Guest post by Lon Hocker
Abstract
Differentiating the CO2 measurements over the last thirty years produces a pattern that matches the temperature anomaly measured by satellites in extreme detail. That this correlation includes El Niño years, and shows that the temperature rise is causing the rise in CO2, rather than the other way around. The simple equation that connects the satellite and Mauna Loa data is shown to have a straight forward physical explanation.
Introduction
The last few decades has shown a heated debate on the topic of whether the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing rising temperatures. Many complex models have been made that seem to confirm the idea that anthropological CO2 is responsible for the temperature increase that has been observed. The debate has long since jumped the boundary between science and politics and has produced a large amount of questionable research.
“Consensus View”
Many people claim that anthropological CO2 is the cause of global warming. Satellite temperature data, http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt, and Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt, are well accepted and freely available to all researchers. Figure 1 shows a plot of the Ocean Temperature Anomaly from the satellite data shows a general rising trend. Shown along with the temperature data is a simple linear model showing the temperature rise as a linear function of CO2 concentration. This shown linear model is:
Temperature Anomaly = (CO2 -350)/180
No attempt has been made to optimize this model. Although it follows the general trend of the temperature data, it follows none of the details of the temperature anomaly curve. No amount of averaging or modification of the coefficients of the model would help it follow the details of the temperature anomaly.
Figure 1: Ocean Temperature Anomaly and linear CO2 model
Derivative approach
An alternate approach that does show these details is that the temperature anomaly is correlated with the rate of increase of CO2. I discovered this independently and roughly simultaneously with Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf.
Applying this model to the Mauna Loa data not only shows the overall trend, but also matches the many El Niño events that have occurred while satellite data has been available. The Figure 2, shows the derivative model along with the observed Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The model is simply
Temperature Anomaly = (CO2(n+6) – CO2(n-6))/(12*0.22) – 0.58
where ‘n’ is the month. Using the n+6 and n=6 values (CO2 levels six months before and six months after) cancels out the annual variations of CO2 levels that is seen in the Mauna Loa data, and provides some limited averaging of the data.
The two coefficients, (0.22 and 0.58) were chosen to optimize the fit. However, the constant 0.58 (degrees Celsius) corresponds to the offset needed to bring the temperature anomaly to the value generally accepted to be the temperature in the mid 1800’s when the temperature was considered to be relatively constant. The second coefficient also has a physical basis, and will be discussed later.
Figure 2: Ocean Temperature Anomaly and derivative CO2 model
There is a strong correlation between the measured anomaly and the Derivative model. It shows the strong El Niño of 1997-1998 very clearly, and also shows the other El Niño events during the plotted time period about as well as the satellite data does.
Discussion
El Niño events have been recognized from at least 1902, so it would seem inappropriate to claim that they are caused by the increase of CO2. Given the very strong correlation between the temperature anomaly and the rate of increase of CO2, and the inability to justify an increase of CO2 causing El Niño, it seems unavoidable that the causality is opposite from that which has been offered by the IPCC. The temperature increase is causing the change in the increase of CO2.
It is important to emphasize that this simple model only uses the raw Mauna Loa CO2 data for its input. The output of this model compares directly with the satellite data. Both of these data sets are readily available on the internet, and the calculations are trivially done on a spreadsheet.
Considering this reversed causality, it is appropriate to use the derivative model to predict the CO2 level given the temperature anomaly. The plot below shows the CO2 level calculated by using the same model. The CO2 level by summing the monthly CO2 level changes caused by the temperature anomaly.
Month(n) CO2 = Month(n-1) CO2 + 0.22*(Month(n) Anomaly + 0.58)
Figure 3: Modeled CO2 vs Observed CO2 over Time
Not surprisingly the model tracks the CO2 level well, though it does not show the annual variation. That it does not track the annual variations isn’t particularly surprising, since the ocean temperature anomaly is averaged over all the oceans, and the Mauna Loa observations are made at a single location. Careful inspection of the plot shows that it tracks the small inflections of the CO2 measurements.
The Mauna Loa data actually goes back to 1958, so one can use the model to calculate the temperature anomaly back before satellite data was available. The plot below shows the calculated temperature anomaly back to 1960, and may represent the most accurate available temperature measurement data set in the period between 1960 and 1978.
Figure 4: Calculated Temperature Anomaly from MLO CO2 data
Precise temperature measurements are not available in the time period before Satellite data. However, El Niño data is available at http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml making it possible to show the correlation between the calculated temperatures and the and El Niño strength. Note that the correlation between temperature anomaly and El Niño strength is strong throughout the time span covered.
Figure 5: Calculated Temp CO2 from CO2 and ENSO data
An Explanation for this Model
The second free parameter used to match the CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly, 0.22 ppm per month per degree C of temperature anomaly, has a clear physical basis. A warmer ocean can hold less CO2, so increasing temperatures will release CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.
The Atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif), the ocean 36,000 billion tons of CO2. Raising the temperature of the ocean one degree reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean by about 4% (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html)
Figure 6: Solubility of CO2 in water (While CO2 solubility in seawater is slightly different than in pure H2O shown above in Figure 6, it gives us a reasonably close fit.)
This releases about 1440 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This release would roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
We have seen what appears to be about a 0.8 degree temperature rise of the atmosphere in the last century and a half, but nowhere near the factor of three temperature rise. There is a delay due to the rate of heat transfer to the ocean and the mixing of the ocean. This has been studied in detail by NOAA, http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal, and they estimate that it would take 230 years for an atmospheric temperature change to cause a 63% temperature change if the ocean were rapidly mixed.
Using this we can make a back of the envelope calculation of the second parameter in the equation. This value will be approximately the amount of CO2 released per unit temperature rise (760 ppm/C)) divided by the mixing time (230 years). Using these values gives a value of 0.275 ppm /C/month instead of the observed 0.22 ppm/C/month, but not out of line considering that we are modeling a very complex transfer with a single time constant, and ignoring the mixing time of the ocean.
Conclusion
Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
================================================
Lon Hocker describes himself as: “Undergrad physics at Princeton. Graduate School MIT. PhD under Ali Javan the inventor of the gas laser. Retired president of Onset Computer Corp., which I started over 30 years ago. Live in Hawaii and am in a band that includes two of the folks who work at MLO (Mauna Loa Observatory)!”
Data and calcs available on request
Your analysis exposes my point, that indeed there seems to be no evidence for the time varying a in the data! Check http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html to see how huge the variation of a has been.
Lon, I don’t think I quite understand what you mean by that. Could you elaborate?
The A_0 plausibility comes from the top figure, or http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
So you fix T_0 by requiring the system to be in equilibrium around 1850. I don’t find this very convincing for various reasons. Let me just mention one:
Your linear model for the absorption and emission of CO2 from the oceans does not depend on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. As long as you consider shortish time periods (such as 1980-2010), then this may be a reasonable approximation, since the concentration of CO2 only varies by a few percent.
When you go back to 1850 however, then the concentration changes by something like 40% (if I remember correctly). The change in concentration will certainly affect the rate of absorption. The equilibrium temperature T_0 will therefore change, possibly quite drastically.
The reason why I stress this kind of thing is that the strength of your argument depends crucially on getting T_0 right with a high confidence level. To repeat myself, the correlation exhibited in figure 2, as impressive as it seems, says absolutely nothing about the relative contribution of physically induced changes in the concentration of CO2.
Jose says:
This is the sort of thing that might seem like a good idea, but I don’t think it is one once one thinks more closely about it: I don’t think the claim being made is that local CO2 levels (or changes or whatever) are correlated to local temperatures. And, in fact, while the Mauna Lao measurements are a pretty good stand-in for the global behavior because CO2 is (quite) well-mixed in the atmosphere, local temperature is not a good stand-in for global temperature.
Quinn the Eskimo 11th 6:51am
I said if ocean warming releases CO2 it would lead to runaway warming, not if the global temperature rise precedes a CO2 increase (as during the ice ages). The latter is a slow equilibrium adjustment where CO2 has to catch up with temperature rise forced by other means (e.g. Milankovitch cycles). The climate is continuously going through such adjustments leading to CO2 and temperature having correlated values over millions of years, and either temperature or CO2 can lead in such changes.
So, you may ask, what is the difference here? This would be a runaway because you are putting CO2 into an atmosphere that already has excess CO2 above the equilibrium for the temperature, and furthermore saying that the rate of injection will increase with temperature, so even as temperature rises to try to catch up, more CO2 is injected. Luckily this mechanism is impossible.
So, how is AGW different? You are putting CO2 into an atmosphere that already has excess CO2, but hopefully fossil fuel burning won’t increase with temperature ad infinitum. At some point it will level off or fall and temperature will catch up to the new equilibrium. The difference is that fossil fuel burning is disconnected from the actual mean global temperature, which removes the potential for a runaway feedback.
Nasif Nahle says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Now, I exhale approximately 0.006 m3 of mixed air during one breathing movement. […]
Read the posts, that’s all. On the other hand, Dr. Leif assured that 6 liters of air were equivalent to 0.0006 cubic meters, which is incorrect.
You exhale 0.5 liter per normal breath or approx 0.0006 m3. Nobody exhales 6 liters of air [or 4 liters] 11 times per minute. What I’m saying is that you do not exhale 6 liters but only a tenth of that per normal breath, not that a 0.0006 is equal to 0.006. Even you should be able to see that.
See table I of http://www.nsbri.org/HumanPhysSpace/focus2/respiratory.html
And your original claim [88 gram] was unqualified and explicit:
Nasif Nahle says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
Why the concern on increases of CO2? It’s good for life. Take this assertion from a biologist who exhales ca. 88 g of carbon dioxide 11 times each minute.
Apparently that biologist did not know what he was talking about. Later attempts to wiggle out of this did not fare well as you claimed that the vital capacity [4 liters] was exhaled each time, while only about a tenth [the tidal volume] or about half a liter is exhaled in normal breathing. Now as I said, when in a hole, stop digging.
Gail Combs says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:54 am (A bunch of stuff implying the Mauna Loa CO2 data have been manipulated to get the desired values the last 50 years)…
So Gail, what do you propose they do to get accurate readings?
Have you looked at other data sets? Here are some: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/cmdl-flask.html
Great thread, thanks to Lon.
Re Joel Shore (June 11, 2010 at 7:51 pm ): “I don’t think the claim being made is that local CO2 levels (or changes or whatever) are correlated to local temperatures. And, in fact, while the Mauna Lao measurements are a pretty good stand-in for the global behavior because CO2 is (quite) well-mixed in the atmosphere, local temperature is not a good stand-in for global temperature”.
True enough, but it has to be legitimate to see if the claimed effect of [CO2] on temperature TRENDS applies to the temperatures at Mauna Loa Slope Observatory (which are very poorly recorded, which raises questions on the possibly equal sloppiness of the CO2 data). Given that ML was chosen for CO2 by Keeling for its pristine nature away from UHI and the like, it has to be pristine for temperature, if they could get around to measuring it on a daily basis – what a big ask (in January this year and last they managed to record mean max on only 19 days)! The outcome is that there is zero correlation by any means (other than by relying on autocorrelation) between [CO2] and temps at Mauna Loa when they were measured properly (only until 1992 when Gore seems to have stopped that!).
The idle b*** at MLSO have also failed to contribute data on solar surface radiation (AVGLO, AvDIF, AvDIR), “H2O” = atmospheric water vapour, RH, windspeed, Ave daytime temps, etc. to the NOAA data base* (NREL and NSRDB) which has all those variables and more from 1960 to 2006 almost everywhere in USA except at MLSO. What do said b*** do all day? and why has NOAA/NREL apparently discontinued its data on all those crucial climate determinants since 2006? *
Could that be because as multivariate analysis of those variables plus [CO2] shows the irrelevance of the latter to temperature anywhere, they provide such inconvenient truths that Jim Hansen has been able discreetly to have them canned. Fyi, the main determinant of temperature at the NREL sites is almost invariably atmospheric water vapor , with [CO2] often negative but invariably statistically insignificant.
* See http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb
for a listing of and access to sites with the most comprehensive climate data sets across USA, unmatched anywhere else in the world.
Tim Curtin says:
This makes no sense at all. What is the expected temperature trend at Mauna Loa and what are the error bars on that expected trend? If you can’t tell me that (and where you have obtained this from), then your whole post is meaningless.
What is wrong with the data after 1992, how do you know that they are measured improperly, what sort of correlation do you get if you do use the data after 1992, and can you explain what evidence you have that Al Gore personally affected the measurements at Mauna Lao?
And your evidence for this? Or is it just an idle hypothesis based on your very…ahh creative…mind?
“Joel Shore says:
June 11, 2010 at 11:14 am
Quinn the Eskimo says:
Why was there no runaway warming in the Vostok record?
Who is predicting “runaway warming”?”
NASA scientist James Hansen:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html
Glad i could help you there.
JK says:
June 11, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Gail Combs says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:54 am (A bunch of stuff implying the Mauna Loa CO2 data have been manipulated to get the desired values the last 50 years)…
The stuff is from the horse’s mouth, it is the method the Maona Loa curve is “cleansed” proudly proclaimed .
So Gail, what do you propose they do to get accurate readings?
I am waiting for good three dimensional from surface to top atmosphere data from the GOSAT satellite to settle the issue of “well mixed”. At the moment “well mixed” is a hypothesis and the data is forced to agree with it.
Particularly after seeing Beck’s compilations http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
We have been discussing this at Willis’ thread in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/#comments
Have you looked at other data sets? Here are some: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/cmdl-flask.html
Thank you for the link. However, centralized analysis, as these are, easily could follow the steps of the gurus of CO2. After climate gate and the temperature manipulations questioning the other pillar of AGW is within the rules of the game.
I have tried to find original papers to see whether this two sigma rejection of outliers and insistence on purity is imposed on all world data, but have been unsuccessful since the ones I found are behind a pay wall.
Nasif Nahle, you have claimed twice in this thread that you exhale about 1kg of CO2 in one minute. You told me when I doubted your numbers:
“Regarding my assertion, it’s true… I exhale ~2 moles of carbon dioxide 11 times per minute. Making the conversion, it gives ~88 g each time I exhale. In terms of percentages, I exhale a volume of air containing 5% of CO2, which means 50000 ppmV.
The trick consists in omitting the volume of mixed air that I exhale in each breathing movement and applying pure mathematics.”
You now admit that Leif is right and you were wrong, or?
DirkH says:
Thanks, DirkH, but I brought up Hansen’s prediction myself in this subsequent post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/#comment-407834
As I noted, I think it is reasonable to be very skeptical about Hansen’s claim in this regard, given that he has not (to my knowledge) yet explained it in a peer-reviewed publication. However, as I explained in that post, he does give reasons why it can’t be dismissed out-of-hand just on the basis of the fact that it hasn’t happened previously…Not sure how well those reasons (or his logic in general) would stand up to closer scrutiny.
At any rate, Hansen’s prediction is well beyond anything in the scientific consensus represented by the IPCC reports. If he were right, then obviously the policy options currently contemplated would likely have to be significantly strengthened. It is a good demonstration of why one can’t wait until complete certainty is reached before taking any action, but must instead take action based on the best science available with the idea of ratcheting up or down the action as the science evolves.
Lon Hocker says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
“Is it too late to make you a co-author? “
I wish I could help you, Lon. I really appreciate your bringing this obvious correlation to the fore. Unfortunately, I have a job in a rather difficult realm of scientific investigation which takes nearly every minute of my time. If I had the hours to put into this, I am confident I could come up with a very convincing model, but I just don’t have it. I would strongly recommend you look for someone with a specialty in control systems, perhaps a sympathetic professor in electrical or mechanical engineering at your local big name college. Control systems engineers have been in the business of identifying system models for a good century now, and know all of the requirements for deriving a physically and mathematically consistent model.
Joel Shore says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“No…It’s necessarily negligible by your misunderstanding. Don’t blame your mistakes on the IPCC.”
Joel, you and I have sparred on this many times now. You have never put forth any rigorous argument of why I am wrong, you just feel that I am. I really don’t have time to go down this path again with you.
ck says:
June 11, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“Bart, how does the IPCC obtain the value adot = 4% of Co/tau ?”
Co/tau is the rate of natural CO2 input to the system. Anthropogenic emissions are about 4% of this. AGW proponents will tell you that it does not matter, because the natural emissions are part of a magical cycle which just happens to exist and is completely independent of the anthropogenic buildup. This is codswallop of the first order. It is an arbitrary and capricious decoupling of the overall system dynamics.
Equilibria in nature do not “just happen.” They come about because of a balance of forces in which, if one side pushes harder, the other side pushes harder, back. It effectively becomes a negative feedback system about that set point, and to alter the equilibrium in any way, you have to push on a par with the forces which are establishing the equilibrium. If you push with 4% of the force pushing one way, you will displace the equilibrium by 4%.
Bart says:
Bart:
You have encouraged me to come up with a simple mathematical model that illustrates what is going on in a way that is more compatible with the actual physics of the problem. Admittedly, my model is very simplified, but it hopefully will put to rest your silly claims that somehow the mathematics necessitates your conclusion. Of course, I will not claim that the mathematics necessitates my conclusion either. The conclusion depends on the starting equations. However, since my starting equations are more in-line with the understood physics of the carbon cycle, I think they are a closer (although a simplified version) of reality.
Because it is painful to try to type math here, I have put the model up as an MS WORD document on my website. Go to http://www.frontiernet.net/~jshore/ and click on “Simple model of the carbon cycle”.
No. I have told you time and again exactly why you are wrong: You have an entirely wrong picture of the system. See below.
No. It is understanding the physics. And, the physics is this: There are large exchanges amongst the reservoirs that represent of the atmosphere, ocean mixed layer, and biosphere + soils. This is just the same carbon being swapped back and forth. The anthropogenic emissions are a new source of carbon being added to this subsystem. While the large fluxes between the different reservoirs mean that the fossil fuel additions to the atmosphere rapidly partition themselves between these different reservoirs (rather than just all of it remaining in the atmosphere), they are fundamentally distinct from the fossil fuel emissions because there are not just swaps back-and-forth between the reservoirs. The model that I presented a link to in my last post illustrates this in a simplified way.
Niels A Nielsen says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:20 am
Nasif Nahle, you have claimed twice in this thread that you exhale about 1kg of CO2 in one minute. You told me when I doubted your numbers:
“Regarding my assertion, it’s true… I exhale ~2 moles of carbon dioxide 11 times per minute. Making the conversion, it gives ~88 g each time I exhale. In terms of percentages, I exhale a volume of air containing 5% of CO2, which means 50000 ppmV.
The trick consists in omitting the volume of mixed air that I exhale in each breathing movement and applying pure mathematics.”
You now admit that Leif is right and you were wrong, or?
I’m not wrong because I specified that it was without taking into account the vital capacity of the lungs ang apply only mathematics without considering the reality:
“The trick consists in omitting the volume of mixed air that I exhale in each breathing movement and applying pure mathematics.”
Leif is wrong because he said that 6 liters of air were equivalent to 0.0006 cubic meter.
On the other hand, I know very well the physiology of human respiration and I have nothing wrong to accept from my side.
Bart says:
I think this illustrates both where you are right and where you are wrong. If you look at the simple model that I have created and linked to, you will see that it agrees basically with you on this premise: When there are large transfers back and forth between the ocean mixed layer and the atmosphere relative to the fossil fuel input, then the displacement of the equilibrium between the ocean mixed layer and the atmosphere is small (namely F/2r in my model).
But…Here’s the problem with your logic: It is not the displacement of this equilibrium between these two reservoirs that is most relevant. What is most relevant is that the fossil fuel carbon is an addition to BOTH of these reservoirs and so it raises the CO2 level in both of them. Yes, the equilibrium between them doesn’t shift very much…but what is important is not this shift but the rise in CO2 in both the atmosphere and ocean mixed layer. (And, with both about climate change and ocean acidification, increases in both of these reservoirs are a concern.)
Joel Shore says:
what is important is not this shift but the rise in CO2 in both the atmosphere and ocean mixed layer. (And, with both about climate change and ocean acidification, increases in both of these reservoirs are a concern.)
Yes the negative response by ocean photosynthesis in a reduced ph ocean is indeed a concern, if climate is so sensitive to Co2,then the biological thermostats will indeed be a problem.eg Rickaby et al
A major factor which contributes to the decreasing PIC/POC ratio in previous culture experiments, is that in addition to reduced calcification, there is an increase in
carbon fixation with increasing pCO2 (Paasche, 1964; Zondervan et al., 2002; Rost
et al., 2003; Rost and Riebesell, 2004). The converse to the calcification paradigm
is therefore that coccolithophores may increase their photosynthetic efficiency as CO2
increases in the environment (e.g. Riebesell et al., 2007)….
…Emiliania huxleyi, the current ubiquitous but one of the smallest
sized coccolithophore, may operate at less than 100% photosynthetic efficiency under
modern ocean conditions of CO2(aq) (e.g. Rost and Riebesell, 2004; Rost et al., 2003).
Joel Shore:
At June 12, 2010 at 1:21 pm you assert:
“And, the physics is this: There are large exchanges amongst the reservoirs that represent of the atmosphere, ocean mixed layer, and biosphere + soils. This is just the same carbon being swapped back and forth.”
Really?
You think the “the same carbon being swapped back and forth” does not vary?
And you think anthropogenic emission will alter this when that emission in each year is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle?
I wonder why anybody would ascribe any certainty to such highly improbable assumptions. Few things in nature vary by less than +/- 0/02% p.a. and the fluxes of “carbon being swapped back and forth” are certain to vary in response to altered sea surface temperature, altered ocean surface pH (in response to e.g. undersea volcanism in contact with thermohaline flows), air temperature, atmospheric CO2 concentration, etc., etc. etc.
Your improbable assumptions may be right, but there is no evidence that they are. Indeed, the inherent errors of the various fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are each individually larger than the anthropogenic flux into the atmosphere, so it is not possible to know if your assumptions are right or not.
Improbable assumptions are not magically transformed into being “physics” or facts by their being stated by you or by anybody else.
Then, at June 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm you suggest:
“…If you look at the simple model that I have created and linked to, …”
The carbon cycle is more complex than the human brain (the carbon cycle has more interacting components – e.g. biological organisms – than the human brain has neurones). Nobody would take any notice of a “simple model” so I fail to understand why anybody would trust a “simple model” of the carbon cycle.
Please note that above, at June 11, 2010 at 7:05 pm, I referenced our six different models of the carbon cycle that each matches the Mauna Loa data perfectly without any data adjustment (i.e. each or our models is better than the so-called ‘mass balance’ or ‘budget models’ used by e.g. IPCC because those models require data smoothing to get them to match the Mauna Loa data) . But our models are each very different and each predicts a different future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same anthropogenic CO2 emission.
I trust none of our models, so I fail to see any reason to bother looking at your model that can only be a representation of your assumptions (such as your implausible assumption that the natural fluxes do not vary).
Richard
maksimovich :
At June 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm you say:
“…Emiliania huxleyi, the current ubiquitous but one of the smallest
sized coccolithophore, may operate at less than 100% photosynthetic efficiency under modern ocean conditions of CO2(aq) (e.g. Rost and Riebesell, 2004; Rost et al., 2003).”
Clearly, Rost and Riebesell have never heard of the White Cliffs of Dover. Those cliffs (and several hills and mountains around the world) are comprised of chalk which is the remains of coccolithophores that were deposited when atmospheric CO2 concentration was several times higher than it is now. So, reality demonstrates that coccolithophores flourished when atmospheric CO2 concentration was much, much higher than is now foreseeable.
Nonsense is not transformed into fact by being published in a journal.
Richard
PS
In the days when I worked in a lab. I often used chalk to demonstrate SEM because coccolithophores are pretty.
anna v says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:23 am (not sure why she answers a post to Gail, but…)
It doesn’t seem very in keeping “scientific skepticism” to say, as too many here do, that any data or results that don’t agree with their ideology are “cooked”. The other sites do not have volcanic gasses to contend with, and some don’t have vegetation either. And you could look at their sampling routines, unless your afraid of seeing something.
I’ve read the Beck paper, and found it amusing that he spliced together a string of CO2 measurements from various European cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries, showing CO2 bouncing around wildly, until all of a sudden it gets quite tame and orderly in the 1950s with modern remote measurements (which he seems to feel are accurate and represent the atmospheric fraction correctly). He also posits a long running conspiracy going back to the 1930s to hide the true value of atmospheric CO2, which is quite odd indeed.
Richard S Courtney says:
June 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
A couple of points here.
First, the amount of human emissions to the atmosphere are not 0.02% of the total emissions to the atmosphere. They are currently on the order of 4% of total emissions to the atmosphere.
Second, we can model the atmosphere as a basin with a hose filling it, and a hole at the bottom draining it out. If we let the hose run for a while, the pressure on the hole becomes greater and greater. At some point, the outflow equals the inflow, and we have a rough equilibrium.
Now, suppose we add another, smaller hose to the inflow. Will the level in the basin:
a) Rise
b) Fall
c) Stay the same?
Obviously, the answer is a) it will rise. Now, will it rise by
a) More than the inflow
b) Less than the inflow
c) The amount of the inflow.
Again obviously, it will rise by less than the inflow. This is because as it rises, the pressure on the outflow hole increases, so more flows out.
Finally, will the amount that the water rises in the basin be proportional to:
a) The size of the big hose, or
b) The size of the small hose?
Obviously, the amount of the change is dependent on the size of the small hose.
This is a very accurate analogy to the atmosphere. We have natural emissions (the big hose). We have the outflow hole (natural sequestration of CO2). And we have human emissions (the small hose).
And finally, we have have the situation which is exactly like the basin, where the excess amount that remains in the air (the basin) is less than the amount of CO2 we added (the small hose).
The fact that this is the case is verified by the calculation of the rate of exponential decay of the known amount of CO2 added to the system by human actions. This rate of decay has stayed quite stable for as long as we have records. I hardly think that this is a coincidence
I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. The size of the natural flows (the big hose) is not the issue, that doesn’t matter in an equilibrium. In an equilibrium situation, any addition of new matter will raise the level, by some amount which is less than the amount added. It will obey an exponential decay function, the decay factor of which (absent changes in the sequestration rate) will remain stable.
And that’s exactly what we are seeing in the atmosphere.
Richard S Courtney says:
June 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Yes, and the solar system must be much more complex than either the carbon cycle or the human brain, since it contains both … but despite that, we use simple models of the movements of the solar system all the time.
The relevant quotation in this situation is “All models are wrong … but some models are useful.”
I said “it has to be legitimate to see if the claimed effect of [CO2] on temperature TRENDS applies to the temperatures at Mauna Loa Slope Observatory (which are very poorly recorded, which raises questions on the possibly equal sloppiness of the CO2 data).”
Joel Shore replied “This makes no sense at all. What is the expected temperature trend at Mauna Loa and what are the error bars on that expected trend? If you can’t tell me that (and where you have obtained this from), then your whole post is meaningless.”
Try Google for Mauna Loa + temperature: (also http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/):
MAUNA LOA SLOPE OBS, HAWAII
Monthly Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit)
(516198)
File last updated on Jul 24, 2006
*** Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200603
a = 1 day missing, b = 2 days missing, c = 3 days, ..etc..,
z = 26 or more days missing, A = Accumulations present
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average) to the long-term annual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
As after 1992 there are no useable annual data, that has to be Al Gore’s fault, as clearly with with all the resources of the Presidency to hand, he could not even maintain a temperature record! Nor can Obama, so we should club together to buy a working thermometer for MLSO?
And with all NASA’s resources, Hansen’s GISS also can’t even maintain even that lousy record for Mauna Loa, by the simple expedient of not providing any weather data at all for that location. Funny, when Mauna Loa is the Mt Sinai of the climate change due to CO2 gospel. What has GISS got to hide? Plenty.
When you Joel can find a useable temperature record from what ludicrously calls itself the Mauna Loa Slope Observatory, even 3rd world observatories usually have workable thermometers, then we can start doing error bars.
So it is absolutely the case that “because as multivariate analysis of those[climate] variables [eg atmospheric water vapor] plus [CO2] shows the irrelevance of the latter to temperature anywhere, they provide such inconvenient truths that” the totality of the American “climate science” fraternity has gone out its way to ensure such data are canned.
Joel, What have you personally done to ensure the integrity of climate data? Nothing?
maksimovich says:
“[…]
Yes the negative response by ocean photosynthesis in a reduced ph ocean is indeed a concern, if climate is so sensitive to Co2,then the biological thermostats will indeed be a problem.eg Rickaby et al
[…]
…Emiliania huxleyi, the current ubiquitous but one of the smallest
sized coccolithophore, may operate at less than 100% photosynthetic efficiency under
modern ocean conditions of CO2(aq) (e.g. Rost and Riebesell, 2004; Rost et al., 2003).
”
Do you really think that that’s a problem? Their average internal pH is only 7.29.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5j4877047j2x51k/
Now that’s funny. They’re less basic or more acidic internally than the acidifying ocean around them yet they don’t dissolve all by themselves.
Joel Shore says:
June 12, 2010 at 1:21 pm
“This is just the same carbon being swapped back and forth.”
– Not. Some, maybe a lot, of the carbon is being buried “Forever” – Oil? Coal? etc.?
“The anthropogenic emissions are a new source of carbon being added to this subsystem.”
– As far as I know there is no “new” carbon on the planet. Maybe change your wording? And what do you mean by “subsystem”?
Confusing….
Thanks,
Jose