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.
Matt G says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:50 am
So a short summary of how human CO2 has been claimed to cause all the rise.
* The average increase of 2 ppmv of CO2 over period measured by instruments.
* This calculates to a 4 GtC on a yearly basis.
* With 8 GtC emissions from humans thats means 4 GtC are missing.
* The oceans absorbed the missing 4 Gtc because we can’t find them.
* Bingo and conclusion, all the rise in emissions in the atmosphere are from humans.
Right.
No consideration of any natural changes in gasous exchange of CO2 over the period whats so ever because these are persumed to stay the same.
Wrong: the net natural changes over the same period are reasonably known, see the green part of Fig. 3 in the introduction. In all years negative, with a variability of about +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) around the trend.
Is this just me (obviously not) or this idea scientifically flawed and not how science should be examined and anaylised?
It is not an “idea”, it is a simple calculation of the mass balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As long as nature acts as an active sink for a part of the human emissions, the human emissions are the only source of the increase…
Paul Birch says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:20 am
Paul Dennis says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:38 am
“Paul Birch, I’m trying really hard to understand the difficulty others are having with the mass balance argument posited by Ferdinand Engelbeen here. Leaving that aside for the while there are other empirical data to which we have recourse. ”
Unfortunately, such empirical data are worthless while the debate continues to be framed on the basis of a fundamental logical error. Through that prejudicial error, the whole analysis has a built-in dogma that assumes the very conclusion to be tested.
Paul, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Any interpretation of the empirical data has to satisfy the observations. As I understand it the mass balance model as presented by Ferdinand and Dikram is correct, without any logical inconsistencies. Moreover, it is also consistent with the other observations I outlined.
We may argue about the magnitude of the different fluxes to and from the ocean, the biosphere etc. however the observational data shows the combined sink flux to be somewhat greater than the combined natural inputs. Surely this is the key observation.
Everyone please excuse the boldened text….it was inadvertent.
Matt G says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:50 am
So a short summary of how human CO2 has been claimed to cause all the rise.
* The average increase of 2 ppmv of CO2 over period measured by instruments.
* This calculates to a 4 GtC on a yearly basis.
* With 8 GtC emissions from humans thats means 4 GtC are missing.
* The oceans absorbed the missing 4 Gtc because we can’t find them.
* Bingo and conclusion, all the rise in emissions in the atmosphere are from humans.
No consideration of any natural changes in gasous exchange of CO2 over the period whats so ever because these are persumed to stay the same.
Is this just me (obviously not) or this idea scientifically flawed and not how science should be examined and anaylised?
The mass balance doesn’t presume the natural excahnges to be invariant. It demonstrates that the size of the natural sink is greater than the size of the natural inputs.
Moreover, if you look at the data for oxyegn content of the atmosphere as a function of the CO2 level you can determine that the 4Gt is not ‘missing’ but is adsorbed by the ocean (2Gt) and taken up by photosynthesis (2Gt).
I repeat that any model has to account for a variety of empirical data.
Sorry Ferdinand,
You asked for a simple answer why in my opinion your simple statement on the balance is invalid. I produced it, even when you want to forget about parameterisation. But you did not respond to my simple calculation. The parameterization is useful because it takes in account not one year, but a whole range of years of observations between 1959-2000. Therewith it holds for any combination of inflows and outflows and changes thereof (your quote)
You say: “In fact there is only one unknown variable, as your own list of possibilities shows: the difference between the two unknowns is known, thus the knowledge of the input (or change in input) automatically fixes the output or reverse (for each year in the past 50 years).
Further, the absolute height of the input (or the output) doesn’t influence the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the difference between the two which is important, as any change in the sum of the inputs must be compensated by an equal change in the sum of the outputs to obey the mass balance for a given year”.
I am of the opinion that you are talking nonsense here. (Excusé le mot). And especially a sentence in a later post: “As long as nature acts as an active sink for a part of the human emissions, the human emissions are the only source of the increase “Am I dumb, or you?
Have not I shown a material balance that satisfied the law of conservation of mass? Please give a straight forward answer.
By the way, I think there are in your balance three variables we do not know sufficiently accurate. The Fout we can approach with a theoretical consideration of the absorption equations. (Several people have done that before, e.g. Albeck in Finland, a process engineer) Which we have to parameterize to fit with de MLO data. We know very little about the Sin (from the ocean) . Most of it is a guess, but Ernst Beck will come up with some new data from ship expeditions. But I also dare to doubt the value for the human emission Fem. It is ‘calculated’ in Oak Ridge but it relies strongly on information provided by governments. What trust do we have in data provided by China, India, Indonesia?
Arthur Rörsch says:
August 9, 2010 at 10:22 am
Dear Arthur, let’s have a detailed look at the results of your formula:
dFout dFin dFin-dFout
3.50 0.00 -3.5
5.14 1.64 -3.5
6.75 3.25 -3.5
8.36 4.86 -3.5
9.96 6.46 -3.5
11.57 8.07 -3.5
13.18 9.68 -3.5
14.79 11.29 -3.5
16.39 12.89 -3.5
I have no problems with the formula at all. For me (and the mass balance) even:
1003.5 1000 -3.5
fits the equation.
Does that mean that the extra input has increased the total mass of CO2 into the atmosphere with 1,000 GtC extra? Of course not, the net atmospheric increase caused by the extra input flow is zero, as that is fully compensated by the exact same increase in outflow as the difference between the two must remain the same as calculated for a given year. The -3.5 GtC is the only figure that really influences the CO2 levels. It doesn’t matter how much the inputs and outputs were or changed over the years: the difference between the two is known for the past 50 years. And moderately variable but always negative. A negative difference in natural inflows and outflows only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, doesn’t add anything in CO2 mass.
Of course, emission figure from countries like China, India and Indonesia are less trustwhorthy than from Western countries. But in general, the figures may be more underestimated (under the counter sales, spills, flares,…) than overestimated.
Arthur Rörsch writes
“Further, the absolute height of the input (or the output) doesn’t influence the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the difference between the two which is important, as any change in the sum of the inputs must be compensated by an equal change in the sum of the outputs to obey the mass balance for a given year”.
I am of the opinion that you are talking nonsense here. (Excusé le mot).
I suspect you have misunderstood Ferdinand here, all he is saying is the change in atmosheric CO2 is equal to the difference between total emissions and total uptake. Assuming conservation of mass, that is a rather obvious statement, and it is difficult to see how it could be doubted. I gave several examples earlier in the thread demonstrating this to be the case.
Consider a scenario where total emissions were 10 GtC per year and total uptake 9 GtC per year, the annual rise would then be 1GtC. Now consider a second scenario where total emissions are 10,000 GtC per yer and total uptake is 9,999 GtC per year; the annual rise is still 1 GtC per year, even though the flux values are three orders of magnitude greater. This is because the change in atmospheric CO2 depends only on the difference between total fluxes and not on their magnitudes.
Thanks for the replies.
I want to make it clear that by the statement below I didn’t mean none included full stop. Clearly the conservaton of mass diagram in figure one there is SET values.
————————————————————————
No consideration of any natural changes in gasous exchange of CO2 over the period whats so ever because these are persumed to stay the same.
————————————————————————
What I did mean the values used in the diagram for natural emissions and natural sinks are not consider to change over the period, which I disagree with. These are big values and it’s arrogant to claim these don’t change and don’t have enough influence without evidence.
For example El Ninos and La Ninas have a large influence with the seasons on the variability of CO2 (ppm) in the atmosphere. Just like with human emissions if say half is consumed so will the CO2 from these.
The change with the ENSO on such a small surface of the ocean indicates that the 8ppm/1c assumed from earlier periods is incorrect and would be larger. The emissions of most CO2 follow global ocean temperatures very well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/from:1960/normalise
The missing 4GtC is just an assumption where it goes, but I do agree the oceans and photosynthesis will uptake a lot of this if not more. It will also uptake increasing natural sources and likely natural sinks will vary too. Only need natural sinks or uptake to change a little and can give a larger swing then human emissions over a year. While I agree there is human contribution to the atmospheric increase, looking how it responds to ocean temperatures no more than about 4o percent.
Mat G wrote:
“What I did mean the values used in the diagram for natural emissions and natural sinks are not consider to change over the period, which I disagree with. These are big values and it’s arrogant to claim these don’t change and don’t have enough influence without evidence.”
This is incorrect, the mass balance argument doesn’t assume the fluxes are constant (in fact it doesn’t assume anything about them other than that they are positive). The green line in fig 3. is not constant, which establishes that the mass balance argument does not assume natural emissions or natural uptake fluxes are constant.
The data shown in Fig 1 are merely a snapshot of estimated values for the fluxes as one point in time, they are not set in stone (not even coal ;o).
“For example El Ninos and La Ninas have a large influence with the seasons on the variability of CO2 (ppm) in the atmosphere.”
Yes, and if you look at fig.3 you will find that the effects of ENSO on atmospheric CO2 is very evident in the output from the mass balance equation (the green line). Note that even with the ENSO induced variability, the net environmental contribution is always negative.
“The missing 4GtC is just an assumption where it goes”
Unless the carbon changes into some other element, or escapes the planet, the natural environment is the ONLY place left that it can go. Hence it isn’t an assumption – we know it is taken up by the environment.
Matt G says:
August 9, 2010 at 11:47 am
————————————————————————
No consideration of any natural changes in gasous exchange of CO2 over the period whats so ever because these are persumed to stay the same.
————————————————————————
What I did mean the values used in the diagram for natural emissions and natural sinks are not consider to change over the period, which I disagree with. These are big values and it’s arrogant to claim these don’t change and don’t have enough influence without evidence.
We have only rough estimates of the natural flows and their variability, but we have a pretty good idea of the net balance and the variability over the past 50 years. That is about +/- 1 ppmv around the trend. That the variability is that low is partly because the main driver for the variability, temperature has an opposite effect on oceans and vegetation.
For example El Ninos and La Ninas have a large influence with the seasons on the variability of CO2 (ppm) in the atmosphere. Just like with human emissions if say half is consumed so will the CO2 from these.
The change with the ENSO on such a small surface of the ocean indicates that the 8ppm/1c assumed from earlier periods is incorrect and would be larger.
The short term influence of temperature for both ENSO and seasonal changes is about 4 ppmv/C. Largely within the long term influence seen in ice cores of 8 ppmv/C.
The emissions of most CO2 follow global ocean temperatures very well.
No: 1945-1975 cooling, CO2 rising (negative correlation!); 1975-2000 both rising; 2000- flat temperature, CO2 rising faster.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/from:1960/normalise
Be aware, this shows the nice correlation between the variability of temperature and the variability of the increase rate, but that doesn’t give any indication of the cause of the increasing trend itself.
The missing 4GtC is just an assumption where it goes, but I do agree the oceans and photosynthesis will uptake a lot of this if not more. It will also uptake increasing natural sources and likely natural sinks will vary too. Only need natural sinks or uptake to change a little and can give a larger swing then human emissions over a year. While I agree there is human contribution to the atmospheric increase, looking how it responds to ocean temperatures no more than about 4o percent.
Where it goes: some rough indication is here (based on oxygen and d13C records):
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
If temperature was the cause, then we should have had an increase of 8 ppmv for the 1 C warming since the LIA. But we have an increase of 100 ppmv…
Mat G wrote:
“The emissions of most CO2 follow global ocean temperatures very well.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/from:1960/normalise”
the UAH data isn’t ocean data, but more importantly you have taken the derivative of the CO2 data, and doing that removes any linear trend in the data. If temperature changes were responsible for the long term trend in CO2, the correllation would be better BEFORE taking the derivative than after. This error has been made more than once in analysis of CO2 data.
Dear Ferdinand,
I understand from your answer that you accept now that independent increase of dSin and dSout can match any hypothetical mass balance, without violation of the mass conservation law, with the result of an accumulation of 3.5 GtC in the atmosphere and will admit that your statement “As long as nature acts as an active sink for a part of the human emissions, the human emissions are the only source of the increase “ makes no sense.
Let’s not consider your extreme example Sin=1035 Sout = 1000, accumulation in the atmosphere Fa= 3.5 . That may have happened millenniums ago.
The more realistic (but also still hypothetical ) one today (my calculation for the year 2000) is the last row in the table dFout = 16.39 dFin = 12.89 Fa= =-3.5
If you look at that equation, not considering Fem , then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would be falling!. I thought, I explained the base of my calculation in my first post that Fem is taking part in the equation, but probably not clearly enough. (We did in our E&E paper).
The full balance equation reads:
dFin + Fem – dFout = Fa
With figures:
12.89 + 7 – 16.39 =3.5
Thus the contribution of the assumed natural additional source dFin = 12.89 against de Fem= 7, is contributing to the flux into the atmosphere of 3.5.
Personally I do not think that the contribution of a natural source to the raise is that high.(12.89). Considering the assumed natural flows through the system (100 GtC/y) I think we can reckon with a 5 % increase as a result of natural variability over decades, thus 5 GtC/y. Not 12.89.
I hope you understand that I do not deny a contribution of Fem to Fa, but the interesting scientific question is, what would have happened if there was no Fem OR no dFin?
My interest is mainly in further consideration of the possible variability of Fin (from the ocean). I am looking forward how you will consider the new data provided by Ernst Beck (en Massen) in your part 2. They are available on his web site ant I hope you will take serious note. (He has also a manuscript to be submitted, which however is still subject to peer review and consequently confidential).
Arthur Rörsch wrote:
“The full balance equation reads:
dFin + Fem – dFout = Fa
With figures:
12.89 + 7 – 16.39 =3.5
Thus the contribution of the assumed natural additional source dFin = 12.89 against de Fem= 7, is contributing to the flux into the atmosphere of 3.5.”
Surely dFin is more than cancelled by dFout, and so the net contribution of the natural environment is still negative. dFin isn’t contributing to the rise if dFout is taking back even more.
It may help to summarise my understanding of this issue, as there appears still to be some disagreement.
The mass balance equation uses two well-established pieces of information:
1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 (either annually or over a longer time period).
2. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (either annually or over a longer time period).
It is noted that 2. is greater than 1. From that two things inevitably follow:
3. The natural environment AS A WHOLE is acting as a sink for CO2, ie it is not a source of CO2 and cannot AS A WHOLE explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
4. Human emissions of CO2 are more than able to account for the entire increase in atmospheric CO2.
From the above considerations ALONE can it be said that human emissions of CO2 are definitely the “cause” of the increase in atmospheric CO2?
NO.
If that (ie data 1. and 2. above) were ALL that we knew about the Earth’s carbon cycle then all that we could conclude is that human emissions were (more than) able to account for the atmospheric increase. But we could not know if there were other natural sources that might also be able to more than account for the increase. For example, there might be an undiscovered volcanic island in the Pacific spewing forth ten times as much CO2 as humans are producing, or maybe aliens from the planet Zog (having problems with CO2 of their own!) might have constructed a hyperspace pipeline and be dumping their huge excess on us, 100 times as much as humans are producing on Earth, or … well use your own imagination. But, as long as none of these unknown new sources of non-anthropogenic CO2 caused the OVERALL (net) non-human environment to become a SOURCE of CO2 rather than a sink, then the above provisions of the mass balance equation would continue to hold. In other words, if our mythical volcanic island producing ten times more CO2 than humans are producing really existed (along, of course, with planet Zog producing 100 times more), then the world oceans (or whatever) would have to absorb all that CO2, so that the natural environment as a whole still remained as a net sink.
So, lets assume that the Pacific island and the planet Zog exist. What can we say about humans “causing” the increase in atmospheric CO2?
Well, we can still certainly say that human emissions are more than able to explain the rise in atmospheric CO2: nothing has changed in that respect. But now we have the following situation:
Human emissions 1 unit CO2
Volcanic island in the Pacific 10 units CO2
Planet Zog 100 units CO2
Anyone care now to put up their hand and say “humans are causing the the increase in atmospheric CO2”? And remember: nothing has violated the mass balance equation: the natural environment is still a net sink of CO2.
What we are faced with (and what, I suspect, is the cause of all this disagreement) is a problem of semantics: we don’t have words to deal precisely with such situations. It is a situation that I call the ‘firing squad syndrome’. Recognising that no-one wishes to think that he caused the death of a fellow soldier, firing squads are used to kill soldiers in such a way that whilst any member of the firing squad must conclude that his shot was able to account for the death of the soldier, he could not absolutely conclude that he was the cause of the soldiers death.
So, the mass balance equation tells us that human emissions are more than able to account for the entire increase in atmospheric CO2, but it does NOT tell us that they are actually the unique cause of that increase.
In order to come to that conclusion we require the additional knowledge that there ain’t no such island in the Pacific, (that indeed volcanic emissions are trivial compared with human) and that planet Zog and its wayward inhabitants don’t exist either, and that indeed there is NO other known source of CO2 available to get humans off the hook of responsibility for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
But it’s not the mass balance equation alone that tells us that: it requires also knowledge of the wider environment. And that truth is, I believe, the source of much of the confusion evident on this thread.
I think the most relevant measure of causality is, “what would happen to atmospheric CO2 levels if human CO2 emissions were zero?” If an increase of similar magnitude were to occur in the absence of human contribution to the CO2 mass balance, then it would be reasonable to say that human emissions are not the cause of the increase, regardless of what the mass balance might be. A lot of commenters clearly wish to believe this to be the case, but aside from quite a bit of vague hand-waving about how complicated the sources and sinks are, nobody has actually tried to propose a scenario. It is worth thinking about what would be required for this to be true.
For the increase in atmospheric CO2 to persist in the absence of a human contribution, the net mass balance would have to be the same. For this to be the case, elimination of human CO2 release would somehow have to either cause natural CO2 inflows to increase or natural outflows to decrease (or some mixture of increased inflows and decreased outflows) so as to maintain a net mass balance of +4 GtC/y.
It is of course expected that increasing atmospheric CO2 results in increased CO2 outflow. More atmospheric CO2 means more CO2 dissolving in the ocean, more carbon fixation by at least some plants, etc. So in the absence of human inflow, natural CO2 outflows would be somewhat reduced. But for a net mass balance of +4 GtC/y to persist in the absence of a human contribution, the natural outflow would have to decrease by 8 GtC/y to make up for the now-absent human contribution. I cannot imagine any plausible mechanism that would produce such a decrease in natural outflows. Similar problems arise if you try to explain it by increased inflow. Sensitivity of inflows and/or outflows to atmospheric CO2 levels obviously won’t do the trick, because if the atmospheric CO2 rise is essentially unaltered in the absence of a human contribution, as hypothesized, then the natural inflows and outflows would also have to be essentially the same–which contradicts our assumption above of substantially increased natural inflow and/or decreased outflow in the absence of a human contribution.
Anybody have any plausible ideas of how this could occur?
Slioch:
“If that (ie data 1. and 2. above) were ALL that we knew about the Earth’s carbon cycle then all that we could conclude is that human emissions were (more than) able to account for the atmospheric increase. But we could not know if there were other natural sources that might also be able to more than account for the increase. For example, there might be an undiscovered volcanic island in the Pacific spewing forth ten times as much CO2 as humans are producing,”
No, if such an unkown volcanic island existed, then either some other part of the natural environment must have increased uptake that is compensating for the extra emissions, or the observed rise would be greater than anthropogenic emissions (in which case the mass balance argument would correctly identify that man was not the only source). To demonstrate this is true, the conservation of mass gives
dC – E_anthropogenic = E_environment + E_unknown_volcano – U_environment
if we know that (dC – E_anthropogenic) is negative then (E_environment + E_unknown_volcano – U_environment) must also be negative, and so we know that U_environment must be greater than (E_environment + E_volcano). Inw hich case the natural environment must still be a net sink and hence not contributing to the rise.
The mass balance argument confirms man as the source of the rise as long as the observed rise is less than anthropogenic emissions, provided the carbon cycle is a closed system (which is an assumption of conservation of mass – so it is nothing new).
If we worked out the net environmental flux using (E_environment – U_environment) then the existence of an unknown volcano would be relevant as it would mean our estimate of E_environment was wrong. HOWEVER, we don’t work it out that way, conservation of mass means we can work it out as (dC – E_anthropogenic), which is not affected by any error in our estimates of E_environment or U_environment.
” or maybe aliens from the planet Zog (having problems with CO2 of their own!) might have constructed a hyperspace pipeline and be dumping their huge excess on us, 100 times as much as humans are producing on Earth, or … well use your own imagination. ”
Fine, if the carbon cycle is not a closed system, then indeed the mass balance argument is not applicable, however anyone that needs recourse to aliens from the planet Zog dumping their carbon on us through a hyperspace pipeline is rather departing from the norms of scientific argument!
Arthur Rörsch says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Dear Ferdinand,
I understand from your answer that you accept now that independent increase of dSin and dSout can match any hypothetical mass balance, without violation of the mass conservation law, with the result of an accumulation of 3.5 GtC in the atmosphere
I never had a problem to “accept” that, as the natural inflows and outflows and the variability of these can have any value, as long as the law of conservation of mass is obeyed (in this case a net uptake of 3.5 GtC in 2000).
and will admit that your statement “As long as nature acts as an active sink for a part of the human emissions, the human emissions are the only source of the increase “ makes no sense.
No, it still holds. As already said in previous messages, and as Slioch touched, that is a matter of opinion:
– According to you and several others, all natural inputs contribute to the increase in the atmosphere. If one of the inputs increases, then that contributes to the measured increase in the atmosphere, regardless of what the outputs do.
– According to me and several others, one need to see what nature as a whole does, in this case: more sink than source. Thus nature doesn’t contribute to the rise in the atmosphere, whatever the natural inputs and outputs do.
That is where the difference is.
The more realistic (but also still hypothetical ) one today (my calculation for the year 2000) is the last row in the table dFout = 16.39 dFin = 12.89 Fa= =-3.5
If you look at that equation, not considering Fem , then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would be falling!
Quite certainly true that without the human contribution, the levels in the atmosphere would go down to pre-industrial levels. How fast, that may be a matter of debate.
Anyway, currently there is a pressure difference between the atmosphere and the oceans of about 7 microatm (*), which is responsible for the uptake of about 2 GtC/year in the (deep) oceans. Thus if we stopped all emissions today, there would be a drop of 3.5 GtC (oceans + vegetation) in the coming year (extreme natural events excluded).
(*) See Feely e.a. at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
The full balance equation reads:
dFin + Fem – dFout = Fa
With figures:
12.89 + 7 – 16.39 =3.5
Thus the contribution of the assumed natural additional source dFin = 12.89 against de Fem= 7, is contributing to the flux into the atmosphere of 3.5.
Personally I do not think that the contribution of a natural source to the raise is that high.(12.89). Considering the assumed natural flows through the system (100 GtC/y) I think we can reckon with a 5 % increase as a result of natural variability over decades, thus 5 GtC/y. Not 12.89.
Here you see the difference in opinion again:
You consider the change in influx of Fin = 12.89 first as contributing to the total influx (which is right), but then you switch that as being a contribution to the rise in the atmosphere, that is not right, because you forget that the increase in outflux is as large as the increase in influx, thus the net contribution to the increase in the atmosphere is zero… There is indeed a contribution to the increase of influx (and outflux), but no contribution to the increase in the atmosphere. All what happened is that the refresh rate of CO2 in the atmosphere increased (thus the residence time decreased).
I hope you understand that I do not deny a contribution of Fem to Fa, but the interesting scientific question is, what would have happened if there was no Fem OR no dFin?
For the past 50 years, that is easely calculated: If there was no dFin, nothing would have happened, as for any dFin, dFout need exactly the same change to match the observed sink rate of every single year. The variability of (d)Fin and (d)Fout is already included in the sink rate variability.
Without Fem, Fa would be negative in the first year, but as the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and oceans reduces with falling pCO2(atm), the following years will depend of what pCO2(aq) does in combination with the deep ocean exchanges.
My interest is mainly in further consideration of the possible variability of Fin (from the ocean). I am looking forward how you will consider the new data provided by Ernst Beck (en Massen) in your part 2. They are available on his web site ant I hope you will take serious note. (He has also a manuscript to be submitted, which however is still subject to peer review and consequently confidential).
That is coming…
Dikran Marsupial
August 10, 2010 at 1:10 am
With respect, I don’t think you quite understood what I said.
Of course, it is correct that “if such an unknown volcanic island existed, then … some other part of the natural environment must have increased uptake that is compensating for the extra emissions”, as you say. Yes indeed: if the unknown volcano were producing 10X human emissions and the planet Zog 100X human emissions and if the natural environment is still a net sink for CO2 then of course there would have to be a massive natural sink somewhere.
Remember my proviso: “If that (ie data 1. and 2. above) were ALL that we knew about the Earth’s carbon cycle …”
I proposed these absurd possibilities about a island volcano and planet Zog to force the logic of the situation. It is a reductio ad absurdum on your mass balance equation: and it shows that it is NOT possible, from the mass balance equation and its two bits of information (human emissions and net increase in atmospheric CO2) ALONE to assert that “humans caused the rise in atmospheric CO2”. All we can say is that human emission are more than able to do so. In order to be confident that human emissions ARE the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, we need more real world information: ie we need to know ( as I am sure we do) that no source such as the mythical volcano or planet Zog exists or indeed any other possible source for the increase. The logic of that position is, I am sure, unassailable.
I firmly believe that that it is that slight logical error in your and Ferdinand’s presentation that is the root cause of much of the above disagreements. I am as much concerned as you and Ferdinand to convince doubters of the human causality for the rise in atmospheric CO2, but in order to do so the logic of the case put forward must be impeccable:
1. The mass balance equation tells us that human emissions are more than able to account for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
2. Our knowledge of the wider environment tells us there is no other possible source of the rise.
3. Therefore human emissions must be the cause of the increase.
Arthur Rörsch wrote:
“The full balance equation reads:
dFin + Fem – dFout = Fa
With figures:
12.89 + 7 – 16.39 =3.5
Thus the contribution of the assumed natural additional source dFin = 12.89 against de Fem= 7, is contributing to the flux into the atmosphere of 3.5.”
Dikran Marsupial says: 9 aug. 2.30
“Surely dFin is more than cancelled by dFout, and so the net contribution of the natural environment is still negative. dFin isn’t contributing to the rise if dFout is taking back even more.”
Some simple calculations. All the fluxes are the same gas
Total IN = 12.89+7 =19.89
Fraction Fem=7/19.89=0.35
OUT and Fa will have the same composition.
Thus the Fa consists for 35 % of the anthropogenic emission = 1.225 GtC/y
Fa consists for 65 % of the other source dFin = 2.275 GtC/y (That is not a negative contribution. It is a substantial one)
Slioch:
Indeed, it appears you are making a very subtle point that indeed I am not picking up, although it is possible that the point you are making is incorrect. If we know that the environment is a net sink, it is opposing the observed rise. I am keen to understand the point you are making, perhaps it would help if you could explain this: In what sense can something (the natural environment) that is observed to be actively opposing the rise (as environmental uptake is observed to be greater than environmental uptake – assuming conservation of mass) be said to be a cause of the rise?
I demonstrated that your redictio ad absurdum regarding the unknown volcanic island is incorrect, there are only two possible scenarios:
(i) The observed rise is greater than anthropogenic emssions – In this case we know that man is not the sole cause of the observed rise because the natural environment is also a net source. However that is not what we observe.
(ii) The observed rise is less than (or equal to) human emissions – in this case conservation of mass requires that environmental uptake exceeds environmental emissions, as otherwise carbon must be leaving the Earth somehow.
So the mass balance argument gives the correct verdict, using ony (1) and (2) and the assumption of conservation of mass, and this is true whether there is an unknown volcano or not.
The reductio ad-absurdum relating to aliens from the planet Zog is already accounted for in the mass balance argument already. The one assumption made by the mass balance argument is conservation of mass, which in turn assumes a closed system. If aliens are messing about with the global carbon cycle, it isn’t a closed system. Now if you can come up with some reason that the carbon cycle is not a closed system that isn’t absurd, then you would have a valid objection.
There is NO argument regarding anything in science based on observations (i.e. everything except pure maths) that is not susceptible to the reductio ad absurdum of influence from unknown external influences such as aliens from the planet Zog or God etc. For that matter, we have Hume, who showed that you can’t perform any causal reasoning based purely on empirical observation; you need to make some assumptions, in this case that it is a closed system (and hence neither God nor aliens from the planet Zog are affecting the carbon cycle).
Slioch says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:36 am
In order to be confident that human emissions ARE the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2, we need more real world information: ie we need to know ( as I am sure we do) that no source such as the mythical volcano or planet Zog exists or indeed any other possible source for the increase. The logic of that position is, I am sure, unassailable.
Here we differ in opinion:
The increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions.
That means that the sum of all inputs and all outputs is negative.
The contribution of the unknown volcano and external planets to the total non-human input is very large (even much larger than the human input).
The contribution of the unknown volcano and external planets to the increase in the atmosphere is zero, because the non-human outputs still are lager than all non-human inputs…
That means that the sum of all inputs and all outputs is negative.
must read:
That means that the sum of all non-human inputs and all non-human outputs is negative.
Siloch writes:
“I am as much concerned as you and Ferdinand to convince doubters of the human causality for the rise in atmospheric CO2, but in order to do so the logic of the case put forward must be impeccable:
1. The mass balance equation tells us that human emissions are more than able to account for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
2. Our knowledge of the wider environment tells us there is no other possible source of the rise.
3. Therefore human emissions must be the cause of the increase.”
In short, the mass balance argument establishes that there is no other plausible source of the rise, provided the carbon cycles is closed system and conservation of mass applies. If there were some other source sufficient to overcome the natural environmental uptake, then under those (very reasonable) assumptions the observed rise would be greater than anthropogenic emissions, and we would know it existed (even if we didn’t know why it existed).
(QUOTE) 2. Our knowledge of the wider environment tells us there is no other possible source of the rise.(END QUOTE)
80,000+ MILES OF MID OCEAN PLATE BOUNDARY BEING DISTURBED BY THE EFFECT OF NEARING A MORE DENSE AREA OF SPACE (LOCAL FLUFF) WHICH IV’E READ HAS THE MASS OF THE SUN AND IS OVER 4 LIGHT YEARS WIDE.
Then there’s the gravitational bias of the massive Milky Way. We have reached the higher energy equatorial disc region of the massive spiral arm.
It’s just history repeating it’s self…. AGAIN.
We ARE in the EXACT SAME location as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN.
We ARE in the EXACT SAME spiral arm as the end-Permian extinction….. AGAIN.
We are crossing the EXACT SAME thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane equator …..AGAIN.
We ARE experiencing the EXACT SAME increase in Volcanic activity as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN.
We ARE experiencing the EXACT SAME increase in Co2 as the end-Permian extinction ….AGAIN.
We ARE experiencing the EXACT SAME increase in OCEAN temperature just before the end-Permian extinction …AGAIN.
http://tinyurl.com/2d5fwrz
http://tinyurl.com/23dfm2n
Co2 RISE IS FROM INCREASED SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC- EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY JUST AS IAN PLIMER HAS STATED IN “HEAVEN AND EARTH” YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MORE EVIDENCE FOR PROOF OF INCREASED SEISMIC,SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC OR EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY THAN THE OCEANS WARMING AND AN INCREASE OF CO2.
Long term Seismic activity trend Monthly number of volcanic earthquakes at Nyamuragira, 1960-92
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0203-02=&volpage=var
JUST AS IT HAS BEEN THE REASON FORTHE RISE BEFORE EVERY>> ““DEEP ICE AGE”“< OUR 5% to 10% range is less than the variation range of natural sorces. SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Global freshwater not showing an upward trend,PROVES it is not greenhouse related.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JC005237.shtml
Just look at the Ice core records there HAS ALWAYS been a catastrophic disaster after Co2 reaches around 400ppm. In the last 12 catastrophic disasters,there has been a correlation of;
A SEISEMIC Co2 rise=THIS TIME,YES.
A spiral arm encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.
A Galactic Equator encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.
A magnetic reversal,= THIS TIME ““IS IMMINANT”“,SO YES.
A deep ice age after,= TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.
An extinction event, = TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.
An encounter with a Photon Band =THIS TIME YES.
A Harmonic convergence = THIS TIME YES.
At the EXACT same position in space where there has two major extinction events, Cambrian and Permian Now join to that fact, this interglacial warm period is due to end circa 2012 and we just happen to be crossing the thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane circa 2012,plus a ““magnetic reversal imminant”” circa 2012 says National Geographic.
The Oceans warming IS the source of the carbon dioxide rise.
The SORCE of the Oceans warming IS the INCREASED OUTPUT from 3 MILLION + VOLCANOES,BLACK SMOKERS,A HUGE INCREASED AREA OF HOT ROCK SURFACE AND GIGANTIC SUPER-HEATED HYDROTHERMAL VENTS OF BOILING WATER,JUST AS IAN PLIMER HAS STATED !!. JUST THE SAME AS IT HAS DONE IN EVERY PAST EPISODE JUST BEFORE ENTRY TO A >> ““DEEP ICE AGE”“<<
Is increasing atmospheric co2 man made or natural? by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/
” The rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range.”
“A decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere is also consistent with other biological sources. And since most of the cycling of CO2 between the ocean, land, and atmosphere is due to biological processes, this alone does not make a decreasing C13/C12 ratio a unique marker of an anthropogenic source.”
Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/Recent_articles.htm
Earth’s magnetic field strength has declined by two-thirds over the past 2,000 years, and the rate of decline is increasing.“28 Sep 09 –
“This is the precursor to everything you have been writing about,” says reader Dan Welch.
According to sensors on NASA’s ACE spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.
High Energy Particles-Cosmic rays-electromagnetic waves,x-rays,radio waves.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart2.html#magnetar
Two appreciable events were recorded in 1979 and 1998, but the latest one Dec,27-2004 outdid them by about a factor of 100. WHAT WILL BE THE NEXT ONE BE, by about a factor of 1000??
Science writer Robert W. Felix. “The evidence points to the Gothenburg magnetic reversal. Geomagnetic reversals cause extinctions,
Extinctions and reversals go hand-in-hand
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/Raphael/ModernCaveDwelling.htm
By Bruce L. Raphael in Beijing, China May 24, 2007
Not forgetting
The last 12 magnetic reversals have correlated with the start of Deep Ice Ages
Bad news – we are way past our 'extinct by' date!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/mar/13/research.science
It’s worse than we thought!!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:21 am
“That is the fundamental difference in our opinions:
The temperature would have increased the CO2 level in absence of human emissions. But it didn’t, because there were human emissions which were much larger than the observed increase (except for the period 1850-1900). “!
This is ridiculous. You have previously accepted (as your “definitive answer”) that “the increase in CO2 is man made” means “the increase would not have occurred if man had not emitted this CO2”. You can’t have it both ways.
“What Arthur, Richard and you do, is looking at (extra) natural inputs separated from the outputs and assume that these add to the increase. In that case all inputs are equal and human emissions are peanuts compared to the natural inputs.
We are not doing anything of the sort. We are making no assumptions at all. We are saying we do not know; the mass balance, being only a single equation, cannot tell us to which of innumerable possibilities the cause of the increase should be ascribed. It might be the human emissions (in whole or in part). It might not. Feedbacks among the various subsyatems of the carbon cycle could, in principle, do practically anything.
“Sorry, that is completely wrong: as long as there is some resistance in the pipeline between the drain and the lake, both the level in the lake (influenced by rainfall) and the quantity added by the factory will affect the level in the drain, as any process engineer can tell you.”
In this scenario, the drain is a wide one, so this effect can be neglected. Yes, there will be a small residual variation from this cause, but the main cause of the rise in the drain is simply the rise in the lake. And as I have showed through other examples, even this residual term is not necessarily positive; where there are oscillatory flows (say, because the effluent, or the rain, comes in spurts) it can even be negative. In the case of the atmosphere, it is quite possible, as a matter of principle, that the flows in and out are so fast and fast-reacting that there is no lag or build-up. Or, alternatively, that they are so slow to react that the effect of human emissions has not been buffered at all, but has simply been offset by what would otherwise have been a sharp fall. The mass balance cannot say which of these – or other – possibilities is true.
“As long as there is a time factor in the uptake of extra CO2 from the atmosphere into other reservoirs (as is the case for both deep oceans and vegetation), then both the natural and anthro sources and sinks will influence the CO2 level in the atmosphere.”
This would generally be the case. Which is what we have been saying all along: “both natural and anthro sources and sinks [could] influence the CO2 level in the atmosphere”. Ascribing changes purely to the human component is completely fallacious. Note, by the way, that from the graphs you yourself posted above, it is quite apparent that the system can and does react strongly and rapidly – even over periods much less than a year, and in quantities considerably greater than annual human emissions, so it is entirely possible that the relevant lags are short and net human influence negligibly small.