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.
Lucy Skywalker:
Report that Al Gore has recanted
Looks like a hoax to me, though it states truth and thus might be a good way to convey it in a cartoonish way, which is what Gore essentially is anyway. Why not use his prime asset?
Oh, didn’t notice, but Sandy already had the gotcha! 🙂
Mark
I am curious about a few things that maybe you al can help.
1) Is their access to Mauna Loa’s raw data. They acknowledge adjusting data to match trends. The variations in monthly concentrations in raw data may provide hints about CO2 transport.(is any of the climate data raw?)
2) C14 production has been demonstrated to negatively correlate with solar activity. Thus warmer temperatures due to increased solar activity would be accompanied by a decrease in the C14 concentration. I expect this would bias results of estimates of fossil CO2 from atmospheric ratios. Has that bias been controlled for in the estimates.
3) I remember hearing several years ago that North America was a net CO2 sink. Can anyone verify that? I know there was a paper showing a large CO2 sink in North America that absorbed an estimated 50% of human emissions.
Smokey (06:52:27) :
Smokey, I’ve got this strong feeling that we are turning in circles.
CO2 is rising.
The earth is cooling.
No way CO2 is a driver of Global Temperatures.
The AGW/Climate Change doctrine is a hoax.
End of discussion.
OT: I wish someone would explain to me how spending a trillion on Healthcare ( as a down payment) will save money.
The tax will be collected, then Healthcare will be rationed in an amount less than the tax. But you knew that. It sounds like the “down payment” will go towards setting up the bureaucracy to try to get everyone’s medical records, “adminsister” the rationing, and decide what is “worth” actually treating and in whom, and when treatment will occur, delay generally being “good”.
Taxing the taxpayer then starving the taxpayer of Healthcare is the model. That’s the way Obama’s “economic growth” will occur – of course adding in the effects of the always popular green energy “jobs”, apparently at the expense of fossil fuel and nuclear energy development, and the hand-waving “education” panacea, which the Gov’t has already so skillfully manipulated to everyone’s great benefit over the past 40 years, and in fact standing as “proof” that the Healthcare model will “succeed” in like manner.
We cannot deny the fact that we as humans are pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere … it appears to me that we do not know (and perhaps never will) how our contribution is distributed globally. I don’t think one can draw too many conclusions from this study.
The argument about CO2 and its effect on climate is a different issue … but it seems from the ice core data that peaks in the concentration of CO2 are associated with the onset of ice ages!
I’ve heard that Hansen was involved in the study and theory which says that the oceans can’t absorb that much CO2 because they get saturated. Do anyone know which theory and/or study this is?
I wonder if the ocean temperatures on the abyssal plains are still recovering from the LIA. This would result in a huge amount of sea water able to hold less CO2. While surface temperatures might be dropping, might it be possible for the very deep ocean to lag by a century or two?
CO2 is clever: It is going southward, far away from those who want to capture it!
🙂
Tell it Cap and Trade does not go anymore, it is dead.
The trade winds are caused by ever increasing uprising of heated surface air along the equator. My theory is that once things settle down enough (IE dust has dissipated, along with other types of atmospheric reflectors) to allow the Sun to do its fairly steady state thing on the equator, the surface heat becomes hotter and more wide spread which forces more of it to rise, leaving more space for northern and southern cooler air to rush in to take its place. The rising large (and getting larger) air then gets caught in our orbital spin and ends up blowing hard from East to West. Since it is up high, it eventually cools and ends up closer to the surface, but its speed is still great enough to blow the warm waters off and reveal colder waters from below. The trade winds stay around long enough to clean out the Sun’s heated surface. Eventually the equatorial band cools down enough from northern and southern flow that the upwelling of hot air ends and we slip back into less windy patterns, thus allowing the equator to heat up again. This probably happens in a noisy pattern both in terms of heating and cooling, which is why we still get El Nino’s and La Nina’s in both no wind and trade wind oscillating conditions. But the imbalance continues to feed the trend up or down till it runs out of energy and starts to reverse itself. This past century was dominated by low trade winds and more El Nino’s. We are looking more and more like we will be in the higher trade wind condition, setting up for more La Nina’s. Dryer air. More dust. More plankton. And less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Rollar coaster ride anyone? Hang on. The scary part is just about to happen.
And now for a weather update. We have had dust blowing up our skirts and over our heads here in northeast Oregon along with record lows being recorded in several places, and now it is snowing. We are expecting 3 to 5 inches on the ground.
25th March, it’s snowing in lowland Switzerland and the Swiss are saying it’s not natural for the time of year.
Proves nothing but ain’t the weather baffling sometimes.
Alternatively perhaps the Hansen effect is getting stronger, range from the UK to Switzerland – both with snow – approx 1000km.
To Laurence Kirk,
Your post of 23:12 included the following:
“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.”
Oh, Lord Stern let THAT particular cat out of the bag a while back when he conceded that deforestation caused more CO2 growth annually than the emissions of all forms of transportation combined. I will look for the exact quote; it was a throwaway line in an opinion piece written in the leftist British rag, the Guardian.
Don’t let this cause you to rush out and contribute to the Rainforest Action Network, though. While their stance is laudable in principle, they seem to have no scruples about committing vandalism and bringing frivolous “greenmail” lawsuits.
Baron von…
Smokey (06:52:27) :
The drive-bys don’t often return for more punishment when you let ’em have it.
Love your stuff.
Ron de Haan (06:46:57) :
Tesla caused Tunguska….
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tesla1.htm
…and, lastly in the spirit of Lucy’s post…..
(there is no less than a whole minute’s worth of warning about the impending profanity at the beginning of this hilarious out-take about deep-sea ichthyologists complaining of the cold but I fully understand if it doesn’t get past moderation)
Building up to April 1st…..
Say, can we model this? Anyone have a good illustration program? I don’t but I can see this cycle (Sun’s heat breaks through to equatorial surface, heated air rises, northern and southern air rushing in, trade winds caught by Earth’s spin blow westward, warm ocean water blown away, cold water rising, cooler dryer air on land leading to dust blown over ocean waters, plankton bloom, fish population grows, CO2 absorbed in every greater amounts, peak is reached, trade winds die down, warm waters set up moist warm air on land, dust settles and no longer reaches ocean, plankton stops blooming, atmospheric CO2 rises steadily, Sun begins to penetrate and heat up equatorial surface again) clearly in my mind.
John A (03:20:04) :
Can someone explain why the countries of Northern Africa have a persistently higher CO2 concentration that the heavily industrialized nations of Northern Europe?
Anyone?
Good question. Next question…why is the CO2 over China and India nice and low?
I misremembered. Here is the exact Lord Stern quote. It was the Times, not the Guardian. November 14, 2008:
“Cutting them down damages the
land’s greatest carbon sink – trees are very efficient at sucking CO2
from the atmosphere. Not only that, deforestation releases more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere every year than all the world’s cars,
aircraft and ships combined.”
Smokey correctly characterizes the AGW situation, I think.
Tracking carbon isotopes through the atmosphere is a worthwhile endeavor, no doubt, but it does seem evident that humanity’s contribution of CO2 is fact.
The question is whether the result is drowning polar bears, withering crops and no decent ski-hills.
Obviously, my incentive to disbelieve is the regular check from Exxon. What is not so obvious is the warm glow of self-importance felt by the burgeoning legions of graduate students spilling across the tundra and atolls. Combine that with a well-developed sense of guilt in a prosperous public and you don’t need a conspiracy.
The psychology of impending doom is interesting, but so too, is the behavior of water.
When talking about the amount of CO2 absorbed by agriculture remember, when using the weight of the harvest as a measure, you are going to come up way short. The *whole* mass of the plant needs to be accounted for (root, stalk, leaves, etc.) & not just the fruit which is harvested (wheat & corn kernals, etc.). This is especially true for corn. The weight & mass of the whole plant is much larger than what is harvested off of the cob. The mass of the whole plant is the result of the CO2 that is absorbed from the air – natural & man-made.
Reguards,
JeffK
A little too much was deleted of the duplicate messages, here follows the first part, the second part is at (06:21:57)…
Part 1:
Sorry that I have to put some objections in…
A few of us had an extensive discussion about this paper by Tom Quirk. We had preferred to have a background discussion about his work with him before the publication, but it was already published.
As this is a long reaction, I suppose that I need to send it in parts…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
—————-
There are several assumptions in this work which render the conclusions void:
From the introduction:
If there are two sources of CO2, the ocean and a biogenic or fossil fuel source then the average implies that some 4% to 33% of atmospheric CO2 has been derived from biogenic or fossil fuel sources.
One needs to look at the history of the d13C values: measurements in ice cores, firn and recently direct atmospheric, show a near steady state of d13C levels in the atmosphere of about -6.3 +/- 0.1 per mil in the period before 1850, decreasing faster and faster after 1850 with a d13C level below -8 per mil nowadays. Thus there was, except for a temperature induced variability, no change in d13C level until about 1850, neither in total CO2 (again derived from ice cores, firn and direct measurements). This shows that there was some kind of dynamic equilibrium between atmospheric and biogenic/oceanic compartiments with continuous and seasonal exchanges only modulated by temperature.
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
As long as the conservation of mass holds, and the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what is calculated from fossil fuel use, it is impossible that there are two sources of CO2, without at the other side larger sinks which remove the “second source” completely plus near halve the human emissions in total mass of CO2. The oxygen balance (see Battle et.al.: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/287/5462/2467.pdf ) shows that the biosphere is removing about half of the total amount removed, thus the other about halve the amount is removed by the oceans, all other possible sinks being much too slow. Thus both the biosphere and the oceans are net sinks for CO2 and can’t be the cause of the CO2 increase of the atmosphere. Thus the above implication can’t be right, as there is no average of additions, but an average of one addition with two seasonal exchanges (between the atmosphere and the biosphere and between the atmosphere and the oceans surface) and one continuous exchange (with the deep oceans)…
Section 2:
No problems with figures 1 and 2. The problems start with fig. 3 and 4: By looking at the year by year change in d13C and CO2 levels, in fact one removes the trend which is of interest, and mainly looks at the variability around the trend. The main problem is in figure 9: The correlation between ENSO and d13C variability is relative good, but that only means that ENSO (in part) is responsible for the variability around the trend, not the trend itself! The same jumping to (wrong) conclusions was made by others, comparing temperature trends with the variability of the year by year increase of CO2: these have a quite good correlation, as there is a short term response of CO2 increase speed to temperature changes, but a only a small influence of temperature on the CO2 trend itself. Thus temperature is not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, neither is temperature (or ENSO events) the cause of the d13C decrease.
Have a look at the difference in appearance between looking at the variability of d13C on itself and the variability of d13C around the trend:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_var_trend.gif
The standard error of the measuring method is about 0.03 per mil, the standard deviation of the measurements around the trend line is about 0.038 per mil. The graph makes it clear that one is studying the cause of the noise around the trend and not the cause of the trend itself…
evanmjones wrote – if Anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed locally, then why does this posited natural CO2 accumulate?
Surely what happens to the CO2 after it is emitted would be affected by the nature and geographical location of each source? For example, by:
1. The rate at which CO2 is released
2. The extent to which natural or artificial CO2 sinks are present in the local landscape
3. The temperature at which the gas is emitted, and thus the rate at which it is moved away from the ground by convection
4. Local wind conditions which tend to move the CO2 up, down, or around
5. The effect of any other substances that the source is releasing at the same time
How well are these issues understood? Do the climate models address them?
Better check the comments from Ferdinand Engelbeen on Jenifer’s post.
Eric (05:41:49) :
…These natural fluxes were in balance prior to the industrial revolution…
In balance? Really? I think any datasource for pre-industrial CO2 levels will show CO2 levels being anything but “in balance”.
If by in balance you mean bouncing from ice-age to non-ice-age to ice-age then, yep, that’s in balance.
Cheers
Mark.
It’s not very difficult to point out massive sources of CO2 producing events world wide.
Number one is population growth.
One of it’s side effects can be observed here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/category.php?cat_id=8
This is the planet of earth, wind, water, fire and ice.
CO2 is now used to gain political control over humanity and the world’s resources putting our blue planet in green shackles.
http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IS0gccWYLKQK
The AGW/Climate Change proponents who parrot the UN IPCC consensus tune are not only wrong, they are also stupid. They must know that the shackles will also be applied on them. They too will pay the price in terms of a further reduction of civil liberties, the loss of democracy and the enormous bills to be paid for using energy.
They help to establish a world wide elite that believes that a reduction of the world population is necessary to save Gaia.
It’s one minute to twelve to stop them so please, start usning your brain and stop being stupid.
http://green-agenda.com
In response to (originally) Larry Kirk and various other posters on forest loss, I think we should not be so quick to dismiss cultivated crops as sinks for CO2 in the atmosphere.
To link two threads in the comments, wheat production is on the order of 10 tonnes/ha (in Europe – but it makes it easier to calculate) so using tyhe assumption given elsewhere here, that would be around 7 tonnes of CO2 fixed per hectare – does anyone know how that would compare to the various kinds of forest? (old vs new and tropical vs temperate)
Of course, most of the crop CO2 will be recycled in a shorter time-frame than the forests, but with yields of the major crops having increased something like 5 fold over the last 50 years, that’s a lot of CO2 going into a crop cycle of which a great deal will be fixed at any one time. .
As for farmers growing crops and then keeping the straw as a carbon sink, it is already occurring to some extent in that farmers switching to no-till agriculture in Canada have been receiving carbon credits for the retained biomass (reportedly – I have no direct evidence I can quote).
Rob
Thank you for the post. The CO2 fluences are the soft underbelly of AGW.