I’ve been getting a lot of requests to cover this story, probably 20 or so now with wonderings about “why haven’t you covered this yet?”
How quickly you all forget. WUWT was the very first to cover this story back on November 10th, 2009.
Everybody else in the media today is playing catch-up. So if you’d like to read the original press release and participate in the already ripe comments left then, see this WUWT story:
philincalifornia (13:11:39) :
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).
As you may have observed, in the calculated plots, there is the “fraction” of anthro CO2, which is subject to the same fast residence time of about 5 years, as applicable for the fate of 14C from the atomic bomb testing. But that is how fast a “labeled” carbon is exchanged for an “unlabeled” carbon from the (deep) oceans which contain more 13C and far less 14C than the atmosphere of today. That doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, despite that some 150 GtC (back and forth) is exchanged between the different reservoirs and the atmosphere. What really matters, are the quantities involved: one adds 8 GtC nowadays and 4 GtC stays in the atmosphere. Thus the sink rate (regardless of type) is only 4 GtC/yr, which is quite a difference, compared to the exchange rate of 150 GtC/yr. Therefore one need quite different time periods for residence and for excess reduction.
I’m curious as to everyones’ views of the following post re this topic on the Skeptical Science blog: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
A detailed analysis of the various flaws would be helpful (and apologies if you already did this, but I can’t plow through 380 comments).
Kevin (15:34:41),
The “Skeptical Science” blog is a false front for an alarmist blog. They are a chameleon blog, pretending to be something they’re not; they wouldn’t understand scientific skepticism if it bit ’em on the ankle.
They remind me of the communists who recruited American boys and girls to fight in Spain in the late ’30’s by calling themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.
When you start with a lie, it’s only downhill from there. Stick around here — at least you’ll have an honest site to comment on.
Eric (skeptic) says:
Read the Knorr paper…You know, the one that this thread is about. They show that the airborne fraction has remained constant at about 45%. That means that our emissions are a little bit more than double the amount by which the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been rising and this has stayed pretty constant with time.
And, no, I am not claiming that this is true on the month-to-month scale. There are obviously seasonal cycles due to the growth and decay of the biosphere flora (and perhaps changes in ocean temps)…and there are some variations year-to-year in the rise associated with things like ENSO. But average over a few years and the airborne fraction remains quite constant…That is what the Knorr et al. paper is saying.
Hey, Ferdinand is saying 8 ppm. I am just being generous and saying that if you look at the glacial – interglacial cycles and really make the largest possible estimate that you could, you could perhaps justify about a 100 ppm change associated with a 5 C change in global temperature, which would mean that the ~1 C rise in temperature from the depth of the LIA could at most have caused about 20 ppm rise in CO2. There are a number of reasons that one could argue that this is likely an overestimate and that Ferdinand’s 8 ppm estimate is probably more realistic, but I was just trying to give you folks the benefit of the doubt. God knows that people who are seriously trying to argue that the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic need all the help they can get!!!
Smokey says:
Oh, the irony, it burns!!!!
Ferdinand Engelbeen (13:25:05) :
The 800+ year delay is what was originally though during the 1990’s . Now that we have finer resolution trends from vostok, it shows that period of delay for the full 420,000 years, though other periods show 350 years, not just for ice iges. What is shows is that there was no point where c02 increase/decrease produced the crresponding increase or decrease in temperature.
I’ still to be convinced that vegeation increase over 150 years and population explosion doesn’t exhale more c02. Certainly 6,000,000,000 exhale more c02 than 1,500,000,000, then there’s the increase in numbers of livestock and crops to feed these billions…
Ferdinand Engelbeen (12:56:36) :
“I don’t see any reason to assume a non-linear model, as the reaction of temperature on CO2 changes is quasi-linear.”
That’s fine. The functions are general and abstract. If they are linear, then the “linearization” is an exact model.
But, the more linear they are in actuality, the worse it is for the anthropogenic attribution hypothesis.
No I doubt the rise could be anthropogenic, as if 45 stays in the air then previous year’s 45% gets absorbed so that the anthropogenic airborne fraction is in fact never more than 4%, and probably slightly less. If oceans put 26 times that of man into the air per year, and nature depletes a vast quantity of this 26 times, land non oceanic c02 quite a lot more, then there’s no reason to assume that this vaster fraction can’t also accumulate either, if accumulation is the factor that is vital for aerial residence. Besides, ocean c02 could be a lot more – we simply don’t know. We just assume, as it isn’t measured. In fact, no c02 exchanges are measured.
what does biology teach? All animals breathe in air and produce c02 by fixing the oxygen with carbon internally. We try to account for vegetation/ land and ocean exchanges, but not for animal respiration which surpasses the entire anthropogenic volume, both from fossils fuel , land useage, forestry, and human exhaling of c02. So if you’re right (Ferdinand) what part of the c02 production is included in animal exhalation? Is it the vegetation figure, that is merely considered to be in rotation with animal life, both of which show increased volumes over 140 years? I’m not convinced that anthropogenic c02 could have caused the population to increase, and vegetation to increase over this period, since nature couldn’t provide enough to create these volume increases
Joel says “God knows that people who are seriously trying to argue that the rise in CO2 is not anthropogenic need all the help they can get!!!”
Joel, I am trying to help you out. Here’s a 30 months roughly (mid 2006 to late 2008) in which CO2 fell despite mankind’s inputs. Your statement that “the biosphere and oceans are taking up about half of what we emit and the rest is remaining in the atmosphere” is false for those 30 months. It is not true if we extend the period back to 1850 since the flux has certainly changed.
Then you say “the airborne fraction has remained constant at about 45%. That means that our emissions are a little bit more than double the amount by which the CO2 level in the atmosphere has been rising”
Pretending to be quantitative, but the second does not follow from the first. Then you say we need to average over a few years to get that result. But I show a 30 month interval where it is physically impossible. Also the C13 to C12 ratios show that manmade emissions can be as little as 1/2 of the natural increase and still obtain the current ratios.
“Eric (skeptic) (19:15:00) :
[…]
Here’s a 30 months roughly (mid 2006 to late 2008) in which CO2 fell despite mankind’s inputs.”
Eric, where did you get that from? That would be new to me. Source?
It might be possible that the emissions fell due to the recession but the CO2 content of the atmosphere is the integral of half our emissions according to Knorr so the Keeling curve keeps rising.
“DirkH (19:40:36) :
[…]
but the CO2 content of the atmosphere is the integral of half our emissions according to Knorr so the Keeling curve keeps rising.”
Sorry – this is idiotic… that’s not what Knorr says but it follows from the net carbon flux that Ferdinand has stated : that half of our emissions get sequestered by natural processes.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:02:51) :
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…
Because temperature is a “proxy” for energy and energy is what changes weather climate, and counts in the energy balance. Energy balance is the main argument of the AGWarming scare, that man has changed the natural energy balance.
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?
Because it is the global CO2 that enters the alarmist calculations, and in my opinion the premise that CO2 is well mixed is not true, from satellite data and even from your plot that is in the statement above.
If it were a temperature curve one would take the average of minimum and maximum for the average input from the spot: over 400 going to 450. Where is the mixing in the polar region?
In my opinion, the polar region is just one spot, as the mauna loa etc. At that spots cherry picked to follow prescribed prejudices of how CO2 behaves, not random good measurements.
Attendant to that is that if CO2 were 400ppm in the 1940s , 390ppm is comparable and not something to be alarmed about.
Dirk, I got it simply from the raw data at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Joel likes to use the smoothed values to demonstrate or perhaps prove that “It has been known for decades that about half of what we emit in the atmosphere is taken up almost immediately.”
Well I keep asking Joel, if that’s not true for 30 months or so, then what does “almost immediately” mean?
I should really say: what does “about half” mean in the context of almost immediately? Shouldn’t it be “all” almost immediately or “none” almost immediately depending on factors that Joel refuses to quantify?
“Eric (skeptic) (02:51:52) :
Dirk, I got it simply from the raw data at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ”
Ok, tanks. I didn’t remember that the wiggle of the curve was so big.
Bart (18:14:21) :
But, the more linear they are in actuality, the worse it is for the anthropogenic attribution hypothesis.
One more try:
The reaction of CO2 on temperature changes is about 8 ppmv/K the opposite reaction is about 1 K for 2xCO2 (without further feedbacks), thus about 0.4 K for the 100+ ppmv we have now over the pre-industrial level. That means that the back-and-forth extra CO2 increase due to the 100+ ppmv increase gives about 5 ppmv extra due to the extra temperature. That is quite irrelevant for the whole calculation of what is the cause of the increase.
What is important, is that humans emitted over 200 GtC as CO2, of which 55% (100+ GtC) remained in the atmosphere, all the time since the start of the industrial revolution (Knorr talks about 45% remaining in the atmosphere, but that includes land use changes, which are more uncertain). That is additional CO2, not part of the regular CO2 cycle. Any increase of CO2 input into the atmosphere, whatever the source, increases the differential pressure of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean’s surface (and leaves alveoles), which increases the absorption and decreases the releases of the oceans. This is the reaction of a simple process in dynamic equilibrium, and that is where we are interested in. It is all about pressure (differences), not about temperature or other secondary reactions. From a process point of view: the non-linear increase of additional CO2 causes an increase of airborne CO2 at a fixed ratio, as long as the sink rate is directly proportional to the difference between the current CO2 level and the equilibrium level.
The only influence of temperature is that the equilibrium level (Co) is shifting with 8 ppmv/K. As there was some warming during the period of emissions, that may be accounted for. But that is only a small part of the CO2 increase, the rest is from the emissions, as long as a mass balance still is valid and no CO2 escapes to space…
If 55% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ALWAYS extracted from the atmosphere by natural processes (ie aggregate sinks vary naturally to maintain this ratio) – then why are carbon credits given for growing trees? Why does the CDM recognise that additional (man-made) sinks make a difference, when the existing biosphere and hydrosphere sinks will always take 55% without there help ?
anna v (23:59:14) :
In my opinion, the polar region is just one spot, as the mauna loa etc. At that spots cherry picked to follow prescribed prejudices of how CO2 behaves, not random good measurements.
If you average the yearly data from the satellites, there is less than 1 ppmv difference of CO2 levels all over the atmosphere in the NH or in the SH. There is a small difference of a few ppmv between the hemispheres. That is all. Thus even if you measure in one spot, you have the global averages within a few ppmv. If you don’t trust the Mauna Loa data, use the South Pole data (these started earlier, but have a gap of a few months), or use the average of all available stations. In all cases, the yearly average (which filters out the seasonal variation) is within a few ppmv and in all cases, the trend is about 60 ppmv over the past 50 years. Thus even if the “real” global average is 5 ppmv higher or lower than what is measured at only one spot, that is irrelevant, as the trend is far higher.
Attendant to that is that if CO2 were 400ppm in the 1940s , 390ppm is comparable and not something to be alarmed about.
What you are saying here is that the Mauna Loa data are irrelevant, and the Giessen data around 1940 and now show that there were times that the globe had comparable levels at that time. Well that is equivalent to saying that a proper thermometer hut placement is irrelevant and that one need to use all available data, whatever their qualtity. The Giessen and Poona data are the main series which are responsible for the “peak” in CO2 of 1942. Thus spot data, of which is known that these have a (variable) bias (today) and an (unknown) bias around 1940. Nothing is known about how rigorous the calibration procedures were (if any), how skilled the people were, the accuracy of the chemicals, the method, the apparatus, the preparation of the samples, the accuracy of the timing of sampling (quite important in the Giessen case)…
Here the monthly averages of the modern Giessen/Linden data, compared to Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg
Quite a difference in performance (be it cleaned for MLO, but even if the raw data were used…)
P Wilson (18:35:37) :
what does biology teach? All animals breathe in air and produce c02 by fixing the oxygen with carbon internally. We try to account for vegetation/ land and ocean exchanges, but not for animal respiration which surpasses the entire anthropogenic volume, both from fossils fuel , land useage, forestry, and human exhaling of c02. So if you’re right (Ferdinand) what part of the c02 production is included in animal exhalation? Is it the vegetation figure, that is merely considered to be in rotation with animal life, both of which show increased volumes over 140 years? I’m not convinced that anthropogenic c02 could have caused the population to increase, and vegetation to increase over this period, since nature couldn’t provide enough to create these volume increase
If people and animals don’t starve from lack of food, that means that enough food is produced by plants. We have had the “green revolution” thanks to Borlough, which means that there still is enough food to feed the world (including fodder for animals we like to eat). Every single molecule of carbon (in any possible form) we have eaten comes directly or indirectly from plants. And every single plant has taken that carbon out of the atmosphere (or oceans), some months or years before. So the full cycle of air to plants to animals to humans and back to air is adding no extra CO2 to the atmosphere. To the contrary: the increase of CO2 by fossil fuel burning stimulated plants to sequester even more CO2 as wood and peat, at least since 1990.
Thus humans and animals are just part of the vegetation carbon cycle. It doesn’t matter if some plant dies and releases its carbon directly to the atmosphere by bacteria and fungi or that we did eat them first, using the energy by “burning” the carbon calories (some do that better than others) and release that as CO2.
“B E Brill (06:35:03) :
If 55% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ALWAYS extracted from the atmosphere by natural processes (ie aggregate sinks vary naturally to maintain this ratio) – then why are carbon credits given for growing trees?”
My guess would be because the owners of big forests tend to be aristocrats / billionaires and they want something back for all the money they gave the politician who got elected.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (07:15:23):
Regarding the accuracy of the Giessen and similar CO2 measurements, you say:
None of those statements are true. However, plenty is now known about the incredibly sloppy methods currently used in surface station measurements. That raw data is then massaged, processed and adjusted, until it comes out in uniform agreement with other surface stations. And what do these adjusted measurements tell us? They say the planet is warming. And warming fast – which among other manipulations is the result of deceptively lowering past temperature records in order to show a steeper rise.
Surely you must be aware of this widespread data manipulation [blink gif – takes a few seconds to load].
Even as you defend the accuracy of current measurements, you question the results of those erstwhile scientists whose reputations depended on accurate, verifiable and reproducible measurements, while apparently giving a free pass to today’s government and university scientists who all appear to have both front feet in the grant trough, and worse, who are well paid by outside non-government benefactors with a heavy AGW agenda.
Many of the scientists taking CO2 measurements in the 1800’s and 1900’s, such as J.S. Haldane, C.H, M.D., F.R.S., were Nobel laureates. Their measurements were the result of their own curiosity and specialties; Haldane studied mine safety, including accurately measuring CO and CO2 levels. The reputation of any of the numerous esteemed scientists taking CO2 measurements around the globe would have been ruined if other scientists could show that their methods were inaccurate. The fact is that those scientists were in general much more rigorous than today’s government and university pets; grant rainmakers who have privately admitted to fabricating large swathes of data in such a way as to fit their preconceived AGW hypothesis.
Much of the historical CO2 data was taken during trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific ocean crossings, and on isolated, sparsely populated and windy coastlines. The measurement apparatus they used was thoroughly documented in their daily notes detailing the experiments, and when duplicated today they result in an accuracy within 3%. That convincingly shows that the many thousands of high CO2 measurements taken in the early 1800’s and the 1940’s were correct, which thoroughly debunks the claim that CO2 levels over the past thousand years remained constant at about 280 ppmv until recently.
Finally, it should always be remembered that there is no empirical evidence showing that a specific increase in CO2 results in any measurable rise in temperature. That is obviously because CO2 has little if any effect on global warming, which occurs naturally with or without any rise or fall in CO2 levels.
The CO2=AGW hypothesis is the basis for the entire runaway global warming industry. Literally billions of dollars have been paid out to promote the CO2 climate scare, while skeptical scientists have been granted less than one one-thousandth of what the climate alarmists have received.
Arguing about the accuracy of Mauna Loa CO2 measurements only plays into the hands of the thoroughly dishonest politicians and scientists who are trying to control the industrialized world through government control of a completely harmless trace gas.
Enabling those who lie to the public for money is not a wise move on the part of skeptics, who should instead be holding the alarmists’ feet to the fire by insisting that they must convincingly demonstrate, through open, public, and verifiable experiments and measurements, that a specific rise in CO2 causes a specific, quantifiable rise in global temperature.
Rather than trying to split hairs regarding the accuracy of current CO2 measurements, we should be demanding that the scam artists claiming that CO2 causes global warming must first demonstrate, through verifiable, testable and reproducible measurements open to public scrutiny, that what they claim is scientifically valid. If the scientific method had been followed, the CO2=AGW hypothesis would have been dead and buried long ago, and taxpayers would have billions more dollars in their pockets, or available for solving real, as opposed to imaginary, problems.
Ferdinand, we have talked on this before, and we certainly shall not agree.
I do not trash the 40 or so official data, but am saying they are cherry picked locations. I am also saying that Keeling has imposed an orthodoxy on the subject and that I suspect that the satellite data took so long to come out because of massaging in order not to contradict the orthodoxy. I suspect this because of the land data, even the one you have shown, that show large average variations, which means that all this well mixed etc has to be rethought from the beginning. Even Nasa said CO2 was “lumpy” from satellite data.
So again we have to agree to disagree.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (06:29:17) :
You just don’t seem to get it. This is all immaterial. My model is fundamental for how the system may evolve, regardless of any details, except that the output is an observable of the evolution of a smooth (differentiable) vector field. This model fundamentally constrains how the system may evolve due to the introduction of anthropogenic CO2.
You can call out any details, and interpret them however you like, but if they cannot be fit into a plausible model of the form I have given, then your conclusions are detached from reality. I have given you the equation:
Cdot = (Co – C)/tau + (1+Ko)*adot
Now, make your conclusions conform to this equation in, at least, piecewise continuous fashion. If you cannot, then your hypotheses fail. It is as simple as that.