Syl (04:30:33) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (01:31:32) :
CO2 doesn’t level out either–it’s always lumpy and I suspect there is more that NASA hasn’t said yet about the results but we’ll see.
If you look at CO2 levels everywhere, these are lumpy in the first few hundred meters above land. There one can find any value with jumps of 100 ppmv within 15 minutes. But that is only near ground in less than 5% of the whole atmosphere. Measuring CO2 levels in the first few hundred meters over land is the equivalent of measuring temperature on asphalted parking lots or near AC outlets…
In the rest of the atmosphere (over 95%), you will find the same values, only modulated by seasonal changes (ranging from +/- 1 ppmv for the South Pole to +/- 8 ppmv for Barrow) and the (growing) NH-SH lag. Even above Pittsburg (over 500 m) or above the industrialised Rhine Valley (Schauninsland, Germany, 1000 m). There are no diurnal changes in CO2 levels and no changes with altitude (except for some delay for the seasonal variation) as long as you are away from nearby sources. No need for gridding and a few stations are enough to make a “global” average. Even one station is enough to see what the trend is, as all the yearly average trends are exactly the same everywhere you measure (away from sources), except for a NH-SH delay. Compare that to the difficulties to compose a “global” temperature average or even a global trend…
The temperature proxies used for reconstructions over the ice ages are d18O and dD (deuterium) heavy isotope levels, which are directly influenced by seawater temperatures of the SH oceans (at the evaporation side, a higher seawater temperature evaporates a higher ratio of 18O and D) and the temperature of the atmosphere at the precipitation side. The Antarctic ice cores temperature reconstruction (from the high-altitude inland ice cores) in this case is mainly a Southern hemisphere seawater temperature reconstruction (for the coastal cores, it is mainly the ocean temperature near the coast of Antarctica). The Greenland ice core (over 100,000 years) shows the NH seawater temperatures, which have some shift in timing and some more variability, but the general trend is similar as for the SH.

anna v (05:14:57) :
Have a look at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
the 600mb level of yearly temperatures, and take the percentage in Kelvin.
Even worse,
the sea surface temperature plot:
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
has smaller variation.
We still measure over the whole surface the temperatures , and so we should for CO2.
The Keeling values you are quoting are not the whole real world picture, the way that temperatures on a mountain are not the real world whole picture.
The distinction is not trivial. It is on whether this 280 to 380ppm has any meaning other than the carefully corrected measure of the few places on earth acceptable to Keeling.
It is the same as the hockey stick question: were temperatures as high in medieval times as now? Was CO2 as high in 1940 as now
Anna V, you are looking at trends of temperature which were already summed and averaged globally. I was comparing CO2 and temperature levels averaged over one year at different single places. CO2 is well mixed, as there is very little difference between yearly averages measured at 7 m height in Barrow (85N), 3,400 m height in Mauna Loa (20 N) or the South Pole (3,000 m, 90S). Temperature is not well mixed as if you take the averages at the same places, there is over 80 C difference between the equator and the poles, despite that a lot of energy flows continuously from the equator to the poles. The same for altitude: there is very little difference for CO2 levels measured at the foot of Mauna Loa and at the observatory, while there is a permanent difference in temperature.
The difference between both is that the gains and losses of temperature are much larger and faster than the mixing time or energy flow can compensate for, while the CO2 mixing time is sufficient to distribute the gains and losses of CO2 all over the globe with minimal effect.
Thus even if ice cores only measure CO2 at Antarctica, that are the same values (within a few ppmv) you will find at Barrow, Mauna Loa, everywhere on sea, on mountains over land, in general above the inversion layer (a few hundred to 1,000 m). Only in the middle of forests, fields, towns, you will find any (un)desired value, as these places include huge sources/sinks and the local atmosphere is not well mixed. That is only for less than 5% of the atmosphere (by weight). At your wish, even these are monitored to measure CO2 fluxes, nice if you interested in the exchanges, but irrelevant if you are interested in “global” levels and trends.

The Knorr article should remind us that the IPCC is vague about how they translate projected future human emission of CO2 into projected future concentration of CO2. Some good questions: 1) Are the IPCC models for carbon uptake and release consistent with the reliable observational record showing that the planet has managed to take up more CO2 (net) as humans have released more CO2? 2) Do their models predict that the “atmospheric fraction” should have been constant (Knorr 40%, IPCC 55%) over the past century? 3) How fast and high is the IPCC suggesting that the “atmospheric fraction” will rise over the next century as some sinks begin to “saturate” or degrade from warming? 4) Is there any solid observational evidence that the atmospheric fraction has already begun to rise? 5) Can any of these models explain why CO2 levels were about 50% lower during the last glacial maximum?
Since the IPCC and others seem to be silent about these logical questions (and instead cite the slogan that most of the CO2 you emit today will still be causing GW 500 years from now), I suspect that they don’t want the skeptics to understand how much uncertainty exists in the link between CO2 emissions and CO2 accumulation. It should be noted that increased atmospheric fraction for CO2 depends on climate sensitivity AND is a positive feedback for climate sensitivity. Knorr mentions in his introduction that an increasing atmospheric fraction can translate into 500 ppm higher CO2 concentrations in 2100 in some models without any change in human emissions!

Ferdinand Engelbeen (07:32:36) :
Thank you for your time answering my queries. I understand what you’re saying. It is useful for some overall picture of what CO2 is doing. I still think it’s important for the climate models, though, to be more granular. CO2, which they consider oh-so-important, seems to be an afterthought when it comes to their gridcells and time steps. If differences of 100ppm or more have a temp effect won’t it affect the OLR calculations? And the OLR is to the fourth power of T, so this along with not understanding clouds and thus generally not getting the proper temps in their grid cells can lead to large errors in the energy balance calcs.
As for ocean temps, are you saying that the oceans did have a 10C change in temp between glacial/interglacial? I still find that 8ppm/1K difficult to accept back then and tend to think the glacial/interglacial aspects of the theory are among the weakest.

Phil. (09:52:15)
Not necessarily. Taking all sources of co2, I imagine there are a lot of unknown sources – further made difficult by th efact that they are not measured – the respective outgassing from oceans, other natural additions, such as volcanoes, geysers, earth crust seams, fumaroles etc most of which are entirely unknown, and could add up to billions of additional GT’s p.a. Ferdinand said that when animals respire they are not adding c02 but that’s not true, since oxygen is breathed in co2 formed and respired, and the sum total of all animal life c02 surpasses that of all anthropogenic,
In short, we simply don’t know c02 cycle volumes, so no matter how precise the mathematics, there are holes.
i’ll ask the question to Ferdinand again: What happened, 800-1500 years ago that gives a high point of c02 today, given that Ice core trends show a lag of temperatures between this period of time, and corresponding c02 levels.

dC = (dh/dx)*dx should have been dC_dot = (dh/dx)*dx

Bart (11:49:30)
No, it shouldn’t have. Brain burp.

philincalifornia (11:51:00) :
Ferdinand, it sounds like you’re pretty busy, so I will keep my question short and to the point: Why did you choose 40 years as the half-life ??
I did base that initially on the work of Peter Dietze:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
As result of a lot of discussions (about 2 years now) with other sceptics about the same points as discussed here, I did split the flows in/out the ocean surface and the deep oceans, which gave a better fit for the d13C levels, although not necessary for the CO2 half life time in general.
If you use a shorter half life, the CO2 levels don’t reach the measured values and with a slower half life, you go up much faster. That is the background.
Of course, this is “tuning”, but it shows that the 40 years half life time is not far off and that the shorter times used by Segalstad and others are relevant for residence times of individual molecules, not for the half life time which is of interest here. Neither are the long half life times of the IPCC (the Bern model) right, as these are only applicable if we burn all available oil and most of coal (and even then…).

Bart (11:47:35) :
Ferdinand, I did not “introduce” anything. It is an extremely general development. The nonlinear system model is simply
xdot = f(x,adot,T)
C = h(x)
I don’t see any reason to assume a non-linear model, as the reaction of temperature on CO2 changes is quasi-linear. From the ice cores we see that a change of about 10 K results in a change of 80 ppmv (nothing sure about the other way out). Thus all what happens if the temperature changes, is a quite linear change in Co, the equilibrium CO2 concentration. As there is little change in current temperature since the LIA, this leads to not more than 8 ppmv change in Co.
The other way out, we are for the sake of equilibrium interested what an extra addition of CO2 above an equilibrium is doing over time. It is of no interest at all that CO2 may have an influence on temperature and hence that some more CO2 may be released by the equilibrium reaction. What we add to the atmosphere as mass is what is of interest, as that leads directly to more sinks, as the differential pressure between atmosphere and ocean surface (and vegetation) increases. But as the Knorr paper says, the increase in sinks is only about half the increase in emissions, thus the remainder is staying in the atmosphere, and the emissions are the full cause of the increase (except a small contribution of temperature, which changes Co).

Ferdinand Engelbeen (12:22:39) :
philincalifornia (11:51:00) :
Ferdinand, it sounds like you’re pretty busy, so I will keep my question short and to the point: Why did you choose 40 years as the half-life ??
Answer:
I did base that initially on the work of Peter Dietze:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
As result of a lot of discussions (about 2 years now) with other sceptics about the same points as discussed here, I did split the flows in/out the ocean surface and the deep oceans, which gave a better fit for the d13C levels, although not necessary for the CO2 half life time in general.
If you use a shorter half life, the CO2 levels don’t reach the measured values and with a slower half life, you go up much faster. That is the background.
———————-
Thanks for the answer Ferdinand. It helps to explain the disconnect between posters coming at this from first principles and those who assume a priori that all the CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic emissions.
I’m in the former camp, and assumed a half-life of around 10 years (or slightly less) based on:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg/2000px-Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg.png
Clearly, with a shorter half-life, as you confirm, there is a shortfall in the calculated amount of anthropogenic CO2 that could be in the atmosphere today. (PS Phil from somewhere up there – that’s what I was “blabbing” about. I hope I explained it better this time).
The link to Dietze is very helpful thanks, but I can’t help thinking that backfilling the half-life to fit the conclusion could be dangerous if the conclusion turns out to be not exactly as one believed.
As one example, if the calculations of human emissions were way off base due to one large country emitting vastly more than is currently thought, you would miss this, because you would not be asking the question. Also, there are clearly other scenarios that would be missed.

P Wilson (11:29:55) :
Not necessarily. Taking all sources of co2, I imagine there are a lot of unknown sources – further made difficult by th efact that they are not measured – the respective outgassing from oceans, other natural additions, such as volcanoes, geysers, earth crust seams, fumaroles etc most of which are entirely unknown, and could add up to billions of additional GT’s p.a. Ferdinand said that when animals respire they are not adding c02 but that’s not true, since oxygen is breathed in co2 formed and respired, and the sum total of all animal life c02 surpasses that of all anthropogenic,
In short, we simply don’t know c02 cycle volumes, so no matter how precise the mathematics, there are holes.
i’ll ask the question to Ferdinand again: What happened, 800-1500 years ago that gives a high point of c02 today, given that Ice core trends show a lag of temperatures between this period of time, and corresponding c02 levels
P WIlson, I said that animal CO2 is of no importance, I didn’t say that animals don’t exhale CO2. Why is animal CO2 not important? We do produce CO2 from carbohydrates and other food that we have eaten before: directly or indirectly via meat, fish,… ultimately all our carbon comes from plants. These plants grow by taking away CO2 from the atmosphere: CO2 is “plant food”. Thus all CO2 that you exhale was taken away from the atmosphere a few months to a few years ago. The net result is that your exhaled CO2 doesn’t change the CO2 content of the atmosphere, if you average that over a period of a few years.
Indeed we don’t know exactly how much CO2 cycles through the atmosphere (there are some indications in the d13C and O2 cycle), but that too is not important at all. Even if you have not the slightest notion how much money you did spend and earn over a day, you will have a pretty good idea of what happened, by counting what is in your wallet at the end of the day and comparing that with the previous day… That is what is done for CO2 movements too: the inventory of what was burned and what the increase was in the atmosphere is what is of interest, not any individual flow in the cycle.
Not much happened in the past 10,000 years, according to ice cores CO2. There were a few periods that the temperature was (highly probable) warmer than now: The Holocene optimum, the Roman warm period and the warm Medieval period. The lag of 600 years in ice cores is only for the glacial-interglacial transition, the other way out the lag is many thousands of years and there is a lag of about 50 years for the MWP-LIA cooling (CO2 falls with about 8 ppmv). The current lag of CO2 after temperature changes is only a few months… It seems that the lag period is amplitude and duration dependent…
Further, there is not reason to assume that temperatures and CO2 levels of the past are responsible for the current CO2 rise, therefore the influence of temperature on CO2 levels is too small…

Anna V.
If all termometers during day and night in 95% of the atmosphere, from the ocean surface to the stratosphere and above 500 m over land show very similar temperatures, why would you bother to include thermometer readings from the 5% air over land surface, where any temperature reading changes 20 C in 15 minutes, shows huge day/night differences, jumps up if a car passes or falls down when there is plenty of wind…
Have a look at a few days in the life of a CO2 measuring device at Giessen/Linden (Germany), rural, in the neighbourhood: a small village, a small town, agricultural fields, grass, forests and other items all within a few km in different directions. And of course traffic. Compare that with the raw data (including outliers) from Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
Why would you include such data, if these aren’t necessary at all to have an idea of the global trend?