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:
I first read the Bristol Article from the drugdereport.com and figured why it wasn’t published here. I somehow missed the November entries of WUWT.
Slightly OT, but ETH Zurich is claiming glacier melt in the 1940s was driven by aerosols and solar radiation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm
“On the basis of their calculations, the researchers have concluded that the high level of short-wave radiation in the summer months is responsible for the fast pace of glacier melt. In the 1940s, the level was 8% higher than the long-term average and 18 Watts per square metres above the levels of the past ten years. Calculated over the entire decade of the 1940s, this resulted in 4% more snow and ice melt compared with the past ten years.”
CO2 is not the only player (if it is a significant one at all).
That is not really “the other side”, your observation is obvious, and I agree with you completely. The question is if there is any evidence that the existing sinks are to any significant degree changing in their ability to absorb CO2. If there is no demonstrable change in the CO2 fraction absorbed, I think we can take it as a good first approximation that the CO2 sinks are essentially constant (at least on a century time scale). Under that assumption the radioactive decay analogy holds.
Larry
This study is no bombshell. It’s a tentative contradiction to some recent studies tentatively suggesting that the absorptive capacity of the global carbon sinks has decreased. There have been other papers saying the airborne fraction is holding steady. The model runs in AR4 produce various carbon flux changes over time, most not changing in a statistically significant way until 2025 (when they begin to diverge from each other). The IPCC reports that CO2 emissions/airborne fraction has held steady for half a century, and that it is expected the fraction will change in the future. The Knorr study is a welcome addition to current observations. Time will tell if the study is robust, as with those recent ones saying differently. Prognostications on future climate change assume (variously) that the airborne fraction will hold steady [Hansen and Sato (2004) in AR4 Ch 2], and that it will increase.
There’s no particular reason to elevate this study over the others (or the others over this). As for the media response, it’s no surprise that stories about decreasing carbon sinks would get more traction than a story of no change at all. It may not be ideal for us trying to wrestle with the nitty gritty, but there is grist for complaint on the media from both ‘sides’, and this is not a key issue. CO2 will is still rising in the atmosphere. If studies using sound methodology (like Knorr’s) showed that the rate was slowing down and the media ignored that, then there might be something weighty to complain about.
Oh, and Anthony Watts was quick(est) on the draw in November. That’s the point of the top post, innit? Well, no argument there.
OT, but fun. If you haven’t already seen Sherlock Holmes. There is one pronounced scene where he specifically instructs Dr. Watson to not offer a theory before examining the factual evidences, else the evidence will be misinterpreted to support the theory. AGW/IPCC/ incredibly expensive and largely useless model research anyone?
Joel Shore (12:41:20) said:
[with regards to CO2 uptake by the oceans, forming carbonate]
“It doesn’t ignore that at all. 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. You can read about this, for example, in David Archer’s book “The Long Thaw”.”
I think Joel has confused things here. The oceans act as a CO2 sink not just because CO2 is soluble in H2O (quantifiable by Henry’s Law), but also because the calcium in the ocean binds the carbonate (carbon dioxide is in a reversible equilibrium with aqueous carbonate: H2O + CO2 = H2CO3, and carbonic acid lose and proton [and gains stability] with a pKa of 6.4). Thus, the kinetics of the CaCO3 at the solid/aqueous interface is not the question, but instead the kinetics of the solution phase reaction Ca++ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + 2H+, which is very fast. Now, if we were dumping HCl into the oceans and the solid CaCO3 would act as a buffer to prevent lower of pH, I would agree with you, but we’re discussing the ability of the oceans to suck up CO2, not suck up free protons from another acid.
This can all be confirmed by considering the concentrations in ocean water:
Ca++ ~ 10.7 mM
HCO3- ~ 2.4 mM
Realizing that 388 ppm CO2 and a Henry’s Law constant of 29.4 L*atm/mol would yield a saturated solution of only 0.013 mM carbon dioxide without any of the above reactions shows just how important they are for oceans acting as a CO2 sink. Note that Ca++ > 4*HCO3-, implying (somewhat) that the ocean can still absorb a very large amount of CO2 even without biological help.
What’s amazing is how much CO2 the oceans should be capable of absorbing. Here are my back-of-the-envelope calculations. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong or feel free to improve upon my results:
Atmosphere’s height if constant density = 5600m (Wikipedia)
Earth’s diameter = 12735875m (avg of equator/poles from About.com)
Thus, the volume of Earth’s atmosphere at STP ~ 2.87*10^27 L (using the differences in the two 4/3*pi*r^3 values).
Ocean Volume = 1.30*10^27 L (Wikipedia)
STP air is = 22.414 mol/L
Thus, 388 ppm CO2 = 0.0087 mol/L
Thus, total CO2 in atmosphere = 2.48*10^25 mol
If ALL of this went inorganically into the oceans (ignoring equilibrium or any biological/soil uptake), it would add ~19 mmol carbonate to the ocean…OH MY GOSH, THIS IS SUPER HIGH, WHAT WILL WE DO!
…Oh wait, in 2008 the world anthropogenic emission was 8 billion metric tons of carbon, aka 8.0*10^15 g = 1.8*10^14 mol = ~0.14 PICOMOLAR in the ocean. Put another way, if we pumped the equivalent CO2 anthropogenic emissions from 2008 directly into the ocean for the next 720 MILLION years, we would increase the CO2 concentration (if not damped/consumed by calcium/biology) in the ocean by 0.1 mM, or 4.1%.
But this somewhat misses the whole point of this article–which is to show that the efficiency/performance of worldwide carbon sinks has not appreciably decreased, in contrast to what many CAGW supporters routinely claim. This makes sense given the above calculations.
Frankly, I don’t find Mauna Loa trustworthy. Like GISS and East Anglia, there is a malodorous air about them and their smoothed result.
P Gosselin (11:23:42) :
I thought some mountain in Hawaii was measuring CO2 concentrations, and has shown a steady 2 or 3 ppm per year increase since measurements started in the 1950s.
You mean this Bristol study says it aint so?
Someone expalin this? I’m lost
BS: That mountain you are refering to is down wind of an active volcanoe. I am using a different PC atm, or I would post the link to an article I read about. The article basically says that station is taking biased CO2 readings because of it being so close and in the direct path of the volcanoe’s output/ gases/ exhaust. You be the judge, but for me I have reservations/ or will remain skeptical of the validity of the Bristol study.
Happy New Year- Brandon
For human attribution calculation we need some numbers. From Ferdinand in a previous thread (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/) there are 100Gt remaining human CO2 in the atmosphere out of over 400 Gt emitted since 1850. According to RC (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/) the C13 to C12 ratio has decreased by 0.15% since 1850.
Seems like a small decrease but fossil fuel carbon has only a 2% lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere (RC link). The atmosphere holds 775Gt, so let’s assume there’s 7.75Gt of C13 and the rest is C12 (a ratio of 1/100 for purposes of argument). According to F, there was 100Gt less total CO2 in 1850 or 675 Gt and the C13/C12 ratio according to RC was 1/99.85 instead of the nominal 1/100 assumed above. From that we get 6.76Gt of C13 in 1850.
The fossil 100Gt added over the 160 years had a 2% lower ratio of C13 or .98Gt instead of 1Gt. The total C13 today should therefore be 6.76 + 0.98 or 7.74Gt. Since that is less than our assumed 7.75Gt, the missing C13 is likely due to less than 100Gt being of fossil origin. A 50/50 split would produce the correct ratio.
OTOH the fossil amount is more because there was 160 years of mixing (about 1/2 of which was non-preferential) in which 10% of the reservoirs got mixed each year. The effect of the mixing is to raise the ratio of C13/C12 towards the ratios in the other reservoirs which contain the pre-1850 ratios. But the ratios in the other reservoirs also fall with the mixing of lower ratio CO2 from the atmosphere. But there is the huge deep sea reservoir which won’t fall but AFAIK doesn’t mix with surface ocean that much.
One other factor is the 160 year period is very nonlinear with an exponential increase in the fossil input so early mixing doesn’t matter much at all. Obviously a model would be valuable at this point to obtain a quantitative result and I think I can safely say that quantitative results won’t come from the back of an envelope. A claim that 100% or even 95% of the added CO2 is due to fossil fuels because of the C13/C12 ratio change would be suspect without a comprehensive model to back it up. Even then I would have some doubts about a quantitative claim.
Scott (20:46:47) : Now no fair using real science and math to argue with Joel that just makes things more confusing by making them clear and that is the last thing the facts need.
/sarc off
So, what this paper is confirming is that half of the manmade CO2 is trapping heat, meaning that the climate is wildly susceptible to minute changes in CO2 which can cause irreversible warming of the planet.
Of course, this flies in the face of the historical record and any sense of reason.
I woke to -33′ C with the wind -45. WE had one of the coldest summers in my 47 years. The year before didn’t need any air on in the house. The year before one week was in the 30′ . We may need a greener earth but put the Bull$hit to rest . If every thing was good they would have no new taxes. 911taxes, WMD taxes ect so things look bad, but good for the taxman! This is just my take
Anthony, have you seen this:
Fast Pace of Glacier Melt in the 1940s: Lower Aerosol Pollution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091231124858.htm
“The most recent studies by researchers at ETH Zurich show that in the 1940s Swiss glaciers were melting at an even-faster pace than at present. This is despite the fact that the temperatures in the 20th century were lower than in this century. Researchers see the main reason for this as the lower level of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere.”
“Solar radiation as the decisive factor”
Eric (skeptic) (21:12:10) :
A claim that 100% or even 95% of the added CO2 is due to fossil fuels because of the C13/C12 ratio change would be suspect without a comprehensive model to back it up. Even then I would have some doubts about a quantitative claim.
Before models, the data are not clear . Have a look at chiefios summary:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
The data are sure not settled, imo, so what use of models?
Famous physicist Freeman Dyson argues that the half of the world’s land mass that is not covered by cities, roads, deserts, but is able to support some sort of vegetation, is an efficient absorber of co2 emmisions. By improving agricultural practices, such as introducing no till farming, soil biomass will grow by at least 0.001 inches a year, which is all that is needed to absorb our rising co2. End of problem says Professor Dyson.
Oops! I meant 0.01 of an inch per year.
Anthony
Anthony said:
“How quickly you all forget. WUWT was the very first to cover this story back on November 10th, 2009.”
Theres no point getting exasperated with us-how are we possibly supposed to remember something from the last decade? 🙂
Tonyb
Hmmm….
We measure CO2 in the “downwind” from all that red China production at Hawaii in that lime/yellow patch.
Wonder what the news stories and research would look like if we used Ascention Island in the middle of that nice blue blob off the west coast of Africa just under the equator about 1/2 way to South America…
Contemplating that nice colorful map leads me to believe the “well mixed CO2” hypothesis that let us use Hawaii as a proxy for the world is broken…
Implications…. implications…
The mountain referred to below is named Mauna Loa, located in Hawaii, is the world’s largest shield volcano in terms of area covered. The main site of the atmospheric observatory (MLO) is located approximately 2 miles north of the summit (Mokuaweoweo) of the volcano.
Source :Wikipedia
“The Mauna Loa Solar Observatory (MLSO), located at 11,155 feet (3,400 m) on the northern slope of the mountain, has long been prominent in observations of the Sun. The NOAA Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is located close by. From its location well above local human-generated influences, the MLO monitors the global atmosphere, including the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Measurements are ADJUSTED [emphasis mine] to account for local degassing of CO2 from the volcano.”
The last sentence says it all. No problem here, after all, in the vicinity of a volcano wind patterns are static, and CO2 outgassing of a volcano is constant, right? [sarcasm]
I’ve always thought that MLO’s cartoonish graphs of Atmospheric CO2 looked suspiciously smooth.
It sounds like Nature is matching our carbon emissions if our fraction remains the same and yet CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise.
So, if we somehow managed to reduce our C02 emissions, Nature would continue to emit C02?
BTW, is man natural and if not then why so?
I’m not surprised. So we can summarise and say we know very little about the climate, certainly not enough to make a prediction of what the climate change will be over 1 year, let alone 100 years. So, why all the fuss about AGW? Where’s the evidence? I mean real evidence, not best guesses, superstitions, or corrupt science.
Yes but……
This article by Tim Ball, December 28, 2009
I think is another one , it mentions Zbigniew Jaworowski and Ernst Beck from back in 2008 (You probably covered this also) and Tom Wigley from 1983.
This article mentions a a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski.
Ernst Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research in a September 2008 article in Energy and Environment.
Beck found, “Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
And the real kicker I think is The Hockey Team Member
Tom Wigley, who is the heart of the CRU gang, introduced the 280 ppm number to the climate science community with a 1983 paper titled, “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” (Climatic Change 5, 315-320). He based his work on studies by G. S. Callendar (1938) of thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 beginning in 1812. Callendar rejected most of the records, including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected records that established 280 ppm as the pre-industrial level.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343
E.M.Smith (01:06:46) :
…
Wonder what the news stories and research would look like if we used Ascention Island in the middle of that nice blue blob off the west coast of Africa just under the equator about 1/2 way to South America…
No need to wonder – Ascension was a site, at least until 1992. And like the large number of high quality sites around the world, the results tracked Mauna Loa very closely. A few recent years:
Year Ascen Mauna Ratio
1985 345.2 345.90 0.998
1986 346.2 347.15 0.997
1987 348.4 348.93 0.999
1988 350.4 351.48 0.997
1989 351.6 352.91 0.996
1990 352.9 354.19 0.996
1991 353.9 355.59 0.995
1992 355.2 356.37 0.997
Hmmm, a very complicated matter, indeed. Luckily, the science is settled, so we dont need to worry about this.
Just pay our taxes, and thats it!
In the mean time, I’m enjoying reading Professor Segalstad;
http://www.co2web.info/Segalstad_CO2-Science_090805.pdf
toyotawhizguy (01:15:22) : edit
OK, lets get past the questions about Mauna Loa. I lived for a year on the Big Island, in Waimea. From there I could see the observatory referred to above. So as you might imagine, I did some extensive research on just how they do their sampling. As usual, Wikipedia doesn’t quite get it right.
The spot was picked inter alia because it is very high and it is on an island. At night, as is common with islands, there is a predictable and regular “land breeze” that flows outwards from the island to the sea. As a result, air is pulled down from higher altitudes above the island to replace that air moving from the island out to sea. Several times each night, measurements of CO2 are made of this air, which is pulled from clean air aloft, and which is thus generally free of the contamination which afflicts many other sites. This is air which has been way up high crossing the Pacific, and passes over very little land before being sampled.
As a number of people have pointed out, the mountain is an active volcano which outgasses CO2. And sometimes, if the winds are wrong, the air comes from areas where the CO2 is outgassing.
However, Wikipedia is wrong when they say that the measurements are adjusted when this happens. They are not. It is immediately obvious when the air is contaminated with volcanic CO2, because as you might imagine the CO2 levels spike off the charts. These samples are not used for baseline CO2 measurements (although they are used to estimate the amount of CO2 being outgassed by the volcano). Since they take several measurements per night, this generally does not leave them without data. The volcanic CO2 is also usually near the ground, so the measurements are taken both at the ground and from tall towers as well. If these two agree and there is no unusual readings, they know they have measured good air.
As someone pointed out above, this is not the only place on the planet where CO2 is measured. The close agreement between the Mauna Loa data and data gathered elsewhere is a good indication that their system for identifying spurious samples works quite well.
So although as you might surmise I am a suspicious SOB who doesn’t believe anything related to climate science without a very hard look, I am satisfied that the data coming from Mauna Loa are valid and can be relied on. See here for more information.