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

Controversial new climate change results

University of Bristol Press release issued 9 November 2009

bristol_university_logo

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:

knorr_figure1

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

Share


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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

354 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron de Haan
November 11, 2009 4:28 am

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.

artwest
November 11, 2009 4:33 am
dearieme
November 11, 2009 4:38 am

” 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.

Kum Dollison
November 11, 2009 4:43 am

They should have included “temperature.” It makes all the difference. If you go here
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
You will see that in the very cold (compared to recently) year of 1958 CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere FELL from Aug to Aug. In the cold years of 92′, and 93 they barely rose.
Also, satellites show that vegetation has increased about 6% in the last 15 years, or so.
And, keep in mind that when you cut down a Rainforest Hardwood for furniture you are “sequestering” the CO2 in the lumber. Then, if you plant, say, an oil palm you are uptaking More CO2. The process is probably CO2 “Negative” in many cases.

November 11, 2009 4:54 am

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?

Michael D Smith
November 11, 2009 4:57 am

This seems completely unsurprising. The greater the CO2 fraction in atmosphere above the ocean fraction, the greater the differential, the greater the absorption rate to the less saturated medium. If anything, I would expect a greater fraction to absorb into the oceans with higher atmospheric CO2 levels, given that it is a several orders of magnitude higher capacity sink. I didn’t even realize that this wasn’t the standard assumption. I’ll have to read up on the previous research to see where it slipped up.

November 11, 2009 5:08 am

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?

Frank Lansner
November 11, 2009 5:25 am

Related:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
Here, from the second figure: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/lansner2.png
you see that it takes more and more temperature to achieve the same CO2-rise/year. This conclusion is strongly supported by the “Bristol-findings”.
Absorbtion of CO2 is increasing, seemingly faster than increase in CO2-emissions.

SandyInDerby
November 11, 2009 5:28 am

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.

Ron de Haan
November 11, 2009 5:30 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen (02:53:19) :
“The absorption by vegetation is limited, plants grow somewhat faster, but don’t double in carbon sequestration for 2xCO2 levels”.
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.
Also read Rereke Whakaaro (03:32:20) :
“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!”

Squidly
November 11, 2009 5:35 am

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?

Jimbo
November 11, 2009 5:41 am

Plants rather like C02 according to real world observations.
http://aspenface.mtu.edu/results.htm
“FACE provides a window into the future and allows for experimental testing of CO2/O3 interactions under realistic forest conditions.
Our results suggest that moderate levels of O3 will offset elevated CO2 responses projected for the year 2100.
Our results suggest carbon sequestration under elevated CO2 is being overestimated by modellers who do not consider O3 in areas with periodic episodic O3.
Elevated CO2 delays normal autumn leaf senescence, predisposing some aspen genotypes to winter dieback.
Our preliminary results indicate that aspen and birch insects and diseases may increase under elevated CO2 and O3.”
————–
and so do algae in the oceans that eventually die and sink to the bottom as mentioned earlier.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=1041
————–
And finally there is a little dispute about the residency time of C02 in the atmosphere.
see image:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
I’m not a scientist but I just thought I would put in my 2 cents worth. I hope these links are useful to the discussion.
Jimbo

November 11, 2009 5:49 am

CO2 is plant fertilizer. Increased plant food causes more rapid plant growth, thus absorbing more CO2. But measurements of the biosphere have been completely ignored by those programming their computer climate models.
Climate alarmists generally assume that the biosphere remains unchanged with increasing CO2. And when they do take plant growth into account, they arrive at exactly the wrong conclusion:

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.

Prof Freeman Dyson explained the problem years ago:
“We don’t know how big a fraction of our emissions is absorbed by the land, since we have not measured the increase or decrease of the biomass.”
[Full article here]
This Bristol study shows that the growth of vegetation resulting from additional CO2 has been greatly underestimated, perhaps by a factor of two.

RobP
November 11, 2009 5:55 am

I think people have ended up answering an early question in one comment about why it is important that the ratio of human emmissions to total increase is constant (the AGW scenarios rely on an increasing ratio to provide the amount of warming they say will happen).
However, other questions why this is happeneing have been somewhat glossed over and I would like to take a stab at this.
Without wanting to steal Roger Pielke Snr’s thunder, land use changes are the really big elephant in the room that no-one wants to actually try and calculate. I know it isn’t easy, because there are no generalities and every place is its own anecdote, but until we can put some numbers on this mankind’s impact on CO2 levels is going to be guesswork. Actually, even worse than guesswork: they are going to be made up to fit whatever theory you are trying to push (calculating an assumption to make a model fit, if you prefer).
The nearest thing to a real carbon accounting in land use change came out of Australia a few years ago – I am sure one of our Aussie commenters will be able to refresh my memory on this – I have forgotten the name of the model, but it came from a climate research unit. It was pointed out that relatively small land use changes across the whole continent would make Australia essentially CO2 emmission neutral. This sounds simple (although probably impossible politically, given Australia’s size and heterogeneity), but you only have to look at the levels of re-forestation seen in North America over the last 100 years to see how important land use really is.
North America was opened up by a demand for wood and the eastern parts were virtually logged out by the end of the 19th century. However, since then most of this land has been allowed to re-grow, such that an annual net increase in forest area was recorded for most of the 20th century. The rate has now slowed (or maybe even stopped) because most of the available land has now been re-forested, but for many years in the 20th century the US was a net sink for CO2 (hard as this may seem for many to understand). [I am sorry for not providing references for this – I have mislaid these in one of my many moves – if anyone can refer me back to papers on North American forest cover I would be grateful.]
The other thing we have to consider is that mature forests are actually a pretty poor CO2 sink (although a good carbon storage). When a forest is cut down, regeneration actually provides increased CO2 fixation and the net effect is more down to what happened to the carbon stored in the trees that were cut down: burning or letting the trees rot will return the carbon to the air as CO2 or methane, but building with them keeps the carbon fixed.
An even greater rate of fixation comes from growing crops – corn (maize) and sugar cane are absolutely fabulous fixers of CO2 on a per hectare basis. The issue here is that the CO2 is likely going to be recycled quite quickly as the products are eaten, but given that the worlwide production of grains has increased dramatically (for thirty years at faster that the rate of population increase, although it has now dipped below that for a decade or so), even the temporary fixation of the CO2 may have an effect on atmospheric levels
I am not suggesting that we should re-grow forests everywhere to “soak-up” CO2 (mainly because as an agricultural researcher I like to have CO2 in the air – as do the 6 billion people on the planet who like to eat food), but that until we get serious about measuring land use changes we are going to carry on with “my made up model says that your made up model is wrong”.

Cassanders
November 11, 2009 5:56 am

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

Cassanders
November 11, 2009 5:57 am

Dang,
commenting myself:
To see the global data , scroll down half a page or so. Check table to the right
Cassanders
In Cod we trust

Kum Dollison
November 11, 2009 5:58 am

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

Anne van der Bom
November 11, 2009 6:02 am

Michael D Smith (04:57:08)
An important sink for CO2 are vegetation and phytoplankton. These are rather hard to catch informula like the absorption of CO2 in water. Therefore this should not be unsurprising I think.

4 billion
November 11, 2009 6:06 am

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.

Anne van der Bom
November 11, 2009 6:07 am

Ron de Haan (05:30:42) :
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.
In a greenhouse the other factors that determine plant growth are carefully adjusted to match the higher CO2 level. Temperature is one, light is another. Those greenhouses you speak of mostly have nighttime assimilation lighting and increased temperatures and generous amounts of fertilizer are being applied.
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.

November 11, 2009 6:11 am

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…

John Galt
November 11, 2009 6:14 am

Anthropogenic CO2 not increasing? That’s OK — methane is the new CO2.
Out – Global warming
In – Climate Change
Out – CO2 emission
In – Methane emissions (includes cattle flatulence)

DonS.
November 11, 2009 6:14 am

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

bill
November 11, 2009 6:19 am

Geoff Sharp (04:54:58) :
Volcanoes perhaps? Having one source of information is surprising in this day and age?

Mauna Loa Do not take readings when wind direction can pull in volcanic etc CO2.
There are many different sites, and a couple of different measurement methods – Flask and in situ
The ML readings are then algorithmically shifted to represent the CO2 values on 15th of each month.
“Values above represent monthly concentrations adjusted to represent 2400 hours on the 15th day of each month. ”
Multi site CO2 data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
Loads of info here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html
enrichment of crops with CO2
http://public.ornl.gov/face/index.shtml
CO2 growth rate:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_gr_mlo.txt
Plotted here:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8276/growthrateco2year.jpg
Growth rate certainly seems to have an upward trend (although stalled for last 5 years)
Other sites data for CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/flask/month/
Here’s a plot of Co2 from a few places, included is CH4 from 1

bill
November 11, 2009 6:20 am
Verified by MonsterInsights