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.
I am sure glad we now have a president who recognizes the true place of real science in policy debates. This should shut down the lunacy, energy rationing and taxing, right?
Did the IPCC write that very roughly 97 percent of annual CO2 release is natural and 3 percent is anthropogenic? Of that 100 percent, roughly 98.5 percent is naturally absorbed (by various mechanisms). Only 1.5 percent remains to cause a rise in Global CO2.
Some people seem to be saying that the 1.5 percent all comes from the human 3 percent — so, we’re to blame. That nature could single us out so precisely seems unlikely. Rather, it seems to me the sources of the “excess” 1.5 percent are distributed over all of nature. Thus, human causes are a tiny part of the equation. The above study seems to confirm that. If so, human solutions are likely to be ineffective.
The huge surface area into which CO2 is absorbed is condensed water –
clouds, fog and mist, dew, humid tropical atmospheres, cold surfaces, melting ice etc.,
(and surface vegetation)
– and not directly on land or ocean surfaces, which do not possess sufficient surface area in contact with free atmosphere to account for diurnal or seasonal CO2 concentration changes.
Who is Tom Quirk? Jennifer has a small bio on him but it doesn’t appear that he is a “climate scientist”. I am afraid that will kill his cred with the AGW crew.
“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.”
Can anyone point me to more on his background? I am curious.
Darn. I was hoping man was responsible for a good amount (50%, say) of the increased level of this completely beneficial gas. Gee, there goes even that tiny amount of entirely beneficial warming caused by man. Darn again.
I guess we’ll just have to (shudder) adapt to whatever nature (including our sun) throws our way.
If AGW gets any more nails in its coffin it will become a planet in its own right.
But meanwhile, AGW – the political side is still, like a deranged headless monster crashing about, causing great confusion and destruction, and threatening even greater.
OT: “…It’s also becoming clear that Obama’s controversial global warming initiative has experienced a setback as neither House nor Senate Democrats are directly incorporating Obama’s controversial “cap-and-trade” initiative into their budget plans…Obama’s plan to combat global warming would impose higher energy costs on consumers and businesses through a so-called “cap-and-trade” system for auctioning permits to emit greenhouse gases. But so many Democrats have recoiled at the plan—which would sharply raise energy costs for consumers and businesses—that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and other environmentalists were forced to step back.”
Keep your fingers crossed.
There is no doubt that the natural sources and sinks of CO2 are responsible for huge fluxes of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere, compared to the fossil fuel consumption, cement production and other human activities that emit CO2 into the atmosphere. These natural fluxes were in balance prior to the industrial revolution. At the present time, these fluxes are removing about 50% of the human emissions on an annual basis.
It makes perfect sense to conclude that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity, and nature’s role is to absorb some of what humans are emitting into the atmosphere.
If this description is correct, it doesn’t matter what the isotope ratios are, and the intricacies of the timing of natural cycle are irrelevant. This paper is an extreme example of nearsightedness, and mindless apologetics, in an attempt to debunk AGW.
Even if true,which is very interesting, the EPA will regulate us and the government will tax us for our very existence. The agenda is settled, the science is not.
The oceans take up the CO2, but they do the take-up in the cold waters of the higher latitudes. In the tropics, the warm waters may release CO2. We have ocean currents which circulate the water in great gyres from the cold to the warm tropics. The processes of take-up and release have always been present, even during the equilibrium of pre-industrial times. They are still present, probably enhanced over recent decades and would provide a steady source of CO2 in the tropics independent of the seasons. Isn’t this what Tom Quirk concludes?
If, as has sometimes been suggested, this saw toothed annual variation in atmospheric CO2 is a seasonal vegetation overprint
could this not also be due to the fact that the globe warms during northern hemisphere summer (more land mass in the northern half of the globe) resulting in variations in ocean absorption or outgassing?
due to the sheer size of the oceans, I would think it more likely an ocean-related signal.
Looks like “lag” might be turning into a pesky word for environmentalists.
Sandy (22:00:56) : “So in wheat alone Man strips more CO2 out of the air than he replaces with fossil fuels.”
But “Man” puts it back in the form of respiring and those pesky bean and cheese burritos with flour tortillas. Well, actually that latter part is methane, which “they” say is a more powerful GHG.
This story reminded me of the lag between CO2 and temperature seen in ice core data and the fact that we are at or near the peak of a natural warming cycle as can be seen in the 3rd graph on the second page of the following link:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/meetings/arctic2007/pdf/aws_hansen.pdf
Since the earth has been warming on it’s own naturally (as seen in the above link) and since there is lag between CO2 and temperature of hundreds of years (Temperature changes hundreds of years before CO2 changes0, isn’t it possible that much of the rise in CO2 is occurring from the natural rise in the earth’s temperature?
Part 2:
Section 3:
Again no problem with Fig. 10, but the same problem with Fig. 11, where the derivative of the decrease is compared to the ENSO events, leading to the conclusion that the ENSO events are the dominant cause of the d13C decrease (which is impossible, as the oceans are positive contributors to d13C), while the only conclusion that may be made is that ENSO events (or with other words, _sea surface_ temperature) are the dominant cause of the variability around the d13C decrease…
Section 4:
Much is made from the supposed absence of change in seasonal variation. But that seems to be in error, as the seasonal cycle described is around the trend. In reality each end of a full seasonal cycle (as good as near each monthly average compared to the previous year) ends higher than the start of the same seasonal cycle. Thus the seasonal cycle shows a (continuous) addition of CO2, about half what the emissions added over a year, or with other words the seasonal cycle shows the same increase as the yearly averages, see the following graph of Mauna Loa values:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo_co2_seasons.jpg
Of course, again modulated by temperature variations… The rest of the emissions is absorbed by increased oceanic and biogenic uptake, but that has little to no effect on the amounts which are exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans (90 GtC in / 92 GtC out) or the biosphere (60 GtC in / 62 GtC out), which are in seasonal opposing directions. The difference is visible mainly in the trend, not in the amplitude of the seasonal cycle.
Section 5:
Figure 17 shows an about 1.6 year half life time for a pulse of 14CO2 levels in the NH to mix with the SH. That is true for a one-time pulse. But a continuous addition, as is happening with CO2 in the NH, takes indefinitely to mix into the SH. That is the case as well as for absolute CO2 levels as for d13C levels.
In the case of absolute levels the (increasing) delay nowadays is about 12 months:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
The correlation comparison doesn’t see a difference for multiples of 12 months, thus the conclusion that there is no lag is wrong… One need to compare trends, not correlations in this case, and the CO2 levels at the south pole reach the same values as the Mauna Loa values about one year later.
Something similar for the d13C trends, but here even with longer delays (due to relative much smaller changes), as well as in altitude as in latitude and between the hemispheres:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
The delay between Barrow (ground level North Alaska) and La Jolla (ground level, mid-latitudes) is 1-5 years, with Mauna Loa (3,400 m) 5-8 years and with the south pole (3,000 m) 7-10 years.
If the increases in atmospheric CO2 are being driven by fossil fuel emissions then changes in the isotope ratio would be expected to occur first in the Northern Hemisphere and then move to the Southern Hemisphere. The result suggests that the changes in the isotope ratio start in the Southern Hemisphere. This suggests an equatorial or Southern source of CO2 emission.
This conclusion is wrong, as it is based on the variability around the trend, not the trends themselves. As one can see in the above trends, it is clear that the d13C decrease (from the emissions) is in the NH.
Section 6, conclusions:
Most of the conclusions are based on the variability around the trends and not on the trends themselves and a wrong approach of the real delay. That leads to conclusions which have no connection with the real causes of the CO2 increase and d13C decline…
Ferdinand Engelbeen and Jack Barrett
More madness to curb non existing Global Warming:
Now they want to color the sky! Seriously.
http://www.gizmag.com/colouring-sky-counter-global-warming/11319/
Lucy Skywalker,
That Al Gore article is obviously humor. Check the rest of the articles on the site. Also, why would Gore suddenly kill that goose (that lays his golden eggs)?
@ur momisugly Larry Kirk (23:12:15)
While I understand your concern over rainforest destruction, I think the debate is far from settled over whether there really are few and fewer trees. This article below caused sparked a debate at the NYT and there is quite a literature on regrowth rates in the Amazon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html
Connecting the dots: Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
Tunguska – Connected to Global Warming?
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Tunguska.htm
Scientists have been studying carbon and carbon dating for many years and there is much solid information on atmospheric carbon content (14C) in particular and the increases/decreases during several time periods especially during the nuclear testing era.
I always wondered why these studies are not incorporated into the analysis.
Then here we are.
schnurrp
The reason that Cap and Trade is being left out of the budget is because the Democrats are peeling it off to allow the budget to pass quickly, they will simply leave a placeholder for the legislation to be crafted later as a comprehensive Energy Bill. This is an attempt to “remove a serious roadblock” and insure the Healthcare spending stays in.
I wish someone would explain to me how spending a trillion on Healthcare ( as a down payment) will save money.
Obama’s HealthCare IT initiative is just another huge Government program that will suck billions out of the budget on top of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare/Medicaid. It will never be accepted by private insurers and will be pushed back hard against by Doctors who believe in “Individualized Health Care” not statistically derived “best course of action by demographics” care.
Lucy,
It’s NEXT Wednesday that’s April Fool’s day, girl. NEXT Wednesday.
Eric,
AGW is not debunked; it is simply inconsequential. Rather, it is the AGW/CO2-runaway global warming-climate catastrophe hypothesis that has been repeatedly debunked. So please don’t try to frame the argument by trying to push skeptics into that corner. We’re not stupid.
It is widely acknowledged that increases in CO2 have a *slight* effect on temperature. But as we can clearly see, that effect is so tiny that it is overwhelmed by many other effects, some quite small themselves. In fact, the AGW effect is so small that it can not be reliably measured independent of other, larger effects. Basing policy on speculating about minor effects is wrong.
Furthermore, CO2 is beneficial. It is not harmful in any way in the concentrations being discussed. More CO2 is better. We are only taking about an increase from just under 4 parts in ten thousand to around 5 parts in ten thousand of this beneficial plant fertilizer.
No, the problem comes from all the dishonest alarmist scare-mongering. Climate alarmists are desperately trying to frighten the population into believing that a small increase in a minor trace gas will force the planet up against a vaguely described “tipping point,” followed by runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. Alarmists must take that position, and nothing less. Why?
Because if they admitted the truth — that CO2 has been many, many times higher in the past without causing runaway global warming — then they lose all the power they are trying to accumulate by their fraudulent argument.
If the truth about AGW were accepted — that it is minor, inconsequential, and temporary — it would merit no more than a few obscure articles, and the authors would point out that the beneficial effects far outweigh any harmful effects, if there even are any. No one would care about AGW if the truth about it were being told.
So which is it, Eric? Is it your belief that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming? And if so, what evidence [outside of always-wrong computer models] do you have to support your case? What empirical, real world evidence exists for your mythical “tipping point”?
You’ve taken your AGW position. Now defend it.
“Bill D (22:34:01) :
Sandy–I just did a Google quick Google search and found that World wheat production in on the order of hundreds of millions of tons. Gigatons are billions of tons, so CO2 release from fossil fuels is a 1000 times higher than wheat production. Check you numbers before posting.”
Not that I know anything about wheat production, but the difference between “hundreds of millions” and “billions” is only a factor of 10, not 1000. I agree, check your numbers before posting. 😉
Mark
Oh! Oh! Oh! Pick me! Pick me! I know how it works!
Trade winds kick up, blowing away surface warmed water leading to upwelling of nutrient rich cold water. Weather patterns from these strong trade winds leads to cooler, dryer temperatures on land, high surface winds, and dust. Iron laden dust blows onto the ocean surface thus setting up the perfect nursery for plankton to bloom. If this is an oceanic oscillation flip to cold (IE more La Nina’s than El Nino’s), conditions are wide spread, thus plankton blooms are wide spread and enormous. CO2 is absorbed in ever increasing vast quantities, as in linearly based on expanding plankton bloom. Fish and marine mammals now have an abundant food source: the plant plankton and animal plankton that feeds on the plants.
The abstract below (have to pay to see the whole $#&^%$#$ thing) includes the calculation of CO2 absorption capacity of the plankton studied. Below that is the link to a study that demonstrates that observed fish counts coincide with oceanic oscillations, not catch rates!
The reverse, IE warm oscillations, is ever decreasing plankton blooms thus CO2 decreases linearly in step with the decrease. And this happens GLOBALLY!
She aims! She shoots! She SCORES!
The Photosynthetic Capacity of the Phytoplankton in the Waters of a Coral Reef
DJ Griffiths
Abstract
Phytoplankton are relatively scarce in surface waters in a region of the Great Barrier Reef near Lizard Island. The phytoplankton sampled have a high rate of photosynthetic efficiency (1.2 millimoles CO2 fixed per milligram chlorophyll a per hour), although between 30 and 50% of the total carbon fixed may be excreted in soluble form. The rate of photosynthetic CO2 fixation into the particulate fraction is sensitive to varying levels of oxygen, suggesting the existence of a photorespiratory mechanism, a factor which might significantly influence the photosynthetic productivity of the algae in these tropical waters.
Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 3(1) 53 – 56
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y2787E/y2787e00.HTM
Laurence Kirk “That the longer term, steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide may simply be due to another, bigger vegetative signal: our year-on-year, relentless destruction of the global forest cover.”
My understanding is that forest areas are growing in North America, Europe, and the New York Times had an article on Jan.30 indicating that tropical forests around the world are growing at a very fast pace, because many farmers are moving to the cities.
Damn! In that last sentence I meant to say ever increasing atmospheric CO2 in linear step to ever decreasing plankton blooms. I was in such an excited state!