Controversial new climate change results
University of Bristol Press release issued 9 November 2009
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
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.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
###
Here is the abstract from GRL:
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started losing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.
This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
According to Pat Michaels at World Climate Report:
Dr. Knorr carefully analyzed the record of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and anthropogenic land-use changes for the past 150 years. Keeping in mind the various sources of potential errors inherent in these data, he developed several different possible solutions to fitting a trend to the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. In all cases, he found no significant trend (at the 95% significance level) in airborne fraction since 1850.
(Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)
Here is Figure 1 from the Knorr paper:
Figure 1. The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 (as determined from ice cores, thin dotted lines, and direct measurements, thin black line) has remained constantly proportional to the annual amount of CO2 released by human activities (thick black line). The proportion is about 46% (thick dotted line). (Figure source: Knorr, 2009)
The conclusion of the Knorr paper reads:
Given the importance of the [the anthropogenic CO2 airborne fraction] for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough understand of why it has stayed approximately constant in the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and when it changes. The most urgent need seems to exist for more accurate estimates of land use emissions.
Another possible approach is to add more data through the combination of many detailed regional studies such as the ones by Schuster and Watson (2007) and Le Quéré et al. (2007), or using process based models combined with data assimilation approaches (Rayner et al., 2005). If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why the AF has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.
Michaels adds:
In other words, like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would.
Yet here we are, on the brink of economy crippling legislation to tackle a problem we don’t fully understand and the science is most certainly not settled on.
UPDATE: A professional email list I’m on is circulating the paper, read it here: Knorr 2009_CO2_sequestration
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer incredible 350-050 online training to help you pass HP2-E31 on first attempt. Get up to date 1z0-042 resources for guaranteed success.
Isn’t the biosphere a marvellous place – give it plenty of warmth, carbon and water and it thrives. With less of any of these vital factors it just survives.
Every day more and more facts are coming to light which show how little the IPCC consensus of scientists understand our climate and the effects on life. Every day Joe Public in every country of the world becomes more and more disenchanted by the politicians who created this big lie, and the shamocracy that supports them.
I can smell revolution in the air.
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.
4 billion (23:22:59) :
Ron de Haan (22:52:58) :
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.
From one of the papers linked at ice cap
“The oceans are becoming more acidic due to absorption of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The impact of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems is unclear, but it will likely depend on species adaptability and the rate of change of seawater pH relative to its natural variability.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5744/2204
So it seems acidification is not the question, what rammifications is the question.
No 4 billion,
Why is it that we create problems where non exist?
Mark the word “likely” in the report and the lack of hard facts.
The first corals emerged when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today.
Ocean Acidification is a non item, jut like CO2 levels in our atmosphere
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/here-comes-ocean-acidification-scam.html
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.
Since 1850 there must have been an increase in Biomass, pity that we are not able to quantify such.
Man’s propensity for deforestation in the rain-forests of the Equatorial regions, and indeed all over the world does not seem to faze Gaia, it seems mother Earth likes CO2, no surprise there.
It is once again a little arrogant to presume that the ‘sink ability’ of the planet is finite, its a living and ‘breathing system’ is it not?
It is another nail in the coffin of AGW, more CO2=less earth absorption= more atmospheric CO2 = warming? = Not proven!
With Lindzen’s paper on heat being radiated out into space – the ERBE data, the ‘consensus grows’ by the day, THAT THE MODELS ARE INCREASINGLY FLAWED but then we knew that.
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.
Note the “don’t miss next episode” (implication: grants needed) remark:
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
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
Sandy (23:59:20) :
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.
Sandy, man’s emissions are measured in another way: the taxes we pay for using fossil fuels give a rather good idea (maybe a little underestimated) of how much fossil fuels are used each year. With rather known burning efficiency figures for each fuel, one can calculate the CO2 emissions (expressed in gigaton carbon) per year. Currently (despite the economical crisis), fuel use emissions reach about 8 GtC/yr, of which roughly half remains in the atmosphere.
The absorption by vegetation is limited, plants grow somewhat faster, but don’t double in carbon sequestration for 2xCO2 levels. And the speed with which CO2 is absorbed in the cool polar ocean surfaces is limited too by the diffusion speed, which depends on the pressure difference between atmosphere and ocean surface, but also by ocean flows (down to the deep) and wind speed which mixes the upper layers. Thus if we double the emissions, the absorption will only double if the CO2 pressure difference between atmosphere and oceans (and plant alveoles) doubles, which only can happen by increasing the atmospheric CO2 level (the other items remaining more or less equal)…
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
CodeTech (01:54:18) :
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.
Right, people forget we are living on a volcanic planet.
The fact that we are here is the proof that our planet always has recovered from extreme events.
The entire focus on CO2 is laughable.
Shutting down our economy to control our emissions hysterical.
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
Actual MEASUREMENTS?!?!? Real OBSERVATIONS?!?!?
Cannot possibly be correct…..
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.
TonyB (23:59:57) :
Co2 has always been present in the atmosphere at around 380ppm according to tens of thousands of scientific records dating back to Saussure in 1830.
It also varies substantially which is not surprising as the amount of co2 in the carbon cycle far exceeds the input from man, so we would expect to see the natural cycle varying according to temperatures and outgasing of oceans, land use changes etc. Instead we have a steady rise from Manua Loa that clearly isn’t measuring the overwhelming impact from nature.
Hi Tony, of course we still disagree on this. Some of the historical CO2 data were taken at “ideal” places, far from huge CO2 sources or sinks and these show the same low levels (280-300 ppmv) as found in ice cores. Most were taken at completely unsuitable places for CO2 measurements: in the middle of towns, forests, rice/soy fields… Completely worthless for “global” averaging. See my take on the historical data here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
If you (rightfully!) disagree with the way “global” temperature data are obtained, you need to be consequent: the raw average historical CO2 level is equivalent to taking a few months temperature at Oslo in winter, then add a series of Rome, measured on a hot asphalt roof and again a few months in winter from Alaska. Form the combined series one can conclude that the middle period was much warmer…
Without very stringent a priori selection criteria (as Calendar did), the historical CO2 data have no value at all for “global” CO2 levels.
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.
When I was at school, in the days before computers were common place, we did an experiment.
We grew two trays of mustard cress, both in sealed containers. One container had normal air passed through it at a fixed rate. The other container had a mixture of air and carbon dioxide passed through it at the same rate (I can’t remember the proportions of air to carbon dioxide).
The result was that the mustard cress in the second container grew higher than the the mustard cress in the first container.
At the end of the experiment we cut the cress from the soil in each tray, and weighed it. The increased weight (biomass) was in the same proportion as the additional carbon dioxide (whatever that was).
I find it gratifying that Dr Knorr has been able to verify our empirical research.
I just just regret not having applied for a patent!
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.
Lucy Skywalker (02:03:08) :
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.
Hi Lucy, we still differ in opinion here: Segalstad confuses the residence time of a single molecule (the possibility that it is catched out of the atmosphere, whatever its origin), which is about 5 years, with the excess decay time (the time needed to remove an injection of a mass of CO2, whatever the origin), which is about 40 years.
And you confuse Henry’s Law for sweet water with that of seawater, which are completely different: due to its salts content (bi-carbonate), seawater can contain far more CO2, but shows a much different temperature-CO2 partial pressure curve. The global (land+ocean) temperature influence is known: about 4 ppmv/degr.C for short (1-3 years) temperature variations up to 8 ppmv/degr.C for (very) long time frames (like the MWP-LIA-CWP or glacials-interglacials). By far not enough to explain the recent 100+ ppmv increase…
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
“….and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.”
Today’s Daily Telegraph has a report on this. It actually replaces the word ‘complex’ with ‘speculative’.
I quote: “He pointed out that his study relied entirely on empirical data, including historical records extracted from ice samples in the Antarctic, rather than speculative climate change models”.
Well, I guess this is progress, particularly for the Telegraph, whose coverage of climate change is usually one-sided and biased. But of course the same report does make the false claim that *both* poles are melting.
Chris
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.
The increase in human population since 1850 has also sequestered a fair amount of carbon. Anyone any idea how much?
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…
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?