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:
Smokey, (16:11) thanks for your reply. But, are you serious or … ? I’d expect that sort of response perhaps from RC to simply dismiss a different analysis wholesale because it doesn’t agree w/an apparent orthodoxy. But here? Wow!
The article provides plenty of links to the literature to support its points. Skepticism is certainly warranted and a vital part of the process, but it seems to me that many here are as set in their position as those on the other side. So my question becomes — could anyone anywhere produce evidence that folks here would consider clear enough to indicate that there is potentially a problem? Is the answer “there is no evidence that could convince folks there is potentially a problem”? If so, that doesn’t seem like particularly good science either.
Eric (skeptic) says:
I can’t believe you are seriously making this argument. Just look at the freakin’ graph: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Then back out and look over the full available record: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html There is a clear seasonal cycle with a rise superimposed.
Sure, if you look over a short enough period and cherrypick your starting and ending points so that you are measuring from the top of the annual cycle in the start year to the end of the annual cycle in the end year, then you can make silly claims about what has happened over “30 months”. If anybody believes that to be a serious scientific argument, then they are frankly biased beyond all hope.
Obviously, the intelligent way to look at a system where there is this oscillation superimposed on a rise is either to average over the seasonal oscillation or to choose to compare measurements at similar points of the periodic cycle. And, if you measure over a long enough period of time, even your cherrypicking method will show the rise very clearly…but such cherrypicking simply serves to lengthen the period of time over which you have to look to see the trend accurately.
Kevin,
You wanted someone else to do the reading that you weren’t willing to do? And then explain it to you? Well, maybe someone will.
But I’ll repeat what got Joel Shore’s panties in a knot: ‘stick around here — at least you’ll have an honest site to comment on.’
I can just imagine how few microseconds this comment of Joel’s would last on the alarmist blogs he gets his talking points from: “I will just tell you that focusing on all of this nonsense really does make it easy to dismiss you guys as the equivalent of flat-earthers.”
Yeah, I can just see that comment being posted by a scientific skeptic on RC, SS, climateprogress, deltoid, etc. That will happen when this happens: click
And you asked: “So my question becomes — could anyone anywhere produce evidence that folks here would consider clear enough to indicate that there is potentially a problem?”
Answer: there may well be convincing evidence. The problem is that the people claiming they have solid evidence that CO2=CAGW continue to stonewall requests to publicly archive what they claim they have.
I suspect they refuse to cooperate with requests for their data and methodologies is because they know that their hypothesis would be promptly falsified – and that’s the real reason they refuse to abide by the scientific method, and show everyone their raw and adjusted data, and the methods they used to arrive at their dubious conclusions.
So I’m skeptical. But I can be convinced — if they open the books completely, and promptly and fully cooperate with all information requests. So we’re at an impasse: pseudo-science, vs scientific skepticism. One is a requirement of the scientific method, and the other is being shoveled by bovine fecal purveyance specialists. Guess which is which.
I see that IBD is demonstrating that they lack the most rudimentary knowledge of the facts.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=517128
Bart (13:12:45) :
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.
Actually it’s your obligation to show that your model accurately represents reality.
Smokey (08:42:42) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (07:15:23):
Regarding the accuracy of the Giessen and similar CO2 measurements, you say:
“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…”
None of those statements are true.
How do you know that? I know how difficult it is to maintain some accuracy of chemical methods: the chemicals involved deteriorate, if you have an open end (cork not fully fit), there is an additional reaction with CO2 in the air, especially when there is a delay between sampling and titration/fixation… Most methods were accurate to +/- 10 ppmv, but some were accurate to +/- 150 ppmv (the micro-Schollander method, used in Barrow). Even the latter was simply averaged and included in the graph by Ernst Beck… The measurements in Antarctica show lower oxygen measurements (impossible, except if taken inroom or near an exhaust) thus the CO2 measurements are suspect too,…
Further about some methods (used in several places, probably including Giessen):
Caldwell performed five series of tests comparing the Pettenkofer method with known values of CO2 and with the Letts and Blake modification of the Pettenkofer, which was itself of a high accuracy when compared with known CO2 volumes. His summaries show actual CO2 concentration to vary from 0.66 to 0.89 of the amount measured by the Pettenkofer method.”
In other words, the Pettenkofer values- and, by implication, many of those reported by Beck as supporting his over 400 ppm values in the 1930s-1940s- may have been over-estimated by 50%!
The data taken over the oceans are much lower than the land based data and all are around the ice core data (as is the case for modern data). Thus these confirm that the CO2 levels were lower than now.
BTW, Ernst made another error by assuming that CO2 measurements made in the ocean waters at 0 m depth were actually from the atmosphere, they were from the upper ocean level, thus from the water, not from the air above it.
This all doesn’t mean anything about the credibility of the scientists involved, which are in high regard anyway. The problem is not even the accuracy of the methods itself (in most cases), the main problem is the places where was measured: in the middle of towns, fields, forests. For CO2, that is far worse than the UHI effect for temperature, even if you have the best available methods…
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.
Smokey, while this is true for temperature, that has nothing to do with CO2 measurements. Have you read how the Mauna Loa data are obtained? Here is the procedure, and independent of the continuous data, flask samples are taken and measured by (really) independent laboratories, different methods and from different organisations by different (even rivaling) people:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
As a sceptic myself, I have even asked for the raw voltage data of the instrument and used the procedures as described in the above link: the calculated data match the raw CO2 data as filed by the NOAA.
Thus in my opinion, the CO2 measurements are reliable, the global average CO2 data are reliable, the trend anyway is reliable (at least since 1959), the ice core data are reliable (with some larger margin), while the historical data are only fairly reliable, as far as taken over the oceans or coastal places with the wind direction from the sea.
It is not because this is one of the cornerstones of the AGW theory, that it must be fake… But again, while the increase of CO2 (human made or not) is real, that doesn’t say anything about the influence of CO2 on temperature/climate…
anna v (11:34:25) :
Ferdinand, we have talked on this before, and we certainly shall not agree.
Agreed…
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.
The “lumpiness” of the satellite data is +/- 5 ppmv for a week (Japanese), +/-3 ppmv for a month (NASA) and less than 1 ppmv for a yearly average…
Even if we take the modern Giessen data at face value, and use that as average for the 5% of the atmosphere, that is in the first 1,000 m over land, that means that the 30 ppmv average extra increases the “global” CO2 level with an extra 1.5 ppmv…
It is even less, as the morning flights over Colorado show (in the afternoon, the valley levels are mixed with the overlaying air, thus levels go down):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/inversion_co2.jpg
The CO2 levels measured over the inversion layer were within 1 ppmv with the Mauna Loa data at 6,000 km distance for the same days as the flights…
Joel Shore (17:22:24)
Joel, you say “Sure, if you look over a short enough period and cherrypick your starting and ending points so that you are measuring from the top of the annual cycle in the start year to the end of the annual cycle in the end year, then you can make silly claims about what has happened over “30 months”. If anybody believes that to be a serious scientific argument, then they are frankly biased beyond all hope.”
Joel, my claims might be “silly” to you but they are based on undeniable facts (cherrypicked or whatever you want to call them). Up thread you said “the release of the fossil fuel CO2 is what is causing the increase in the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.” There are 30 months where your claim is not true. All I am asking is that you explain why, quantitatively. No hand waving please.
You claim “the fact that the amount remaining in the atmosphere is such a fixed fraction of what we emit provides even more evidence that the CO2 rise is indeed due to our emissions.” Please explain the quantity of “such”.
And your claim that I mentioned before “It has been known for decades that about half of what we emit in the atmosphere is taken up almost immediately”. What kind of quantity is “about”?
There is another simple explanation for what we see in the CO2 rises, that natural fluctuations cause rises and falls in CO2 including part of the long term rise since 1850. The fractional analysis C13/C12 tells me it could be as much as half the long term rise although it is probably less (i.e. the man made component of the rise is greater thsn 50%.
If you are prepared to claim that the rise is 100% manmade, then show us your numbers. I am especially interested in how you account for the seasonal fluctuations. Also would like the numbers for the total rise 280 to 380 (i.e. an answer to Bart’s claims) No hand waves please. Also would like to see a fractional C13/C12 analysis, again numbers please.
Bart (13:12:45) :
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
Well, as I have already said, the second part of the equation is irrelevant (if there is an influence at all, it is a very minor one). The real formula is:
Cdot = (Co – C)/tau + Cem + Cnat
Where Cem is the quantity released by human emissions and Cnat is what is added by nature in balance that passed.
As Cnat is zero (there is no net addition by the natural cycle at all, at least in the past 50+ years), the formula is even simpler:
Cdot = (Co -C)/tau + Cem and at current emissions levels:
(C – Co)/tau = Cem – Cdot = 8-4 GtC/yr = 4 GtC/yr
or
(800 – 580)/tau = 4
and
tau = 55 years e-folding time or about 40 years half life time.
As the Knorr paper (indirectly) showed, tau didn’t change over the past 160 years, as the oceans/vegetation still absorb CO2 in the same ratio to the emissions. Thus even if there were natural additions in the first 110 years of the total 160 year, that doesn’t change tau.
Using tau as calculated and the emissions and ice core / MLO CO2 measurements, that leads to a near perfect fit between calculations and observed values over the past 160 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
Where tCA is the calculated amount of carbon and tCA obs. the observed amount in the atmosphere, FA and FL the fraction of “anthro” CO2 in air and upper oceans.
As long as the emissions increase with a near exponential rate (which may end now…) the Knorr paper makes it even easier to predict future CO2 levels:
Cnew = Cold + 4*dT + 0.55 Cem
Where dT is the difference in temperature over short time spans, as that changes the reference carbon level Co. This formula holds for all temperature/CO2 combinations for the past 800,000 years, but you need to increase the 4*dT to 8*dT over longer time spans (as that involves changes in ocean flows, ice cap and forests growth/shrinking,…).
The problem with your formula is that you see the natural release of CO2 over the seasons in isolement, while these are part of a cycle, more than balanced by the natural sinks over a year. The natural release is important in winter times, during the part of the year that temperatures are low and more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, and at the same time vegetation releases a lot of CO2 from rotting leaves and soil bacteria. But in the other halve year, the abundant growth of vegetation absorbs more than the same amount of CO2 again, at the moment that the oceans are warming up and releasing more CO2.
Thus in average over a year, CO2 releases and absorption by nature nearly balances out, with a slight amount of more sink than source, caused by the increased levels of CO2, the latter due to human emissions…
Eric (skeptic) (02:53:47) :
Joel, my claims might be “silly” to you but they are based on undeniable facts (cherrypicked or whatever you want to call them). Up thread you said “the release of the fossil fuel CO2 is what is causing the increase in the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.” There are 30 months where your claim is not true. All I am asking is that you explain why, quantitatively. No hand waving please.
Eric, Joel is right in this case: it is a (statistical) sin if you use periods which don’t fit full years, where annual data are of interest (at about 2 ppmv/year) and a seasonal cycle of 5 ppmv is at work within every year.
Knorr’s work averages over several years, as that eliminates short-term variations like seasonal and longer El Niño events and Pinatubo eruptions. If you look at the year-by-year variations, these are at about +/- 1 ppmv, but even then, the trend is very clear:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
And your claim that I mentioned before “It has been known for decades that about half of what we emit in the atmosphere is taken up almost immediately”. What kind of quantity is “about”?
Increase = 0.55*emissions (or 0.45*[emissions + land use changes] if the latter are taken into account).
There is another simple explanation for what we see in the CO2 rises, that natural fluctuations cause rises and falls in CO2 including part of the long term rise since 1850.
As long as the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than the emissions, there is zero net addition by nature. The natural fluctuations (+/- 1 ppmv) are around the trend (+2 ppmv/yr)
The fractional analysis C13/C12 tells me it could be as much as half the long term rise although it is probably less (i.e. the man made component of the rise is greater thsn 50%.
You forget to take into account that every year some 20% of the “anthro” CO2 is replaced by (deep) ocean CO2, which is much higher in 13C. This dilutes the “anthro” fingerprint, but doesn’t add anything in quantity to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you are prepared to claim that the rise is 100% manmade, then show us your numbers. I am especially interested in how you account for the seasonal fluctuations. Also would like the numbers for the total rise 280 to 380 (i.e. an answer to Bart’s claims) No hand waves please. Also would like to see a fractional C13/C12 analysis, again numbers please
Globally, the temperature change over the seasons is about 1 C. Globally the CO2 level shows a seasonal amplitude of about 5 ppmv around the trend. Thus the influence of temperature on CO2 levels over the seasons is about 5 ppmv/K. Not far away from the 4 ppmv/K for short term influence of temperature on CO2 sink rates as deduced from the Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño…
And without any assumption that the increase is man made, the emissions fit the observed increase in the atmosphere with the assumption of a 40 years half life (see Ferdinand Engelbeen (03:31:34)) and with a few more guesses (about the fractions exchanged with the ocean surface and with the deep oceans) we have a good first estimate here for d13C levels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_calc_obs.jpg
Where d13CL is in the upper part of the oceans and d13CA in the atmosphere.
Ferdinand. The isotope ratios are suspect in judging the composition of atmospheric co2. If you pu, 5 drops of ink in a litre of water, 3 drops in another, mixed each and took a sample of both – the ink is still there. Then we go along and infer from that a 30% composition of ink per 70% h2O for both, when it is less than 1% we are doing pure guess work and the same counts for atmospheric co2
P Wilson (07:36:31) :
Ferdinand. The isotope ratios are suspect in judging the composition of atmospheric co2. If you pu, 5 drops of ink in a litre of water, 3 drops in another, mixed each and took a sample of both – the ink is still there. Then we go along and infer from that a 30% composition of ink per 70% h2O for both, when it is less than 1% we are doing pure guess work and the same counts for atmospheric co2
Depends… In the case of low 13C levels, there are only two main sources: fossil organics and fresh organics. All the other sources have (much) higher 13C levels. Both need oxygen for decay or burning. Oxygen use for fossil fuel burning can be calculated. The trend of oxygen use can be measured and the difference shows that a little less is used than calculated. Thus there is more organic growth than organic decay… That means that any d13C decline is from fossil fuel burning (except if one finds some other yet unknown source).
In addition, the 14C level of fossil fuels is essentially zero, which influence can be traced on 14C levels in the atmosphere until 1950, when huge 14C levels were released by atmospheric nuclear tests.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (03:31:34) :
No, Ferdinand. My equation is not built up by some kind of hand-waving argument about how I think the dynamics should be. It is derived from first principles of mathematics to conform to what they must be. Yours is disconnected from reality and how actual systems work in the real world.
Phil. (19:24:00) :
“Actually it’s your obligation to show that your model accurately represents reality.”
I did that here: Bart (11:47:35). But, my showing you does not mean I can make you understand it.
Bart (12:10:27) :
No, Ferdinand. My equation is not built up by some kind of hand-waving argument about how I think the dynamics should be. It is derived from first principles of mathematics to conform to what they must be. Yours is disconnected from reality and how actual systems work in the real world
Wow, Bart, never heard of a mass balance? If you add some CO2 one-sided to a physical process where CO2 is transported both ways between the atmosphere and the oceans, the mass/concentration in the side where you add CO2 will increase. And the increase will push the reaction towards the other side. Additional CO2 doesn’t magically disappear, as in your formula.
This is elementary process dynamics… Identical to adding one of the reacting chemicals to an equilibrium reaction.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (05:19:58) said “Globally, the temperature change over the seasons is about 1 C. Globally the CO2 level shows a seasonal amplitude of about 5 ppmv around the trend. Thus the influence of temperature on CO2 levels over the seasons is about 5 ppmv/K. Not far away from the 4 ppmv/K for short term influence of temperature on CO2 sink rates as deduced from the Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño…”
But in a prior post to Bart you said “The problem with your formula is that you see the natural release of CO2 over the seasons in isolement, while these are part of a cycle, more than balanced by the natural sinks over a year. The natural release is important in winter times, during the part of the year that temperatures are low and more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, and at the same time vegetation releases a lot of CO2 from rotting leaves and soil bacteria. But in the other halve year, the abundant growth of vegetation absorbs more than the same amount of CO2 again, at the moment that the oceans are warming up and releasing more CO2.”
So you don’t really have numbers for the seasonal cycle, just a statement to me that only the temperature matters for the seasonal component, and one to Bart that both temperature and biosphere matter. The problem with the lack of a numerical argument can be made clear with a little thought experiment.
Suppose we simplify the seasonal effect to a square wave rather than a sinusoid. For 6 months we assume there is a natural flux of 200 Gt plus seasonal and for the other 6 months it is 200 Gt minus seasonal. For purposes of the thought experiment, we will not assume that 100% of the long term rise is man-made. If you want to provide a numerical argument proving otherwise, by all means please do so. That offer is open to Joel as well.
Let’s now add the steady manmade component, 8Gt per year calculated from fossil fuel burning and other known activities, and use the observed rise of 4 Gt per year. There are obviously a range of possibilities for the seasonal component that still fit the other observed measurements e.g isotope ratios. If the seasonal delta is plus 10 Gt and minus 9 Gt for example, then the 4 Gt observed rise comes from 1Gt natural and 3Gt manmade over the long run.
This is obviously possible since the seasonal delta is similar to the manmade delta. Contrary to another statement you made above, the natural to manmade ratio does matter since the higher it is, the more likely that the natural variations override the manmade ones. The only way it would not matter is by starting with the assumption that 100% of the rise is manmade.
If you want to disprove what I said above, you can simply show (numerically) that the seasonal delta cannot be +10 and -9. You might do that by showing that, contrary to my first post in this thread, the mixing from the deep ocean reservoir over the last 160 years can account (numerically) for the observed dilution in the 13/12 ratio. There are other possibilities as well, but they require a model with numbers for the biosphere, especially land use changes for the 160 year period.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:44:57) :
Wow. I guess mathematics doesn’t reflect reality after all.
The key problem with your model is that it decouples the dynamics of natural and anthropogenic CO2 so that they are treated differently by the sinks. This is unphysical.
“Additional CO2 doesn’t magically disappear, as in your formula.”
Actually, it does. That is the nature of a feedback system. We know it is an active feedback system because, otherwise, a balance would never have been established. That is the fallacy in your fountain model.
This controversy mirrors the “missing lnk” controversy in evolution theory, and some wags have even dubbed it the “missing sink” controversy. It may surprise you to know that you are on the side of those who claimed the missing link disproved Evolution. The Evolutionists insisted the missing link had to be around, because logic ineluctably pointed to its existence. In the same way, I insist that you do not have a complete tally and/or accurate estimates enough to proclaim the missing sink does not exist, because logic ineluctably says it it there.
The failure of your fountain idea is manifested in the fact that the CO2 fraction has stayed the same. There is a drain in the fountain which you have not accounted for. And, with that drain, there is feedback, which drains the fountain faster the more water is put in. In such a system, an constant increased flow does not overflow the fountain, it merely leads to a new equilibrium level, and the increase in the equilibrium level is proportional to the ratio of increased external flow to natural flow. In the climate system, the analogous ratio is too low to account wholly for the rise we have seen.
Eric (skeptic) (03:06:30) :
You are correct. If the climate system were so dramatically more sensitive to increasing CO2, we would not see regular sinusoidal natural variation. It would be amplified in the positive direction, leading to sharply peaking behavior when the natural CO2 inputs were high. That pretty much kills the hypothesis of anthropogenic attribution in and of itself. In time, the CO2 increase will reverse, probably in the next few years as the climate cools. I look forward to accepting Ferdinand’s apology when that happens (actually, I bet that is far less likely).
Eric (skeptic) (03:06:30) :
To begin with the last part:
There is little influence of vegetation on d13C levels in the atmosphere due to seasonal changes. That is because most of what is absorbed in spring/summer is released again in autumn/winter when fallen leaves are rotting away. Thus vegetation mostly acts as buffer. Except for the part that is stored in more lasting wood/roots. And that is about 1.4 GtC/year, based on the oxygen balance. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
But as increasing uptake by vegetation is preferentially 12C, that increases the 13C/12C ratio, thus vegetation is not the cause of the thinning of 13C in the atmosphere.
Something similar for the upper ocean level: this acts more or less as buffer for atmospheric CO2, including – with some more delay – for 13C/12C ratio’s. What is left is the deep oceans: what is going in the deep oceans near the poles sinks in the enormous mass of deep ocean CO2 and only returns (mixed with the rest) many centuries later. The deep oceans have a much higher d13C level (0-1 per mil) than the atmosphere (-8 per mil), thus what is released near the equator as deep ocean upwelling (mainly in the mid-Pacific) will dilute the “human” fingerprint. How much is needed to dilute the levels to what is observed can be found by using different exchange flows directly between the deep oceans and the atmosphere. Here my experiments:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
With about 40 GtC/yr exchange with the deep oceans, the calculated d13C level is about what the observations show.
Point two: the seasonal exchanges.
The figures I have given are for the observed CO2 changes (NH + SH) and the observed temperature change (NH + SH) for the globe. The seasonal changes are much more pronounced in the NH than the opposite changes in the SH, as are the temperatures. That gives that there is a slight global average excess of + 5 ppmv CO2 and + 1 C temperature during NH summer. Mainly because much more land is in the NH. These are real figures (as far as temperature measurements are accurate…).
I suppose that you understand that temperature is the main driver for CO2 releases from the (mid-latitude) oceans in summer and of CO2 absorption by (mid-latitude) vegetation in spring/summer. As both are in countercurrent, the net effect on hemispheric CO2 levels is only moderate and more influenced by vegetation in the NH than in the SH.
Bart’s formula included the release of CO2 from all natural sources as part of the total increase. But that isn’t true, as in the other half of the year, the CO2 levels sink with (more than) the same amount of CO2. Only the emissions count in this case, as that are real additions, not part of the cycle.
Let us show where your example goes wrong:
The basic mass balance is:
Cincrease = Cemiss + Cin – Cout
where Cin is the seasonal plus and Cout the seasonal min
That gives:
4 = 8 + Cin – Cout
and
Cin – Cout = 4 – 8 = -4 GtC
Whatever Cin or Cout is (even if you account for all inflows and outflows in parallel), Cout must be 4 GtC larger than Cin, or the mass balance doesn’t fit.
With your example:
Cincrease = 8 + 10 – 9 = 9 GtC
Whatever the positive difference in seasonal cycle, the sum of emissions and seasonal cycle difference then is larger than the emissions alone, while we see the opposite. With other words: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the emissions, there is zero addition (in mass, not in molecular exchanges) from nature.
Here the reality of the difference in seasonal cycle and continuous rise of CO2 from Mauna Loa over the past years (2.1 GtC = 1 ppmv):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo_co2_seasons.jpg
That need some update for past year, but the seasonal cycle (at MLO) and the continuous rise are clear…
Bart (10:12:46) :
The failure of your fountain idea is manifested in the fact that the CO2 fraction has stayed the same. There is a drain in the fountain which you have not accounted for. And, with that drain, there is feedback, which drains the fountain faster the more water is put in. In such a system, an constant increased flow does not overflow the fountain, it merely leads to a new equilibrium level, and the increase in the equilibrium level is proportional to the ratio of increased external flow to natural flow. In the climate system, the analogous ratio is too low to account wholly for the rise we have seen
Bart, as I have said before, the fountain example is not how an equilibrium system is working. It was only used to show that a continuous cycle doesn’t influence the level of a fountain and that a very small extra flow is what does the job, whatever the original amount cycling through the fountain.
To a certain extent, a bathtube example is better, but the problem is that the flows are not the most important part, but the pressure necessary to push more water through the drain. And indeed the flows give an indication of how much pressure is needed to obtain the necessary outflow for a given drain.
But if the flows are not known, there is an alternative: when the level starts to increase, we can measure the increase in pressure and volume of the bathtube vs. the extra inflow. That shows us exactly how much pressure relates to the outflow and how much is retained in the bathtube.
There are a few problems with your formula: your basic flows are way too high. There are a lot of educated guesses about the height of the ocean and vegetations flows, on the base of oxygen en d13C balances, but these are not of interest for the seasonal cycle: the real, measured, cycle is 5 ppmv for 1 C temperature cycle. The emissions nowadays are 4 ppmv/yr, thus of the same magnitude.
But instead of looking at the flows, it is much simpler to look at the increase in pressure, because we know the influence of the current pressure difference on the difference between inflow and outflow: about 4 GtC/yr (2 ppmv/yr) for a pressure difference of about 100 ppmv. Each year we add 4 ppmv, thus with the same tau, the increase in pressure difference increases the pressure difference at the same rate. Thus without knowing any in or outflow, we simply know the result of the pressure difference and what happens when we add some extra CO2.
As you could see, the different graphs I provided, all based on the theoretical flows and the emissions, show a quite good match with reality, as good for quantities as for d13C levels as well as in the atmosphere as in the upper oceans. I am awaiting your graphs based on your calculations, which shows the same match with reality, whatever the source of the extra CO2 you suppose… (they are speaking about a missing sink, not a missing source!)
BTW, CO2 levels are still going strong up, despite the predictions of some people, years ago, that with the current flat temperatures (already one decade) the levels should level off or even decline…
Bart:
Mathematics is only a TOOL to help us to understand reality. Just like a hammer in the hands of someone who doesn’t appreciate how to use in a certain situation is not useful and can be dangerous, so it is with mathematics in the hand of someone who doesn’t understand the physical system well enough to right down the correct equations.
Don’t blame it mathematics itself.
At the very least, you should read and understand the scientific literature on the carbon cycle so that you can explain where the accepted science is supposedly wrong. You seem unwilling to even comprehend the arguments that you are opposing, which will continue to be the accepted science until someone can convincingly explain what is incorrect. Just saying you understand “systems theory” and know what the answer is doesn’t quite cut it.
Hmmm…Well, if you really believe that, you could earn some cash as I think I’d be willing to put some pretty serious money on you being wrong…and even give you some decent odds to boot. (Of course, we would want to bet over at least a few years…and it should run from the same month to the same month so that you can’t cherrypick by starting on the top and ending on the bottom of the yearly seasonal cycle.)
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:00:29) :
There are no problems with my formula. It’s pure math. It’s as certain as 2 + 2 = 4. The only option you have is alternative interpretations, but realistic scenarios are constrained by the formula.
The problem with your thinking is that you think only “net” natural flow matters. That is incorrect. I have given the following example before. Think of a weight hanging in equilibrium by a spring. The tension force of the spring is counteracting the force of gravity. Net force is zero. By your thinking, if you pull on the weight, and continue pulling on it, it will drop to the floor, because the net force of spring and gravity are zero, and do not oppose me.
You do know what will really happen? The string will stretch by the same fraction as the ratio of the force of your pull to the force of gravity.
Let me repeat that.
The string will stretch by the same fraction as the ratio of the force of your pull to the force of gravity.
The spring reacts to your tug the same as it reacts to gravity, and the dynamics are irrevocably coupled. You cannot ignore the equilibrium dynamics established by gravity in calculating the additional stretching. Here are the equations:
K*x1 = m*g
K*x2 = m*g + F_ext
x2-x1 = F_ext/K
(x2-x1)/x1 times 100% = F_ext/(K*x1) = F_ext/(m*g) * 100%
In the same way, if the climate system is linear, and stimulated emission is small, and anthropogenic inputs are less than 3% of natural inputs, then the anthropogenic component of the rise is less than 3% of the equilibrium, in the same way that (x2-x1) above is (F_ext/(m*g)) times x1. QED.
By becoming unmoored from physical reality, you have allowed yourself to be convinced that uncertain data paint a certain picture, and you have reached your conclusions based on what you believe that picture is. You are quite wrong. But, i do not believe you will be satisfied of it until you have seen the CO2 increase reverse course, which I assure you it will do in its own good time.
kwik (12:56:58)
“I bet that white stuff you see raining down on you when diving on Titanic and similar places is that CaCO3 stuff..? Anyone?”
Much of it is fish snip or “fecal pellets” . Marine snow is a term sometimes used.
It comprises dead planktonic material, fish poo and other detritus from the water column biota held together in flakes by the remains of zooplankton mucus food nets. It will contain CaCO3 of planktonic origin (coccolithophores, diatoms, radiolarians etc.)
There are a couple of typos. Let me try again:
Ferdinand Engelbeen (14:00:29) :
There are no problems with my formula. It’s pure math. It’s as certain as 2 + 2 = 4. The only option you have is alternative interpretations, but realistic scenarios are constrained by the formula.
The problem with your thinking is that you think only “net” natural flow matters. That is incorrect. I have given the following example before. Think of a weight hanging in equilibrium by a spring. The tension force of the spring is counteracting the force of gravity. Net force is zero. By your thinking, if you pull on the weight, and continue pulling on it, it will drop to the floor, because the net force of spring and gravity are zero, and the spring therefore, according to you, does not oppose you.
You do know what will really happen? The string will stretch by the same fraction as the ratio of the force of your pull to the force of gravity.
Let me repeat that.
The string will stretch by the same fraction as the ratio of the force of your pull to the force of gravity.
The spring reacts to your tug the same as it reacts to gravity, and the dynamics are irrevocably coupled. You cannot ignore the equilibrium dynamics established by gravity in calculating the additional stretching. Here are the equations:
K*x1 = m*g
K*x2 = m*g + F_ext
x2-x1 = F_ext/K
(x2-x1)/x1 times 100% = F_ext/(K*x1) *100% = F_ext/(m*g) * 100%
In the same way, if the climate system is linear, and stimulated emission is small, and anthropogenic inputs are less than 3% of natural inputs, then the anthropogenic component of the rise is less than 3% of the equilibrium, in the same way that (x2-x1) above is (F_ext/(m*g)) times x1. QED.
By becoming unmoored from physical reality, you have allowed yourself to be convinced that uncertain data paint a certain picture, and you have reached your conclusions based on what you believe that picture is. You are quite wrong. But, i do not believe you will be satisfied of it until you have seen the CO2 increase reverse course, which I assure you it will do in its own good time.
“By your thinking, if you pull on the weight, and continue pulling on it, it will drop to the floor, because the net force of spring and gravity are zero, and the spring therefore, according to you, does not oppose you.”
The important point here is, the spring does oppose your additional force with every bit the same the vigor it opposes gravity.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (16:01:42)
“Thus a higher temperature in seawater means that the free CO2 molecules in the water are more mobile and hence a higher pCO2 (without a change in total dissolved carbon) which may lead to more CO2 escape to the atmosphere…”
Thanks for your clarification of the compartments of C in seawater.
Going back to Le Chatelier, I think he would replace the “may” in your above sentence with “would”. “May lead to more CO2 escape” sounds a bit quantum or stochastic, it is correct that the higher temp and higher pCO2 increases only the probability that an individual CO2 molecule – should it be close to the surface – will escape to the atmosphere. But integrated to the macroscopic scale, lets not wriggle out of it, CO2 release from solution in seawater does increase with temperature (and I dont mean maybe!)