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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_800kyr.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
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
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):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_1959.jpg
and for 1960-2004:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2.jpg
over the full period 1900-2004:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
hotrod (17:46:39) :
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.
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.
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.
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
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.
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.
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?
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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
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
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.
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…
That should be “at date 225000 YBP and 250 C02 ppm.”
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.
I really must remember to address my posts to the person quoted. The last was to:-
David Archibald (17:35:16)
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.
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.
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
Ahem, opening a can of warm bear demonstrates that RISING temperature decreases CO2 solubility in water.
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.