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.
My hunch is that this journal will become the center of attention fairly quickly unless dunderheads think that the recent attempt to fertilize oceans with iron proves that this tiny plant cannot be responsible for atmospheric CO2 levels (the response was indeed a bloom but short lived). They will walk away with a kernel of truth and throw the baby out with the bath water. We may have, in our attempt to stumble through an episode of “How Things Work”, uncovered a tiny but potentially mighty plant.
Journal of Plankton Research
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/
* in 2003: 549,433,727 Mt where Mt is “metric tons” or 549.4 million metric tons.
* in 2003: 560.3 million metric tons
* There may be a difference of 10% to other tons.
I don’t know if the wheat plant weighs 6 times more than the seeds (thus biomass would be 7 times harvest), but even if everything above the root were harvested the farmers could encounter biomass difficulties. How much of the plant comes from the soil, rather than from CO2 and water? The soil has to be replenished, and usually the wheat roots and some of the stalk are returned to the soil.
I don’t think this is too off topic but the post on Professor Hansen is too full. The link below is to the Guardian Newspaper and is an article by Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen. ” We never said biochar is a miracle cure”
At the end of the article the following note is shown:-
“Pushker Kharecha and Jim Hansen are at the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/25/hansen-biochar-monbiot-response
Smokey (06:52:27) :
Nailed it!
WRT the Al Gore article, it seems to be based on a couple of things that are real, but the author just ran wild with them.
One is, that he recently pulled a slide from his presentation linking an increase in fires, floods and other calamities and warning the audience that global warming “is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented.”
The other is that he said, at a Web 2.0 Summit (whatever the heck that is) last November that he feared that his advocacy work, spearheaded by his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” has not done its job. “I feel, in a sense, I’ve failed badly,” he said. “Because even though there’s a greater sense of awareness, there is not anything anywhere close to an appropriate sense of urgency. This is an existential threat.”
Saying he has “failed badly” in his mission to transmit the “appropriate sense of urgency” is certainly a far cry from admitting he was wrong.
It’s nice to dream, though.
Smokey (06:52:27) :
Wrote
“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.”
I made 2 points about the abstract from Energy and Environment which is the subject of this web page.
1) The isotope analysis and analysis of timing done in Quirk’s article is nearsighted and irrelevant. It is absurd to claim that it shows that human activity is not responsible for the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere Simple arithmetic definitively shows human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2 since the industrial age.
If there is something wrong with this idea please explain why.
In additiion Ferdinand Englebeen’s post explains why the analysis is incorrect.
2) It shows that no idea is too absurd for some AGW ~snip~ to use to deny the reality of AGW. Their belief is so strong that simple reason has been ignored.
If you want to dispute the points that I have made please go ahead.
“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.”
I haven’t taken any AGW position in my above post. Why don’t you go back and read it.? I only pointed out that this argument made by some ~snip~ is so contrary to logic that it casts doubt on their ability to reason on the basis of simple arithmetic.
Arguing the general question of AGW is not the subject of this web page.
This study is interesting – but like Nick Stokes above, I remain skeptical.
I’m not a believer in catastrophic AGW but it seems pretty well established that massive burning of fossil fuels releases massive volumes of CO2 that end up in the atmosphere. I don’t think it is enough to say the are “absorbed locally” without a demonstrated (or at least hypothesized) mechanism/process to suggest why this would be. I also thought the isotope studies were pretty clear on attribution of rising CO2 to humans. Above someone said the data on which isotope studies are based is “sparse”. I had not heard that previously, but…
I guess I would feel better about this study if 1) a local mechanism / process for absorption is described and 2) if a thorough analysis of the isotope studies indicates they are in error. Does anyone know of studies in these areas?
Hi,
As to higher CO2-levels over north africa, arabia and western united states.
Theese are dry places and CO2 is soluble in rain water, in high school we were sent out with ph-paper when it started to rain and after a few ours of raining.
The observed lowering of ph in the early rain were probaly due to SO2 and NO2 in the air,
However I think the principle to explain part of the CO2-map of the earth is there.
Can this explain why the CO2 level is lower over antarctica and greenland? Or what is the physical reason? More sinks than sources?
/Fredrik
Could it be that winds carry CO2 away from sources? It is possible that winds are to blame for some countries looking like major producers of CO2 when emissions based on fuel receipts would peg other countries, like China? I think CO2 buildup is a global thing but noisy based on address, not well mixed because winds are not well-mixed, and is based on a natural vegetative cycle tied to the oceans.
Well I see in that color map, a global variation of more than 15 ppm of mid tropospheric CO2 abundance. (why do people keep on saying “by volume”). If they can identify the molecules as being of different species; why not just report abundance by molecular species. In the atmosphere there is only one volume; the total sample volume, so to measure any individual species by volume, you have to extractr every last specimen of a species from the sample, and none of any other species, and then reduce each to STP before you can measure its volume.
Simply counting molecules allows you to use an infinitesimally smaller sample.
But to get back to my point. The total range of CO2 abundance in this plot is about 15 years worth of annual baseline increases.
That does not make me comfortable that the 15 ppm global spread is simply a lack of adequate mixing time from some transient event. That 15 ppm spread would seem to be a stable global pattern that is being maintained by global variables.
Every time I have asked real world official actual accredited “climatologists” or “climate scientists”; you know those with the sheepskin that says they alone know what they are talking about, when it comes to climate; what is the variation of CO2 abundance, both over the globe, and with altitude in the atmosphere; the response has been:- “The atmosphere is well mixed, and CO2 has the same abundance everywhere.”
Well my reasons for asking were of course to get clues as to where it is coming from and going to, and from time to time.
Well obviously the atmosphere is NOT well mixed, and CO2 is certainly not the same everywhere in the atmosphere. And I dare say, that evidence that this is so, is of rather recent vintage.
Like much of climate science, and its areas of interest; the Science is far from settled, and new revelations are taking place at an increasing clip.
Maybe one day, climatology will be able to leave its brothers; astrology and economics, and join the mainstream of real science.
“And looking at the oceans as an alternative candidate, I realise that by far the largest area of the planet is covered in ocean. But the ocean has a practically flat-surface interface with the atmosphere. Trees on the other hand stick right up into it, presenting a huge surface area to the air, which blows endlessly through their rustling leaves.”
I can tell you from working on fishing boats that the Ocean is not flat and that it is usually very windy – much more so than the land.
No one knows much about the physical and chemical processes of the Ocean-air boundary.
The bacterial biomass dwarfs all others in both the ocean and the land.
I also think the CO2 release from volcanoes and thermal hotspots – both on land and in the ocean is poorly understood. A perusal of papers on CO2 outgassing for specific pools in Yellowstone when integrated across the whole park produces a stunning amount of CO2. Yellowstone is but one of several hundred geothermal spots across the globe.
Smokey,
You ask Eric to defend the AGW theory.
He doesn’t need to. Reds and greens like it because of the policies it suggests, not the science.
AGW is the default so it for us to falsify it and to propose better theories.
“I don’t know if the wheat plant weighs 6 times more than the seeds (thus biomass would be 7 times harvest), but even if everything above the root were harvested the farmers could encounter biomass difficulties. How much of the plant comes from the soil, rather than from CO2 and water? The soil has to be replenished, and usually the wheat roots and some of the stalk are returned to the soil.”
What you are looking for is called Harvest Index, which is the ratio of crop yield to above ground dry matter. Below ground dry matter will usually be equal to that above ground – however we only know what me measure – we do not know the flux of carbon into the soil during growth. Many plants release sugars around their root systems to attract bacteria who release N and other nutrients.
So the harvest:total dry matter ratio for wheat is around 1:2 + flux factor.
Soil carbon content is a very large and poorly understood carbon sink.
OT: Lobbyists Are First Winners in Obama’s Clean-Technology Push
The stimulus bill, signed by President Barack Obama last month, includes $77.6 billion for clean-energy projects, according to the research firm IDC.
Competition for government dollars will be intense, said Jon Sakoda, a partner at New Enterprise Associates in Chevy Chase, Maryland. NEA has 25 clean-energy startups in its portfolio, he said.
“At least half have either hired lobbyists or will in the next three to six months,” Sakoda said.
Cleantech Group, a San Francisco consulting and executive- search firm, says venture capitalists are bombarding it with requests to form a trade association. They want a permanent presence in Washington to lobby for the industry.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNH.vsK2D.lQ&refer=home
“What kind of physical process would lead to manmade CO2 streaming into the ocean (or wherever) while some other CO2 is streaming out.”
Why night followed by day, Nick. PhD. confusing you?
To my mind it doesn’t matter if it is human produced or not. Nobody has shown that the CO2 is a problem of any kind.
THAT is real problem with all of this. We can argue all day about how many angels can rest on a pin, but in the end does it really matter?
There is no proof to date that there is any harm in the CO2 emissions. Oh, and how do you tell the difference between CO2 generated by coal seam fires and CO2 generated by coal power plants?
What if the CO2 we now have in the atmosphere is another necessary ingredient for the oscillating plankton bloom that produces the oscillating fish population boom? Were we to somehow (not likely but I am just musing here) reduce this CO2 and then the plankton bloom were to happen, it would be short lived due to insufficient CO2.
“Growth of ‘Clean Coal’ as Energy Source Faces Challenges”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/127840-growth-of-clean-coal-as-energy-source-faces-challenges
Jim Steele (07:20:30) :
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?)
Raw hourly averages from several baseline stations, including Mauna Loa can be found at: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/ up to 2006. These are the directly calculated result of 40 minutes of air intake 10 second sampling raw voltages, compared to the voltages measured from 3 reference gases with known CO2 level in the same apparatus.
These data may be flagged with specific flags for different circumstances which may indicate (local) contamination: instrument malfunction, upwind conditions (depleted by vegetation), volcanic outgassing (increased levels),… Flagged data are not used for daily, monthly or yearly averages. But including or excluding the flagged data has little effect (less than 0.1 ppmv) on the trends…
More about quality control and procedures of Mauna Loa (and other stations) at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
More about CO2 measurements and the cause of the increase at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
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.
The estimates of CO2 emissions are based on the sales of the different fossil fuels and their equivalent release of CO2 when burned, not on 14C levels. More reliable are the 13C/12C ratios, as these are stable isotopes. But then one need to know if the biosphere (which has near the same low 13C level) is a net absorber or a net source of CO2. That is found in the oxygen balance: if more oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning, then the biosphere is a net source of CO2. Or opposite if less oxygen is used than calculated. From the balance, it is clear that the biosphere is a net sink of CO2. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
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.
North America and Europe have reforested quite large parts of their land, which may compensate for CO2 releases, as long as the forests grow. But once the forest is mature, there is about as much release as there is uptake… But I have not seen exact figures for that…
“Simple arithmetic definitively shows human activity is responsible for the increase in CO2 since the industrial age.”
This is an assertion about simple arithmetic, yet the simple arithmetic suggested is not actually included in the post.
In the interest of Science, please show us what simple arithmetic you are talking about. Should be easily postable by you, since it’s so simple.
Andrew
Jennifer Marohasy (23:46:35):
The paper suggests that emissions from fossil fuels and many other sources are fixed locally.
Yes, it’s correct and, besides the well-known sinks of carbon dioxide, sand is another powerful absorber of carbon dioxide which has not been considered by AGW modelers:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/320/5882/1409
When these facts appear in peer reviewed papers, AGW proponents immediately bowl doubts on the genuineness of the results but not producing scientific arguments against, however.
I’m planning to publish a graph where I made a comparison between the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on geologic timescale and the sea levels. I know you could guess what the result was. Indeed, carbon dioxide has been diminishing through time married with the decreases of sea level; however, my assessment indicates that the lowering of sea levels came first and decreases of the concentration of carbon dioxide came after. The latter bring to mind the information on hot water releases higher loads of carbon dioxide, while cold water releases small amounts of carbon dioxide.
We must be thankful to Gwrs, and their prophet himself, that such a brainstorming place as WUWT exists.
Seems to me that the oceans are the largest sink/source and vegetation is rather insignificant. Vostok shows that the temp drops, and CO2 stays elevated for ~800yrs. If trees were effective sinks, then CO2 should track temp rather than lag. Gotta be the oceans.
Anyone have any data on how much CO2 vegetation sinks during the day, and sources at night?
But this isn’t the kind of story that will make its way into the MSM, this is
All-women team set for South Pole
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7962311.stm
“The group plans to travel 800km (500 miles) over six weeks, braving sub -30C (-22F) temperatures to reach the heart of Antarctica, in an attempt to raise global awareness on global warming.”
The only way it will change is when the lights go out, the old and vulnerable start to die and the polititions start fearing for their jobs
Eric:
“Simple artihmetic” shows nothing but mindless correlation. Causation must be proven. And causation has taken about 4 – 5 torpedoes in the case of rising CO2 = rising temps; that ship is going down. Why? Because as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures are falling.
Also, the unbelievable claim that CO2 has remained at a steady 280 ppmv for a thousand or more years is baseless. See Beck, et al.: click
It’s a big website, so take your time. And be aware that the scientists taking those quite accurate CO2 measurements were not doing it for grant money, but for the love of knowledge and because of their interest in science. Over 90,000 measurements were taken, and the results are far, far different than the steady state 280 ppmv claimed over the centuries by others.
Finally, whether the CO2 produced by human avtivity can be quantified begs the previous question: is an increase in a minor trace gas bad, neutral, or good? The evidence indicates more CO2 is beneficial.
The planet is starved of carbon dioxide geologically speaking, so more CO2 is better. Plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2. So unless you can provide empirical, real world evidence [not the always-inaccurate computer model “evidence”] showing conclusively that CO2 will cause runaway global warming, then there is nothing to be concerned about. Is there?