For a another view on the CO2 issue, please see also the guest post by Tom Vonk: CO2 heats the atmosphere…a counter view -Anthony
Guest Post by Ferdinand Engelbeen
There have been hundreds of reactions to the previous post by Willis Eschenbach as he is convinced that humans are the cause of the past 150 years increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. For the (C)AGW theory, that is one of the cornerstones. If that fails, the whole theory fails.
This may be the main reason that many skeptics don’t like the idea that humans are the cause of the increase and try to demolish the connection between human emissions and the measured increase in the atmosphere with all means, some more scientific than others.
After several years of discussion on different discussion lists, skeptic and warmist alike, I have made a comprehensive web page where all arguments are put together: indeed near the full increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by the human emissions. Only a small part might have been added by the (ocean) warming since the LIA. That doesn’t mean that the increase has a tremendous effect on the warming of the earth’s surface, as that is a completely different discussion. But of course, if the CO2 increase was mainly/completely natural, the discussion of the “A” in AGW wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t natural, as the mass balance proves beyond doubt and all other observations agree with. And all alternative explanations fail one or more observations. In the next parts I will touch other items like the process characteristics, the 13C and 14C/12C ratio, etc. Finally, I will touch some misconceptions about decay time of extra CO2, ice cores, historical CO2 measurements and stomata data.
The mass balance:
As the laws of conservation of mass rules: no carbon can be destroyed or generated. As there are no processes in the atmosphere which convert CO2 to something else, the law also holds for CO2, as long as it stays in the atmosphere. This means that the mass balance should be obeyed for all situations. In this case, the increase/decrease of the CO2 level in the atmosphere after a year (which only shows the end result of all exchanges, including the seasonal exchanges) must be:
dCO2(atm) = CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) + CO2(em) – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…)
The difference in the atmosphere after a year is the sum of all inflows, no matter how large they are, or how they changed over the years, plus the human emissions, minus the sum of all outflows, no matter how large they are, wherever they take place. Some rough indication of the flows involved is here in Figure 1 from NASA:
From all those flows very few are known to any accuracy. What is known with reasonable accuracy are the emissions, which are based on inventories of fossil fuel use by the finance departments (taxes!) of different countries and the very accurate measurements of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere on a lot of places on earth, including Mauna Loa.
Thus in the above CO2 mass balance, we can replace some of the items with the real amounts (CO2 amounts expressed in gigaton carbon):
4 GtC = CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) + 8 GtC – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…)
Or rearranged:
CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…) = – 4 GtC
Without any knowledge of any natural flow in or out of the atmosphere or changes in such flows, we know that the sum of all natural outflows is 4 GtC larger than the sum of all natural inflows. In other words, the net increase of the atmospheric CO2 content caused by all natural CO2 ins and outs together is negative. There is no net natural contribution to the observed increase, nature as a whole acts as a sink for CO2. Of course, a lot of CO2 is exchanged over the seasons, but at the end of the year, that doesn’t add anything to the total CO2 mass in the atmosphere. That only adds to the exchange rate of individual molecules: some 20% per year of all CO2 in the atmosphere is refreshed by the seasonal exchanges between atmosphere and oceans/vegetation. That can be seen in the above scheme: about 210 GtC CO2 is exchanged, but not all of that reaches the bulk of the atmosphere. Best guess (based on 13C/12C and oxygen exchanges) is that some 60 GtC is exchanged back and forth over the seasons between the atmosphere and vegetation and some 90 GtC is exchanged between the atmosphere and the oceans. These flows are countercurrent: warmer oceans release more CO2 in summer, while vegetation has its largest uptake in summer. In the NH, vegetation wins (more land), in the SH there is hardly any seasonal influence (more ocean). There is more influence near ground than at altitude and there is a NH-SH lag (which points to a NH source). See figure 2:
The net result of all these exchanges is some 4 GtC sink rate of the natural flows, which is variable: the variability of the natural sink capacity is mostly related to (ocean) temperature changes, but that has little influence on the trend itself, as most of the variability averages out over the years. Only a more permanent temperature increase/decrease should show a more permanent change in CO2 level. The Vostok ice core record shows that a temperature change of about 1°C gives a change in CO2 level of about 8 ppmv over very long term. That indicates an about 8 ppmv increase for the warming since the LIA, less than 10% of the observed increase.
As one can see in Fig. 3 below, there is a variability of +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) around the trend over the past 50 years, while the trend itself is about 55% of the emissions, currently around 2 ppmv (4 GtC) per year (land use changes not included, as these are far more uncertain, in that case the trend is about 45% of the emissions + land use changes).
We could end the whole discussion here, as humans have added about twice the amount of CO2 to the atmosphere as the observed increase over the past 150 years, the difference is absorbed by the oceans and/or vegetation. That is sufficient proof for the human origin of the increase, but there is more that points to the human cause… as will be shown in the following parts.
Please note that the RULES FOR THE DISCUSSION OF ATTRIBUTION OF THE CO2 RISE still apply!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CodeTech says:
August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am
One observation:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm
You don’t need to know all detailed transactions of your bussiness during the day to know what your loss or profit was at the end of the day: just count what is in your cash register…
Unintentionally, perhaps, you have pretty much destroyed your entire thesis with this statement.
As all comparisons, also this one is bad enough. But it simply says that you don’t need to count all transactions (but you better do!) to know the endresult.
I should have expanded it as follows:
Every morning you add some 100 dollar (euro or whatever) of your own money to your cash register. Every evening you count what is in the cash register. Every day you see that you have a “gain” of 50 dollar in cash. Even without knowing anything in detail of what happened during the day, you know that your bussiness has more losses than profit…
As has already been pointed out: this entire post devolves to one claim: CO2 increase is manmade because there is a CO2 increase.
As already said several times by me and Dikran and Slioch (thanks for the help, at first I had the impression to be alone with the sharks…) what we say is:
The CO2 increase is man-made because the increase is less than the man-made CO2 emissions
Quite a difference with what several expect…
I’m amazed at the continuing discussion around the anthropogenic origin of the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. As has been pointed out by Ferdinand Engelbeen, Willis Eschenbach and others there is little room for doubt about the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Input of anthropogenic CO2 as a result of fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture etc. is the only plausible hypothesis that readily accounts for the empirical evidence of the mass balance, the changing 13C/12C carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, and the changing oxygen level of the atmosphere.
Dikran Marsupial:
Thankyou for your answer to one of my points that you provide at August 6, 2010 at 8:19 am.
Paul Birch provided an excellent – and complete – rebuttal of your answer at August 6, 2010 at 8:47 am. Since I cannot improve on it I merely quote it here to save you needing to find it. He wrote:
“No! This simply does not follow. The annual rise in CO2 would be essentially independent of the anthropogenic emissions; it could be greater, or less, or equal. It would be determined by changes in the equilibrium positions, from causes having nothing to do with the rates. Sure, there might be some rate limitations on the equilibriating uptake step, so the atmospheric concentrations would show some dependence on the input rates, but this could be arbitrarily small. This seems so blindingly obvious I can’t understand why you apparently can’t grasp it.”
Richard
Barry Moore says:
August 6, 2010 at 8:45 am
Ferdinand; The terms residence time and decay rate are constantly being confused, residence time of a single molecule can vary from 1 sec to 10 000 years+ so it really is a meaningless term, whereas decay rate is a term which can be used to accurately determin how much CO2 from a given emission remains in the atmosphere after x period of time. If we are to calculate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere today the decay calculation is the most accurate because it incorporates the sequestration of the carbon.
I have the impression, but could be wrong, that you are confusing the decay rate of “anthro” CO2 in the atmosphere with the decay rate of an excess of CO2 in total mass back to equilibrium…
Indeed what rests of the CO2 from anthropogenic origin since the start of the emissions is around 10%, but that doesn’t change the fact that the 30% increase since the start of the industrial revolution is mostly all caused by the emissions. The decay rate of aCO2 in total CO2 (tCO2) is about 5 years half life time, as that is governed by the exchange rates of about 20% per year between the different compartiments. The decay rate of an excess (pulse or continuous) addition into the atmosphere above equilibrium, as is the case here, depends of the sink rate, which is currently 4 GtC/year, while the excess is about 200 GtC/year. That needs far more time to go back to equilibrium (some 40 years half life time).
Thus we have two different decay rates, where aCO2 is rapidely reduced, but still responsible for near all of the 100 ppmv increase over the past 150 years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At August 6, 2010 at 10:55 am you assert:
“The CO2 increase is man-made because the increase is less than the man-made CO2 emissions”
Say what!? How can you assert “because”?
Your statement is a complete non sequitur.
If the co2 increase were more than the the man-made CO2 emissions then that would not prove the increase was not partly caused by the man-made emissions.
And, FOR THE SAME REASON, the fact that the the co2 increase is less than the the man-made CO2 emissions does not prove the increase is partly or entirely caused by the man-made emissions.
Richard
Ferdinand says:
“Stomata data have far more problems than ice cores, the most important one is that they reflect local/regional CO2 levels which are far more variable and by definition show a positive bias, which is not even constant over time.”
I recall your many strong arguments made here previously, categorically stating that CO2 is very well mixed in the atmosphere. Further, stomata samples are not taken in cities, and they are not taken at the same time. If you’re now going to resort to pointing out local and regional variations in CO2 in order to make your current argument, then your argument is no different than Ernst-Georg Beck’s, which you have also strongly disputed.
I think a significant part of the CO2 increase is due to human emissions, but the cause is not nearly as precise as you portray it. If it were, your comment quoted above would be much more precise and testable.
Finally, referring to differences of opinion by others does not make those others “sharks,” as you call them. This is real climate peer review, unlike the clique-controlled climate journals, and if an assertion cannot withstand scrutiny it must be discarded. No one is 100% right about everything, and unlike climate journal assertions, wrong assumptions are winnowed out in these discussions.
Richard S. Courtney
In response to Paul Birch’s comment, I have spelled out the argument at the level of basic arithmetic here. I invite you to identify which particular step gives rise to the flaw in the mass balance argument.
The only line where Paul and I diverge so far appears, as far as I can see, to be that Paul does not accept that the natural environment being a net sink means that it cannot be the cause of the observed rise. Paul said that was a “complete non-sequitur”. Personally it seems to me a curious argument so suggest that the natural environment can still be the cause of the observed rise, even though the observations show it takes in more CO2 than it emits and has done for at least the last fifty years. If you can explain that one, go ahead.
Friends:
It is time to refute the simplistic idea that a mass balance indicates anything concerning flows in and out of the atmosphere. It does not because the magnitudes of the flows and their variations are not known. And the system is complicated with many of the flows varying and interacting.
In one of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
we considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be as follows.
SHORT TERM PROCESSES
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
LONGER TERM PROCESSES
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
NATURAL PROCESSES THAT ADD CO2 TO THE SYSTEM
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
ANTHROPOGENIC PROCESSES THAT ADD CO2 TO THE SYSTEM
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modelling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations. However, some things can be stated from the empirical data, and the following assessment uses conservative estimates of values that exaggerate any possible anthropogenic effect.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. At Northern latitudes where most anthropogenic emission occurs, the natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months (see Ferdinand’s Figure 3). This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated (1,2,3). There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5 °C in average surface temperature).
And our paper showed that three different natural variations could each be used to model the observed rise in anthropogenic CO2 with a very precise match that required no ‘fiddle factor’ such as the 5-year smoothing of the data that is needed to get mass balance models to match the data.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2010 at 11:26 am
At August 6, 2010 at 10:55 am you assert:
“The CO2 increase is man-made because the increase is less than the man-made CO2 emissions”
Say what!? How can you assert “because”?
Your statement is a complete non sequitur.
If the co2 increase were more than the the man-made CO2 emissions then that would not prove the increase was not partly caused by the man-made emissions.
And, FOR THE SAME REASON, the fact that the the co2 increase is less than the the man-made CO2 emissions does not prove the increase is partly or entirely caused by the man-made emissions.
If the increase was more than the man-made emissions, then the increase is the sum of the man-made emissions and the net difference between natural releases and natural sinks (positive in this case).
If the increase is less than the man-made emissions, then the increase is the sum of the man-made emissions and the net difference between natural releases and natural sinks (negative in this case).
In the latter case there are no net contributions from the natural flows, as these act as a net sink and the entire increase is caused by the man-made emissions.
Dikran Marsupial:
At August 6, 2010 at 11:40 am you say to me:
“Personally it seems to me a curious argument so suggest that the natural environment can still be the cause of the observed rise, even though the observations show it takes in more CO2 than it emits and has done for at least the last fifty years. If you can explain that one, go ahead.”
For a full explanation then read our paper
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Alternatively, read my several posts above. One clear example of me demonstrating that I “can explain that one” is provided in my post at August 6, 2010 at 6:38 am and, as I say there,
“And there are several other possible explanations for variations in the natural emissions and sequestrations that could be the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, too.”
Richard
Richard S. Courtney wrote:
“It is time to refute the simplistic idea that a mass balance indicates anything concerning flows in and out of the atmosphere. It does not because the magnitudes of the flows and their variations are not known.”
If you had followed the discussion of the mass balance argument in the OP, you would know that it is possible to determine the net environmental flux without needing to know the details of the flows between particular reservoirs. This is possible because conservation of mass means that the net environmental flux is equal to the difference between the annual increase and anthropogenic emissions, both of which are known with good certainty.
I set out the argument step by step here. If you want to refute the argument, I have made it as easy for you as I can, just identify the step in which you think the error lies and we can discuss it.
It’s kind of lame that people still feel the need to defend something most people already acknowledged, i.e. that us puny humans stood for a part of the increase. It’s equally lame to bicker about if it’s 5% or 35%, since it’s, after all, already understood that us puny humans are part of the great and somewhat, it seems to seem to some, automagical circulatory system. It’s very interesting though that there’s still people going half mental about our, puny human, doings, as being a b normal something.
Another thing that’s rather interesting is the fact that people say we puny humans do a lot of stuff that adds stuff to the greater composition of climate, yet seem to have a very difficult time proving how much, and exactly what effect in the greater scheme of things it has.
It is, after all, very normal for a human to consume stuff by burning it. 😉
Smokey says:
August 6, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Stomata data have far more problems than ice cores, the most important one is that they reflect local/regional CO2 levels which are far more variable and by definition show a positive bias, which is not even constant over time.”
I recall your many strong arguments made here previously, categorically stating that CO2 is very well mixed in the atmosphere. Further, stomata samples are not taken in cities, and they are not taken at the same time. If you’re now going to resort to pointing out local and regional variations in CO2 in order to make your current argument, then your argument is no different than Ernst-Georg Beck’s, which you have also strongly disputed.
CO2 levels are well mixed, within 2% of the range for 95% of the atmosphere, where the largest swings are from the seasonal variations and the NH-SH lag. In 5% of the atmosphere, that is in the first 500-1000 m over land, near huge sources and sinks, the atmosphere is not well mixed. That is a big problem for many historical measurements and for stomata data. One can find diurnal variations of several hundreds of ppmv over grassland or within forests, while the difference between the South Pole and Barrow measurements is less than 5 ppmv averaged over a year, with only very small changes over a day.
But that is for discussion on another part…
BTW the “sharks” was a inside joke, as that was said by a “peer reviewer” of this first part… But no problem, I have been hardened by discussions on other lists which were quite different than this very civil blog…
Ferdinand:
Oh dear! At August 6, 2010 at 11:48 am you assert:
“If the increase was more than the man-made emissions, then the increase is the sum of the man-made emissions and the net difference between natural releases and natural sinks (positive in this case).
If the increase is less than the man-made emissions, then the increase is the sum of the man-made emissions and the net difference between natural releases and natural sinks (negative in this case).
In the latter case there are no net contributions from the natural flows, as these act as a net sink and the entire increase is caused by the man-made emissions.”
No! That does not follow. It is a circular argument. You cannot possibly know that “there are no net contributions from the natural flows”. You assume there is not because you assume the only increase to the CO2 in the air is from the anthropogenic emission. So, you use your assumption to prove your assumption!
Variations to the natural flows in or out of the atmosphere may dominate the system and, therefore, the anthropogenic emission may be completely irrelevant. The data is not sufficient to indicate whether the natural variations or the anthropogenic emissions dominate.
You assume the natural system is invariate and is being disturbed by the anthropogenic emission. But the natural system is NOT invariate at any time scale (it even varies with the seasons). It consists of many interacting sub-systems that are each seeking to achieve equilibrium that none of them ever attains. The observed rise in atmospheric CO2 may be completely a result of the natural variations that may – or may not – be being significantly affected by the anthropogenic emission.
Richard
Richard S. Courtney: Sorry, life is just too short for this. I have spelled out the algorithm in incremental steps here, and you have not taken up the invitation to identify the specific step where the error is introduced. If you did, we might make some progress, but if you are just going to repeat assertions that I have already dealt with here, then we are just going round in circles (and not by my fault).
I have made it as easy as I can for you to falsify the argument, explicilty identify the faulty step (it must be one actually stated in the post in question) if you can. If you can’t then the mass argument still stands.
Dikran Marsupial:
At August 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm you assertto me:
“If you had followed the discussion of the mass balance argument in the OP, you would know that it is possible to determine the net environmental flux without needing to know the details of the flows between particular reservoirs.”
I have followed it, and if you had read my posts above then you would know why it is completely irrelevant to assert that “it is possible to determine the net environmental flux without needing to know the details of the flows between particular reservoirs”.
At issue is WHY the “net environmental flux” is what it is. And I do not need to address your model because it is based on flawed assumptions (as you would know if you had read my posts above).
Richard
Paul Birch says:
August 6, 2010 at 9:35 am
…it is possible for the instantaneous concentration to be above or below the instantaneous equilibrium value (which is itself varying over time with changes in temperature, compositions of the seas, etc.).
Sorry, but that is impossible: the moment that the instantaneous equilibrium is above the instantaneous concentration, the current sink would change in an instantaneous source… Thus the fact that there is a near permanent (be it variable) sink in the past 50+ years shows that the equilibrium is below the current concentration.
Julian Flood says:
August 6, 2010 at 10:29 am
Ferdinand, my recollection of the export to deep ocean bounds is plus or minus 40 GtC per annum. Perhaps that is why my acceptance of your ‘we know the flows, therefore the bit left over must be anthropogenic’ argument is less than 100%. We do not know the flows.
Julian, we don’t need to know the flows: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the emissions, the emissions are fully responsible for the increase… No need to tackle other parts of the carbon cycle, except for better understanding of what happens in nature.
The 40 GtC/year exchange between atmosphere and deep oceans is quite right and explains the d13C drop as observed and calculated from the emissions.
Richard S. Courtney:
Thank you so very much for taking the time to bring up the natural contribution in the “Carbon Cycle”. I do not understand why people can not see the logic in what you say. Math is not necessary to understand the natural “Carbon Cycle”. One just needs to have an understanding of nature and how insignificant humans really are.
Richard S. Courtney: If the argument were flawed, you would be able to quote the specific line in the post I made setting out the argument step by step (that is why I wrote it out step by step). The fact that you haven’t done so suggests that you can’t. If you could, you would have done so, and I would have conceded the argument (assuming the flaw actually was a flaw).
I have been reading blogs for long enough to know that if a cycle develops in a discussion no further progress is likely. If you want to break the cycle go ahead, quote the line of the post in question containing the flaw. If you don’t fine, but it will be a tacit admission that you can’t.
Sorry Ferdinand, I’ll have to leave you with the sharks ;(
Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2010 at 12:17 pm
No! That does not follow. It is a circular argument. You cannot possibly know that “there are no net contributions from the natural flows”. You assume there is not because you assume the only increase to the CO2 in the air is from the anthropogenic emission. So, you use your assumption to prove your assumption!
As said already, I didn’t assume that the only increase to the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. That follows from the mass balance: If the net effect of all natural flows is a sink of 4 GtC per year, then it is impossible that the sum of all natural flows has contributed anything to the total mass of the atmosphere. A net sink removes CO2 from the atmosphere, doesn’t add anything…
Maybe you confuse the increase in mass with the origin of the molecules left in the atmosphere. Indeed the natural flows are much larger and much of the man-emitted CO2 is captured in the nearby tree or ocean in short time. But that has nothing to do with the origin of the increase in total mass, which still is entirely from the addition of man-made CO2, as long as the increase is less than the emissions.
Variations to the natural flows in or out of the atmosphere may dominate the system and, therefore, the anthropogenic emission may be completely irrelevant. The data is not sufficient to indicate whether the natural variations or the anthropogenic emissions dominate.
The data are very clear: the net effect of all variations in natural flows over the past 50 years were +/- 2 ppmv (4 GtC) year-by-year variation, less than half the current emissions and always negative. Thus the emissions dominate the natural variations.
Dikran Marsupial:
At August 6, 2010 at 12:40 pm you assert to me:
“quote the line of the post in question containing the flaw. If you don’t fine, but it will be a tacit admission that you can’t.”
No! My refusal to discuss the details of your erroneous model is not a “tacit admission” of anything.
I have repeatedly explained that your model is based on the flawed assumption that the natural carbon cycle is invariate, and I have demonstratwed that the natural carbon cycle varies at all time scales.
I refuse to waste time examining your model to find flaws in it when the model is clearly wrong because it models an assumption that is demonstrably not true.
Simply, a wrong model is wrong so why discuss the details of it?
(That would be like discussing the details of the dorsal fin on a model of a boat when the model resembles a fish.)
Richard
Ferdinand,
My apologies for misunderstanding the “sharks” comment.
However, your CO2 mixing comment can’t end the argument with your line: “But that is for discussion on another part…”
Actually, I can not see any substantive difference between your location explanation and Beck’s compilation of over 90,000 CO2 measurements — the large majority of which were taken not in industrial cities, but during ocean voyages on the windward side of ships sailing across the South Pacific, the Antarctic, the Atlantic, the Arctic, the Beaufort sea, and similar unpopulated locations, and along very sparsely populated, isolated coastlines like the Ayershire, and atop mountains.
The best argument against Beck’s compilation was in the method, not in the locations. But you only make the location argument. Thus, you and Dr Beck are making the same kind of argument.
Dikran Marsupial says:
August 6, 2010 at 9:56 am
Paul Birch wrote: “It is not “my” counterfactual. It is the claim made in the OP – that CO2 levels are higher than they would have been in the absence of anthropogenic emissions. That’s what “the CO2 increase is man made” has to mean”
“(i) whether it is your counterfactual or not, it is still not falsifiable, and still non-scientific.”
Then address your complaint to the OP. In any case, you are mistaken in asserting that counterfactuals are unscientific. If you understand all the relevant physics, and know all the relevant parameters to sufficient accuracy, then you can make valid counterfactual statements. A counterfactual is a statement of causation; when one says A causes B, that means that not-A implies not-B. However, in this case, we do not understand all the relevant physics and we do not know all the relevant parameters to any accuracy at all. We cannot make a statement of causation because there are too many unknowns; the mass-balance equation is underspecified.
“(ii) “the CO2 increase is man made” does not have to mean that the rise would not have ocurred if not for anthropogenic emissions, it only means that the particular rise that we have actually observed is man made. That is not the same thing at all.”
This is weaseling of high order. The clear implication of any such statement is that if its weren’t for man it wouldn’t have happened. This is the only interpretation that has any significance for climatology in general or the AGW issue in particular.
If you really mean to say only that much of the actual CO2 currently in the atmosphere was put there by human activities then you may be right (though the mass-balance equation still doesn’t prove it, since it would be possible for all of the human-added molecules to have been removed by plants or solution into the sea and replaced by other molecules from those reservoirs). Even then, there is evidence that most CO2 is actually taken out of the atmosphere locally (by plants, rain, etc,), so only quite a small fraction may actually have been put there directly by man.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
No. Just… no. This reminds me of the comic with the scientist in front of a giant blackboard filled with equations. He points to one part and says “At this point, magic happens”.
Magic is not happening. Understanding the background cycle is absolutely essential, it is not unimportant. The system is not anything even remotely resembling static, it is in constant flux and oscillates around various values, NONE of which we know for certain or have much control over.
I’m sorry, but one of the problems here is that YOU are not paying attention, even though I am aware that this is a “guest post”.
Richard S Courtney has explained what is wrong with the logic you are using, I fervently hope you will take this opportunity to learn.