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.
As somebody pointed out; the CO2 global map above is a snapshot at a particular time.
In the recent archives we saw a movie version of a slice of this data from pole to pole; and somewhere hidden in the NOAA archives, is a three-D pole to pole CO2 graph for about ten years or so.
The result of all of these sources of data seems to be that the CO2 over most of Antarctica (mid tropo) is about 365 ppm, (Or was in 2003),; but at ML in 2003 the level is about 375, and varies about 6ppm in the annual cycle, while at the north pole the annual cycle is 18 ppm, as was dramatically apparent in the movie version.
None of this data suggests to me that there is much north-south mixing going on at all. If the North pole is waggling around +/-9 ppm about a mean value,and there was good mixing, I would not expect to see the south pole basically static at around 365 ppm, with no more than about 1 ppm p-p cycling, which is out of phase with the northern hemisphere cycle.
The data gives all the appearance of the CO2 being emitted and absorbed locally.
As to ice not absorbing CO2; I presume that such a statement is based on the same presumption that the CO2 entrapped in atmospheric bubbles in ice cores does not propagate over time since ice is quite impervious to CO2 (it is presumed).
Now I would not choose ice as a repository for any gas sample that I wanted to preserve for geological time scales; and the implication is that not only is ice impervious to CO2, but also to any species of O2 or N2, and other trace GHGs that are found in ice core air pockets; or else those samples would be changing over time, if one or another species could migrate through the ice.
But as to CO2 being found in ice in clouds; one plausible hypothesis would be that such ice was at one time liquid water somewhere or even water vapor; and that the CO2 contamination occurred before the water froze into ice. Now I have absolutely no evidence or data for such a wild statement; which is why I say it is just a hypothesis; well I did say plausible too, so maybe it ins’t plausible; and the ice is either CO2 free or else it got there by some other means, about which I have no conjecture.
George
Julian Flood (01:23:52) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (above) has an isotope graph which people claim proves an anthropic source for the light C. However, the graph does not actually do that — the light C signal begins around 1700 which is well before we started pumping oil. So, how to account for that?
Well oil isn’t the only fossil fuel, you might be interested to know that in England & Wales coal passed wood as the major source of thermal energy in ~1620.
One of the major effects of warmer temperatures on lakes and oceans is stronger stratification and shallower mixing. This has already had substantial effects on lakes accross North America and Europe. In deep lakes and oceans, warmer winter temperatures also lead to shallower mixing and less nutrient regeneration/upwelling. This a major effect of climate warming that has been predicted and documented by limnologists and oceanographers over the last few decades. The American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO.org) is publishing a special issue of Limnology and Oceanography (L&O) on the topic: Lakes as sentinels of climate change.” Final revisions of manuscripts are due in April, so maybe the issue will be published by late summer or ealy fall. L&O is the top-rated journal in the aquatic sciences.
“One of the major effects of warmer temperatures on lakes and oceans is stronger stratification and shallower mixing.”
What are the effects of this on lakes and oceans?
Well, well, well,
More proof that timing is everything, although, the real estate maxim, location, location, location, as this blog has provided ample evidence, also has much to recommend it.
Don’t LOL, but could the increase in CO2 be due to an invasive species? Earth worms were introduced to the americas by the colonists in the 1600s. They spread slowly at first. By the 1800s they were spreading faster. They are still spreading. They are eating the leaf layers on our forest’s floors and the biomass in the soil thereby releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
I may have endangered trillions of earthworms by alerting those who believe increased levels of CO2 cause global warming, but I think the possibility should be considered if hasn’t all already.
Bill, in 2006 there was a flush of articles warning that the Walker Circulation would come to a stop, given that the strength of that circulation had slowed during the last part of the previous century. That circulation is part of the trade winds that blow East to West and cause the upwelling to occur. Their conclusions have been falsified, since continuously monitored data indicate a return to normal conditions on average and stronger than normal conditions in the north Pacific.
So now they turn to lakes. That will also be falsified. Wallowa County is flush with high mountain lakes, rivers, and streams that are closely monitored for stream flow and temperature as part of the fish conservation effort. All the layers have gotten colder. All the rivers are colder. The top layers are colder. The bottom layers are colder. And it makes no difference on the altitude. Last winter, the Lostine River froze from the bottom to the top! In that order! Why did it freeze like that? The top layer is a faster current and resisted freezing, whereas the bottom layer slows to swirl behind rocks and boulders, freezing from the bottom up.
Too bad the publisher spent money on the book. It’s a lot harder to ignore a stupid conclusion when it comes in book form. Journal articles that come to stupid conclusions are just buried in Ivory tower dusty library archives. Books will stick around to remind the author how wrong he/she was.
My guinea pig of 1 kg has an annual turnover of 16 kg of hay, still my guinea pig is a net carbon sink because every year she gains a few grams of weight.
Calling all Phils
Hey Phil,
Something you said up above put a rock through some cobwebs, and got me thinking.
Specifically you said that; “Co2 is not soluble in ice.” Well so what ?
Well then it dawned on me. I know a thing or two about impurities in solids; or more specifically the sweeping of impurities out of solids in the presence of another phase.
In my case; in an earlier life, I was involved in tow different manifestations of this effect.
I worked for a company that made at the time, hundreds of kgrams of single crystal Gallium Arsenide; using a variation of the Horizontal Bridgeman process sometimes referred to as “Gradient Freeze. We sythesized the GaAs and grew the single crystal ingots in a single process from high purity (at least 6-9s purity) Gallium and Arsenic. The molten gallium Arsenide puddle was brought in contact with a seed crystal, in the presence of a temperature gradient along the container so that the seed end was colder and just about at the melting point. Then the temperature is dropped very slowly while maintaining a temperature gradient, so that the liquid/solid interface moved along the crystal as it grew.
Residual impurities in the melt, are swept ahead of the freeze interface, because of the “segregation coefficient” for those impurities in the solid/liquid phase diagram. Specifically the impurites were much more soluble in the liquid, than in the solid, so as the crystal gre, the impurities were swept into the remaining melt and kept out of the crystal, so they were concentrated right in the end of the final ingot; and that part would be cut off for recycling.
We recycled all of the materials including wafer sawing dust, and other scrap material so that we recaptured a lot of raw gallium metal; in fact we supplied about 1/2 of our total input Gallium usage from recycling. The gallium recycling of course required cleanisng processes too and one of those used in the final purification process to metal as good as 7-9s purity, was also a freezing process. Gallium was itself crystallized from a melt, and the melt residual containing removed impurities was sent back for additional chemical processing; but the segr4egation of impurities in the liquid, was by far the most powerful cleansing step, and repeated freezes (at near room temperature) worked wonders in our gallium cleansing.
So back to the ice and the CO2.
Of course we already know that when seawater freezes, the dissilved salts are largely rejected in the solid phase; once again because of the segregation coefficient, and the much higher solubility of the saltsa in the liquid phase.
Ergo pretty much the same should occur for CO2 and other gases dissolved in water as it freezes.
Now when the arctic ocean starts its refreeze process in the fall, as we all watched last year; you have ice growing at the boundary of the water/ice interface; and the salts being excluded from the solid phase there, back intoi the water, making for a saline rich interface layer, containing excess salt, and thereby having an even lower freezing temperature.
So the freezing ought to take place at a temperature which is actually below the true freezing temperature of the bulk of the surrounding sea water, and as a result, I would expect that once the refreeze gets underway, in what is essentially a supercooled liquid phase; the growth rate of ice is probably quite large, as a result of the boundary layer brine.
So now lets toss the CO2 into this mix. The ocean surface waters presumably contain the required Henry’s law concentration of dissolved CO2 for whatever temperature and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure exists; assuming a calm waters situation.
So once the water starts to freeze and exclude salts into the boundary layer brine; we should also have excess CO2 being forced out of the ice, into the boundary layer of water as well; and given that the boundary layer then likely has an excess of CO2 over the Henry’s law equilibrioum amount; that interface ought to be outgasssing almost all of the CO2 into the atmosphere.
So the period of arctic ice refreeze ought to be a period of massive CO2 emission from the arctic oceans as the surface waters give up their CO2 to become the new ice.
Now I presume that the same sort of thing would happen in the Antarctic.
So in the annual CO2 cycle in the arctic region, where does the atmospheric CO2 gain occur in relation to the ice refreeze.
Enquiring minds want to know ?
George
Pamela Gray (11:57:12) :
Bill, in 2006 there was a flush of articles warning that the Walker Circulation would come to a stop, given that the strength of that
Pamela:
I was not talking at al about ocean currents or rivers freezing, I was talking about mixing depth, as in the depth of the thermocline and the effect of climate warming on the timing and duration of thermal stratification. The publication that I was talking about is not a book, but a scientific journal that is publishing a special issue devoted to effects of climate change on lakes, including recent changes as well as paleo–prehistoric work. The journal is a major publications for oceanographers and limnologists since about 1947. I was also talking about work that has been documented and has appeared in many publications. Recently, I have been involved in research in large subalpine European lakes for example. These are very deep lakes, typically several hundred meters deep and climate change is affecting the timing of thermal stratification, the duration of thermal stratification and the mixing depths. I was not really talking about theoretical work, I was talking about long term data sets, some going back to the 1920s that are useful in understanding climate change in these lakes. Some articles in the upcoming issue will also consider how ancient lakes and lake sediments can be used as records of temperature, pH, terrestial vegetation and rainfall since the last ice age.
My own contribution is looking how stratification affects trophic cascades –where fish prey on zooplankon and zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. I am publishing on a 21-year data set for Lake Maggiore (Italy and Switzerland). My Italian colleague and I are very interested to find out whether the same hypothesis that applies to the Lake Maggiore food chain will also explain the very different food chain effects that have been seem in Lakes Geneva and Lake Constance. Interestingly, I have already done a preliminary analysis of a data set for Lake Zurich that is very supportive of our hypothesis. So, I am hoping hat the scientists who “own” the long term data sets for these other very large andeep European lakes will collaborate with us. Quite fortunately, water pollution in the 1960s and 70s resulted in remediation (phosphorus reduction) and funded long-term research that is now very useful for understanding climate change. (One benefit for me is that I will be visiting northern Italy in April to work on this project).
Stronger thermal statification also reduced nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in the upper well-lit layer, generally reducing lake or ocean productivity. I guess that my initial comment was in part a response to the earlier discussion on how CO2 might affect phytoplankton production.
Nick Stokes (18:55:47) :
Howardteh “Does the extra amount come close to or exceed the amount generate by fossil fuel emissions? “
We’ve burnt about 321 Gigatons carbon since 1751. The atmosphere weighs about 5148000 Gt; an addition of 100 ppmv CO2, which is a bit less the rise we’ve seen, implies an extra 213 Gt carbon in the air. That’s about 66% of what we’ve burnt.
Thanks Nick, that was the answer I was looking for.
Bill D.
Interesting information.
But as you know; fresh water has a temperature of maximum density of around 4 deg C, whereas ocean water of greater than 2.47% salinity, has no such maximum density before it freezes.
Consequently the gravitational turn-over that occurs in fresh water lakes does not happen in the oceans.
So it is not clear to me that fresh water lake studies however useful with regard to fresh water lakes, don’t give us much information about ocean conditions.
George
Pamela Gray (07:51:04) :
Upwelling is why the PDO anomaly has turned cold. Compare the vapor and cloud trajectories with the Pacific Ocean SST change and you will see the pattern. By the way, winds ARE near the surface, else sailing ships would be dead in the water.
Of note, our local paper has reported that a near record number of salmon have returned, leading to a possible salmon season on the Imnaha river.
Since the PDO was originally discovered from fisheries statistics and the cool phase has historically favored the salmon this is not a surprise.
Well, a day of other work gives a lot of extra work to react on…
As the longest reaction was the first, we better start backwards:
James P (08:00:56) :
Ferdinand
Thank you for replying. You say that “I hope I made it clear that I don’t assume that the natural sources and sinks are constant”.
Perhaps I oversimplified, but if they’re not constant, they must be tracking each other to satisfy your maths. Is that likely?
No, you need to see that as a mix of two variables: one is the continuous increase of the emissions, which are not very variable and the other is the variability in sink capacity, caused by all natural influences together (sea surface temperature, land temperature and precipitation) which influences the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and vegetation. In some warm years (1998 El Niño) ocean temperatures are high and we see an extra increase in CO2 level (but still less than the emissions). In cooler years we see the opposite, much more of the emitted CO2 is absorbed.
But in general, the variability of the sink capacity is only halve the emissions and varies around the increase in the atmosphere, which is about 55% of the emissions.
It would be a different point if in some years the increase in the atmosphere was higher than the emissions. Only in such case, there is a contribution of nature to the rise…
George E Smith
Data for Barrow (Alaska) atmospheric CO2 can be found here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/barrsio.co2
Minimum month August, with rapid rise in CO2 until February, when the level plateaus until May, thereafter a steep decline until August.
This is in keeping with your account above.
At the south pole, the minimum is February-March, maximum October-November:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/sposio.co2
(strangely the S. Pole record is longer than that at Mauna Loa, going back to July 1957. Not a lot of people knew that, until now.)
So, the maximum rate of increase of CO2 at or near the poles coincides with the periods of refreeze, and vice versa. I guess the northern winter on land where groundwater freezes accounts for much of the northern hemisphere’s vastly greater annual fluctuation in CO2 background levels when compared with the southern hemisphere, as indicated in this figure, first noted above by Ferdinand Engelbeen:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/GMD_Figures/ccgg_figures/co2_surface.png
George E. Smith (10:23:26) :
The data gives all the appearance of the CO2 being emitted and absorbed locally.
That is largely the case, but what you see in the graphs (and the satellite data) is that the differences are mainly seasonal. If you look at the yearly averages, the differences are much smaller: within 2 ppmv for the NH, 1 ppmv for the SH and 5 ppmv between the hemipheres. The south pole lags the NH data with over a year (the ITCZ forms a barrier for the exchange of gases and aerosols). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
Now I would not choose ice as a repository for any gas sample that I wanted to preserve for geological time scales; and the implication is that not only is ice impervious to CO2, but also to any species of O2 or N2, and other trace GHGs that are found in ice core air pockets; or else those samples would be changing over time, if one or another species could migrate through the ice.
There is some fractionation of the smallest molecules at closing depth, but CO2 is not involved (O2 is). There are two points against the possibility of migration of gases through the ice:
– CO2 levels in completely different ice cores qua accumulation rate (thus depth for the same age), temperature and layer thickness show the same values (within 5 ppmv).
– CO2 levels show a nice ratio with temperature (with a lot of lag) over 4 (now 8) glacial-interglacial transitions, each as distant as 100,000 years of each other. If there was migration, the ratio would be less and less over time, but that is not the case.
And there is quite a difference between gas/ice from freezing water (oceans or clouds) and from inclusions of compressing snow…
Allan M R MacRae (03:36:16) :
I like and respect Ferdinand, but am not at all convinced by his “material balance” argument.
Quoting Richard Courtney, who has often debated Ferdinand E on this subject:
The known facts of the matter are:
Indeed, that is already going on for near two years…
1.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration each year is much less than the natural variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration within each year.
Wrong. As the main exchanges (oceans and vegetation) are in countercurrent with the seasons and opposite for the hemispheres, the average global seasonal variation is about 5 ppmv, or about 10 GtC. The year by year addition from the emissions is currently about 8 GtC. Thus of the same order. Moreover, the seasons are cycles and a full cycle has zero effect, if there is no residual difference.
2.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration over each year is the residual of the natural variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration within each year.
Yes, plus the emissions, thus the residual of the natural variations is negative over the past 50 years.
3.
The anthropogenic emission of CO2 each year is much less than the natural variation within each year.
Completely unimportant, only the difference over a year is important. And that is halve the emissions. But see point 1.
4.
The change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is in the direction expected if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration were caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2.
But if the ratio changes then there is a 50:50 chance that it will change in that direction or the other.
What are the odds that there was little change over 250 years and then the d13C ratio suddenly starts to decrease in ratio with the use of fossil fuels (with low 13C level) during 150 years? See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
5.
The magnitude of the change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 is much smaller than expected if the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration were caused by the anthropogenic emission of CO2.
Someone has never heard of the thinning factor (20% per year) due to the exchanges with (deep) oceans and vegetation…
6.
The fact in point (5) indicates that most of the change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 and most of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was caused by some unknown, natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) effect.
The effect of thinning e.g. by deep ocean exchanges can be calculated, see the observed and calculated d13C levels for different exchange rates:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
This includes zero contribution of deep ocean CO2 to the atmospheric increase. If the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was caused by the emissions + the deep ocean upwelling, then the increase in the atmosphere for the same d13C decrease would be 40 GtC (oceans) + 8 GtC (emissions) = 48 GtC, or about 24 ppmv/year…
7.
The fact in point (6) indicates that all of the change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 and all of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have been caused by the same unknown, natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) effect.
Simply,
it is possible that none of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and none of the change to the 13C:12C atmospheric isotope change were caused by anthropogenic emission
but were due to the unknown, natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) effect that caused most of the change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2.
As there are only two sources of low 13C carbon on earth, and the other source (the biosphere) is a net source of 13C (more uptake of 12C than decay), only fossil fuel burning is responsible for the decline. Thus there is no “unknown” source of low d13C.
8.
But the anthropogenic emission may have disturbed the carbon cycle such that the equilibrium state(s) of some parts of the carbon cycle have altered.
Therefore,
it is possible that all of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and all of the change to the 13C:12C atmospheric isotope change were caused by the anthropogenic emission
that induced the unknown, natural (i.e. non-anthropogenic) effect that caused the observed change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2.
Why looking for an unknown source, while a very well known source is just under your nose?
9.
It is possible that both the effects noted in points 7 and 8 contributed to the change to the 12C:13C isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 and to the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Therefore,
it is possible that some of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and some of the change to the 13C:12C atmospheric isotope change were due to the anthropogenic emission.
It is simpler than that: near the full decrease in d13C is from fossil fuel burning…
10.
The change in atmospheric oxygen concentration in recent years is consistent with the amount of fossil fuel that was burned in those years.
Except that a little less oxygen is used than expected, which points to extra production of oxygen by the biosphere, thus more CO2 uptake than release, using more 12CO2, thus a source of extra 13C and thus not the cause of the d13C decline…
In summation, the known facts (listed as points 1 to 10 above) demonstrate that
there is no conclusive evidence that any of the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is or is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.
To the contrary…
Dear All
I seem to have been pursued by Ferdinand Engelbeen all around the globe for my sins.
I will only reply to the points about the analysis technique as I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
The technique that I have used to get rid of the seasonal variations is year on year differences. A technique often used by economists!
This technique exposes the underlying trend but gets rid of annual variations. It can then be used to build up the trend line. It is the derivative of the trend line it is not fluctuations about the trend. This can be seen even by looking at the South Pole data of Figure 3 where the seasonal variations are small.
The example in the paper of Figure 5 shows the behaviour of CO2 concentrations analysed using the same approach to get quarterly data points. It shows all the detail with a sharpness of using monthly measurements compared to the coarseness of Figure 1A which is the annual changes. The finer detail is lost in yearly measurements that also remove the seasonal variations.
If you look at Figures 10 and 11, Figure 11 shows the derivative of the curve in Figure 10
All the results of isotope changes and timing can be seen or derived from annual measurements however the finer details are lost.
The behaviour of the seasonal variations of CO2 is exactly the opposite problem with a twist. It is clear that when the summer season ends the CO2 concentration is larger than the previous period but this is also true of the base of the trough. So the interesting question is whether the peak to trough spread increases year by year as more plants are created or bulk up as they take some part of the fossil fuel CO2 out of the atmosphere.
You cannot and I did not take year on year differences as this would transfer any growth trend out of the seasonal variation residue. I took the averages of before and after peaks against the trough and before and after troughs against a central peak.
This analysis of seasonal variations is not new. It was discussed by Woodwell et al in 1978 (Science 199, 141(1978)) with much the same conclusion.
The analysis stands as found.
How it is understood is for all of us
Tom
Allan M R MacRae (03:22:50) :
Mauna Loa (and global) dCO2/dt correlates well with the Lower Troposphere temperature anomaly, but as I noted in my January 2008 paper*, CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.
The impact of global temperature on atmospheric CO2 concentrations is apparent.
Allan, you make the same mistake as Tom Quirk: You see a good correlation between global temperature and the variability of the increase rate of CO2 as seen in the derivative, but then you say that global temperature and CO2 concentrations are related. But the influence of temperature on the variation around the trend doesn’t say anything about the influence of temperature on the trend itself…
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your reaction.
I don’t think that we have much problems with the way the data are smoothed. But there are two main problems which make your conclusions not very likely:
– The main problem is that you don’t compare ENSO events with the trend but with the derivative of the trend:
From the paper (after Fig. 11, which shows the derivative of d13C changes at SPO compared to a simple step model (constant source of low d13C, combined with ENSO):
The correlation of changes in d13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in d13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.
But you have a good correlation between ENSO and the derivative of the d13C decline, not the d13C decline itself, which is completely dominated by the “constant low d13C source”… In the trend itself, ENSO only is the cause of the noise, not the cause of the trend.
– The second problem is the timing problem:
From chapter 5:
There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases may be coming from a global or equatorial source.
But that is based on a correlation comparison. But the comparision doesn’t make any differentiation between zero and multiples of 12 months delays…
For the different NH/SH stations there is a clear delay if you look at the real trends:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
It is quite clear that there is an over 12 months delay in CO2 levels between Mauna Loa and the south pole, thus the source is clearly in the NH, and your conclusion is wrong.
Even more pronounced for the d13C changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
Where the delay is several years…
Thus that are two main objections. I haven’t digged deeper in the lack of amplitude change of the seasonal variability as result of increasing CO2 sinks. Maybe of interest, but the two foregoing problems make your conclusions about the source of the CO2 increase and d13C decline unsubstantiated… The more that the oceans can’t be the cause of the d13C decline, as the (deep) oceans have a higher d13C level than the atmosphere…
Regards,
Ferdinand Engelbeen
George E. Smith (14:08:47) :
Bill D.
Interesting information.
But as you know; fresh water has a temperature of maximum density of around 4 deg C, whereas ocean water of greater than 2.47% salinity, has no such maximum density before it freezes
George:
You are correct that salinity has a big effect on sea water densities near freezing. However, warming during the warmer seasons of the year has a big effect on density differences in both both freshwater and sea water, so that warm season stratification is similar. I also agree that we don’t need to study lakes to learn about mixing processes in oceans. However, one really big advantage of studying lakes, that I appreciate, is that there are thousands of lakes of different sizes and depths, but relatively few oceans. (And we don’t need such big ships to study the lakes)
Several of my recent studies have involved comparisons across lakes that differ in depth and stratification (to study how these factors influence food chains) and one of my Dutch colleages is now studying a latitudinal gradient in lakes from Finland to southerrn Italy. These kinds of studies allow one to look at how temperature and mixing processes effect food chains in a rigorous way. For example, when a limnologist studied how the strong NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) warming years in the 80s and 90s affected seasonal patterns, a comparative study of 28 European lakes gave clear results. This study gives an interesting comparison with the long term data sets from Lake Washington (Seattle) and Lake Tahoe (California) which are influenced more by Pacific oscillations and their interannual differences in warming.
Hi Ferdinand,
Please take a big step back and examine the big picture.
CO2 in Vostok ice core data lags temperature by ~600 years.
CO2 in modern measurements lags temperature by ~9 months.
The above are natural cycles, each with its own period and its own delay.
There could be other such cycles as well, with their own periods and delays – for example a cycle intermediate between the above two, perhaps with a period of ~~60-90 years and a delay of ~~10 years.
Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt has “gone negative” a few times in recent decades, specifically for 12-month intervals ending in:
1959-8
1963-9
1964-5
1965-1
1965-5
1965-6
1971-4
1974-6
1974-8
1974-9
Has this not happened recently because of increased humanmade CO2 emissions, or because the world has, until recently, been getting warmer?
Frankly, I don’t think we yet know the answer to that question.
While I am officially, as you should know by now, an agnostic on this specific scientific question, most or all the evidence points to CO2 lagging temperature at all known time scales.
This does not preclude a human influence on atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel burning, but other possible causes do exist that are largely natural.
I suspect Richard is correct, insofar as “there is no conclusive evidence that any of the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is or is not due to the burning of fossil fuels”.
Best regards, Allan
P.S.
Please examine the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
In the animation, does anyone see the impact of industrialization? USA? Europe? India? China? Anything related to humanity? I don’t.
The animation does make it look like we Canadians and the Russians have lots of heavy industry emitting megatonnes of deadly CO2 in the far northern Arctic. Not so – it’s all natural!
P.P.S.
On the more pressing scientific and political question, it has long been obvious that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is an insignificant driver of global temperature, and that carbon dioxide abatement schemes such as the Kyoto Protocol are a criminal waste of scarce global resources.
CO2 production and absorption is clearly a complex (and highly debatable) topic in its own right, but we shouldn’t forget that it is only important WRT climate change if you are a warmist.
The rest of us, I think, regard increasing levels of CO2, whatever the mechanism, as nothing to be alarmed about and even beneficial. We are carbon-based life forms, after all…
“Moreover, the seasons are cycles and a full cycle has zero effect, if there is no residual difference.”
What drives the cycles?
I can’t find a thread for this, but has any thought been given to nature being a sink for CO2? Is it at all possible that desertificaton is a result of the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere? If plants thrive on CO2, as the linked study suggests, could it also be the cause of the tree deaths in California are caused by the starvation of CO2 in the atmosphere? They are giant plants, and probably require a lot of CO2 to ‘eat’.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm