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.
Smokey (11:31:40) :
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.
Smokey,
While I have a lot of admiration for Ernst Beck’s work, there are big problems with his conclusions, for the simple reason that many of the “high level” series which contribute to the 1942 peak (+80 ppmv and back in 15 years) are taken at places, completely unsuitable for such measurements (near towns, forests, rice fields). If you measure there today, you will find much higher CO2 levels too. See my comment at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Tamino explains it in a way which is accessible to most. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/its-a-gas/ . Of course, the IPCC has a massive literature on this, which I know has not been read by most here.
A few good authors to follow up include Enting, Law, Etheridge, Rayner – scientists who publish through peer review rather than E&E. Enting has even provided a nice list of his papers at http://www.ms.unimelb.edu.au/Staff/publications.php?PC_id=167 which include some proper CO2 inversions.
Dear All,
Here the link to the article:
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html#anchor_33
Anthony Watts,
Sorry for this self-promotion. 🙂
One thing I notice looking at that graph is that flooded areas and CO2 have a better correlation than delta temp. Another is that the time series is severely skewed. I wish that the periods were a little more even, but point taken, nonetheless. Also, the flooded areas is at an all time low.
John Galt (13:21:59) :
So carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be unchanged if not for man? How is it that CO2 has gone up and down in the past without man’s help?
I recall a book and move called an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ that showed a graph of CO2 going up and down quite naturally for thousands and thousands of year. How do you explain that?
I suppose that I have repeatedly said that CO2 and temperature are in dynamic equilibrium: on short term, there is a direct response of CO2 around the trend of about 3 ppmv/°C, with a lag of only one month. For -very- long term that goes up to 8 ppmv/°C, remarkably linear, with a lag of 800 years to 10,000 years. That is even visible as a 6 ppmv dip of CO2 in the LIA cooling (with a lag of about 50 years) in the Law Dome ice core:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
Thus there is a nice, but limited causation of temperature changes on CO2 level changes over the past 800,000 years (the opposite causation is not measurable in the ice cores…). But the temperature is not the cause of the past 150 years increase of 100+ ppmv, as the temperature increase since the LIA is some 0.8°C, good for 6 ppmv increase…
“natural carbon sources + emissions = natural carbon sinks + increase in the air.
Of this equation, only the emissions are known with reasonable accuracy and the increase in the atmosphere is known with good accuracy.”
Sorry, but don’t you need one side of this equation to be solved before you can solve the other?
In other words, you have ? + emissions = ? + increase
Besides you qualify the knowns with “reasonable” and “good”
That makes the whole thing subjective, don’t you think?
Andrew
Pamela Gray, your explanation makes more sense than CO2 drives the climate theory. By the way, I understand you also get excited when shoes go on sale.
thanks to RC for this one can,t wait to sign up
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/cato_adpdf
This would be a very worthwhile effort I wonder if this is worth a story here?
Adolfo Giurfa (12:59:11) :
” el nino that sea “gets ill” during these events and then it happens what fishermen call the “red tide” (died plankton and other sea organisms) tinting the sea of red color.”
The rise of the Haemo and Xanthotic chromatic ( blood/brown) species is usually a response to increased surface uvb.The usual “inhabitants’ defensive strategy is to swim deep.This creates a “market niche” where the “colour species” with enhanced pigmentation can exploit.
The ability of biological species to adapt to adverse environments is one of the paradoxes of Ecological science.Hence the exclusion of some “players” from the” marketplace” will allow for smaller players to dominate the market due to enhanced adaptability.
Brown being the new green in an ultraviolet world.
I had always hoped that I would have something of substance to add to one of these threads. In regards to the biomass of crops, or any other plants for that matter, the carbon comes almost exclusively from the atmosphere. In the process of photosynthesis, carbon in the air is absorbed (in the form of CO2), and converted into sugars. See here: http://books.google.com/books?id=I49cDRX5xLQC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=plant+carbon+weight+scientist&source=bl&ots=au1DQXmaip&sig=zPHzvznYPUkxmMuWH_3d5Bsekss&hl=en&ei=za7KScvLHYnYsAO_18G4Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA184,M1
Dan Murphy
anna v (11:59:14) :
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
The White House is inviting you to post your questions on the economy and vote on submissions from others. The President will answer some of the most popular in an online town hall on Thursday.
Note to US people: Not much time left to send in questions
Dear Anna V
I am not an American, yes I know bad luck then.
You should post “We wont get fooled again”
OT. Perhaps a scientist or two from WUWT discussions could help out here with the scientific-sounding spin question. http://leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=962448061C3C5E2D25EB7E50D4FE2D16?diaryId=2805
From the main post:
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.
Without having studied carefully the whole shebang, it seems to me that one cannot easily distinguish a 6 months delay from a 18 month lead/delay, or any other multiples of 12 months. I was once waiting for a train that runs every hour and they announced that the next train was one hour late…
In 1800, there were 2.9 billion hectares of tropical forest worldwide. There are 1.5 billion hectares of tropical forest remaining.
Between 1960-1990, 445 million hectares of tropical forest were cleared.
Asia lost almost a third of its tropical forest cover between 1960-1980 — the world’s highest rate of forest clearance.
Almost 90% of West Africa’s rainforest has been destroyed.
We lose 50 species every day — 2 species per hour — due to tropical deforestation.
more than 200,000 acres of rainforest are burned every day.
Is there a link.
http://www.rainforestlive.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=214
Rob,
Thanks for explaining where much of the past century’s rise in CO2 came from. Now, as I’m sure you’re aware, the forests are being re-grown due to the influx of people from the countryside into cities.
Also, your link had this: “In most tropical countries only one tree is replanted for every ten cut.”
The reason for this is clear: land ownership by the State. If private property owners held the land, they would provide for the future by planting trees on their land. Private property = Conservation. State ownership = destruction of habitat. Even in California there is plenty of litter and trash in public parks, while adjoining private property is very clean by comparison. And private property generates property taxes; public lands suck up taxes.
See the problem?
WAY OT but this video has been getting a LOT of comments on YouTube.
A speech in the EU parliament by a conservative MEP Daniel Hannan to Gordon Brown.
DaveE.
Leif,
I fully agree, there is an about 12 month delay of CO2 levels from Mauna Loa to the south pole, which is reduced to zero if looking at correlations as Tom did…
————
We had some years ago an inland helicopter flight in Greenland, starting exactly on scheduled time, until we heard that it was in fact three days late (due to bad weather…).
Of course, the IPCC has a massive literature on this, which I know has not been read by most here.
If they read my posts, they have the gist of it. I have illustrated the IPCC version of the carbon cycle on many occasions.
It looks logical to me, and I accept its basic premises . . . yet it may be wrong.
“as the temperature increase since the LIA is some 0.8°C, good for 6 ppmv increase…”
In other words, we are still dangerously close to another LIA?
Dear Pamela Gray
Reading your post is analagous with missing a train and trying to chase it only to return to the station and miss the next train and to try to chase that one whilst you know the next one is coming and so on.
Wrong analogy reading your posts is more like being caught in a tornado wearing roller skates.
Now just like a child only yesterday I spin the globe on Google earth, and presented just the ocean and of course the memory of the earth being covered by two thirds by water came back.
You may be on to something I shall go to sleep now and cuddle up with Schrodingers Cat.
I am still waiting for someone to explain how the IPCC concludes carbon emission were flat (or even slightly in decline) during WWII.
That is an overlarge elephant in the room.
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen:
The arithmetic that you have presented is seriously flawed. First you stated that only TWO of your terms are well defined and “known with reasonable accuracy”: Emissions (E) and the increase left in the air (I). That leaves natural carbon sources (A) and natural carbon sinks (B) undefined and as implied in you post, not known with any reasonable accuracy. Therefore our equation is expressed as follows:
A+E=B+I, where E=8 Gt/yr. and I=4 Gt/yr.
or
A+8=B+4
or
A – B = -4
Well, by the ‘simple arithmetic’ you’ve set up, mathematically speaking the difference between Natural Carbon Sources and Natural Carbon Sinks must always equal -4 Gt/yr.!
This makes for a supreme demonstration of the problem with the AGW crowd. We DON’T know enough about Natural Carbon Sources and we DON’T know enough about Natural Carbon Sinks, but – by god! – we KNOW the increase in the atmosphere has to be man made!
That is not sound science. It is conjecture. Combined with the demand to spend trillions in taxes and lifestyle changes, it has a strong degree of hubris to boot.
PS Any unbiased 8 year-olds want to double check my arithmetic?
I don’t know if anyone’s posted the link, but here ya go: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?em
AGW denier! OMG!!!
Ferdinand
“natural carbon sources + emissions = natural carbon sinks + increase in the air.
Of this equation, only the emissions are known with reasonable accuracy and the increase in the atmosphere is known with good accuracy.”
So, by your own admission, the natural sources and sinks are not known, but you are assuming they remain constant!
Simple arithmetic indeed…
BTW, I heard Roger Harrabin reporting recently, from a suitably exotic location, that the extra CO2 was acidifying the oceans and in turn dissolving the coral. It’s some while since I did any chemistry, but I think it would require rather a lot of carbonic acid to do that, and (of course) he didn’t actually quote any figures to back up his assertion. The BBC were happy to fly him to somewhere nice and tropical, but the budget didn’t apparently run to a piece of Litmus paper.
I sure wish these “raise awareness” showoffs had to prove that awareness of whatever needed raising and whatever they were proposing to do would raise it and that “raised awareness” would solve some problem.