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.
Paul Hanlon says:
August 7, 2010 at 5:30 am
I also mentioned forestry.
As far as I know, the destruction of forests still is far larger than reforestration…
As for the volcanoes, I can only assume you are referring to Gerlath et al, a paper written in 1992. We hear that when Eyjafjallajokull was active, it was pumping 200-300,000tons of CO2 into the atmosphere daily, a rate of 50megatons per year. Kind of puts the 80-200megatons indicated in that paper into perspective, i.e. most likely wrong.
I would have thought we would have quantified this a lot better, before making the assertion that it is all man’s fault, as these sources have a direct effect on the Mass Balance Equation.
The volcano emissions don’t play much role, as long as there is not an enormous increase in activity. Even the CO2 increase from the Pinatubo eruption, which was a category or two more violent than the Eyjafjallajokull, wasn’t measurable in one of the stations, to the contrary: the temperature drop and increased photosynthesis reduced CO2 levels. The latter seems contradictory, but a lot of leaves in the shadow of other leaves for direct sunlight profit from the scattering of incoming light by the small particles brought into the stratosphere…
The main reason for not including all these contributions is that these are highly uncertain and small compared to the human emissions…
Dikran Marsupial,
There are more than 3 million active undersea volcanoes. We know little about their effects or emissions.
You asked for a reference. I have more if you’re interested.
It appears that there are many more active undersea volcanoes than land-based volcanoes, based on equivalent areas. We don’t know the reason for this, all we have are observations.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 6, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Paul Birch says: “Lo and behold, you notice that over the years, the level of water in the drain seems to have been increasing. Even so, year on year, the drain is a net sink – more effluent goes down it to the lake than remains in the drain. Did your factory cause the rise? No. It just so happens that a succession of wet years has been gradually raising the level of the lake. The cause is wholly natural.”
Ferdinand says: “If the increase in the drain is less than what can be calculated from the increased production outflow, then there can’t be a natural increase in the lake. If there was a natural increase in the lake, the increase in the drain would be larger than calculated from the increased production.”
What!!!!! Are you nuts? I’ve told you where the increase in the lake came from – a succession of wet years. Natural rainfall. The outflow from the factory is negligible in relation to the size of the lake reservoir. Are you really trying to claim (“there can’t be a natural increase in the lake”) that once you build a factory on the shores of a lake, it can no longer rise and fall due to changes in the weather!!!? Get real!
Paul Birch says:
August 7, 2010 at 5:54 am
What!!!!! Are you nuts? I’ve told you where the increase in the lake came from – a succession of wet years. Natural rainfall. The outflow from the factory is negligible in relation to the size of the lake reservoir. Are you really trying to claim (“there can’t be a natural increase in the lake”) that once you build a factory on the shores of a lake, it can no longer rise and fall due to changes in the weather!!!? Get real!
You are misinterpreting my words…
– If there is an increase in the lake and an increase in outflow of the factory, then the increase in the drain would be larger than calculated from the increase in outflow of the factory.
– If the you measure an increase in the drain that is larger than calculated from the outflow, then you can be sure that the level in the lake has increased and the increase in the drain is directly related to the increase in outflow + the increase of the lake.
– If the you measure an increase in the drain that is less than calculated from the outflow, then you can be sure that the level in the lake has decreased, and the increase in the drain is solely caused by the increase in outflow of the factory.
In other words, the interpretation of the level in the drain depends of the difference between what is expected from the outflow of the factory and what is observed, even without any knowledge of the level in the lake.
That is a good analogy with the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: as the increase is less than expected (less than the emissions), the cause of the increase is solely the emissions and the other reservoirs have absorbed the difference.
Smokey
“There are more than 3 million active undersea volcanoes. We know little about their effects or emissions. ”
There is nothing in the link you gave that suggests how many of those are active (Oceanic plate is constantly being created at the mid-ocean ridges and then moves outwards, so it seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that over time they move away from the magma that originally caused them and become extinct. This is not the case for land-based volcanos as they normally form where the oceanic plates subduct beneath the continental crust, so the magama generating process is likely to be more stable).
However, that is irrellevant to the mass balance argument as the mass balance argument only tells you the difference between total environmental emissions and total environmental uptake. Volcanic emissions, whether on land or oceanic as part of total emissions, and so are included in the argument regardless of what they are actually doing.
“You asked for a reference. I have more if you’re interested.”
thanks for the link, I’ll give it a read, but as I said, it has no bearing on the validity of the mass balance argument as the mass balance argument infers the net environmental flux from the difference between the annual rise and anthropogenic emissions, it doesn’t infer it from knowledge of fluxes from individual sources or sinks.
“It appears that there are many more active undersea volcanoes than land-based volcanoes, based on equivalent areas. We don’t know the reason for this, all we have are observations.”
Yes, however the observations show that total environmental emissions have been consistently less than environmental uptake, at least for the last fift years. Whether we know the reason for that or not, we do have those observations.
Paul Birch [said] “What!!!!! Are you nuts? I’ve told you where the increase in the lake came from – a succession of wet years. Natural rainfall.”
If that were the case, the mass balance argument would confirm it as the rise in the lake would be greater than the amount of effluent.
“The outflow from the factory is negligible in relation to the size of the lake reservoir.”
However, if your analogy with the carbon cycle is realistic, the outflow from the factory is not negligible compared with the rise in the level of the lake (in fact the volume is about twice as large). The mass balance argument gives
[net effect of everything other than factory outflow] = [change in volume of lake] – [factory outflow]
so the uncertainty in estimating [net effect of everything other than factory outflow] depend on the uncertainty in measuring the [change of volume of lake] and [factory outflow]. It doesn’t matter if factory outflow is very small compared to other sources as the mass balance argument does not rely on assumptions about those sources, it only relies on two items that can be measured with good certainty, namely anthropogenic emissions and the annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
Smokey says:
August 7, 2010 at 5:54 am
The British Geological Survey produced a report on both terrestrial and sub-sea volcanic activity here:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
Figure 2 page 5 gives a summary diagram of the various volcanic sources of CO2.
One interesting suggestion is that even though sub-sea volcanoes emit CO2, the hydrothermal weathering of the lavas that they also extrude absorbs a similar amount of CO2. Hence their net contribution has “little effect on atmospheric CO2 budget at the present day.”
Volcanoes are NOT a significant source of atmospheric CO2, their contribution is less than 1% that of human emissions.
I have to wonder what Ferdinand & Co think they mean by saying “the CO2 increase is man made”. When they can seriously attribute a rise in lake levels to a boy’s peeing in it, arguing with them is like … er… peeing into the ocean!
What any normal scientist or English speaker would understand by the claim is
1) CO2 levels would not have increased if man had not emitted this CO2.
It doesn’t necessarily imply they would have stayed the same – they could have fallen – but if they would have risen at all then we could only say “part of the CO2 increase is man-made”.
Ferdinand & Co, with their insistence that what would have happened to other components of the mass balance is irrelevant, do not seem to give their claim this standard meaning.
Another possible interpretation is:
2) Most of the extra CO2 molecules in the air are the ones put there by man.
But they don’t seem to mean this either – correctly pointing out that since there has been interchange with other reservoirs this isn’t actually true, and arguing that the precise origin of particular molecule doesn’t matter, only the net bulk quantities.
We seem to be left with the residual “meaning”:
3) CO2 levels have risen by no more than the amount of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere.
Yet they flatly deny that this is all they mean. And indeed, if that were all they meant, the original claim would have been pretty pointless; why not just say (3) straight out?
So I’m left with a claim completely empty of meaning. I have no idea what they think they mean. (This isn’t quite true; I suspect they did mean (1) at the beginning, but because their argument has been soundly debunked, are now resorting to endless sophistries to avoid admitting it, even to themselves) . So I challenge them to state, clearly and categorically, what the statement means to them.
Lets try a more straightforward analogy. Consider a bath with a cold tap (representing anthropogenic carbon emissions), a hot tap (representing natural carbon emissions) and a drain (representing natural carbon uptake). The volume of water in the bath represents total atmospheric carbon. Conservation of mass means that:
[change in volume] = [input from cold tap] + [input from hot tap] – [output from drain]
I’m sure we can all agree on that (as it is a statement of the bleedin obvious! ;o)
Say we measure the level of water in the bath, if we also know the dimensions of the bath, we can easily work out the change in volume (atmospheric CO2). Say we also measure the input from the cold tap (anthropogenic CO2) then we can work out that
[input from hot tap] – [output from drain] = [change in volume] – [input from cold tap]
So we don’t know how much water is flowing in from the hot tap, or flowing out through the drain, but we do know if the change in volume is less than the input from the cold tap then the input from the hot tap must also be less than the output from the drain. Yes, the mass balance argument is that simple. Does it make any assumptions about the input from the hot tap of the amount going through the drain? No. Does it make any assumptions about equilibrium states? No. Does it make any assumptions about why the amount coming in from the hot tap or out through the drain changes? No.
Now you could argue that the carbon cycle is more complex and has many natural sources and sinks. Fine, add as many hot taps and drains of differing capacity as you like. The equation then becomes:
[input from hot tap 1] + [input from hot tap 2] + … + [input from hot tap n] – [output from drain 1] – [output from drain 2] – … – [output from drain m] = [net effect of hot taps and drains] = [change in volume] – [input from cold tap]
The mass balance argument still works, whatever is flowing in through the hot taps and out through the drains, we can still work out the net difference between the two if we know the change of volume and the input from the cold tap (and assume conservation of mass).
I’ve been following the debate here with interest, partly because I find it hard to interpret the available empirical data in any way other than that the modern rise in CO2 levels is anything other than the result of anthropogenic inputs. I’m absolutely certain that the logic of Ferdinand’s and Dikran’s argument is correct.
In essence we have a single reservoir (atmosphere) with a large number of inputs and outputs. We know one of these inputs with a degree of precision (anthropogenic) and the size of the reservoir. If the reservoir grows at a rate less than that predicted by the known anthropogenic input then the sum of the unknown natural inputs and outputs must be negative i.e. outputs are greater than the inputs. ergo the rise in CO2 level is due to the anthropogenic contribution.
However, this is not the only evidence that the rise in CO2 levels is due to the burning of fossil fuels. There is also the isotope composition of atmospheric CO2 and the relationship between oxygen and CO2 in the atmosphere that is controlled by the stoicihiometry of fossil fuel combustion, photosynthesis and dissolution in the ocean.
The anthropogenic inventory fits well with all these observations. At some point we should apply Occam’s razor and concede that the rise in CO2 is the result of anthropogenic activity.
Ferdinand Engelbeens analysis is unrealistic and faulty because the mass balance misses some important sources: geologic degassing submarine and on continents which have not been listed in Fig 1 and are known to about 5%. The real whole flows of CO2 you can see here: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ in the middle of the page.
We have about 750 +- 5 GT C in the air, that means calculation with amounts of 4 GT is within error range.
Furthermore enriching of the tiny fraction of anthropogenic CO2 compared to natural contradicts to the laws of balance (Le Chatelier). This tiny amount of human CO2 is completely absorbed by plants and especially the oceans (71% of the earth´s surface).
Oceans are the largest sinks and sources of CO2 and they are by far not satured. Dont´t be fooled by 13C data. They confused the issue with phytoplankton which have about the same 13C values.
The cause of actual CO2 rising is clearly the sea controlled by temperature.
Warm oceans since 1950 have released more CO2.
Please look at this very good correlation of SST (Sea surface temperatures) and background CO2. (correlation r= 0,719, time lag of CO2 1 year behind SST since 1870):
The graph is here:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2-MBL-SST.pdf
When the oceans will cool next years the air temperature will drop and the CO2 too.
Paul Birch: It is perfectly simple. The mass balance argument shows that the net environmental flux is negative, i.e. the natural environment is a net sink, it has taken more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it has emitted over the last fifty years. This means it has OPPOSED the rise, not caused it. It is irrelevant what the environment MIGHT have done if not for anthropogenic emissions, we know that what it HAS DONE in reaction to anthropogenic emissions is OPPOSE THE RISE.
As the natural environment has taken more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it has put in, then it is perverse to argue that the rise in CO2 is natural.
Man on the other hand has added more CO2 to the atmosphere than we have taken out. We are therefore certainly A cause of the rise.
As the natural environment has OPPOSED the rise, it cannot be a cause of the rise. As there is nothing other than us and the natural environment, and the natural environment is not a cause, then we must be the ONLY cause.
Sorry about the SHOUTING, but patient explanation doesn’t seem to be working with some.
Paul Birch whote:
“We seem to be left with the residual “meaning”:
3) CO2 levels have risen by no more than the amount of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere.
Yet they flatly deny that this is all they mean. And indeed, if that were all they meant, the original claim would have been pretty pointless; why not just say (3) straight out?”
You are missing the point (for which there no real excuse as it has been stated repeatedly and explicitly) the CONSEQUENCE of the rise being LESS than anthropogenic emissions is that the natural envionment MUST be a net sink and hence OPPOSING rather that CAUSING the observed rise. If it isn’t the natural environment, the only remaining cause is US.
If you ignore part of the argument is it unsurprising you don’t understand it.
CodeTech:
Thankyou for your kind comments at August 7, 2010 at 2:31 am.
Please be assured that I have not “ignored” your posts that I have read with interest. But I saw no reason for me to comment on them.
And if my input to this discussion has included anything that has interested you, then I am gratified.
Your post concludes by asking:
“In fact, I’d like to see a guest post by Mr. Courtney explaining why CO2 increase is NOT man made. Any chance of that?”
Sorry, but I will not do that although I would be willing to provide a post that explains why it cannot be known if the CO2 increase is (or is not) man-made in part or in whole. This is because, as I said to Ferdinand in my first post above (at August 5, 2010 at 5:20 pm):
“I do not know if the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole, but I want to know. And I regret that your assumptions and assertions add nothing to available knowledge concerning what I want to know.”
And nothing in this discussion has changed my view from that one jot. Indeed, the excuses for Ferdinand’s logical errors keep growing in number as this discussion continues, so I see little point I my continuing to participate in this discussion of his article.
Richard
Paul Birch says:
August 7, 2010 at 6:54 am
I have to wonder what Ferdinand & Co think they mean by saying “the CO2 increase is man made”.
What any normal scientist or English speaker would understand by the claim is
Depends what you mean by a “scientist”, and English is not my native language (it’s Flemish/Dutch), but I can speak and write it, together with speaking and understanding French, German, and some Spanish and Norwegian…
1) CO2 levels would not have increased if man had not emitted this CO2.
It doesn’t necessarily imply they would have stayed the same – they could have fallen – but if they would have risen at all then we could only say “part of the CO2 increase is man-made”.
Agreed on the first part, disagreed on the second part:
CO2 levels would not have increased if man had not emitted this CO2. That is at least true for the past 50+ years and highly probable for the past 100+ years. Besides a small contribution (about 8 ppmv) from the temperature rise since the LIA, all of the increase is man-made.
Another possible interpretation is:
2) Most of the extra CO2 molecules in the air are the ones put there by man.
No, the increase is caused by the addition in CO2 mass from human emissions, but the origin of the molecules in the atmosphere after a year of exchanges is already different, that is irrelevant for the total amount of CO2.
We seem to be left with the residual “meaning”:
3) CO2 levels have risen by no more than the amount of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere.
No. That is flatly contradicted by the mass balance: CO2 levels have risen less than the amount of CO2 man has added to the atmosphere. And that is what makes that our interpretation of 1) is true.
but because their argument has been soundly debunked
I don’t have that impression…
“In this case, the pH doesn’t change while the total amount of carbon still increases, which means that the pH effect of more CO2 is compensated by something else.”
No: The free CO2 ions in the ocean are in euqili brium with CO2 in bicarbonateas well as all other CO2-substances in the ocean . anything else would agains the laws of nature.
Therefore, the constant pCO2 level (meanoing constant concentration of free CO2 ions!) does NOT point to a rising CO2 content in oceans anymore, something happened a decade ago:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/co2%20concentretions%20in%20oceans/b4.jpg
Its true that COw2 in the atmosphere is still rising, but for how long when the oceanic CO2 concentration has stooped rising?
Richard S Courney and Ernst Beck: Thanks for your great effort.
Ernst: I have used some of your superbe and important findings here:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-carbon-dioxide-concentration-history-of-71.php
I try to focus on the very best pieces of evidence available, and if you have some new pieces of evidence i would very much like to add these.
K.R. Frank
wops, the first quote above was a quote of Ferdinants, my comment was to Ferdinand.
Dikran Marsupial:
I have given up serious contribution to this discussion because you and Ferdinand persist in your logical errors regardless of how many times or in how many ways they are explained to you. So, in this circumstance, it is a waste of time continuing to discuss with you.
But I write to refute a misrepresentation of my words that you provide in your post at August 7, 2010 at 2:40 am where you assert:
“The mass balance argument does not assume that a change in input will automatically be reflected in a change in the output. The only assumption it makes (regardless of what Richard S. Courtney and others keep asserting) is that any carbon entering the box representing the atmopshere that doesn’t leave the box, stays in the box. In other words, there is conservation of matter.”
No!
I do NOT dispute that “any carbon entering the box representing the atmosphere that doesn’t leave the box, stays in the box”! And you cannot cite or quote any occasion when I have disputed it because I never have.
I dispute your assertion that the only input to the “box” that affects the mass
balance is the anthropogenic emission because – you assume – the carbon cycle is invariate. But I keep pointing out that THE NATURAL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS TO THE “BOX” VARY BY UNKNOWN AMOUNTS, so the mass balance argument is complete bunkum.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:16 am
Jim G says:
August 5, 2010 at 9:22 am
“Models vs measurement again. This is a large planet and lord knows what CO2 might be spewing out in the 67% that is covered by water and I did not see any measurement devices in the plumes when Pinatubo or Mt St Helens went off.
No model at all in this case: fossil fuel sales inventory vs. measured CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Simple straight-forward calculation. And the Pinatubo emitted some more CO2, but also cooled the oceans by reflecting sunlight away, which caused more CO2 absorption and thus less CO2 increase than in warmer years…”
Call it a guesstimate then, a poor model, since no one has measured all of the possible (unknown) sources of CO2 and their levels of production given all of the exogenous intercorrelated variables involved in CO2 production, and addition to, and removal from the atmosphere. And again, there is still the leap to causality that is involved in most of the climate “science” I see. Too many variables, too many unknowns for so many people to be certain regarding man as the source of CO2 increase.
Ferdinand:
I write to provide a clarfication.
At August 7, 2010 at 4:41 am you assert:
“The fast equilibrium is only for the upper ocean layer, which follows the atmospherice increase with about 10% increase in mass for a 100% increase in the atmosphere. The 40 years equilibrium I suppose is for thermal (dis)equilibrium, not for CO2.”
Sorry, but that is incorrect.
Although it is true for a global temperature fluctuation lasting only a few years , it is not true for a long-term global temperature change that happens over decades.
A short term temperature fluctuation (e.g. seasonal or ENSO) only induces CO2 exchange between ocean surface layer and the air. So, the limiting exchange rate is that between air and ocean surface. And (as e.g. your Figure 2 shows) that rate is so fast that it responds to a equilibrium change (induced by a temperature change) almost instantly (i.e. within weeks).
But a long-term temperature rise depletes the CO2 in the ocean surface layer. So, in this case, the limiting exchange rate is between the ocean surface layer and deep ocean. And this exchange rate is very slow so establishing the equilibrium for a long-term temperature rise takes decades.
This is merely one example of why your mass balance is wrong. It assumes the amount of CO2 exchanged seasonally between air and ocean surface is a constant, but it is not: the amount varies over decades as CO2 is transferred between the ocean surface layer and deep ocean in response to changing global temperature affecting the equilibrium state of the entire system.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen is not making the assumption that the natural fluxes are invariant. He is merely pointing out that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is less than the anthropogenic flux to the atmosphere. The only solution under these conditions is that the rise is caused by the antropogenic flux. It so happens that about 50% of this flux is partitioned into the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere, with 50% remaining in the atmosphere.
Ernst Beck says:
August 7, 2010 at 7:29 am
Ferdinand Engelbeens analysis is unrealistic and faulty because the mass balance misses some important sources: geologic degassing submarine and on continents which have not been listed in Fig 1 and are known to about 5%. The real whole flows of CO2 you can see here: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ in the middle of the page.
I didn’t use the mass balance of figure 1, as the flux estimates are far from perfect and irrelevant for the mass balance, as long as the emissions are larger than the observed increase in the atmosphere.
We have about 750 +- 5 GT C in the air, that means calculation with amounts of 4 GT is within error range.
Maybe a problem for one year, but the increase is already over 200 GtC, far beyond any error range.
Oceans are the largest sinks and sources of CO2 and they are by far not saturated.
The upper ocean layer is certainly saturated and only by increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, or cooler oceans, one can push more CO2 into the oceans (and reverse for warmer oceans or less CO2 in the atmosphere).
The cause of actual CO2 rising is clearly the sea controlled by temperature.
Warm oceans since 1950 have released more CO2.
Please look at this very good correlation of SST (Sea surface temperatures) and background CO2. (correlation r= 0,719, time lag of CO2 1 year behind SST since 1870)
If there was only a one year lag between temperature and CO2 levels, how is it possible that there is a near continuous increase of CO2 in the past decade, while temperatures were near flat? And we differ in opinion about what is “background” CO2 in this case.
When the oceans will cool next years the air temperature will drop and the CO2 too.
If the emissions go on as usual, I wouldn’t hold my breath in waiting for that drop in CO2…
Ferdinand:
I object to you posting personal lies as a bolster to your assertions!
At August 7, 2010 at 5:30 am you say:
“I am waiting several years now for such an alternative explanation by Richard’s companions which doesn’t violate one or more of the observations…”
That is a demonstrable lie! You have had several such examples from me. Indeed, I provided one in my post to this thread at August 6, 2010 at 6:38 am.
Your errors are forgiveable. But your posting a demonstrable lie is not.
Richard
Frank Lansner says:
August 7, 2010 at 8:01 am
Ferdinand:
“In this case, the pH doesn’t change while the total amount of carbon still increases, which means that the pH effect of more CO2 is compensated by something else.”
No: The free CO2 ions in the ocean are in euqili brium with CO2 in bicarbonateas well as all other CO2-substances in the ocean . anything else would agains the laws of nature.
Therefore, the constant pCO2 level (meanoing constant concentration of free CO2 ions!) does NOT point to a rising CO2 content in oceans anymore, something happened a decade ago
The free CO2 indeed is in equilibrium with carbonate and bicarbonate ions, but the equilibrium shifts if one of the components (like pH) changes. In this case pH and pCO2 are near constant in the past decade, while the total concentration of carbon (nDIC) still increased. Thus indeed, something happened 10 years ago, as the ratio free CO2 – bicarbonate – carbonate changed.
Dikran Marsupial says:
August 7, 2010 at 7:53 am
“You are missing the point (for which there no real excuse as it has been stated repeatedly and explicitly) the CONSEQUENCE of the rise being LESS than anthropogenic emissions is that the natural envionment MUST be a net sink and hence OPPOSING rather that CAUSING the observed rise. If it isn’t the natural environment, the only remaining cause is US.”
And you are missing the point (for which there is no real excuse as it has been stated repeatedly and explicitly) that the clause after “hence” does not follow from the antecedant clause. The “natural environment” is not a single entity doing only one thing at a time. The rise is happening in one part of the environment (the atmosphere); other parts of the environment are removing CO2 from the atmosphere; still others are adding to it. The cause of the rise could be in any or some or all of those parts (of which the anthropogenic part is just one). Look at it yet another way. Humans are part of nature; it would be just as valid (and just as invalid) to lump the anthropogenic emissions in with the “natural environment”, and using the same logic ascribe the rise to tectonic activity, or bacterial decay, or anything else that, singly or in combination, has a sufficient magnitude.
Please answer my question, which I think may be crucial to this whole misunderstanding: what do you mean by “the CO2 is man made”? Give a clear definition or restatement of that phrase in other words.