Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy
The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)
Because the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.
Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide. In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:
“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000… Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…
“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…
“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.
“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.
“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”
********************
Notes
‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119. http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm
The abstract reads:
THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from: i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
Data drawn from the website http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm .
Tom Quirk has a Master of Science from the University of Melbourne and Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford. His early career was spent in the UK and USA as an experimental research physicist, a University Lecturer and Fellow of three Oxford Colleges.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ceolfrith (07:50:13) : 25th March, it’s snowing in lowland Switzerland and the Swiss are saying it’s not natural for the time of year.
Haven’t looked lately, but last week (or maybe early this week) we had persistent snow on Mt. Hamilton. Not completely unheard of, but rare this time of year… In fact, this year has had more visible snow up there than I can remember in about a quarter century. Nope, not at all scientific, given that I only sporadically look at the mountain; but the snow is pretty and rare enough that I do tend to notice when it’s there. This year, I’m jaded. It’s been there rather a lot and I’ve stopped looking…
It snowed here last night – again – the same as last Saturday night.
This winter just won’t quit, and everybody is really tired of the cold weather.
As the Sun slowly rises on this gray day, I see something in the North.
It’s a wall of ice 2 km high, slowly advancing towards us, burying everything in its path.
Sorry, got to run…
😉
:^~
Phil. (23:10:18) :
Allan M R MacRae (18:53:07) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (11:28:46)
“There is an extremely good correlation between atmospheric accumulation and accumulated emissions over the past 100+ years.”
My comment:
Sleight of hand, Ferdinand.
Both parameters are increasing in a near-linear fashion – so what?
The same correlation would occur if you plotted CO2 versus human population, or even the number of yak farts.
Because Allan, Ferdinand was replying to your claim that: “One problem is the poor correlation of atmospheric CO2 with variations in fossil fuel consumption, such as during economic downturns in the past several decades.” so if it’s so inconsequential why did you bring it up?
If there’s any sleight of hand it’s yours Allan.
**************
My comment – it’s still early here Phil, but I’ve read your comment three times and don’t get your point.
Suggest you re-read what was said between Ferdinand and I and and check Ferdinand’s referenced graph.
If you do have a valid point, please try to express it more clearly.
Thanks, Allan
P.S. Ferdinand is a brilliant fellow – he can defend himself quite well, so don’t feel the need to rush to his defense.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (11:28:46) :
There is some (increasing) delay between the NH and the SH as result of low intermixing of the hemispheres and increasing emissions.
And (relative) small changes in the economy probably have less impact on energy use and emissions compared to the natural variation in uptake (+/-1 ppmv)…
The variability in the North can be regional, but one should not underestimate the emissions over land (see e.g. the variability over Schauinsland), which may be transported up to the North via the Ferell cell. Most baseline stations are in the Pacific, which are measuring air from over the oceans and therefore are less variable.
Further, the yearly averages of the NH stations show little difference…
*********************
My comment:
All good points Ferdinand.
If I had more time I’d like to further examine the changes in the annual CO2 cycles at various locations, in the decades since ~1958/1980 (as data availability permits).
It seems to me we had smaller annual variations in the earlier (and colder)decades (and even some negative CO2 changes over 12 months), and greater variations since then.
Perhaps this is due to the aforementioned ~9 month lag of CO2 after temperature, or perhaps there is more to it.
I expect you’ve looked at this – do you have any comments?
One of my friends explains it thus:
Imagine the (mostly natural) CO2 sources and sinks are getting bigger. Atmospheric CO2 is an intermediate transaction in this much larger balance sheet – and as all the balances get larger, so does this intermediate transaction.
Best, Allan
Clarification of above:
“Should read : “Perhaps this is due to PHENOMENA ASSOCIATED WITH the aforementioned ~9 month lag of CO2 after temperature, or perhaps there is more to it.”
One question about the top map is, what (avg) altitude is the CO2 signal coming from? If it’s from mid-troposphere, then what we see might be mixing/diffusion from the ground sources into the mid-level happening a couple hundred miles downwind. This would help explain the regions of high CO2 to the east of dense NH CO2 sources. In the case of Europe, perhaps the winds are NW to SE toward N Africa. Subsequently, the high CO2 patches continue downwind & are diffused to more background levels.
Well fi I take the expanded Mauna Loa Monthly CO2 data; specifically the 6 ppm P-P cycling, and compare ti to the AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent graph that we all tracked with bated breath last fall; it seems that the two data sets pretty much exactly match as to timing.
Once the sea ice starts to regrow around September, the atmospheric CO2 over the arctic ocean starts to increase, and once the sea ice begins to melt (pretty soon) the atmospheric CO2 starts to fall again; with that 18 ppm ampolitude.
Now if you think about the solubility as a function of sea temperature, nyou would expect that colder surface waters would take up more CO2 in the Henry’s law driven process; but since the total temperature change is not large you would not expect much of a temperature effect. But the colder water woul mean less CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas the data says exactly the opposite.
This would tend to confirm my thesis that the mechanism is exclusion of CO2 fromt he solid state into the already saturated liquid state, which then must outgas the excess CO2 into the air; and the total amount of CO2 disgorged into the atmosphere is simply proportional to the total megatonnage of new sea ice grown.
Now if one looks to the Antarctic ice pack; that ice comes from precipitation; which comes from water which originally evaporated from warmer temperate waters from a warmer ocean water that is more depleted in CO2 than the Arctic waters are.
So there is no excess CO2 to precipitate with the ice pack on Antarctica, whicvh is why there is no big annual CO2 cycle there.
At the periphery of the Antarctic Continent, you do have some sea ice regrowth; but if you look ata map of the earth, you find that Antarctica is almost entirely just within the Antarctic circle, so the periphery is pretty much right on the arctic circle, so the southern ocean is outside the Antarctic circle.
In the Arctic the Arctic ocen is well inside the Arctic circle, and the Arctic circle is mostly land, with very little water circulation; whereas in Antarctica, you have almost unrestricted rotation of the southern ocean; so grwoth of new sea ice would be much less prevalent in the Antarctic.
So i believe that my thesis comletely explains the very large 18ppm cycle of CO2 variation in Arctic atmospheric CO2 and it doesn’t have anything to do with tree growth.
Just remember you read it here first.
George
Hi George,
Good luck with this, sincerely.
I pointed out the opposing sawtooth curves (CO2 and sea level) about a year ago, I think on climateaudit. As I recall I was politely ignored – a few comments, usually negative.
Don’t get discouraged if this happens – the state of this science is very poorly understood, imo.
Regards, Allan
George E. Smith (15:14:40) :
Well fi I take the expanded Mauna Loa Monthly CO2 data; specifically the 6 ppm P-P cycling, and compare ti to the AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent graph that we all tracked with bated breath last fall; it seems that the two data sets pretty much exactly match as to timing.
Once the sea ice starts to regrow around September, the atmospheric CO2 over the arctic ocean starts to increase, and once the sea ice begins to melt (pretty soon) the atmospheric CO2 starts to fall again; with that 18 ppm ampolitude.
Which would be Barrow rather than ML?
ML is I’m sure effected by the vegitation and ocean effects however I’m sure you’re right about the ice influence at sites such as Barrow. I made a similar point about Barrow last year, there’s a very strong correlation between the dates of ice melting and refreezing and the dates when CO2 starts to drop/rise. Once the sea water is exposed then it’s able to absorb excess CO2 and when the surface waters start to freeze I’m sure you’re right that the dissolved CO2 is forced out. The point about the contrast between the Arctic and Antarctic is also consistent with this mechanism.
“The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted.”
It mixes in far less than a year. Absorption is not the only factor. You people will believe anything.