    2004.0000 379.5000 1.5400
    2005.0000 382.0000 2.53
    2006.0000 384.0000 2.00

  66. Steven Goddard there is an enormous literature on paleoclimate change which contradicts your simplistic assessment. Warming does not happen everywhere at the same time, and CO2 and temperature form a feedback not a simple cause and effect.

    This literature is also clear that the orbital and ice albedo feedbacks are far to small to explain the warming/cooling. Take a lookie at the lead lag correlations and you find they are positive with both CO2 leading and with temperature leading.

  67. Dear Anthony, Steven and Ferdinand,

    thanks for this blog as it gives me the opportunity to ask and old question ..
    First of all the solubility graph is not complete, as it assumes, that the partial pressure in the amtosphere does not change.
    My question is:
    Can we really exclude the oceans as major sources for the CO2?

    Ferdinand writes:
    “That includes the measured increase of CO2 in the oceans, the decrease in pH of the oceans, the decrease of d13C in atmosphere and oceans (which excludes the oceans as main source), the deficiency in oxygen use, which excludes the biosphere as main source and last but not least the mass balance: We emit twice as much CO2 as what is found in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by nature as a whole, which by definition of non-destruction of mass excludes nature as source of the increase…”
    My statement to that points would be (please correct me if I am wrong):
    – we could NOT measure an increase of the total CO2 in the oceans!
    (Also the pH-value of the ocean did not change due to human CO2! There is indication that it has changed for the near surface sea water, but that is a much smaller volume than the total seas!)
    Only a certain depletation of the C13-Isotope was shown, which only indicates, that the anthropogenic CO2 goes (not surprisingly) into the sea’
    Please give me a reference of the total ocean CO2-concentration before and after a human impact with error bars! How can you build a mass balance while the total amount of oceanic CO2 is rather unkown?
    – the C13-depletion is a result of the burning of fossil fuel, that does not indicate by any means, that the rise in CO2 is manmade.
    Would (as I wonder) the oceans be a main contributer for the atmosphere, the depletion would look the same.
    My question to you would be: Where were most of the athmospheric CO2-molecules 20 years ago? (With a exchange time constant of 5 years math tells you, that most (95%+) of these molecules come from the sea!)

    And:
    How would a otherwise unchagend ocean react to an sudden increase of athnospheric CO2 by 30%? It would absorb CO2 like crazy (actually the absorption should only be 3% higher than the desorption due to the Revelle factor), but we don’t seem see that . . could this fact alone mean, that the idea of a pure anthropogenic reason for the atmospheric CO2-rise is wrong?
    (As Steven writes is takes about 10K to increase the partial preassure of the sea suffitiently, we did not get there yet and still the sinks and sources for marine CO2 are almost balanced . . why?)
    If you rightly assume, that the near surfrace sea water has already risen to a higher CO2-level and is close to an equilibrium with the atmosphere, this only pushes the same question one level deeper:
    Why isn’t the anthropogenic CO2 simply dumped into the deep see?
    In 1957 Craig gave a time constant for this mechanism of 8 years, which should mean, that any rise of CO2 in the atmoshphere+upper sea water is simply washed out in a few decades ..
    Or in other words:

    The fact, that we see a slow rise in CO2, means that a process with a long time constant is at work and this should involve the deep ocean.
    (CO2 rise as a result of a medival warm period!?)

    So far no one tries to claim, that the human CO2 amount has any significant influence on this reservoir, but probably I misunderstood Ferdinand here.

    All the best,
    LoN

  68. whoops! The tabs seem to have been lost from the CO2 column data posted just above.

    for clarification the data:

    “1006.0000 279.4000”

    means that in 1006 AD, atmospheric CO2 in the Law Dome cores was 279.4 ppm

    and:

    “1959.0000 318.2000 0.9400”

    means that in 1959 atmospheric CO2 was 318.2 ppm and the annual increment was 0.94 ppm.

  69. >Anyway, burning fossil fuels cannot possibly be the cause of most of the (apparent) CO2 rise found in the ice cores, because most of the CO2 rise pre-dates the fossil fuel burning.

    No it does not. ADD you can’t see the anthropogenic CO2 rise in Vostok and similar cores anyway because it takes hundreds of years for bubbles to form because the place is a desert.

    Steven has also pulled a swifty – notice no in situ data is used for the temperatures in that graph…. The end of the temprerature graph should be vertical on that scale.

  70. This is an attempt to reconcile the following facts:

    1. The average residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is five years.
    2. The atmospheric CO2 level is therefore in effective equilibrium with the oceans, or part thereof.
    3. Atmospheric CO2 has gone up by 30% from the preindustrial level.
    4. The oceans as a whole have not gone up by 30% in terms of CO2 content.

    Following is the logic at arriving at the conclusion that the atmosphere is effectively in equilibrium with the top 100 metres of the ocean, on average:

    1. The oceans have a thermocline at an average depth of 400 metres, with an average temperature of 5 degrees below the thermocline down to an average depth of 3,800 metres and an average temperature of 14 degrees above the thermocline
    2. Of the 38,000 gt of carbon in the oceans, 9.7% is above the thermocline due to the lower solubility at the higher temperature. This amounts to 3,685 gt.
    3. The preindustrial atmosphere had 580 gt in it
    4. The ratio of above thermocline carbon to preindustrial atmospheric carbon is 6.35 to 1.
    5. Mankind has put 360 gt of carbon into the atmosphere, of which 60 gt went into biomass, 120 gt went into the oceans and 180 gt stayed in the atmosphere.
    6. At the same time, the oceans above 400 metres warmed by 0.7 degrees, resulting in the oceans wanting to emit 128 gt to the atmosphere due to the lower solubility. Effectively this carbon remained in the oceans due to maintenance of the partial pressure equilibrium with the atmosphere.
    7. But the atmospheric level rose 30%, which means that the part of the oceans that the atmosphere is in equilibrium with also had to rise 30%.
    1. To get an equivalent rise in the oceans of 30%, the atmosphere is effectively in equilibrium with the top 100 metres on average.

    Of course the real world is a lot more complex with carbonate buffering and changing depths to the thermocline with latitude. A lot can be read from this graphic:

    Note that the surface waters have a lower CO2 content than the bulk of the ocean, even though they have been in equilibrium with elevated atmospheric CO2 levels for the last 100 years. Bottom water is formed from cooling of surface water in the southern ocean. So how can bottom water have a higher CO2 content when it is being made from surface water with a lower CO2 content? The only answer is that the surface waters are being depleted of CO2 by the formation of organic matter which then descends into the bottom waters where it is oxidised to CO2. Raising the atmospheric CO2 level will speed up the biological pump in the surface waters that is raining organic matter into the ocean depths.

    What most people don’t realise is that the ocean bottoms are relentlessly oxidising. That is why deep ocean muds are red. If it was anaerobic, they would be black. I remember from my Exxon training that the oxygen minimum is at 400 metres, part way down the continental slope. It doesn’t mean that it is not oxidising at 400 metres. You have to have a reasonably rapid sedimentation rate to preserve organic carbon. It also means that the attempts to demonstrate oceanic sequestration of carbon dioxide by surface water fertilisation just amount to playing around in boats.

    If the world cools 2 degrees to 2030, as predicted by my solar analysis, then the top 100 metres will want to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere equivalent to the anthropogenic contribution over the same period. It will be like the CO2 dip associated with Pinatubo but for a lot longer.

    P.S. On that CDIAC site, you will find experiments in which they poisoned plant growth experiments with ozone so the results wouldn’t be positive. The things you have to do to keep your funding (no positive results from increased atmospheric CO2 are allowed).

  71. No it does not. ADD you can’t see the anthropogenic CO2 rise in Vostok and similar cores anyway because it takes hundreds of years for bubbles to form because the place is a desert.

    This study if valid raises some serious quesitons about the validity of extraction and analysis of trapped gas bubbles in ice cores.

    http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf

    It indicates the bubbles are sealed off as the snow level gets buried and then as the ice layer gets pressurized deep in the ice pack the bubbles entirely disappear. They only reform when the deep ice is “decompressed” as it is cored. The report indicates that there is considerable doubt about the assumption that the bubbles are truly sequestered from the environment and raises the question that there may be paths for gas exchange even in very cold ice due to absorption in very thin layers of liquid brine between the ice crystals.

    Makes you wonder if the old CO2 levels really are representative of the ancient atmosphere at all?

    Larry

  72. CO2 increased in the atmosphere 0.22 from Jun 92 to Jun 93. 1.19 from Jun 93 to Jun 94, then Exploded up 2.43 Jun 94 to Jun 95.

    That’s an awful lot of CO2 appearing, and disappearing awfully quickly.

  73. Kum Dollison (18:17:04)

    That’s an awful lot of CO2 appearing, and disappearing awfully quickly.

    Isn’t that similar to what scientists reported over the past couple of centuries? Beck et al. compiled information showing a big rise in CO2 in the 1940’s, and an even bigger rise in the early 1800’s.

    The claims that CO2 has remained flat at around 280 ppmv until recently should be viewed with well deserved skepticism.

  74. Smokey, I haven’t read anything here, or anywhere else, that I would be comfortable “investing” in (CO2-Wise.)

  75. “Steven Goddard (09:19:56) :

    I might add that anyone who has ever opened a warm beer is aware of the fact that CO2 solubility decreases with temperature.”

    I’d rather open a cold one, Bass Ale preferably (1777 was a good year), listen to some good music, have a nice time with friends, and forget about this global warming CRAP

  76. Makes me wonder about the CO2 that forms over the South Pole of Mars during it’s winter, then evaporates to reveal the Water Ice underneath.
    Why doesn’t the CO2 ice sink?
    And why isn’t there a bunch of C02 ice in with the water ice?
    Fizz.
    We should have gone on with the plans to visit Mars in the 80’s.
    None of this AGW crap would be stinking up the planet.
    All of science would have know better decades ago.

  77. Philip_B and Foinavon:

    In my earlier post was only addressing the graph linked by Ferdinand Engelbeen. Other constructions may show the historic CO2 record differently. Ferdinand Engelbeen’s graph shows a definite hockey stick shape with an abrupt and steep rise starting about 1800, albeit with an even steeper rise closer to modern times.

    It makes sense that man’s carbon dioxide emissions have increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration above what it would be without the consumption of fossil fuels. The additional CO2, even though it is only 3% to 5% of the natural flux, is a perturbation and will have some effect on the system. As I understand it, by measuring the C12 / C13 ratio, it is hypothesised that 50 % of the man’s carbon emissions contribute to the increase from the supposed ideal of 290 ppm. The remaining 50% of anthropomorphic CO2 emissions disappears into the vast system of carbon flux, probably dissolved in the oceans. But this 50% hypothesis depends on how solid is the science of the C12 / C13 proxy. And the whole historical CO2 reconstruction seems to largely depend on whether ice cores retain pristine samples of ancient atmosphere. Yet we skeptics would be content to let the palaeoclimatologists labour away refining their science in relative security had they and other climate scientists not played their hands so prematurely. The demands for extraordinary sacrifices by the world’s citizens demands extraordinary due diligence. And the whole discussion is only a prelude to the issue of whether the possible doubling of CO2 from the “ideal” 290 ppm will alter climate appreciably.

  78. I must admit that this use of a James Hansen study gives me pleasure (sort of using his own work against him).
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1974/1974_Lacis_Hansen_1.pdf

    But according to this (page 119 or page 2 of the pdf) CO2 only absorbes a specific wavelength of solar energy (also the weakest in the graph). That same wavelength of energy is also absorbed by H2O which is 10X more of a greenhouse gas in its effect. Now it is clear that energy that is absorbed by H2O cannot also be absorbed by CO2. It is also clear that the energy absorbed by CO2 is logarithmic/non-linear with increases in concentration (Beer’s Law) so that at current levels (385 ppm) any increase in CO2 will have a negligable greenhouse effect.

    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

  79. While pondering just how cold the S. Pole can get during an ice age cycle (when insolation can be 5%+ less than now due to orbital mechanics and polar tilt…) I once again pondered CO2 Clathrate ice formation… i.e. CO2/water ‘snow’ and did another bit ‘o googling… This turned up an interesting summary …

    Unexpectedly stable clathrate hydrates formed from microporous vapor-deposited amorphous solid water at low “external” guest pressures and their astrophysical implications

    Andreas Hallbrucker and Erwin Mayer

    Institut für Anorganische und Analytische Chemie, Universität Innsbruck, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Received 6 August 1990; revised 28 November 1990. Available online 25 October 2002.
    Abstract

    Oxygen clathrate hydrate which was used as a model substance for other clathrate hydrates with highly volatile guest species was formed from microporous vapor-deposited amorphous solid water prepared at 77 K, and from O2 enclosed in the pores during heating and sintering of the amorphous deposit up to ≈120 K, with “external” O2 pressures during the sintering and gas enclosure process of 10, 100, 200, and ≈ 1700 mbar. Clathrate hydrate formation occurred between ≈170 and 210 K as seen by X-ray diffraction. If was stabilized by layers of ice and decomposed completely on heating at a rate of 10 K min− only between 240 and 250 K, which is much higher than anticipated from dissociation pressure/temperature curves. Astrophysical implications with respect to (i) the temperature of formation of clathrate hydrates, (ii) their stabilization by layers of ice, and (iii) the low-temperature decomposition of CO2-clathrate hydrate are discussed briefly.

    So, an ‘oxygen clathrate’ that stays stable up to 240K (!) and much higher than anticipated…

    The implication being that very very cold ice (snow) formation might very well make CO2 clathrates (and thus either 1) Scrub the air really really well or 2) screw up the ice core records…

    So much for ‘settled science’…

  80. Steven Goddard (15:30:33 20 February) :

    Ferdinand,

    No one is disputing that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are caused by man. That discussion is irrelevant to this article.

    Do you have any links to raw data showing that ocean pH is decreasing? Note that I asked for raw data, not interpretation.

    I have a standing discussion with a few scpetics for over 2 year now, that the current CO2 rise is NOT from human origin (even Dr. Spencer thinks that maybe the oceans are involved). But that is an aside here in this discussion.

    Ocean pH levels were measured historically, but with higher accuracy in the past decades. At two places (Hawai in the Pacific and Bermuda in the North Atlantic) continuously (since 1990) and with several seaships on a regular basis. In the past few years an armada of buoiys add to our knowledge.

    The Hawai and Bermuda time series (1990-2000) show a drop in pH of about 0.02 units, where Bermuda has a higher seasonal amplitude, which makes the trend more difficult to see (Fig. 1-2):
    http://www.isse.ucar.edu/florida/report/Ocean_acidification_res_guide_compressed.pdf
    The accuracy of the pH measurements can be as good as +/- 0.0001 pH unit, for practical purposes anyway better than +/- 0.001 pH unit, sharp enough to see a drop over a decade.

    These are the only time series on line, but more coverage to come in a few years from now.

  81. I find it interesting that the ‘hot’ part of Antarctica is mostly over water while the ‘cold’ part is over land… Maybe the issue has more to do with warmer oceans and/or volcanically heated water than it does with CO2…

  82. Ozzie John (15:44:31) :

    Is it possible that the decreased pH of the oceans has another driver ?
    Our current observations would make this a likely scenario !

    Indeed it is possible that a lower pH drives out a lot of CO2, far more than temperature can do. That is used in the latest (personal) discussions I have about the origin of the current increase. But that doesn’t fit with the observation of the decrease in d13C of atmosphere ánd oceans: the deep oceans have a d13C level of about zero per mil d13C, the upper layer (due to algue growth) of 1-4 per mil (and decresaing, for an introduction of d13C levels in different media, see: http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html ), the atmosphere is at – 8 per mil (and decreasing) and fossil fuel burning is at -24 per mil in average.

    Even if there is some isotope fractionation at the water-air border (in the two directions), the release of CO2 from the oceans should slightly increase the d13C level of the atmosphere, while we see a strong decrease. Not fully as what can be calculated, as there is a dilution of the human “fingerprint” of d13C, as about 20% of the atmospheric CO2 each year is exchanged with ocean and biosphere CO2 over the seasons. But the addition in mass still is only from the emissions…

  83. Gripegut (22:23:57) :

    The Hansen’s plot ends at 3.2 µm. CO² absorbs also at 14.7 µm, referred as the 15µm band not totally overlapped by H²O (your second link), which corresponds to a long wave infrared radiation emitted by the ground after solar irradiation.

    Bye,
    TMTisFree

  84. Robert Austin (16:23:31) :
    Beautiful graph but a little dramatic with the y axis not starting at zero. It is also interesting that the “hockey stick” blade starts at about 1800, not post WW2 when it is deemed that the CO2 emissions are to have skyrocketed. I am not defending Jaworowski, but how sure can we be that ice cores perfectly preserve ancient atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Without independent scientific confirmation from other proxies, should we place 100% faith in ice core reconstructions?
    Nevertheless, thank you for your most stimulating posts.

    The industrial revolution started about 1800 with the increasing use of coal for steam generation in factories and as heat source in homes. That ice cores with enormous differences in precipitation (ice equivalent) from 1.5 m per year (Law Dome) to a few mm per year (Vostok, south pole), average temperature and salt/dust deposits (coast to inland), show similar CO2 levels (+/- 5 ppmv) for the same gas age is itself already a refutation of the claims by Jaworowski. But also the coralline sponges d13C level shows that levels were quite stable (besides some temperature variations) for about 450 years, and start to decline faster and faster from 1850 on. The same can be seen in the CO2 level proxies of stomata (be it with caveats: stomata data are locally influenced).
    For the full series of all available CO2 data of ice cores in decreasing time periods BP see:


    The Holocene shows about 20 ppmv increase over 9,000 years and a 100 ppmv increase thereafter. Not very likely that that is an artifact of ALL the ice core measurements, as these have such widely differences in local circumstances. But let us have a look at what Etheridge has done:
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml

    Etheridge probably has read the objections of Jaworowski and drilled three ice cores at Law Dome, two super fast accumulating and a slower one, with three different techniques (wet and dry). No difference in CO2 levels for the same gas age. Moreover he measured CO2 levels in firn at different depths from the surface to closing depth. There was no fractionation measurable from the surface to depth (except for gravitational fractionation, for which was accounted for), and still open pores and already closed pores at closing depth had the same CO2 level.
    See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_firn.jpg

    At closing depth, CO2 levels were about 10 years older than the ambient air (10 ppmv lower CO2 level), while the ice was already 40 years old. Thus the ice age – gas age difference for the two fastest cores was about 30 years and as the ice need about 8 years from start to the last bubbles closing, the measurements average about 8 years of CO2 levels.
    For the Law Dome ice cores, there is an overlap of about 20 years with atmospheric CO2 data from the south pole (1960-1980), which are within the accuracy of the ice core data:

    Thus it seems that ice cores are quite reliable indicators of ancient atmospheres (except for some fractionation of the smaller molecules).

    Further about what Jaworowski says:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

  85. Philip_B (16:49:58) :

    Anyway, burning fossil fuels cannot possibly be the cause of most of the (apparent) CO2 rise found in the ice cores, because most of the CO2 rise pre-dates the fossil fuel burning.

    To the contrary, CO2 levels in the atmosphere beautifully follow the emissions with about 55% as well as in ice cores (1900-1959) as directly measured in the atmosphere (1960-2006):

    and for 1960-2004:

    over the full period 1900-2004:

  86. In my last post I suggested that we could compare Venus and Earth and use the total mass of carbon dioxide retained in the Venusian atmosphere as a way to estimate the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide released from the Earth’s lithosphere throughout the lifetime of our planet.
    In this post I want to discuss the source of the calcium and magnesium cations that allow for the continuing sequestration of oxidised carbon into our Earth’s ultimate carbon sink, limestone rock.

    On Earth there are clear physical and chemical differences between the basic igneous rocks that form the oceanic crust and the acidic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the continental crust. Late nineteenth century geologists recognised these differences and divided the Earth’s crust into two rock groups which they termed Sima & Sial. Sima corresponds to the dense basic igneous rocks of the oceanic crust dominated by silica (Si) minerals rich in magnesium (Ma), such as olivine in basalt. Sial refers to the lighter acidic igneous and metamorphic rocks of the continental crust dominated by silica (Si) minerals rich in aluminium (Al), such as alkali feldspar in granite.

    Nineteenth century geologists also recognised, in the folded and uplifted rocks of the mountain ranges of Earth, the existence of former sedimentary basins which they called geosynclines. Geosynclines were considered to be the same width as each ancient fold mountain belt, such as the Appalachians, because the spatial separation of Earth’s continents and oceans was deemed to be fixed. The Victorians were unable to identify any modern geosynclines and did not deduce that the geosynclines they were describing are the remains of wide and laterally extensive ancient oceans. Geologists now believe that roots of fold-mountain belts contain metamorphosed rocks, deposited originally as sediments in former sedimentary basins, which have been crushed by tectonic forces, in a process of continental accretion and growth.

    That the granitic continents of Earth have grown in bulk throughout the life of our planet, as each successive phase of mountain building has added more mass to the continental crust, implies that the earth has a mechanism that continually produces more acidic rock.

    Our planet possesses a geochemical factory, in which separate, but interlocking, processes of crystal and mineral refinement occur. These processes include:
    1. Crystal Fractionation, which occurs within the body of the Earth, in molten magma chambers where hot igneous rocks are formed and dense basic minerals are separated, within the melt, by selective temperature controlled crystallisation and gravity settling.
    2. In the body of the earth mineral crystals are stable at the pressure and temperature of their formation. When rocks are transported by tectonic processes to low pressure, low temperature regimes, such as occur at the earth’s surface, the crystals become unstable and slowly disaggregate into new mineral forms.
    3. Chemical Weathering, which occurs at the Earth’s surface, where the crystals of exposed mineral rocks are weathered and chemically altered by temperature, water and gases (such as oxygen & carbon dioxide) to form soils.
    4. Sediment Transport, involving water, ice and wind, which removes the weathered soils and dissolved salts from elevated continental surfaces and returns them to the seas and ocean basins, where the separated minerals are deposited in stratal layers as sedimentary rocks and the salts remain dissolved in the ocean waters.
    5. Diagenesis, a process of re-mineralisation, whereby buried granular stratal sediments are lithified into solid durable rock. The rocks are cemented by precipitation of low soluble dissolved minerals such as silica and calcite, from the surrounding pore waters under conditions of raised temperature and pressure due to increased sediment load.
    6. Highly soluble mineral salts are also removed from the Earth’s ocean waters by a separate process that occurs in shallow ephemeral seas. Here the evaporation of water creates concentrated brines that crystallise to form evaporite rocks such as gypsum (calcium sulphate) and halite (sodium chloride).

    In essence the Earth’s geochemical factory processes basic igneous oceanic crust, refines these basaltic rocks, first into andesites, and then ultimately, via sedimentary and metamorphic processes, into granitic continental crust. In doing so, and as an integral part of the refinement process, the geochemical factory exports basic sodium (Na+) calcium (Ca++) and magnesium (Mg++) cations into the ocean waters of our planet.

    Consider for example a sequence of flood basalt rocks erupted over a continental surface in a tropical location, such as the Deccan Traps in India. Basalt rock typically consists of the minerals Olivine ({Mg,Fe}2SiO4); Plagioclase Feldspars (CaAl2Si2O8) and Pyroxene (XY{Si,Al}2O6, where X can be Calcium, Sodium, Iron II or Magnesium & Y can be Aluminium or Iron III, amongst others).

    Under the temperature and rainfall conditions of a monsoonal climate, the basaltic minerals can weather to produce soils rich in Haematite (Iron III oxide, Fe2O3), Goethite (Iron III oxyhydroxide, FeOOH), Kaolinite (a sheet silicate, Al2Si2O5{OH}4) & Gibbsite (Aluminium hydroxide, Al{OH}3) minerals. This weathering process releases calcium and magnesium cations into the soil structure where they combine with soil water anions such as sulphate and bicarbonate. The release of cations by chemical weathering of minerals in basic rocks is the source of the calcium that forms new calcite and gypsum minerals, and is the process by which carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide gases are sequestered into the sedimentary rocks of the Earth.

    Earth is a water world and Venus is a dry planet. Water is critical to the success of the geochemical factory and the ability of the Earth to sequester acidic gases such as carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide back into the rocks. I will speculate on the source of our planet’s abundant water in my next posting.

    Additional material from Professor Stephen A Nelson’s Petrology Course notes:

    Magmatic Differentiation

    Crystal Fractionation

  87. The solution of CO2 in water is governed by Henry’s Law which is temperature dependent. Perhaps Al Gore doesn’t know any basic Physical Chemistry.

  88. There is no good evidence that the cycle length has anything to do with temperature or that solar cycle 23 will be more longer than it already is:

    Is? Well, you have to consider that video is over two years old. So you might say it already has.

    The question is what (if anything) does this mean going forward? With the multidecadal oceanic-atmospheric cycles starting to reverse, it may be hard to separate causes and effects.

    I have generally been more of a sea witch than a sun worshiper when it comes to climate. But if a Grand Minimum occurs? Well, we’ll just have to wait and see.

  89. Why, hello, Ferdinand. Long time, no see.

    I happen to agree (for now) with the warming camp on levels and causes of CO2. It’s like a bathtub with the faucets on and the drain partly open. If you increase the flow of water, CO2 WILL accumulate. Current estimates are that around half of anthropogenic CO2 gets integrated into the carbon cycle while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere. (I have heard a lot of arguments to the contrary, but so far I am not convinced.)

    Where I DISAGREE with the AGW camp is concerning the EFFECTS of a CO2 increase, which I consider to be negligible.

  90. OK. Go back to first principles: Hanson’s GISS claims that temperatures global have increased .5 degrees from 1970 to 2008. (or .8 degrees, depending on his graphs.)

    From above, absorbtion of CO2 in (fresh ?) water changes as well:
    .28 at 5 deg,
    .23 at 10 deg,
    .19 at 15 deg,
    .17 at 20 deg.

    1) Are these values correct for salt water, open ocean? If not, what are the correct values? (If it is not known, why is this three trillion dollar question not funded?)

    2) How much of the ocean’s surface water is at what temperature? Have those temperatures changed over the past 100 years like the atmosphere (is assumed to) have changed? What mass of the ocean’s water has changed in temperature? Do only the surface waters change with CO2 levels, or do the deep waters change?
    (If this question is not answered, why has it not been answered? The short term CO2 is what is the focus of the three trillion dollar global tax bill – If the Manua Loa CO2 levels vary with month of the year, then ocean CO2 levels either also vary by month to month (with temperature and growing season), or they don’t.))

    3) For an assumed change of 1/2 of one degree in the surface water temperature of the ocean, what is the actual calculated change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? DON’T use a carbon dioxide and Coke and aquarium analogy UNLESS the bottle of beer or Coke or aquarium ONLY changes by 1/2 of one degree.

  91. Beck et al. compiled information showing a big rise in CO2 in the 1940’s, and an even bigger rise in the early 1800’s.

    The claims that CO2 has remained flat at around 280 ppmv until recently should be viewed with well deserved skepticism.

    I have been ’round the block on Beck. He has been “debunked” any number of times–yet for me to accept said debunking without kicking, one has to explain how there was NOT a huge CO2 increase during the 1940s.

    There was that little interval, remember? Massive increase in CO2-emitting production and massive consumption of any fuel that could be convinced to burn? 100 cities up in SMOKE (50 of them incinerated)? WWII, remember? Famed in song and story (and on the “Hitler” Channel)?

    Yet the AGW crowd puts CO2 levels at diddly-squat until well after WWII.

    Helloooo?

    Maybe some of these PhDs in the sciences oughta do a little minoring in 101-level history?

  92. hotrod (17:46:39) :

    This study if valid raises some serious quesitons about the validity of extraction and analysis of trapped gas bubbles in ice cores.

    You link to a web report (your “this study”) that discusses CO2 in relation to 20 year old science. A quick perusal of that report in relation to the subject of this thread (paleo CO2 and direct measures in ice cores) illustrates that it was likely pretty misleading of the science even back in 1992. Jaworowski et al. seem to have tried to think of every possible potential problem and then insinuated that these apply, without actually addressing the issue with respect to specific cores (of course most of the coring analyses from which we base our understanding was done since 1992).

    It’s easy to show that their “catch all” insinuations of major methodological flaws are unjustified. We could look at some of their “problems” with respect to coring. These seem to be (pages 29-39 of the report you linked to):

    -the presence of liquid water in the ice
    -the formation of gas hydrates (or clathrates)
    -drilling contaminates these with drilling fluid
    -drilling decompression causes cracks through which gas escapes

    That seems a horrible litanty of “problems”! Let’s see how they might scupper attempts to obtain reliable CO2 measures from Antarctic cores. We can look at the paper I cited above [foinavon (17:25:10)]:

    Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn; DM Etheridge et al. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 4115-4128 (1996)

    These authors drilled three cores at law Dome Antarctica to obtain a 1000 year record of CO2 (I’ve dumped a sample of their core data in [foinavon (17:25:10)]). Here’s some of their methodological descriptions:

    liquid water: Etheridge et al show that regions of ice melt are readily identified in the cores. They say “At most five melt layers, less than 1 cm thick, were identified in each of the DE08 cores, and even fewer in DSS” [n.b. the DE08 core was 234 metres deep; the DE08-2 243 metres; the DSS 1200 metres]

    In other words you can easily spot melt layers and discount these from the analysis.

    clathrates: Etheridge et al say “no clathrates were observed in any of the cores, which is consistent with the dissociation relation with temperature and pressure [Miller 1969]”

    In other words you can spot clathrates in cores and discount these. In the Law Dome cores there weren’t any.

    drilling problems: Etheridge specifically take note of the potential problems of stress cracks caused by certain drilling methods and of fluid contamination, by drilling each of the three cores using a separate coring method:

    they say: “The drilling methods used were thermal, electrochemical and fluid-immersed electrochemical for DE08, DE-082 and DSS, respectively. This allowed a useful confirmation that the ice core CO2 was not influenced by effects such as ice heating during thermal drilling or the presence of drill fluid or stress cracks (occasionally caused by thermal or electrochemical coring and subsequent pressure release after removal from the ice sheet).”

    In other words, Jaworowski’s “problems” simply don’t apply.

    It indicates the bubbles are sealed off as the snow level gets buried and then as the ice layer gets pressurized deep in the ice pack the bubbles entirely disappear. They only reform when the deep ice is “decompressed” as it is cored

    Since we have a large number of cores from many different sites which all give rather similar gas analyses profiles (the Law Dome data described by Etheridge was from 3 seperate cores for example), and the deep Antarctic cores show very consistent glacial-interglacial transitions involving rather regular transitions from around 180 ppm (glacial) to neat 270 ppm (interglacial) through 1000’s of metres of cores, and the CO2 levels are broadly similar to independent CO2 measures from marine carbonate analysis of deep sea sediments and so on, it’s difficult to support the inference that physical processes within the ice are seriously confounding our ability to obtain paleoCO2 measures throughout the glacial period.

  93. Why is there the number ’90’ in the middle of 400000yearslarge.gif? It can be found in the graph at date 22500 YBP and 250 C02 ppm. It doesn’t seem to relate to anything at all.

  94. Law of Nature (17:30:56) :

    – we could NOT measure an increase of the total CO2 in the oceans!
    (Also the pH-value of the ocean did not change due to human CO2! There is indication that it has changed for the near surface sea water, but that is a much smaller volume than the total seas!)

    It is near impossible to make a mass balance for the oceans with the small disturbance of human CO2 for the deep oceans, but it is possible for the upper oceans, as there is relative little exchange between upper and deep oceans (about 100 GtC/year). But such a balance is not the purpose here, as we are mainly interested in a mass balance of the atmosphere. As humans we add about 8 GtC/year as CO2 directly into the atmosphere. We measure an increase of about 4 GtC/year in the atmosphere. That means that the sum of all ins and outs from/to oceans + biosphere is minus 4 GtC/year. How that is distributed between oceans and biosphere can be measured with large error margins, based on d13C and O2 trends. See e.g. Battle e.a. at:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
    Based on these two indicators, Battle expect 1.4 +/- 0.8 GtC sequestered by the biosphere and 2 +/- 0.6 GtC sequestered by the oceans.

    The increase of total inorganic carbon (TIC: CO2 + bi/carbonate) in the upper ocean part is measured by the same stations/ships/buoiys which measure(d) pH. The graps are shown for the Bermuda station (which shows a year by year variation of +/- 50%) in the full article in Science:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5602/2374

    My question to you would be: Where were most of the athmospheric CO2-molecules 20 years ago? (With a exchange time constant of 5 years math tells you, that most (95%+) of these molecules come from the sea!)

    Common error of the half life times… The five years half life as often cited is the seasonal exchange rate, which exchanges 20% of all CO2, whatever the origin, within a year. That rate is dependent of the ratio between amounts exchanged and amounts in the reservoir. If both flows in and out are equal at the end of the year, no change in total mass will occur. Compare that to adding a color to a lake and watch the speed at which the color fades.

    That has nothing to do with the excess half life time, where an excess in CO2 as mass is added to a process in dynamic equilibrium (as the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were). That rate depends of the difference between sources and sinks, no matter the origin, and the total excess in the atmosphere. The excess removal half life is about 40 years. See Pieter Dietze at: http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
    Compare that to a lake where you add a small (increasing) flow of water (colored or not): the lake will initially increase its level, increasing the outflow, until the outflow and extra inflow are in equilibrium (or increase in lockstep if the inflow remains increasing).

    How would a otherwise unchagend ocean react to an sudden increase of athnospheric CO2 by 30%?

    The constraint is that the air-water exchange is quite slow and the upper ocean – deep ocean exchange even slower. While there are huge differences in cold/warm oceans pCO2 and more evenly distributed pCO2 of the atmosphere, the exchange rate per m2 over the ocean surface is limited, see:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
    The average pCO2 air/oceans is only 7 ppmv nowadays, good for about 2 GtC uptake by the oceans per year (but we add 8 GtC/year…).

    I have made a graph, illustrating what happens with mass and anthropogenic % in the atmosphere and upper oceans, if you should add 100 GtC anthro CO2 to the atmosphere at once, based on realistic exchange/remove rates. See:

    where FA and FL are the fractions of anthro CO2 in atmosphere and upper oceans, FA/FL their ratio, tCA total carbon in the atmosphere and nCA total natural carbon in the atmosphere.

  95. Hi All – as a layman temp. leading CO2 in ice core data has bothered me for some time and the explanations I have seen have largely come across as hand waving.

    The post reads plausibly but I don’t understand why, if this is as rock solid, obvious, well understood and accepted by geologists, it was not an immediate and devastating response to the proposed theory that temp. is dependent on atmospheric CO2?

    Apologies if this is covered elsewhere or in the comments – I’ve not read the entire thread.

  96. Ferdinand,

    The paper you linked does not provide raw pH data. I have looked at the raw pH data from both HOTS sites and Monterey Bay. Monterey Bay actually shows increasing pH.
    http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf

    Neither HOTS site (Aloha or Kahe Pt.) show a statistically significant downwards trend in pH.
    http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/hot-dogs/bextraction.html

    HOTS has another set of “calculated” pH data, which is the one shown in Fig 1-2 of the paper you referenced, but whatever that data is, it is not raw..
    http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/trends/trends.html
    Note that the trend is based on the blue “calculated” data – not the red “measured” data.

    The BATS web site is broken, but from the graph (Fig 1-2) in your referenced paper there is no statistically significant downwards trend in pH.

    Again – can you provide raw data showing that ocean pH is declining?

  97. Kum Dollison (18:17:04) :

    CO2 increased in the atmosphere 0.22 from Jun 92 to Jun 93. 1.19 from Jun 93 to Jun 94, then Exploded up 2.43 Jun 94 to Jun 95.

    That’s an awful lot of CO2 appearing, and disappearing awfully quickly.

    Except that it is not appearing/disappearing, it is the rate of increase that is changing, but still an increase in all years of the past 50 years:

    The rate of increase is about 55% of the emissions per year, but modulated by (ocean and land) temperatures. Higher temperatures: less uptake by oceans, more by vegetation and vv. The average temperature influence is about 3 ppmv/°C, but the current increase in average is about 2 ppmv/year, thus one need a drop of 0.7°C in one year to pull the CO2 increase down to zero (for one year!)…

    About Beck’s data, see my comments here:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

  98. I think we are still stabbing at this till AIMS sensors (taken with a HUGE grain of butterfly salt) runs over several cycles. Sun cycles (source for CO2-14), various oceanic oscillation cycles (source for CO2-12 and -13), and human-source emission cycles as a consequence of warm versus cold years from natural weather pattern variations (as a result of our atmospheric and oceanic cycles). We should, in my opinion, disregard on-site out-gassing measures (such as Mauna Loa) because they bias thinking towards increased emissions without being balanced by on-site measures of sinks. Granted, sinks are harder to measure because they are more spread out than the pumps. That’s why satellite measures must eventually become our go to source with the understanding that satellite measures are just as prone to errors as surface temperature sites are. What can we do right now? At the very least, we should be asking these on-site CO2 measuring stations to also accurately measure and report percentage of isotopes in the CO2 they trap. Basing our understanding (and therefor assumptions?) of these ratios on studies now decades old will not do.

  99. foinavon (04:20:22) :

    Thanks for the Etheridge data and Jaworowski update. I have little to add to that. My take at Jaworowski is where he alludes to a “arbitrary” shift of CO2 data from the Siple Dome ice core to match the Mauna Loa data. But he compares the age of the ice of Siple Dome with Mauna Loa, not the age of the gas bubbles, where CO2 is measured, while the two lists of ice age and gas age are adjacent to each other in Neftel’s writing. For somebody who claims to be an ice core specialist, that is quite remarkable…

  100. So how can bottom water have a higher CO2 content when it is being made from surface water with a lower CO2 content? The only answer is that the surface waters are being depleted of CO2 by the formation of organic matter which then descends into the bottom waters where it is oxidised to CO2. Raising the atmospheric CO2 level will speed up the biological pump in the surface waters that is raining organic matter into the ocean depths.

    This is a point a was trying to make in another thread. Increased CO2 leads to increased biological uptake resulting in more bio mass. Some is buried in soil and a lot more sequestered in the oceans. A lot is of course returned via microbial action and burning etc. Upwelling of cold ocean currents leads to increased atmospheric CO2 and the cycle continues with a net loss of carbon compounds.

    That’s why we are living in an age of impoverished carbon dioxide levels. Man kind is only redressing the balance by releasing some of the previously buried carbon. The reason the planet hasn’t buried all the CO2 is because of geothermal events allow enough carbon dioxide to escape and maintain organic life.

    This cycle plays only a very small part in the earths thermal ballance.

  101. I really must remember to address my posts to the person quoted. The last was to:-

    David Archibald (17:35:16)

  102. Pamela Gray (07:18:55)

    I’m not quite sure what your overall point is, so I might be telling you something that you already know! However its worth pointing out that there continues to be substantial and widespread measurement of atmospheric CO2 and stable isotopes (12C, 13C, 14C-CO2); e.g.:

    http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi

    Likewise there is quite a lot of work on the analysis of 13C CO2 in relation to sources and sinks. It’s certainly not the case that our understanding of these issues is based on decades-old records. RJ Francey is a name worth looking for in this respect. Here’s a recent example:

    Rayner PJ et al. (2008) Interannual variability of the global carbon cycle (1992-2005) inferred by inversion of atmospheric CO2 and delta(CO2)-C-13 measurements GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES 22 art # GB3008

    Abstract: We present estimates of the surface sources and sinks of CO2 for 1992 – 2005 deduced from atmospheric inversions. We use atmospheric CO2 records from 67 sites and 10 delta(CO2)-C-13 records. We use two atmospheric models to increase the robustness of the results. The results suggest that interannual variability is dominated by the tropical land. Statistically significant variability in the tropical Pacific supports recent ocean modeling studies in that region. The northern land also shows significant variability. In particular, there is a large positive anomaly in 2003 in north Asia, which we associate with anomalous biomass burning. Results using delta(CO2)-C-13 and CO2 are statistically consistent with those using only CO2, suggesting that it is valid to use both types of data together. An objective analysis of residuals suggests that our treatment of uncertainties in CO2 is conservative, while those for delta(CO2)-C-13 are optimistic, highlighting problems in our simple isotope model. Finally, delta(CO2)-C-13 measurements offer a good constraint to nearby land regions, suggesting an ongoing value in these measurements for studies of interannual variability.

  103. The graph of temperature and atmospheric levels of CO2 shows a strong correlation. There are three possible explanations.
    1) CO2 causes warming
    2) Warming causes CO2
    3) Something else causes both.
    In most cases warming precedes CO2 which suggests warming is the cause and CO2 is the effect. But in some cases CO2 changes first. To me that suggests that something else causes both.
    The temperatures are not direct temperature measurements. No one was there with a thermometer 100,000 years ago. These temperatures are calculated from the concentration of deuterium and O18 in the ice. Scientists know that water containing those isotopes appears in greater concentration when the temperature of the sea from which they evaporated is higher. So what really is being measured is the concentration of deuterium and O18. Higher sea temps also cause the release of CO2 from the seas for the reason Steve Goddard showed. So I would say that higher sea temperatures is the cause of both higher CO2 and higher concentrations of the two isotopes.

    Well that’s my opinion anyway.

  104. I have posted this idea on another blog, and I’m sorry if it has already been covered here. Is it possible that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warm Period 800 years ago? Since according to ice core data CO2 rises follow warming by 800 years or so.

    Barry

  105. Ahem, opening a can of warm bear demonstrates that RISING temperature decreases CO2 solubility in water.

  106. Ferdinand,

    Are you suggesting ice, say dated 1000 years old, has in it gas bubbles of a different age? Now that is interesting. I think I will accept the Polish interpretation for the moment.

  107. Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:23:34) :

    “Indeed it is possible that a lower pH drives out a lot of CO2, far more than temperature can do.”

    I had been wondering about that very effect and it was the basis of a comment I made previously:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/

    comment @ 02/07/09 (16:20:24) : “which would win out in terms of effect [on CO2 release] – the 0.1 unit decrease in pH or say a 1ºC increase in temperature?”

    I admit I should be able to calculate this myself, but I am far too lazy (these days the old brain works sooo slooowly). Also I was trying to complicate it by assessing the effect on CaCO3 formation too, since that also is less soluble at higher temperature, and more soluble at lower pH.

    Of course the real ocean environment will be additionally complicated by local effects.

  108. “Simon
    …It does not mean that the ice sheet – – which averages about a mile thick – is displacing its weight in water. It is supported by the bed-rock, whether below sea level or not, and not supported by the ocean. Please imagine a bridge whose weight is supported by the foundations below the water level, and not by the water itself. It’s uncontroversial that if the ice sheet were to melt the land beneath would rise, being relieved of the weight.”

    I’m having difficulty with this analogy. Bridges don’t float, ice does. Do scientists have any idea how much weight is being supported by the land beneath?

    JimB

  109. Foinavon – you have obviously never done any drilling!

    I am a civil engineer and very infrequent commenter here, but I have been involved with many drilling programs in both soils and rock to try to understand foundation conditioions for large dams. We do very expensive drilling with constant expert supervision. We use downhole seismic and data logging and we know what we are doing.

    We drill many holes and at the end we are inevitably unsure of exactly what we have and inevitaably it come down to expert interpretation, which is not always right.

    If we can’t get it right on clay content, how can we possibly take ice core boring (almost certainly without constant, qualified supervision) gas content results as something that can be taken at face value?

    The basic issue with drilling uis that you newver know what you are losing.

    You possibly have have acceptable comparative values, but to extrapolate to global CO2 values is complete and utter nonsense.

  110. Apologies for typos. These are due to Coriolis effect as I am in SH (Peru) at the moment and have not made appropriate adjustments.

  111. Barry (10:25:24) :

    I have posted this idea on another blog, and I’m sorry if it has already been covered here. Is it possible that the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warm Period 800 years ago? Since according to ice core data CO2 rises follow warming by 800 years or so.

    The 800 years lag depends of the time periods involved. For the increase in temperature between a glacial and interglacial (in the Vostok ice core), the lag is 600 +/- 400 years, for the opposite cooling, the lag is many thousands of years, for the MWP-LIA cooling (in the Law Dome ice core), the lag is about 50 years and the current variability of CO2 around the increasing trend shows a lag of one to a few months after temperature variations…

    The warm/cold/warm/cold periodicity over the Holocene shows variations of about 1°C which should give CO2 variations of about 8 ppmv from warm to cold and back, if we take the same ratio as seen in all ice cores for pre-industrial values. Thus not more than 8 ppmv extra from the deep ocean flows returning from the MWP…

  112. Louis Hissink (10:42:08) :

    Ferdinand,

    Are you suggesting ice, say dated 1000 years old, has in it gas bubbles of a different age? Now that is interesting. I think I will accept the Polish interpretation for the moment.

    Louis,
    I think the idea is that the air in the snow that accumulates in a certain year is not isolated from the atmosphere until it is buried deeply enough such that the overburden pressure is enough to seal off the gas inclusions. In matching up the ice core record to the Mauna Loa records, they shifted the ice core record about 85 years with this justification. It sounds reasonable to me. I still look forward to wading into Ferdinand’s citations on why ice cores are a good record of historic CO2 levels.

  113. Louis Hissink (10:42:08) :

    Ferdinand,

    Are you suggesting ice, say dated 1000 years old, has in it gas bubbles of a different age? Now that is interesting. I think I will accept the Polish interpretation for the moment.

    When snow deposits, it contains open pores filled with ambient air. A lot of layers are settled over the years, but the pores still are open and can exchange molecules by diffusion. Slower as the pores are narrowing under the pressure of building up the snow/firn layers, but still going on, until the pores are completely closed. The average age in the gas bubbles can be calculated, as the diffusion speed for gases is known and the ice density / pore diameter at different depths can be measured.

    In the case of the Siple Dome (used by Jaworowski as example of “manipulation”), the gas age was calculated by Neftel. In the case of the Law Dome, the gas age was measured by Etheridge in the different firn layers top down, confirming the calculations. In the layer where the bubbles were closing, the CO2 level was about 10 ppmv lower than in the atmosphere. With the atmospheric increase rate of that time, the average gas age is about 10 years older than the atmosphere. But at the same depth, there were already 40 years of snow/firn/ice layers counted. Thus the gas age is 30 years younger than the ice age at the same depth for the same ice core…
    See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_firn.jpg
    Closing depth is 72 m at Law Dome.

    The gas age – ice age difference is mainly a matter of deposition: more snow and (relative) higher temperatures means faster compression and sealing, thus a smaller ice age – gas age difference. That is from 30 years for Law Dome to several hundred years for Vostok, with its low deposit rates.

    That Jaworowski doesn’t know the difference between ice age and gas age in ice cores is not so good for his credibility as ice core sceptic, to say the least…

  114. JimB (13:30:41) :

    “imagine a bridge whose weight is supported by the foundations below the water level, and not by the water itself”

    I’m having difficulty with this analogy. Bridges don’t float, ice does. Do scientists have any idea how much weight is being supported by the land beneath?

    It’s the same case for a wooden bridge! Ice floats, but only once its weight has been displaced in the water. Ok, consider a six inch deep pond with a 6ft cube of ice dumped in it. The ice will be supported by the pond bed, and it will not float. The weight supported by the pond bed will be somewhat less than the total weight, owing to the displaced water, but the pond would need to be almost as deep as the ice cube for it to float.

    I don’t know off hand the figures on the weight of the ice sheet, but it’s enough to have suppressed the land mass beneath.

  115. Dear Ferdinand,

    you say: “It is near impossible to make a mass balance for the oceans with the small disturbance of human CO2 for the deep oceans”
    and you did not refute my critisism regarding the pH-value.

    It seems, that you rather agree to my critizism on your description:
    A decrease of the pH-value is only known for the upper sea water, the C13-depleation cannot say anything about the mass balance!

    From this perspcetive I cannot understand your answer about long time constants.
    1) We seem to aggree, that it doesn’t take very long for the near surface sea water to atapt to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere (with of course the local temperature dependent deviations) this of course works both ways, so if the deep ocean would be the main driver of the rise, we would see the same rise in the atmosphere and the drop in pH-value and C13-depletion would look the same (just to defute these invalid arguments for now and ever!)

    I do understand your model, however there is still my question, how the assumed anthropogenic rise in CO2 work with the lack of sea water temperature . . And then you loose me a little bit . .

    The life time of a CO2-mulecule is not related to the half life of a rise!?
    Well let’s assume the near surface water is in close equilibrium with the atmosphere, then we have about 1500GTC CO2 in that system and exchange 100GTC per year with the deep sea reservoir, where you cannot give a mass balance . . And you say is does take very much longer than 7.5 years to exchange about 50% of the molecules at that rate? (Well it does, because we do have the other time constant of about 5 years, but the total time constant is less than the sum of both!)

    What is wrong with that math?
    And please let me know if you agree with my invalidation of your arguments up there, I see them repeated by you and others for years!
    If they are unvalid, they obstruct a clear view to the science worth dicussing!

    All the best regards,
    LoN

  116. “Vostok, Antarctica (where the ice cores come from) never got above -6F (-21C) this summer. There has never been a temperature higher than 0F recorded there. The ice gets thicker every year, and never melts at all.”

    I think that was the point he was making with the second picture he linked to. Artic water temperatures are at -2, which makes one wonder how the ice is “melting”, thanks to Watt, we now know that it’s not “melting” but the sensors are malfunctioning causing as much (as they are willing to admit at this point) a 500,000 KM^2 error.

    This is massive, and accounts for HALF of the sea ice the George Will talked about in his article that is now recieving flak. Did the data need to change to bury Will? It’s really interesting that it DID match in January yet now it doesn’t?

    Yet the temperatures in the north are still WELL below freezing? Something is fishy with the data, or those CRUNCHING the data.

  117. Law of Nature (18:38:27) :

    We do not need a mass balance for everything. We can make a mass balance of what happens in the atmosphere, which is what we are interested in, the rest is of secondary interest, but even then, the about 90 GtC exchange between atmosphere and upper oceans, the 50 GtC exchange between atmosphere and the biosphere over the seasons and the 100 GtC exchange between the upper and deep oceans and their unbalances can be used to make a flowchart of what happens roughly with the carbon cycles over a year. One of the many attempts to do that is here:

    All based on (CO2, d13C, O2, current, deposits…) measurements but with large error margins (+/- 50% in absolute flows). Except for the total result in the atmosphere: we have a reasonable estimate of emissions, based on fuel sales and production figures (maybe somewhat underestimated) and a quite accurate measured increase in the atmosphere.

    Thus whatever the height of any individual flows in/out the (deep) oceans and in/out vegetation, the net result is that the emissions are about twice the increase measured in the atmosphere, thus the sum of all natural flows in/out the atmosphere is negative and nature doesn’t add anything (in mass!) to the atmosphere, at least in the past 50 years…

    If the (deep) oceans were a net source of CO2 (for whatever reason), then we have a mass balance problem, as the net result of any addition from the oceans + 8 GtC/yr from the emissions result in 4 GtC/yr measured in the atmosphere, while it should be larger than 8 GtC/yr. Except if vegetation would be a much larger sink, absorbing 8 GtC/yr + a part of the oceanic (net) releases to result in the 4 GtC/yr increase. But that means that vegetation should have grown with about 30% over the past 150 years…

    While the d13C level doesn’t say much about the mass balance, it is a quite good indication of the source of the increase: the accuracy is fine enough to measure an addition of 4 GtC from the deep oceans or 1 GtC from vegetation or fossil fuel burning into the upper ocean level. As the d13C levels decrease, that excludes the deep oceans as main source (it dilutes the decrease with 10% per year, but doesn’t increase the d13C level) the increase in the atmosphere/upper oceans is either from vegetation decay or from fossil fuel burning (or both). But the oxygen balance shows that there is some O2 generation by vegetation, thus more CO2 uptake than decay since about 1990. Thus vegetation, which prefers 12CO2 to built in, is a source of 13C, not a sink. Thus all CO2 increase / d13C decrease we see is from fossil fuel burning…

    That doesn’t mean that there are no huge exchanges between the different compartiments. But these exchanges don’t change the mass balance, as long as the inputs are equal to the outputs, which in general is the case, except when disturbed by year by year temperature changes (3-8 ppmv/°C) or human emissions (4 ppmv/year one way). The exchanges influence the residence time of individual (human or not) molecules, but it is the imbalance which influences the decay of an excess mass injection. Two completely different, independent half life times.

  118. evanjones (03:29:36) :

    Some calculations about what Beck’s data should imply:

    There is a supposed increase of 80 ppmv in the period 1935-1942 (not visible in ice cores, coralline sponges or stomata data). That means a source adding 160 GtC into the atmosphere. Or the equivalent of 25% of all vegetation (including all wood used for buildings) on earth in seven years time. But after that, the 80 ppmv disappeared again in seven years time. That is quite remarkable as most destruction of German towns was in the last period of the war 1944-1945, when CO2 levels (according to Beck) were already on their peak…

    Of course, theoretically the oceans might be the cause, but all measurements taken over the oceans show much lower values all the time. Unfortunately, there are no measurements over the oceans in the period with the high peak of interest…

  119. MartinGAtkins (09:18:12) :

    “Man kind is only redressing the balance by releasing some of the previously buried carbon.”

    I agree totally and have been thinking this since the second week I started looking into what this whole global warming thing was all about.

    The idea of man as a Carbon Farmer is something I’ve attempted in my modest artwork. I just haven’t hit on the exact way to present it yet.

    But the image of coal miners and, heaven forbid, Exxon Mobile guys on an oil rig as beneficial Carbon Farmers would be so offensive to some quarters that the temptation to do something along those lines is mighty appealing. :)

  120. Dear Ferdinand,

    it seems to me, that you are rephrasing your argument without refuting or even ackknowleging the critic to it.
    You repeated, that the deep sea mass balance would not matter and speculate, what the CO2-levels would be like if one source would be different (-4GTC from anthropons ). . Yet your linked picture shows a different story! As I wrote before, the upper sea level-deep sea exchange might be the key to understanding!
    So, as a model let’s assume, that the CO2-concentration (perhaps by human effort; including HCO3 and all that stuff) is reduced by 20% over the next 10 years, by pumping CO2 into the deep sea.
    The total pH-value of the sea would not change (just some small increase for the near surface water), the C13-depleation of of reservoirs would continue very close to the current rate and beside the burning of fossil fuel the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would decline. Do you aggree to that?
    You understand, that this model seems to indicate that all you said, about pH-values, mass balances only in the atmosphere and dC13 as a clear indicator is not correct?
    (All the fluxes in your picture would correct for the new CO2-amount in atmosphere+near surface seawater)

    So, please, could we now discuss my question without these distractions?
    How can you have an elevated CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and a temperature rise in the sea water less than 10K and NOT dump the CO2 in the deep sea?
    If I understand you correctly you are also trying you construct some long time constants, but that doesn’t seem correct as a significant part of the reservoir is exchanged every year and that includes that a significant part of any rise is removed per year too!

    All the best,
    LoN

  121. Law of Nature (18:07:22) :

    How can you have an elevated CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and a temperature rise in the sea water less than 10K and NOT dump the CO2 in the deep sea?
    If I understand you correctly you are also trying you construct some long time constants, but that doesn’t seem correct as a significant part of the reservoir is exchanged every year and that includes that a significant part of any rise is removed per year too!

    Sorry for the delay in response, was a few days off…

    OK, let us forget the upper oceans and vegetation, but concentrate on the deep oceans…

    The largest sink, directly into the deep oceans is in the North Atlantic, where atmospheric CO2 goes directly down with the THC. The largest source is in the tropic Pacific, where the THC returns to the surface. That was so for as long as we can reconstruct the flows from the past.

    What happens when we have a steady state temperature? The amounts of CO2 released by the warm waters round the equator and the amounts absorbed by the cold waters around the poles are equal and don’t add or substract anything to/from the atmosphere, although a continuous amount (maybe 30 GtC/year) of CO2 is flowing from the equator to the poles. The deep oceans don’t change either, not in composition, not in amounts.

    Now we increase the temperature with 1 K, uniform over the whole ocean surface. What happens? The increase in temperature causes more releases of CO2 around the equator and less absorption of CO2 around the poles. As result of that, the CO2 level will increase in the atmosphere, but that has the opposite effect of the temperature increase: less release in the tropics, more absorption near the poles. Until everything again is in equilibrium (at a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere). Does that change the upper oceans? yes a little more CO2 will be found there and a little lower pH but no practical change in d13C. But the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will have an oceanic fingeprint: a small increase in d13C level.
    Does that change the deep oceans: not at all, the quantities released to bring the atmosphere into equilibrium with the oceans again are negligible compared to the mass of carbonate in the oceans.

    From the pre-industrial past it is known that the change in CO2 introduced by 1 K temperature change is about 8 ppmv/K, over periods of decades to millennia. That includes everything, thus also possible changes in deep ocean currents and thus the amount of CO2 braught into the atmosphere and deep ocean CO2 sinks.

    Now we add a lot of CO2 each year from fossil fuel burning. That is added to the atmosphere, thus increasing in first instance the CO2 level there. Thus reducing the normal release of CO2 from the warm oceans and increasing the uptake by the cold oceans, until the uptake by the oceans (if ever) is in equilibrium with the addition in the atmosphere by fuel burning. At that moment as much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (released – absorbed) as is emitted by humans.

    Does that change the amounts or d13C of the deep oceans? Not measurable, except if you burn all oil and a large part of the coal on this earth… Does that alter the d13C level of the atmosphere? Yes, that will decrease, but with less than calculated from fossil fuel burning, as a lot of (higher d13C) CO2 still is exchanged each year between deep oceans and atmosphere and back. The ratio between (human) addition and (deep ocean) circulation is what fixes the ultimate d13C level in equilibrium.

    Thus the d13C level is a clear indication that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT from the deep oceans (no matter the amounts exchanged over the seasons and years), but from the burning of fossil fuels.

    If you can reduce the atmospheric CO2 by 15% in 10 years tim, but still burn fossil carbon, the total amount would reduce by 15% (as total mass), but the d13C level stil would remain as low (in ratio with addition and cycling masses), independent of the deep ocean non-changes…

  122. Dear Ferdinand,

    howdy?
    > Sorry for the delay in response, was a few days off…
    I hope you had a great time! Please understand, that (at this stage :)) I am not trying to give you hard time, but . .
    – you are not answering my critics.

    Well, if I may sumarize your long email, where you circumvent my questions:
    You seem to aggree (in very many words), that the model in my last email above negates your previous statement about C13 and pH-values!
    My sentence was
    [..] this model seems to indicate that all you said, about pH-values, mass balances only in the atmosphere and dC13 as a clear indicator is not correct.

    It seems we are in an aggreement here, that the pH-value in the upper ocean reflects the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and the C13-depletion (in the atmosphere and upper ocean) the fact that we do burn fossil fuel.
    I did not challange any of this and repeating your arguments over and over again will note negate my questions.

    Then I wrote:
    So, please, could we now discuss my question without these distractions?
    Well, to that was very little from your side:

    You did write, that a 1K increase of the ocean temperature would mess things up. Since this would definitely disprove a mainly manmade raise of CO2 I somehow don’t think that this is your stand . . so why do you mention it?

    My question however was and is, what would/should happen (and should have happened over the last 100 years according to your mainly anthropogenic model, if the amout of CO2 in the atmosphere and upper sea is changed by 30% (35% nowadays) due to human activties (This assumption includes, that all other factors like the deep sea temperature are not changed greatly. If the deep sea temperature is changed, the CO2-circuit changes, which only proves my point, that the deep sea CO2 must be included into the mass balance)

    You wrote:
    *) What happens when we have a steady state temperature? The amounts of CO2 released by the warm waters round the equator and the amounts absorbed by the cold waters around the poles are equal and don’t add or substract anything to/from the atmosphere,

    This is not true!
    It would be true if the conentration in the atmosphere would be unchanged, but as you claim, the CO2-concentration of the atmosphere and upper sea was changed by humans. This must affect your statement *).
    Or in other words: The fact that we do not see the that the assumed anthropogenic raise being removed on a short time scale, but rather your statement *) seems to hold also nowadays indicates, that deep ocean/upper sea border seems to be close to equilibrium at the current CO2-level.
    And thus nothing was put out of balance by humans and the current level is/may be natural.

    All the best,
    LoN

Comments are closed.