Bombshell from Bristol: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? – study says "no"

The smoking CANNON.
Love this quote:
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Now we are getting somewhere.
The Pinatubo artifact in the CO2 PPM time series has always bothered me. No one has explained that.
It is easy to fill a test tube with a gas solvent in water and then put that tube into water, upside down, and watch the water climb up the tube. Ammonia is an easy one. But so is CO2.

OK, then I don’t understand what Mauna Loa is measuring.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

I don’t mean to be dense or downplay the apparent significance of this, but aren’t we still looking at a pretty steadily rising atmospheric CO2 ppm, and isn’t that the causal factor in climate change, as per the global warmers?
I mean, if the warmers are right and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 drive increasing temperatures, does it matter what proportion the anthropogenic fraction is? Isn’t the simple fact that CO2 ppm is rising enough?
Again, sorry to be dense, but can someone please ‘splain it to me?

BradH: This paper uses the Mauna Loa data. That data is fine. Perhaps you misunderstand the paper?
Of the CO2 being emitted, around 40%-45% of it accumulates in the atmosphere (the airborne fraction, ‘AF’). The rest accumulates in the oceans, soil or in living things. This paper suggests that there is no detectable trend in the AF over time; of course the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up – that part isn’t in question.
The airborne fraction is important: if the oceans or trees become less effective at soaking up CO2 (thus raising the AF), then the concentration in the air will go up faster for a given rate of emissions.
A couple papers saw hints of a slight trend in recent decades; this author does not. Very well, that’s science. Let’s see how it unfolds.

@ Jeff L.:
You’ve just described the feelings I got on my very first visit — and on every visit — to JR’s blog. When I first learned about AGW, I was reading arguments from both sides. I tried to take JR seriously — but just couldn’t stomach his style and language. He sounded much more like a scary preacher than the scientist he claims to be.
In any case, I notice that there are many more comments here than on many other blogs about climate. And I’m so glad that discussion has been kept this open, in the spirit of science.

Based on the tone of the comments, I think some people misunderstand the paper. In short, CO2 is still going up, and man is still doing it. None of that changes in the least. The implications of the paper are minor, I think.
You know, staring at their Figure 1, it looks like their constant AF line runs a bit low through the more recent data. Of course, eyeballing a graph isn’t a statistical method; we’ll see how the work is received.
Ugh, I just read that description above from JeffL of the conversation with Joe Romm. One should indeed take his advice – to read the scientific literature. But you needn’t read Romm.

f you have the facts, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts, argue the “theory”. If the “theory” is falsified, pound on the table.

Yet another indication of a carbon-eating biosphere.
Fancy that.

Alexander Feht (21:02:32) :
I always knew that plants (including algae) and bacteria evolved through lengthy periods of time when there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere; therefore they would have, written in their genetic memory, an ability to absorb much more CO2 than there is presently.
Indeed, Henderiks and Rickaby (2007) conclude in an interesting paragraph.
In terms of underlying genetic mechanisms, currently, little
is known about genetic controls on calcification (e.g.
Marsh, 2003; Nguyen et al., 2005), or the detailed photosynthetic
mechanism of coccolithophores. Coupling of calcification
with species-specific Rubisco specificity provides
a tangible means to preserve the CO2/O2 composition at the
time of origin of photosynthetic phyla (Giordano et al., 2005;
Tcherkez et al., 2006). The preservation of calcification ability
at high pCO2 in C. pelagicus may occur through genetic
redundancy (Wagner, 1999), or variance in genetic expression
whilst the adaptation of E. huxleyi and C. leptoporus to
the modern low pCO2 niche could be associated with gene
inactivation of pathways associated with high pCO2 (Hittinger
et al., 2004). The high proportion of duplicate genes
within plant and algae genomes is indicative of a high rate
of retention of duplicate genes (Lynch and Connery, 2000).
Gene duplications contribute to the establishment of new
gene functions, and may underlie the origin of evolutionary
novelty. Duplicate genes can exist stably in a partially redundant
state over a protracted evolutionary period (Moore
and Purugganan, 2005). A half-life to silencing and loss of
a plant gene duplicate is estimated at 23.4 million years such
that remnant duplicate genes, which can be reactivated by
environmental conditions to encode calcification within coccolithophores
under “ancestral” conditions representative of
60 Ma, appears reasonable.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/4/323/2007/bg-4-323-2007.pdf

Question: If CO2 is currently 385ppm, and AGW CO2 is only 3% of that amount, then most of the CO2 rise is non-AGW. So, how long would it take the world CO2 to rise to 450 (some kind of tipping point) if we suddenly stopped making any AGW CO2 whatsoever?
In other words, sooner or later, depending on nature and NOT AGW, we will reach the magic tipping point of no return whether we do anything or not. And if we did do the maximum (shut down everything) we’d only delay the tipping point by 3% of the time to reach said tipping point.
Do I have that right?

John F. Hultquist (21:51:52) :
Won’t this just fuel the notion that the ocean is going to become acidic in a few years? If not by heat then by acid – we are still doomed they say. Not so, but their stool still has more than three legs.
Will someone fix this from the post:
“have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in.”
I’ve seen enough poorly written material that I can usually make sense of it but not this.
John, the warmist are getting entangled in their own “CLIMATE LIES”.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION is one of them.
Dozens of scientific reports have debunked the risk of ocean acidification.
Simply search for “Ocean Acidification” at WUWT, ICECAP.US and Climate Depot and you find a whole binch of them.

The Earth at one time had a lot of C02 in the atmosphere, and yet it took it out.
Biology uses it 24/7. So if the Earth puts out 97% of the carbon dioxide it wants to, nothing we do will make a dent in it, anthropogenic fasting or not.
AGW is now available freeze-dried, ready for display on the mantle of failed predictions. Didn’t happen.
As long as we can keep lunatics from panic-injecting S02 (and whatever other nefarious and ill-fated concoctions they have in mind) into the atmosphere, Earth will eat C02, deposition will continue, oceans and other sinks will continue to exist and function as normal. Bio-systems will continue to function, unless madmen poison the skies and cause acid-rain to destroy the foundations of life on Earth. No, no, no. You must not kill all organisms that we depend on just to satisfy the urge to experiment with Climate.

I am confused. If the proportion of manmade CO2 remains the same while the total amount of CO2 is rising steadily doesn’t this mean that at the same time natural CO2 must be rising as well to keep that proportion stable? What is then the source of that extra natural CO2?

The IPCC says:
“The ocean’s capacity to buffer increasing atmospheric CO2 will decline in the future as ocean surface pCO2 increases (Figure 7.11a). This anticipated change is certain, with potentially severe consequences.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter7.pdf
So maybe it’s not so certain after all.
BTW is it only me, or is that last sentence in the quote somewhat out of place in the context of a review of the scientific literature?

It seems to me that whatever proxy they are using for anthropogenic CO2 is not actually measuring Man’s emissions. The ratio seems bullet-proof enough that we could either double or eliminate our emissions without much effect.
I suppose the idea that the total global CO2 exchange each year is orders of magnitude higher than current (alarmist?) estimates, and hence Man’s guilt smaller, is probably not popular right now.
When the forests of Asia burned in the early 90’s the blip in CO2 sorted itself out within 2 years.
The idea that Man can alter CO2 concentrations looks increasingly unlikely to me. The biosphere will grab all the CO2 it can before the ocean decides what the equilibrium figure for atmospheric CO2 will be.

Google algal blooms. Seems to be an unprecedented rise in ocean algae blooms causing havoc to bird life. I am not a scientist, but I don’t think algae and ocean acid can exist at the same time.

“better than we thought”, who would expect that?
If the 800 years lag between temperature-CO2 is real, when should we see its rise after the MWP? Or 1 deg C fluctuation is not enough and only truly glacial/interglacial 10 deg C changes are needed?

Graeme From Melbourne,
As far as I can make up from the post, they are talking about ‘airborne fraction’, not ‘anthropogenic fraction’. Makes quite a difference.
My interpretation of this paper is that the carbon sinks are not saturating. I think it has been suggested that this would happen, but I don’t know who did it when and where and how.
The paper doesn’t say CO2 levels are not increasing.
The paper doesn’t say CO2 levels will stop increasing.
The paper doesn’t say increasing CO2 is not caused by human emissions.
The paper doesn’t say increasing CO2 will not cause warming.

Our Gav says he’s not bothered.
Our Gav says we knew that all along.
Our Gav says too much signal and not enough noise doesn’t fit with the models.
Our Gav says its to do with diurnal cobbling earth wobble on a decadal time scale.
Our Gav’s a genius.

I see the warmists are here… trying to spread the doom and gloom…
Our CO2 emissions increase, the ability of the biosphere to remove CO2 from the atmosphere increases. Whatever the lag time is, you can’t say and I can’t say, but the difference between us is that I won’t be foolish enough to claim I know.
A dramatic increase in CO2 will result in a dramatic increase of the biosphere to handle it. Seriously, how difficult is that to understand? There is no tipping point. It is not possible for there to be a tipping point. The very concept of a tipping point is the source of great amusement for those of us with some science knowledge.

Loads of peer-reviewed studies last century, before the scare stuff, all said that CO2 only stayed a few years in the air. Prof Segalstad listed them all and wrote about it – I mirrored his page here with his permission because I regarded this as prime information.
Dear Ferdinand, you and I know I’m not happy with your conclusions that the rise is totally due to us – I still prefer oceanic outgassing as per Henry’s Law, and argue for a biosphere that grows to meet the CO2 supply – but I concede there may be a human proportion in the mix.

There’s a battle royal underway downunder it seems based on my RSS alert – some of the senior IPCC authors have given a media briefing on AR5 and they cut off challenging questons. Can some of the science bods cast your eyes across this?
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/nz-climate-scientists-run-from-challenging-questions.html

Anne van der Bom (00:53:27) :
“The paper doesn’t say increasing CO2 will not cause warming.”
Read Lindzen and Choi 2009
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2616/MIT-climate-scientists-Lindzen-and-Chois-peerreviewed-study-finds-Climate-sensitivity-at-a-value-that-is-about-6-times-less-than-the-best-estimate-put-forth-by-the-UN-IPCC

Thomas J. Arnold. (01:56:32) :
Since 1850 there must have been an increase in Biomass, pity that we are not able to quantify such.
There were made some attempts to quantify the amount of extra biomass produced by increased CO2 levels. These are based on oxygen use: biomass growth sets O2 free, biomass decay uses oxygen. The oxygen use by burning fossil fuel is more or less known, the difference between what is calculated and what is measured in the atmosphere is what the biomass has produced or used as oxygen. This calculation was only possible since about 1990, as we need an extreme good resolution of oxygen measurements to see the difference.
The results: of the about 3.4 GtC/yr absorbed by nature (1990-1997), about 1.4 GtC/yr was absorbed by plant life and 2 GtC/yr by the oceans. Before 1990, plant life was probably not a sink for CO2. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467 and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

I recall reading a small essay, (I got the link here,) about mans total emissions compared to the increase in atmospheric concentrations.
The implication was, (from Henrys law), that atmospheric concentrations were increasing faster than they would from mans emissions alone, so where’s the rest coming from?
Anyone remember posting the link?
DaveE.

I agree with carrot eater (20:46:23) : . The findings in this paper are old hat. It’s been well accepted for a while that only about half (the paper says 45%) of man made emissions remain in the atmosphere. Whether this remains the case indefinitely is another matter and is probably an issue which the Bristol study is seeking to address.
To those who think there is a problem with the data. There isn’t. The data is what it is but given the level of emissions we might expect the CO2 level to be higher. The ‘mystery’ , here, is why the oceans and biosphere decide to absorb more CO2 just because more is available.

BradH (20:18:33) :
“OK, then I don’t understand what Mauna Loa is measuring.”
Well, probably all the CO2 being emitted by the largest known volcano on the planet upon which Keeling et al reside! Always did think that was a bit of a non-starter.
Norm in Calgary (22:45:33) : A gross piece of misreporting, I thought the AGW contribution was 4% not 3%, a massive & whopping 25% larger proprtion – sarc :-)) Anyway, twice a very small number is still a very small number.
I was reading a newspaper artcle the other day by a former BBC weatherman who was saying he couldn’t believe all the hype & nonsense surround Climate Change. He pointed out that all volcanic activity pumps out more CO2 in a single day, than man pumps out over two years! How astute a fellow. We all know that this AGW malarkey is nothing to do with saving the Polar bears, the Penguins, the Whales, the tropical rainforests (only 15,000 years old anyhow), or even the planet. It is everything to do with the impoverishment of the developed west, & the enrichment of the developing world without letting them develop! A sort of, well, glorified dole queue I suppose on a grand scale. Perhaps a few hard winters might turn the scales back towards common sense.

Off subject but I have received this email from HM Government UK re petition for CRU source codes to be made available
Skip to content
The official site of the Prime Minister’s Office Home News Communicate Meet the PM History and Tour Number 10 TV Search Home > CRUsourcecodes – epetition response
Communicate
Ask the PM …from the PM e-Petitions Petition Responses Tuesday 10 November 2009
CRUsourcecodes – epetition response
We received a petition asking:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to force the Climate Research Unit, or other publicly funded organisations to release the source codes used in their computer models.”
Details of Petition:
“The Met Office , the climate research unit and various individuals at numerous academic institutions are refusing to release the source codes used in their climate research models. These are tax payer funded institutions, which are influencing government policy decisions which will affect the day to day lives of us all. With the Prime Minister’s belief in a new age of transparency, it is unsurportable that these publicly funded organisations, are not open to public scrutiny.”
· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
The Government is strongly committed to the principles of freedom of information, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 specifically implement our international obligations over access to environmental information. The Met Office’s commitment to openness and transparency in the conduct of their operations and to the sharing of information is set out clearly on their website (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/legal/foi.html).
Simple and transparent licences are in place to facilitate the re-use of the Met Office’s meteorological and climate data, and large quantities are freely available for academic and personal use, for example through the UK Climate Impacts Programme and the British Atmospheric Data Centre.
The Met Office’s climate models are configurations based on the Unified Model (UM), the numerical modelling system developed and used by the Met Office to produce all their weather forecasts and climate predictions.
You may be interested to know that the UM, including source code, is available for external use under licence. For general research, the licence is free; the Met Office just asks individuals to submit an abstract describing the research to be undertaken, and to provide an annual report describing the work undertaken, the results achieved and future work plans.
To improve access to their climate models, the Met Office has worked with Reading and Bristol Universities and NERC to develop a low-resolution version which can be run on a PC and is available to all UM licence holders.
Further Information on how to apply for a research licence can be found on the Met Office website.
(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/working_together/um_collaboration.html)
Further Information
· Sign up to our newsletter service
Tags: Computers, source codes
Share this:delicious digg facebook Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter to keep updated with the latest information from Number 10
Click here to subscribe
Around the Web
Latest Photos
View all images
Share this:
Latest Videos
Podcast on Remembrance Sunday
Tue Nov 10 2009 PM visits north Wales and the North West
Tue Nov 10 2009 Teaching Award reception
Tue Nov 10 2009 Community Crime Fighters Awards
Tue Nov 10 2009
View all videos
Share this:
Latest Commentary
DowningStreet: PM: Pleased to be joined by Andy Burnham to announce new legal rights which put more power in the hands of patients
10 November 2009 12:20:40DowningStreet: The ceremony ends with the knocking down of giant dominoes symbolising the Berlin Wall, and a spectacular fireworks display
09 November 2009 21:04:29DowningStreet: Bon Jovi performs in the shadow of the Brandenburg Gate and Jon Bon Jovi describes his memories of the wall coming down
09 November 2009 20:14:55DowningStreet: Thousands have now gathered at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate for a ceremony marking 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall
09 November 2009 18:41:22
Read commentary
Share this:
News and video from Number 10
through a Facebook application
Find us on Facebook
History and Tour
Read more history and view our all new tour
Copyright Freedom of Information Contact Us Privacy Policy Site Map Accessibility RSS Podcasts Links Directgov

Well does any of this matter? What’s so special about the human race anyway. We’re all going to die eventually and the planet is already doomed by the fate of the Sun. Me I’m just looking forward to the next glacial period when we all freeze to death and the global warming mob are silenced for the next millenia.
I know this is not very scientific but really some of you guys ought to lighten up a bit.

Alan the Brit (03:35:52) :
Well, probably all the CO2 being emitted by the largest known volcano on the planet upon which Keeling et al reside! Always did think that was a bit of a non-starter.
Norm in Calgary (22:45:33) : A gross piece of misreporting, I thought the AGW contribution was 4% not 3%, a massive & whopping 25% larger proprtion – sarc :-)) Anyway, twice a very small number is still a very small number.
Sorry, but if there is an influence of the local volcano (known by wind direction + disturbance of the measurements), these data are not used for averaging. But Mauna Loa is not the only station where CO2 is measured, about 70 places, far from local sources (from near the North Pole to the South Pole) measure about the same CO2 levels, with (mainly in the NH) some seasonal variation and a NH-SH gradient:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
It seems very difficult to explain the difference between how much original human CO2 still is in the atmosphere (about 6% nowadays) and that near 100% of the increase we measure is caused by humans. I’ll try it again:
You start the day with $100 in your pocket. During the day, you have a lot of exchanges, but in one transaction you received $10. At the end of the day, you find $105 in your pocket as balance. Although little to none of the original $10 bill(s) are left, the total gain you have at the end of the day is thanks to the $10, because without that transaction, you would have had a loss…

BradH (20:18:33) :
“Perhaps a few hard winters might turn the scales back towards common sense”.
Absolutely not.
The entire AGW scare is carefully planned and executed.
No room for “perhaps” or “maybe” here but 100% certainty.
The financial crises left the world with 500.000 billion dollar debt and almost caused a total system crash.
The next crash is underway because economic laws tell us that we can’t climb out of a debt pit by lending money at zero % interest rates.
The introduction of Cap&Trade is the next “bubble” which, inflated to the max, has the potential to destroy the entire world economy.
The last few years we heard our world leaders making remarks about world government (Rudd, Sarkozy, Gore, Gorbatchev, Kerry (see youtube) and a few weeks ago the legal blue print for a world government popped up in the concept of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
Lord Monckton sounded the alarm bells and informed the public.
See interview Glenn Beck, John Bolton and Lord Monckton on Fox News,
links available at WUWT, including a link to the concept of the Climate Treaty.
According to Monckton the powers of the World Government will include the control over our financial systems, our economies, the free markets and all resources with no mentioning of any democratic control systems.
About the objectives of this World government: roll back of the free world and population control.
Also read http://green-agenda.com, the Club of Rome and Agenda 21 of the United Nations.
I personally regard this scheme as a coup attempt originated in the former USSR.
But as stated, that is my opinion.

” The ‘mystery’ , here, is why the oceans and biosphere decide to absorb more CO2 just because more is available.” No mystery for the biosphere – more CO2 => more growth to absorb it – which is why commercial growers add CO2 to their greenhouses. For the ocean, no mystery either – Henry’s Law.

BradH (20:18:33) :
OK, then I don’t understand what Mauna Loa is measuring.
Volcanoes perhaps? Having one source of information is surprising in this day and age?

4 billion (23:22:59) :
So it seems acidification is not the question, what rammifications is the question.
The only way to answer that question is to show me a graph of ocean PH levels over the last 50 years?

philincalifornia (20:53:06) :
Canute, as you imply, was demonstrating to his sycophants that nature is more powerful than any man. Hopefully nature will prove it again to many politicians round the world soon.

Norm in Calgary (22:45:33) :
…
In other words, sooner or later, depending on nature and NOT AGW, we will reach the magic tipping point of no return whether we do anything or not. And if we did do the maximum (shut down everything) we’d only delay the tipping point by 3% of the time to reach said tipping point.
Do I have that right?

Assuming you believe there is some sort of magical “tipping point”. Never has been in the past. Why would there be one now?

Let me for the sake of the argument accept that the human CO2 emisions has, and still are increasing exponentially.
Here are the global CO2 data (ppm in the atmosphere) from NOAA (we dont have to clutter the discussion with referring to measurements done in a volcano) since 1980.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
1980 1.68
1981 1.08
1982 1.00
1983 1.82
1984 1.31
1985 1.63
1986 1.02
1987 2.69
1988 2.21
1989 1.38
1990 1.24
1991 0.82
1992 0.64
1993 1.15
1994 1.68
1995 1.99
1996 1.07
1997 1.97
1998 2.91
1999 1.36
2000 1.24
2001 1.85
2002 2.40
2003 2.22
2004 1.62
2005 2.41
2006 1.77
2007 2.12
2008 1.79
Please observe that the annual increase is given as ppm, NOT percentage.
I’d be very surprised if the annual value for 2009 ends much above 387 ppm , and I expect (guesstimate :-))the annual absolute increase slightly below 2 ppm. Hence the annual incease is in the order of 0.5%
I frankly don’t see much of an exponential increase in the atmosphere since 1980.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust

The UI Soyface project found that corn, and soybeans shrugged off the elevated O3 levels, and rocked and rolled with the added CO2.
http://soyface.illinois.edu/results/AAAS%202004%20poster%20Leakey.pdf

Geoff Sharp (05:08:05) :
4 billion (23:22:59) :
So it seems acidification is not the question, what rammifications is the question.
The only way to answer that question is to show me a graph of ocean PH levels over the last 50 years?
What is the doubt about Ocean acidification? it is simple chemistry.
CO2 + H2O –> H2CO3
The Oceans are absorbing more CO2, nobody disputes that, as it absorbs CO2 the simple reaction described above occurs, simple chemistry. So it shouldn’t be any surprise.

Ron de Haan (05:30:42) :
That is not what is observed.
Higher CO2 levels result in an explosive increase in growth and bio mass.
I have seen this in the commercial growth of a.o. tomato’s where it is common practice to artificially increase the CO2 level in the greenhouses to grow their tomato’s quicker and bigger.
If all other necessities (water, fertiliser, minerals, temperature, light) are present in sufficient quantity, the growth may vary with between zero and 100% for 2xCO2, with a few going negative and a few over 100%, depending of the type of species. See:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_a.php
In average about 50% growth (by just looking over the table, not calculated!) for 2xCO2.
Greenhouse growers in The Netherlands and other countries use 1,000 ppmv as guideline (more doesn’t add much growth), or about 2.5xCO2.
Thus indeed in general there is more growth, but not 100% more growth for a 100% higher CO2 concentration. The more that CO2 is not the only restricting item in nature: lack of light, low temperatures, lack of sufficient amounts of minerals/fertiliser or water may be limiting growth despite increased CO2 levels…

@maksimovic. Thanks for the biology lesson. I can see the movie trailers now: THE MARROW THAT ATE BRISTOL!!!! It’s worse than we thought.

missed the link
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/6153/co2manysitesch4.jpg

See also: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/

Anne van der Bom (04:16:49) : said
“Ron de Haan (02:53:56)
Do you have an explanation for the 0.7 degrees of warming since pre-industrial times? Since CO2 rose by 35%, according to prof. Lindzen’s paper, that should have been no more than 2 tenths of a degree. What caused the other 0.5 degrees?”
The temperature rose according to who? It merely continued its age old cycle of climate summit to climate valleys. Temperatures have oscillated since history began and if you start recording temperatures from the depths of the Little Ice age no one should be surprised when they subsequently rebound.
This continual temperature oscillation is well seen here.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/invisible-elephants/#more-5984
The only fingerprint man has on climate is the Urban Heat island effect.
tonyb

John Galt (06:14:17) :
In – Methane emissions (includes cattle flatulence)
Another cheap shot by AGW (now under new marketing). Still a zero-sum game, as the cows simply replace the other animals that browsed, like the Buffalo. Every continent has their browsers, domesticated or otherwise, where there is vegetation. That hasn’t changed since the age of dinosaurs.
The big deal was identified over 150 years ago, when the flatulence problem was associated with political speeches that featured mouths that moved with little substance behind the words spoken… except for the onrush of hot air.
Pick up any newspaper from before 1900 and you’ll rapidly come across such portrayances. So, safe to conclude that the joke’s on the Agenda, which identifies itself as a hot air source that rises in offence.

Another important carbon sink are vegetarians. The number of people becoming vegetarians has increased and this has a high correlation with the increasing sequestration. They consume the vegetables that have sequestered CO2 and the CO2 remains fixed in their bodies.

Center or centre? So I went to my favorite English newspaper, the Daily Mail, clicked on “travel”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/index.html
and there it is:
“Center Parcs Longleat: where fresh air and pampering are simply spa for the course
Anna Melville-James
Anna Melville-James manages to schedule in a weekend catch-up with friends. But where to go for somewhere fun, relaxing and with everything on your doorstep? Center Parcs of course, a positive utopia of healthy living, where bicycle rides, tree hopping and pampering are all on offer. All she needs to worry about is finding her way around …read”
But then the Hadley C is a name, and English names are never, never pronounced the way they are written (just ask James Prescott Joule or Alec Douglas-Home).

Ferdinand Engelbeen: You’ve done a nice job trying to explain, but I must take issue with you on comments like this:
“The models on the other hand are programmed to show a saturation of the oceans and vegetation. In that case, the airborne fraction would increase.”
Be careful. Models consider that ocean sinks will become less effective over time, but that shows up in the future; this paper does not address the future, nor does it focus on the hints seen in the very recent past.
For the period of time (1850 to now) considered by this paper, the various models with embedded carbon cycles don’t show much of any trend in airborne fraction, either. Nobody expected the oceans to reach saturation in 1980. For example, Le Quéré (an empirical work, not modeling) only found hints of a weakened ocean sink in the Southern ocean (not the total global sink) over the last few years.
So be careful to compare apples to apples, in terms of time frames.
Also, people need to remember that the most recent paper is not simply the last word, just because it’s most recent.
rbateman: Yes, the atmosphere used to have lots of CO2 in it, and it ended up as rocks, coal and oil buried underground. Those processes take more than a couple days.

Alexej Buergin (07:07:16) :
Center or centre?

Center as in Center Parcs is part of a trade name & is American in origin.
Centre as in town centre or Hadley Centre is correct in that sense.
DaveE.

Alexej Buergin (07:07:16) :
Center or centre? So I went to my favorite English newspaper, the Daily Mail, clicked on “travel”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/index.html
and there it is:
“Center Parcs Longleat: where fresh air and pampering are simply spa for the course
Anna Melville-James
Anna Melville-James manages to schedule in a weekend catch-up with friends. But where to go for somewhere fun, relaxing and with everything on your doorstep? Center Parcs of course, a positive utopia of healthy living, where bicycle rides, tree hopping and pampering are all on offer. All she needs to worry about is finding her way around …read”
But then the Hadley C is a name, and English names are never, never pronounced the way they are written (just ask James Prescott Joule or Alec Douglas-Home).
FYI:
Center Parcs is a Dutch firm. Understandably, the Daily Mail calls it “Center Parcs” (which is the name the firm uses) rather than Centre Parks.
Douglas-Home is not an English name. The Douglas-Homes come from Coldstream in Berwickshire, which is part of Scotland, not England. (And, yes, Scotland is NOT part of England!)
Try “Cholmondeley” instead, if you want a funny English name.
“English names are never, never pronounced the way they are written…” Just how do you think the English pronounce names like Miller, Smith and Brown?
But if you asked a native of Liverpool or Birmingham how he pronounced the name of his city you would probably get an interesting reply.

Richard111 (00:05:47) :
Google algal blooms. Seems to be an unprecedented rise in ocean algae blooms causing havoc to bird life. I am not a scientist, but I don’t think algae and ocean acid can exist at the same time.
Rich, algae will grow in a very wide range of pH levels. Trust me, I know.
Signed
Mike aka Sonicfrog – Pool and Spa guy for almost 20 years!

carrot eater (08:02:43) :
The press release was over the top
Aren’t they all? One might expect to see some small trend though (with the big assumption that this paper is correct).
have a look at Fig 7.13 in the IPCC FAR, WG1
As you say, there’s a wide diversity in the models presented (though I note with a little amusement that the Hadley Centre coupled climate-carbon cycle general circulation model is way off :-)). But with only 10 years to compare, it’s hard to draw any real conclusions.

Yarmy: Would I expect to see some small trend? Not necessarily. Keep in mind that Knorr’s work was looking at the long scale, over 1850-now; zoom out that far over the past and I don’t think anybody would expect to see much trend. Zoom in on the last decade, and maybe I’d expect to see some slight hint of a change, I don’t know.
This paper, more than anything, seems to refute Canadell et al, so we’ll see how they respond. I don’t think it has any bearing on the work of Le Quéré, who found uncertain hints of a change in the southern ocean’s effectiveness over the last decade.
The Hadley Centre’s model is an outlier for the 2100 prediction; it’s starting at a reasonable place for 2000. The University of Maryland model is way off even at 2000; I don’t know what’s going on there. Time will tell on this aspect, and presumably the coupled carbon cycle in the models will be improved over time as well.

4 billion (06:06:24) : What is the doubt about Ocean acidification? it is simple chemistry. CO2 + H2O –> H2CO3 The Oceans are absorbing more CO2, nobody disputes that, as it absorbs CO2 the simple reaction described above occurs, simple chemistry. So it shouldn’t be any surprise.
Now you were asked to produce a graph to substantiate your hypothesis. Evidence does help. Still, here is the simple chemistry missing from your chemistry:
In the oceans overall, there is always a surplus of calcium ions (Ca++) ready to absorb extra CO2. The little molluscs are everywhere, wrapping up any hint of excess in their shells. Moreover, all the animal and plant life in the oceans need CO2 – again, it is the most fundamental, basic, vital food. Anyone suggesting anything else is a bad scientist. Every bit of CO2 we can get is precious to the biosphere and I hate Al Gore for forcing on people the lie that it is a pollutant.
Earth used to have a HUGE quantity of CO2 in its atmosphere – until the molluscs turned it into limestone, and the trees turned it into coal. But ocean acidification – nah, ask the coelacanths, who may well have been around when CO2 was ten times its present level, four thousand ppm.

carrot eater (07:32:17)
Le Quéré (an empirical work, not modeling) only found hints of a weakened ocean sink in the Southern ocean (not the total global sink) over the last few years.
But it is incorrect, in as far as there seems to be an asymmetric resilience with the biological pump, eg Marinov et al 2006
: Modelling studies have demonstrated that the nutrient and
carbon cycles in the Southern Ocean play a central role in setting
the air–sea balance of CO2 and global biological production1–8.
Box model studies1–4 first pointed out that an increase in nutrient
utilization in the high latitudes results in a strong decrease in the
atmospheric carbon dioxide partial pressure (pCO2 ). This early
research led to two important ideas: high latitude regions are
more important in determining atmospheric pCO2 than low
latitudes, despite their much smaller area, and nutrient utilization
and atmospheric pCO2 are tightly linked. Subsequent general
circulation model simulations show that the Southern Ocean is
the most important high latitude region in controlling preindustrial
atmospheric CO2 because it serves as a lid to a larger
volume of the deep ocean5,6. Other studies point out the crucial
role of the Southern Ocean in the uptake and storage of anthropogenic
carbon dioxide7 and in controlling global biological
production8. Here we probe the system to determine whether
certain regions of the Southern Ocean are more critical than
others for air–sea CO2 balance and the biological export production,
by increasing surface nutrient drawdown in an ocean
general circulation model. We demonstrate that atmospheric
CO2 and global biological export production are controlled by
different regions of the Southern Ocean. The air–sea balance of
carbon dioxide is controlled mainly by the biological pump and
circulation in the Antarctic deep-water formation region,
whereas global export production is controlled mainly by the
biological pump and circulation in the Subantarctic intermediate
and mode water formation region. The existence of this biogeochemical
divide separating the Antarctic from the Subantarctic
suggests that it may be possible for climate change or human
intervention to modify one of these without greatly altering the
other.

Don’t know if this question was answered already, but I’ll take a shot, maybe someone can correct where I go wrong? Then Tim and I will both learn something. 🙂
“Isn’t the simple fact that CO2 ppm is rising enough?”, Tim asks.
Well, no. The doomsayers predict that we are going to face….doooooommmm! Why? Because nature has had as much CO2 as it can handle. This study says that nature is still eating the same amount of CO2 that it has been, and so, the ppm (parts per million in the atmosphere) of CO2 will continue to rise at the same rate, instead of faster.
DDDOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!
Ok, sorry, I really liked that Fed-Ex commercial.
Do I have the basic points right here?

Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:08:18) :
Thanks so much for the link.
As a young engineer I had measured many different systems. What
I have found over time, is that an increase in one element of an open
system, rarely results in a linear increase of that element. In other
words, atmospheric CO2 increases are too linear. I don’t trust them.
In the now infamous words of a former senator, “It requires the
willing suspension of disbelief.” So, like a salmon, I return to this site,
(WUWT), not because of the insightful postings of some of the most
brilliant scientists and engineers; but because I must.
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125
Politics and money and false markets.

Richard111 (00:05:47) :
Google algal blooms. Seems to be an unprecedented rise in ocean algae blooms causing havoc to bird life. I am not a scientist, but I don’t think algae and ocean acid can exist at the same time.
That’s reverse logic. If you’re hypothesis is increasing CO2 causes algae bloom, then CO2 is beneficially increasing algae in spite of alledged acidification. Your concern should then be the positive or negative consequences of more algae blooms. I don’t know if they are causing havoc to bird life.
Chris Schoneveld (23:08:38) :
I am confused. If the proportion of manmade CO2 remains the same while the total amount of CO2 is rising steadily doesn’t this mean that at the same time natural CO2 must be rising as well to keep that proportion stable? What is then the source of that extra natural CO2?
Anne van der Bom (06:07:49) :
In nature most plants do not have the luxury of being pampered in this way. Whether or not a plant will grow faster due to more CO2 depends on whether there are other factors that form a constraint.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (06:11:35) :
Thus indeed in general there is more growth, but not 100% more growth for a 100% higher CO2 concentration. The more that CO2 is not the only restricting item in nature: lack of light, low temperatures, lack of sufficient amounts of minerals/fertiliser or water may be limiting growth despite increased CO2 levels…
1. Someone stated that 45% of anthropogenic CO2 releases remain in the atsmosphere. I believe the poster confused isotopic analysis with absolute quantity, as the US Department of Energy analysis determined that only 4% of the increased Anthr.. releases remained in the atsmosphere causing the increase to ~ 380 ppm. Therefore, Chris, increasing Anthro.. [pCO2] induces increased plant (or ocean organism) growth, period. But increasing plant growth and subsequent decay returns increased amounts of CO2 back into the atsmosphere. The sequestration of the 96% of mans’ releases is either captured in urban structures, oceanic cycles, long-lived species (trees, shrubs) or in increases in soil organic matter (which is increasing). How much in each is debated, but a .05% increase in carbon sequestered in the soil could account for all of it. Increased soil organic matter also leads to imcreased biomass (sequestration) as numerous beneficial processes are correlated to OM, ie. nutrient availability, water infiltration and retention, reduction in compacted soil root impedance, etc. IMHO, the significance of this study is humans increasing CO2 contributions are still being sequestered at the same proportionate rate. Logically then, more is being sequestered each year. Plant response indicates this will continue in the same fashion at least up to 700ppm.
2. As a soil scientist/plant physiologist, I can’t address ocean sequestration of CO2. But I hypothesize that the general concept of increasing growth in response to increasing CO2, die-off and sequestration of CO2 in oceanic sedimentation would be similar to terrestrial cycles.
3. Under controlled growth chamber experiments and ideal conditions, plant response to increasing [pCO2] is exponential not linear. Increased growth leads to increased sink (larger plants), leading to further increased growth. Sometimes that increases economic yield, sometimes it just increases biomass. So the issue hinges on the afore-mentioned liebig most limiting factor(s) or mitscherlitz response curves to deficient supplied growth factors. Available light never limits growth response in ambient environmental conditions, it only occurs in light impeded greenhouses (or in cloudy environments). In efficient plant species growing in ambient temperatures that do not cause reduced enzymatic efficiency ( 92 F – 98 F roughly for most C3 and C4 plants , respectively) growth is most limited by the genetic ability to translocate photoassimilate to developing sinks. During daylight hours chloroplasts become feedback impaired by the accumulation of photoassimilate both within the chloroplast itself and in cellular starch granules. Under the process known as dark respiration, these metabolites are transported to the sinks. Deprivation of the dark cycle results in a reduction of genetically acheivable growth to plants in ambient conditions. The necessity for supplemental lighting is a result of greenhouse enclosure reflection of total radiation or specific wavelengths. The majority of increased yields historically acheived have been determined to be increased harvest index, translocation efficiency and other genetic improvements. Outside of these, the main constraints to estimations of increased global biomass are water, both absolute and seasonal timeliness, and nitrogen, then phosphorus, etc. Since the improvement in availability of all growth limiting requirements, and therefore in sequestration of increasing amounts of Anthro… supplied CO2 fertilizer is directly proportional to the cost and availability of energy (to mine, to build water storage structures and canals, to transport, etc.), it behooves mankind to continue to develop energy resources, most notably nuclear. And to continue advances in plant genetics and response to environment, so pony up some money for some real research. ;~D

Sophistry in politics (10:32:07) :
Then if you consider that these natural sources can vary up or down in one day by more than ten times what we are able to produce in a whole year you get even more perspective.
Be careful, the figures you use from Vienna are local CO2 levels in a town, nothing to do with global levels which don’t change with more than a fraction of a ppmv per day (global average 5 ppmv over the seasons for 1 degr.C change).
And the micro-Schollander method used in Barrow had an accuracy of +/- 150 ppmv (!). It was intended for measuring CO2 levels in exhaled air (at 20,000 ppmv), not for 300 ppmv in ambient air.
It seems that you rely on the work of Ernst Beck (on historical CO2 measurements) and Jaworowski (on ice cores), but both have their problems… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

@carrot eater
But as the measured increase (in the atmosphere) is close to linear, and the anthropogenic output (allegedly) is close to exponential, either the natural carbon sinks must increase or the natural output must diminish (or a combination), yes?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust

What interests me most is two little blips in the manmade CO2 emissions record. If (as Ferdinand suggests) the CO2 increase really reflects the manmade increase, then it seems to me there should be CO2 decrease blips to match the manmade blips. But they are not there. I have to thank Derek Alker who pointed this out. And this supports my belief that the apparently constant proportion between our emissions and CO2 increase is largely sheer coincidence – that the CO2 increase is due to oceans warming and outgassing – and that the total CO2 turnover is so large that (with the biosphere) small changes can easily be absorbed in the longer term by the biosphere itself expanding or shrinking. Past CO2 levels have only dropped after the temperature had dropped substantially (ice core records). Perhaps dissolving in the oceans is a slower process than outgassing. Perhaps the plant kingdom has evolved to not use more than 50% of any year’s increase, on the grounds that boom-and-bust is not a good longterm overall strategy for the top species.

“little blips” in the manmade co2 record aren’t enough to show up in the mauna loa co2 record. The little blips are slight downturns in emissions, which only slightly slow down co2 rise, not enough I believe to show up.

Ferdinand Engelbeen (06:11:35) :
Greenhouse growers in The Netherlands and other countries use 1,000 ppmv as guideline (more doesn’t add much growth), or about 2.5xCO2.
Thus indeed in general there is more growth, but not 100% more growth for a 100% higher CO2 concentration. Lack of light, low temperatures, lack of sufficient amounts of minerals/fertiliser or water may be limiting growth despite increased CO2 levels…
I suggest you watch a video titled (Global Warming or Global Governance), start about half way through, This section shows plant growth in higher levels of CO2.
Anne van der Bom (04:16:49)
Thermometers only measure the micro system surrounding the thermometer, urban heat island = rise in temperature, check the rural sites, not much of a sudden increase there.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/armagh_air_temp2.jpg

Cassanders: I’m not sure your eyeballing of curves as linear or exponential is a good way to advance. On a short scale, anything can look linear. One should actually do the math. Knorr did so here, and found that the fraction accumulating in the air has been constant over time. I do have some reservations about Knorr’s methods, though.
There is apparently a sharp difference of opinion among the commenters here: some are happy to see that the oceans are continuing to be efficient carbon sinks; others think the oceans are net outgassing, and are thus sources of CO2, not sinks at all. That’s quite the contradiction. I don’t understand why anybody thinks the oceans are net sources.

Why are these scientists taking real measurements & collecting empirical data like this??…..they forgot that the ‘science’ was ‘settled’ apparently?…i mean come on what are they trying to pull?

D. King (10:47:38) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:08:18) :
Thanks so much for the link.
As a young engineer I had measured many different systems. What
I have found over time, is that an increase in one element of an open
system, rarely results in a linear increase of that element. In other
words, atmospheric CO2 increases are too linear. I don’t trust them.
CO2 levels, while many natural processes are far from linear, show a surprisingly linear reaction (about 8 ppmv/k) to temperature over the past 400,000 years (recently expanded to 800,000 years):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
That is clear for the current variability around the upgoing trend too (about 4 ppmv/K). Thus CO2 reacts quite linear to temperature.
The reaction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to the addition of human CO2 is almost as if the whole CO2 cycle acts as a simple first order dynamic process: it is possible to emulate the increase in the atmosphere (and upper oceans), including the d13C changes, with such a behaviour.
The CO2 measurements are what they are, despite what Derek thinks about them. I have responded to his objections on 5-6 blogs, but did miss the one you mention. But see my replies e.g. at:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=102&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
But he seems to be unconvincible…

At these temperatures the oceans are, obviously, not net-out gassers. They came close to being net-neutral in 1998 when the CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere reached something like 3.75 ppm (assuming we’ve been putting out about 4 ppm.
It’s obvious the “fraction” changes with temperature.

4 billion (06:06:24) :
Geoff Sharp (05:08:05) :
The only way to answer that question is to show me a graph of ocean PH levels over the last 50 years?
————————————
What is the doubt about Ocean acidification? it is simple chemistry.
CO2 + H2O –> H2CO3
The Oceans are absorbing more CO2, nobody disputes that, as it absorbs CO2 the simple reaction described above occurs, simple chemistry. So it shouldn’t be any surprise.
Need the graph, not the chemistry lesson. Its a mighty big ocean out there.

I notice our BBC in the UK has somehow overlooked this important research, nothing on their news site. I wonder why?

Ferdinand,
Some very interesting comments in your greenworldtrust link. It made me wonder how the “350” mob would react if they knew that CO2 concentrations in depressions in the forest floor at night can reach 1000ppm. Even the ASHREA standard is “no more than 700 ppm above the outdoor air concentration”, with typical office levels in the range of 600-800ppm.
I could appreciate greenies avoiding work by staying out of offices to avoid those dangerous CO2 levels but I wonder how they would react to having to stay out of forests ?

Fred H. Haynie (12:34:28) :
May I disagree with your take of CO2 in ice cores? For the highest resolution ice cores at Law Dome (2 cores with 1.5 m ice equivalent snow accumulation per year), the average resolution is 8 years over the past 150 years. The third core with a lower accumulation has a 40 year resolution over 1,000 years. No clathrate formation found after relaxation. The CO2 levels in the three ice cores and still open bubbles of firn at closing depth were the same and there is a 20 year overlap (1960-1980 between the ice core / firn data and the South Pole direct measurements. All within the ice core accuracy (1 sigma = 1.2 ppmv). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
From Etheridge e.a. at:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml
Thus clathrate (de)formation is not a cause of the lower CO2 levels found for centuries ago.
All ice cores with overlapping gas ages, but complete different circumstances (temperature, dust inclusions, accumulation rate) show the same CO2 levels within 5 ppmv. Thus there is little doubt that CO2 levels found in different ice cores represent the true atmosphere of the past, be it increasingly smoothed at decreasing resolution for extending time periods. See:
antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
Sea surface temperature is NOT the cause of the recent rise. Even over tenthousands of years sustained increases/decreases during glacials-interglacials is only good for 8 ppmv/K change. Thus the global increase of about 1 K since the LIA is only responsible for 8 ppmv in CO2 level, far from the 100+ ppmv measured…

Lucy Skywalker and others,
There seems to be confusion over the size Man’s contribution to CO2 – people don’t understand how Man can be responsible for all of the increase in CO2, even though our emissions constitute 2-3% of natural emissions. This results from a misunderstanding of a basic concept called “stocks and flows.” (Don’t worry – a study found that even most MIT students don’t get this concept intuitively, so it’s easy to see how people get confused). Here’s the analogy:
Imagine a bathtub in which the faucet is turned on and the drain is open, and water is entering the tub from the faucet at the same rate it is draining out of it. The tub is in equilibrium; water is entering and exiting the tub at the same rate (the “flow”), so the overall level of water in the tub (the “stock”) does not change. This is like the natural carbon cycle – in equilibrium, CO2 enters and exits the biosphere at the same rate, so the overall level in the atmosphere doesn’t change.
Back to the tub – now imagine that you add a second faucet pouring water into the tub, but only 2% as much as the original faucet. Still, because there is now slightly more water entering the tub as draining out of it, the water level slowly increases. This is like the manmade contribution to CO2 emissions: even though ours are only 2-3% of the total, that 2-3% throws the system out of balance.
So anyone who claims that man’s contributions to CO2 are minor is making a basic, if easy to make error in basic quantitative reasoning. Hope this is helpful.

Ferdinand Engelbeen (23:58:01) :
“Despite the fact that many CO2 releases and absorptions in the natural world are quite non-linear, nature as a whole acts and reacts like a simple first order linear process on disturbances, be it temperature or human emissions.”
Allow me to run with that a little. Let the atmospheric level of CO2 be C, and its rate of change Cdot. Our model is:
Cdot = -C/tau + u + delta_u
where tau is the time constant, u is the underlying rate of natural emission, which I will assume is constant, and delta_u is manmade. delta_u has a form which, since 1950, has been more or less linear, but as of today is less than 0.03*u (3% of the natural emission rate, some say it is 1% or less). We may thus bound the current increase via
Cdot <= -C/tau + (1.03)*u
In the steady state, the increase in C should then be <= 3% of its natural level. However, the increase in C has been much greater than that. What are the possibilities?
A) an amplifying positive feedback – but there is no reason such a feedback should have been inactive until the onset of industrialization, the system is still linear, and the steady state proportionality does not change
B) the system responds to the rate of change of delta_u, i.e., has an amplifying zero, as well as the absolute value
Cdot = -C/tau + u + delta_u + K*d/dt(delta_u)
I can't think of any particular physical mechanism for this, but maybe others can. In any case, the contribution from the derivative term is bounded, and the contribution from the (slowly) linearly increasing delta_u is… slowly increasing.
C) the system has an integral term
Cdot = -C/tau – alpha*intg(C) + u + delta_u
with this value of tau actually larger than before, and previously misidentified. In this paradigm, we would merely be observing the overshoot, and the steady state concentration will settle out to a limit even if we keep increasing emissions linearly.
How might an integral term come about? Let's say plant life increases proportional to C:
Pdot = beta*C
for some constant beta. Then, CO2 is partially removed in proportion to how much plant life there is.
Cdot = -C/tau – alpha*P + u + delta_u
Seems reasonable. I'm not claiming in any way this is what is happening. I’m just saying, if you assume you can model CO2 level as a linear system, these are the simplest and most obvious options, and the last one seems the most reasonable. It will be interesting to see if CO2 starts to come down in the future. It almost looks like it is starting to in the plot at the top.

Of course, the problem with the integral feedback is that, without industrialization, C would have gone back to zero. Lucky we started burning stuff when we did!
OK, ok, we can kluge that up a little. Let
Pdot = beta*(C-C_0)
where C_0 is the “natural” level of C.
This is all fun, but the real point I want to make is, if we accept the data as presented, the increase in CO2 levels relative to the increase in emissions does not add up in a linear systems model, unless there are additional factors which, I think, generally would tend to mitigate future buildup.

WAG (15:15:31) :
Let me see if I got this right.
Rub a dub dub…too much CO2 in the tub.

A lot of the comments seem to be revolving around the Mauna Loa CO2 data. Are there any other CO2 time histories to compare Mauna Loa against? It would seem putting so much weight on a sensor so close to a active volcano, might just give some questionable data.

Smokey (16:19:51) :
Please, make this a speech for the US SENATE!

carrot eater (17:30:23) :
“…and a zero-order term for carbon naturally coming into the atmosphere. Why? There isn’t any physical meaning to any of that.”
Of course there is:

Natural sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide include volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, power generation and transport, as well as some industrial processes such as cement making. It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.

Without it, the CO2 of the atmosphere would soon be depleted. This is all part of the carbon cycle, with which any reader of this website should at least have some passing familiarity.
“Now, man starts putting 4 units/year of CO2 into the air directly. Now, 102 units of CO2 go from air to ocean, and 100 units of CO2 go from ocean to air. The amount of CO2 in both ocean and air go up by 2 units/year each. In the terms of the Knorr paper, AF = 50%. Yes, it’s insanely simplified, but I don’t know how else to overcome this difficulty people are having with the transfers.”
It is not that simple. At all. Not all CO2 goes into the ocean, and the ocean reservoir itself is vast and has its own natural sequestration mechanisms. See here:

CO2 consumed annually by the photosynthesis of land plants give fluxes in the range 10 – 70 times higher than produced by man; photosynthesis by marine plants give fluxes in the range 50 to 250 times higher (Revelle and Suess, 1957)… The oceans to a depth of about 4 km are supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate (Broecker et al., 1979). This would facilitate precipitation of calcium carbonate for any additional input of CO2 through the atmosphere/ocean interface, and thereby oceans will consume any excess CO2 in the atmosphere… Any additional CO2 entering the ocean from the atmosphere will have the potential of precipitating calcium carbonate according to the Principle of le Châtelier (average ocean depth 3.8 km; average calcite saturation depth 4 km). This is why the vast sedimentary CO2 reservoir has been accumulated on the Earth’s surface throughout its history.

And, there are other natural mechanisms for carbon sequestration being discovered all the time.

Hilarious!
WAG, do you actually believe your model of a bathtub at 15:15:31 has any place in this discussion? Truthfully, that’s the kind of explanation you’d give a 6 year old. I especially liked the condescending claptrap at the beginning about what “we” don’t “get intuitively”.
Your little tirade fails to take into account that said bathtub is capable of growing and shrinking, there are differing levels of evaporation from the tub depending on its water level, water enters at varying temperatures, and overflowing won’t cause any serious harm because there’s a giant floor drain right beside it.
However, if your understanding of atmospheric gases is that minimal, hey, don’t let anyone talk you out of it. I do, however, recommend an excellent line of books for you written by Dr. Seuss.
Reply: Back down the tone please, this is pushing well over the line. ~ charles the moderator

bill (19:14:25) :
Mauna Loa Do not take readings when wind direction can pull in volcanic etc CO2.
As the wind blows?
Please tell me I’m not the only one who has a problem with this.

D. King (19:39:22) :
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
The observatory is surrounded by many miles of bare lava, without any vegetation or soil. This provides an opportunity to measure “background” air, also called “baseline” air, which we define as having a CO2 mole fraction representative of an upwind fetch of hundreds of km. Nearby emission or removal of CO2 typically produces sharp fluctuations, in space and time, in mole fraction. These fluctuations get smoothed out with time and distance through turbulent mixing and wind shear. A distinguishing characteristic of background air is that CO2 changes only very gradually because the air has been mixed for days, without any significant additions or removals of CO2.
At Mauna Loa we use the following data selection criteria:
The standard deviation of minute averages should be less than 0.30 ppm within a given hour
The hourly average should differ from the preceding hour by less than 0.25 ppm.
Hours that are likely affected by local photosynthesis are indicated by a “U” flag in the hourly data file,
In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step,

WAG to Smokey – “Please explain how you would empirically “test” AGW *without* using a model, considering that the point is to predict what is going to happen in the future?”
Well, the AGW alarmists could start, EMPIRICALLY, by presenting real, observable data…that proves (and I mean “prove” in the strict scientific sense) their case.
But they can’t….because the data is either not there, or can be explained within the bounds of natural climate variation.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

WAG to Smokey: “What, specifically, would you have to see for you to accept AGW?”
That’s easy: A complete technical, scientific proof of the AGW theory.
Until then….it is a just a theory….and not a strong one at that. In fact, in line with other ideas about natural climate variation, it is a weak, weak, sickly sister.
And in reference to the phrase “accept AGW”:
Indicative of the whole startlingly *evangelical* tone this devastatingly embarrassing chapter of science has taken, no doubt.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks (20:31:57) :

Coal dust is, but CO2 is not.

That’s better!
DaveE.

WAG to Smokey: “Please explain why increasing the rate of a flow into a stock does not cause the stock to increase.”
Take the Dead Sea, for example. Now I am sure the rate of flow of the Jordan River varies….but it is not sufficient to cause the Dead Sea to fill up and overflow.
Evaporation is a very strong beast.
WAG to Smokey “Also, please explain why a study finding that the AT has not increased yet proves that it NEVER will.”
Huh??? Wha???
WAG to Smokey: “I hear AIG is hiring.”
I’ll bet you are just what they are looking for! 🙂
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Evidence of increased atmospheric CO2 effecting Marine life
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5874/336

WAG (21:34:13) :
So it’s pretty clear that the economic costs of cap-and-trade are much more uncertain than the science of global warming.
These models are based on human behavior, which is much harder to predict than chemistry and physics.

You were saying?

WAG: “My point is simple: It is definitionally impossible to empirically prove a future event. Empirical proof means a real-world result that confirms a hypothesis.”
As evidenced in the above quote and otherwise: Circular reasoning is definitely YOUR expertise, my friend, so, I understand why you would want to project it on someone else.
Nice try.
If it is “impossible to empirically prove a future event,”…then why not show forth the evidence of the catastrophic, out-of-control global warming, as ALREADY manifested??
Natural climate variations…including recoveries from the LIA…can not be included into the mix.
Where is your evidence? Hard, scientifically proven evidence based upon real-time observations??
Where is it? Show it? Prove it??
Sorry bud, but the burden of proof is on you….or are you going to avoid the logic here too?
Cue chirping crickets.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

WAG says: Of course, as I’ve said before, all climate skeptic arguments rely on models too, since any alarmist predictions of “economic doom” is based on economic models. These models are based on human behavior, which is much harder to predict than chemistry and physics. Hell, economic models don’t even account for technological change, which is why past analyses of environmental legislation have always overestimated the costs, according to the socialist magazine.”
Huh????
Does not compute. Dude….you are jumping logic mid-sentence.
All climate skeptic arguments rely on models too, since WHA???
What is the question here?
You are off your rocker on this post.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA