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:
so we take temperature readings from thousands of sites to get a global average temp but for CO2 we use ONE site in Hawaii ?
Seems like there are lots of sources of CO2 in Hawaii that could skew any measurements …
the assumption the the atmosphere is perfectly mixed on a global scale is utter ignorance …
rabidfox (13:01:11) :
“I suspect that in the near future, CO2 will phase out as a primary driver of AGW and be replaced by methane.”
That will be so that the green anti technologists can hobble the natural gas industry. “It’s too dangerous to use as there will be leaks and they will cause global warming – we’re all gonna fry!”
Now let’s see: Humans allegedly cause a 1% increase in atmospheric CO2 per year and roughly half of it goes away in that time. So if we stopped all human CO2 emissions tomorrow how long would it take for the 1% added over the last year to go away? The way I figure it the time constant of this is something like 9 months.
Anybody got a better estimate?
Mapou (12:21:51) :
Let me see if I get this straight. The paper claims that the proportion of man-made CO2 retained in the atmosphere is more or less constant. In other words, if we generate a million tons of CO2 in a given period, about half a million (.55) tons are retained. This means that half a million tons are absorbed by the oceans, lakes, rocks, trees, etc. What is the physical mechanism behind this strange process, pray tell?
I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork
Well it’s all (relative) simple physics. In short: the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at a given temperature are in equilibrum with CO2 in the oceans and in the water of the alveoles of leaves. If there is more CO2 in the water (like in warm eqatorial oceans) some CO2 is going from the oceans to the atmosphere and reverse (near the pooles). If the average temperature doesn’t change, there will be a (dynamic) equilibrium for that temperatrue. If more CO2 is entering the atmosphere, the level goes up and the pressure difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and in water goes up, thus more CO2 is entering the cool waters near the poles and less is escaping near the equator. That is of course simpler than reality, but if you double the addition to the atmosphere, the simple rule says that the uptake rate will double too, all the rest being equal (for the interested reader: the global carbon cycle acts as a simple first order equilibrium process). Something similar is happening in vegetation, but that is far more complex and involves other limitations (sunlight, nutrutiens, water,…).
Of course, the earth’s carbon cycle hardly distiguishes between “man-made” and natural CO2 (it does for a tiny fractionation of isotopes), but as the emissions are one-way additions and the sum of all natural processes is negative (less CO2 increase is measured than there are emissions), there is zero net extra CO2 induced by nature. They are talking about (man made) quantities, not type.
Syl says:
No…The variations aren’t that large and one would expect them to have probably been much smaller when the rate at which CO2 increased or decreased was much smaller (which is true of the rates of change of CO2 in the glacial – interglacial cycles as compared to now).
Not much, I would think. The differences are still pretty small compared to the total change in CO2 levels since the pre-industrial. Maybe if we had climate sensitivity determined to, say, better than +/-10% then it would matter. But, since we don’t, our current uncertainties in other areas pretty much swamp any uncertainty due to these fairly small geographic variations in CO2 levels.
Syl (13:05:50) :
Joel Shore
“What you ignore is that there is a timescale associated with how long it takes the CaCO3 in the rocks to make it into the ocean to neutralize things, and unfortunately, this timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more.”
Um, what YOU ignore is the other end of the process that sucks carbon out of the ocean, sequesters it on the sea floor in shells that later is thrust up as sedimentary rock that eventually makes it back to the ocean.
Thanks for catching my meaning, Syl…you’ve taken away any necessity for me to respond to Joel Shore.
Ron de Haan (11:52:25) : Yes, you will have Cap&Trade and if you don´t , you already have Holy EPA. That´s another story!…you are done. If I would have found a futuristic fiction book story, back in the 1950´s, I wouldn´t have bought it for being too naively fantastic. Can´t imagine THAT´s the USA, it´s really unbelievable! .
“rbateman (13:34:01) :
[…]
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2 – I thought sunlight was a prescribed component of photosynthesis. It’s the plant that eats the C02, not the dirt. Frozen plants don’t eat anything.”
Minor nitpick: Dirt doesn’t but rock absorbs a lot of CO2 through weathering.
“Joel Shore (12:41:20) :
[…]
The other strut is the attribution of the entire increase in CO2 concentration observed over the last 1/2 century to anthropogenic sources.”
It should also be noted that AFAIK since about 2000 – with the rise of China – anthropogenic CO2 production accelerated but it doesn’t show in the very linear looking (with a seasonal wiggle) Keeling curve. So this correlation is falling apart. Anybody got more info on this?
In my opinion, the limited band of CO2 absorption wavelengths is the real issue here. I often see carbon dioxide likened to a blanket covering the earth. But, due to the large transparent holes in that blanket’s Earth radiation blocking spectrum, I think it would be better likened to a wide scarf that you only wear around your neck.
One can still freeze to death if all they have on is a scarf, whether it be one quarter of an inch thick or three inches thick.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png
The critical area is the 6 to 20 micron band. (the above is a naked link)
UPDATE: US Republicans Threaten To Block EPA CO2 Regulation
The lawmakers say they plan to pass a “disapproval resolution” that would prevent the EPA from regulating gases such as carbon dioxide and will stop appropriations of any federal funding for administrative efforts to finance international climate agreements.
The GOP vows come as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier Thursday pledged the U.S. would help fund up to $100 billion a year in long-term financing to developing countries such as China and India as part of a last-chance effort to salvage a climate conference in Copenhagen.
http://www.smartmoney.com/news/ON/?story=ON-20091217-000598&
Ron de Haan (11:52:25)
“Just think of it. We will need any sound argument and the “Bombshell from Bristol” is exactly what we need to defeat them.”
Well, it’s a help, but it’s nowhere near sufficient. To paraphrase what you said, we need as much ammo and weaponry as we can get.
DesertYote (12:44:52) :
Regarding the “measurement of co2” question:
This paper by Beck discusses the Keeling curve and various measurements of CO2, other than ice cores. It has some interesting things to say about the IPCC, as well.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/08_Beck-2.pdf
As far as CO2 scrubbing goes, didn’t those recent nasa pics (don’t have the link handly) show very low CO2 concentrations over forests and high CO2 over deserts?
Jeff says:
Actually, we don’t… http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/
Here’s a pic from wikipedia showing the rise of CO2 emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
and it looks nowhere like the Keeling curve; also from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Wonder how warmists explain that away. I’m too lazy to do a statistical analysis myself, i mean it’s flogging a dead horse really. It’s just broken.
Bart says:
It has been known for decades that about half of what we emit in the atmosphere is taken up almost immediately. Archer knows this in his analyses.
No evidence other than our understanding of the basic chemistry of the process, along with paleo data (e.g., from the PETM)…and probably some other evidence that I have missed.
The Bristol paper has nothing to say about this. I have no idea why you think it does.
Joel Shore (12:41:20) :
Bart says:
B) These results demolish the hypothesis that the dominant time constant for anthropogenic CO2 persistency in the atmosphere is on the order of hundreds or thousands of years
Really? Can you explain that logic? I don’t see how they have anything to say one way or the other on that subject. (Note: I don’t know what you mean by “the dominant time constant” but the actual claim has been that the persistency is not determined by a single time constant because it is highly non-exponential (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ ), with ~1/4 of the perturbation still remaining after hundreds of years
To a certain extent, this indeed is contrary to the multi time constant rate of absorption of the IPCC’s Bern (and other) models. If there were important slow time constants, we should see that the fastest time constant has troubles to maintain the rate of absorption as in the article is disproven. The Bern model may be only of some importance if we burn near all available oil and enormous amounts of coal, as only then the deep oceans CO2 concentration will increase substantially, which affects the atmospheric concentrations after a long delay.
See the work and discussion of Peter Dietze at:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
and the difference between the Dietze model and the Bern model for current CO2 levels, if we should stop all emissions today:
http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/262958/De_CO2-cyclus (last graph)
The title to this post is very misleading.
The fraction of CO2 is in relation to the fraction of man made emissions to natural CO2.
The title says “No Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction” …presumably the fraction of CO2 to other gasses found in the atmosphere.
There are enough idiots on the AGW side and quite a few on the skeptics side saying all sort of garbage. Perhaps it would be better if those on the skeptics side were more concise and did not rely on misleading statements.
I remember seeing someone claim that crops were growing faster because of all the extra CO2. I guess that’s mass hysteria for you.
At some point, someone has to call this AGW movement mass hysteria. Just like the dot-com bubble & the real estate bubble & the investment banking bubble, it has its true believers who will eventually be hurt by it. People quibbled about the details on those things too, and, then the obvious fraud was found out.
DirkH (14:03:13)
If I am correct in my belief of how the dynamics should manifest themselves, there should be evidence of the accelerated input within roughly a 5-10 year lag interval, and it should be small. It would be interesting, if I had the data and could trust it, to perform a cross correlation. I could then remove the what-I-expect-would-be-small man-made signal and what remained, which would essentially be the linear looking part with some variations due to, e.g., volcano activity, would necessarily be due to natural causes. It amazes me that nobody has AFAIK done this.
Many papers say CO2 turnaround time is about 7 years. Segalstad says 5.4 years.
So, since the turnaround time is so short ,and it ends up as seabed sediment, whats the problem?
DesertYote (12:44:52) :
I would be interested in finding a primer on the science of CO2 measurement that answers some of my questions. I have considered writing to Dr. Roy Spencer, asking him to write one (but I am sure he does not to be pestered by dweebs like me).
No problem, there are 10 “baseline” stations measuring CO2 in the atmosphere, not only Mauna Loa. These are all within 5 ppmv for yearly averages. Within a year, there are large seasonal variations (due to growing and decaying vegetation), mainly in the NH, and a gradient in altitude and latitude: the SH delays the NH with about a year. Some 70+ other stations measure on other places far away of huge sources and sinks and some 400+ stations measure at different heights near huge sources and sinks (to measure local/regional CO2 fluxes).
Basic explanations of the measurements and rigourous calibration procedures are here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Some extended discussion:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
DirkH (13:56:56) :
“rbateman (13:34:01) :
[…]
Heat Hinders Ground’s Ability to Absorb CO2 – I thought sunlight was a prescribed component of photosynthesis. It’s the plant that eats the C02, not the dirt. Frozen plants don’t eat anything.”
Minor nitpick: Dirt doesn’t but rock absorbs a lot of CO2 through weathering.
That’s the part that bothers me. Seems that we are losing C02 to geologic formations that don’t want to give it back.
Mike Borgelt (13:52:20)
This time constant is the subject of debate. It is usually expressed either as the “half-life” or the “e-folding time”. The half-life is the time required to decay to half its initial value, while the e-folding time is the time required to decay to 1/e, which is 37% of its initial value.
My own analysis, done a decade ago, showed that e-folding time is on the order of 35 years, while the IPCC, using the “Bern carbon model”, gives a value of 50 to 200 years. My analysis has recently been given support by the work of Jacobson, who gives a most probable value of 30 to 43 years.
Syl (13:24:33) :
“Perhaps an expert like Joel Shore can illuminate us. Ya think?”
Funny! One of my other areas of interest is aquatic ecosystems. I thought about responding to some comments of his before posting what I did, but decided not to bother, “… timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more.” He has obviously read “all the literature” so what could I add? All I have is my knowledge gained through actual observations and experiments. I don’t think that would help as I’m not a peer reviewed moonbat. For the record, the timescale is on the order of a thousand days at most. If it was not, coral reefs would not exist!
Its a shame that it seems that all of the sciences have been overrun by those with a political agenda.
DirkH (13:56:56)
Major nitpick. I used to assist an eccentric Englishman, Allen Chadwick, in his garden. He used to say “Never call it dirt, ducks, it’s soil.” What he meant was that dirt is what gets on our shoes, while soil is a living organism containing a host of both plant and animal life. As a result, the soil both sequesters and releases a lot carbon. Estimates of the size of this flux are on the order of 60 Gigatonnes of carbon per year (about six times the human emissions), while the reservoir of carbon in the soil is estimated at 1,600 Gigatonnes.