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!
Yet again we have charts presented in their “impressive” form.
Why is it that scientists won’t plot their data honestly?
Seriously. What number would represent NO CO2?
The chart at the top of the page starts at 375ppm.
All of these debates would be beyond boring if everyone plotted in a standardized way. What is done above is Chartmanship and is specifically called “Suppression of the Zero”. By suppressing the zero we suppress lots of pertinent information about the chart. Even grown scientists who know better get taken in by such tactics. This is why all presenters who employ such methods should be promptly slapped with an appropriately wet noodle.
Zero is a wonderful place to start for just about any metric.
Wops, heres the link:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/co2%20concentretions%20in%20oceans/b4.jpg
I made the illustration from AR4 illustrations as you can see. So who can “deny” that data are valid ? 😉
winterkorn says:
August 5, 2010 at 9:13 am
4. We know that bacteria “eat” oil, presumably creating CO2. Is this process temperature sensitive? Is it limited to oil seeps or does it occur in deep oil collections such as shales and sands?
____________________________________________
That one I can answer. They have found bacteria chomping away on coal deep in the earth.
Go to the bottom of this article for references on subterranean bacteria such as:
A new species of bacteria found in deep, hot fossil fuels:
“Isolation and characterization of Thermococcus sibiricus…
The article is “creationist” but it is good for a one stop source of references.
More information on 13C
A distinct δ13C decline in organic lake sediments at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in southern Sweden
“…A significant decrease in δ13C values, initiated shortly before 10.000 RP and amounting to 5%, is distinguished. This change is accompanied by increased limnic productivity. decreased erosive input and increased organic carbon content of the sediments. A probable explanation for the δ13C decline in organic material is decreased importance of dissolution of silicates at the transition to the Holocene. During the Late Weichselian. extensive weathering of exposed minerogenic material with subsequent input of bicarbonate to the lake water may have caused a relative enrichment of 13C in dissolved inorganic carbon. Furthermore, the early Holocene increase in terrestrial vegetation cover probably led to an increased supply of 13C depleted carbon dioxide to the lake water by root respiration. Altered limnic vegetation, presumably towards increased production of phytoplankton. could also have contributed to the observed decreasing δ13C trend. The importance of these processes compared to other possible influencing factors. mainly endogenic carbonate production and changes in the global carbon cycle. is discussed.”
Theo Goodwin says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:43 am
Maybe the later parts will add more to this account but, as it stands, it is an application of brute force, the use of a sledge hammer to kill a flee.
After near four years of discussions on this very topic, even with otherwise very wise (wo)men, I have used the sledge hammer as an alternative…
The argument is very simple. The present mass of CO2 is greater than preindustrial times, the present mass is less than what was added by mankind and, therefore, the oceans took on some of man’s excess but not all.
Yes that is what the sledge hammer procedure tries to hammer in some minds, but even that seems not to help with several respondents here…
See the sledge hammer. Is there anything in this argument that can be associated with the subtlety of science? Are there any physical hypotheses of note? Has our scientific understanding of the behavior of CO2 in Earth’s many environments been increased. No.
That may be somewhat compensated by the following parts, but I suppose that the law of conservation of mass must be followed, and that is a real sledge hammer item…
Is there a simple logical objection to this sledge hammer argument? Yes. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate at which the oceans absorb CO2 increases much faster.
I don’t see any reason that the oceans should absorb CO2 faster than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That isn’t seen in the figures either: the increase in emissions and the absorption rate (oceans + vegetation) follow each other with a near constant ratio.
So, the argument raises more questions than it answers. Does the author present reasonably confirmed hypotheses about varying rates of absorption of CO2 by the oceans? Well, of course not. He could not make this sledge hammer argument if he did. Do we have such well-confirmed hypotheses? No.
Please look at my previous comments: the variability in absorption rate is directly related to ocean temperatures, that is where friend and foe agree with each other. Where some disagree (but all warmista’s and many sceptics agree) is the cause of the trend itself.
In sum, this argument exhibits all the defining characteristics of Warmista argument.
No comment, as that lacks any substance.
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen.
First thank for taking the time to answer the questions on here.
About your graph which is quite similar to the one I produced myself, except you manage to keep emissions much closer to rise in atmospheric CO2 in the first part of the 20 century than I could.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
The question still remains though. The rise in CO2 before the start of the 20th century was greater than can be explained by human emissions. The rise in CO2 in the first half the twentieth century can just be explained by human emissions if we assume that nature doesn’t increase absorption, while after 1950 nature suddenly decide to absorb HALF of human emissions.
This would seem to be a rather large conundrum unless you can explain it ?
Paul Birch says:
August 5, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The mass balance claim is a non sequitur. We know that the total fluxes are far higher than the anthropogenic flux and we know that many of the other components are variable, but we do not know how variable. We simply do not know how much CO2 there would have been in the atmosphere at this time in the absence of anthropogenic emission.
Fluxes, no matter how large, add anything to the atmosphere, as long as these are in balance. Only the unbalance adds or removes mass to/from a reservoir. Human emissions are one-way additions. These add to the reservoir(s).
Over the last 800,000 years, there was a clear relation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, where CO2 levels followed temperature with a lag. That relation was 8 ppmv for each degree C increase or decrease. Based on the current temperature, the responding CO2 level would be around 300 ppmv. We measure 390 ppmv today and humans have added about double that amount in the past 150 years. So, to me it is clear that humans are the cause.
The article says:
“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”
——————————————————
No, this is not a valid proof. We don’t know if the nature may have capacity to absorb all human emissions. The fact that it has not done so for the last fifty years can at least in theory have been caused by some other natural factors.
I do agree in the main point, that it seems to be difficult to find other explanations than human emissions on the increasing CO2 level, but don’t call it a proof.
Alexander Feht says:
August 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I don’t see how “natural sink” data could be used in good faith when there is no certain understanding of how much CO2 is really being absorbed by the biosphere (and, what is most important, how much CO2 will be absorbed by the biosphere if the atmospheric content of CO2 will keep rising).
I didn’t use any measured natural sink data, the sink rate is simply the difference between two known items: the emissions inventory at one side and the measured increase in the atmosphere at the other side. The difference between the two is the net natural sink rate or net natural emission rate (if the increase in the atmosphere was larger than the emissions).
I don’t believe anyone doubts that CO2 is increasing or that humans cause a lot of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. The question is if that amount of CO2 is harmful in any way. That is what is in question. So far I see no evidence that it harms anything and some evidence that it is beneficial to many species.
JaneHM says:
August 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Ferdinand
The logic of your oft-repeated statement (below) is wrong if the system involves feedback mechanisms. If a system involves feedback mechanisms, it does NOT always follow that removing one source (or sink) would cause the net to decrease (or increase) by the flux associated with the removed source (or sink).
In this case, there is a solid argument that the removal of the one component that gives one-way addition makes a difference: there was a temperature-CO2 equilibrium, where we are now far above in CO2 level.
I invite you to visit http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
and examine the CO2 growth deduced from the Vostok Ice Cores starting around 10,000 years ago, when there were few “men” to exert a man-made effect. Compare with the comparable phase of previous climate cycles. Something has changed in the current cycle. Why?
DN says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm
If increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration were principally due to anthropogenic carbon emissions, then changes in CO2 concentration would correlate closely with changes in aggregate WFC. It does not.
There is an extreme good correlation between accumulated emissions and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that is for next part…
I’m waiting for someone to argue that our burning of fossil fuels DIMINISHES
the C02 in the atmosphere.
If you are not willing to take up that argument and offer proof, then the balance of the evidence is that we do add C02 to the atmosphere. The current value would be lower BUT FOR our additions.
Slioch, 5th Aug 10.30am
According to the US EIA, world CO2 emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossile fuels increased from 18.5 billion metric tons in 1980 t0 29.2 billion metric tons in 2006.
An increase of 58%
At the same time CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increased from 339ppm to 382ppm. An increase of 13%
So where do you find any correlation between the two figures?
“… That is sufficient proof for the human origin of the increase …”
You have got to be kidding ! What rubbish !!
Warming in the past has caused atmospheric CO2 conc. increases … you know, the bit that Mr Gore tried to hide … there is nothing to say it is still not happening.
If you can show that global temperatures have been falling, yet atmospheric CO2 conc has been increasing, you might have an ounce of credibility !
Frank Lansner says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Ferdinand, this AR4 illustration (2007) goes a bit further than 2004, and its quite clear that both the Atlantic and Pacific stations used in AR4 shows no rise in pCO2 in surace water for a decade.
Why?
How much can atmospheric CO2 rise when ocean surface pCO2 has stoped rising?
And Ferdinand, even though this pCO2 of the ocean is measured in upper ocean layers, be aware that upper layers should be even easier to affect for human CO2. So still a stagnating ocean pCO2 is a nasty problem to get around if one believe that human CO2 rules the CO2 levels today.
Frank, as said in previous message: the total amount of CO2 in the upper ocean part increased, despite a decline in pCO2. pCO2 is directly related to pure dissolved [CO2*] where CO2* is the sum of CO2 and H2CO3 (together around 1% of total dissolved inorganic carbon ). Bicarbonate (around 83%) and carbonate (around 16%) ions don’t play any role in pCO2. So a change in pCO2, due to changes in pH, biolife, temperature or whatever, doesn’t say anything about the total amount of carbon (as CO2 + HCO3- + CO3– ) in the upper oceans…
Thus I don’t see any reason to expect any sink of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the upper ocean waters, as long as we go on with the emissions…
Just an engineers overall look at the graph from Mauna Loa. If humanity is significantly responsible for CO2 generation, shouldn’t there be a change in level due to the recession? The number of miles driven, and flown, manufacturing, and other energy intensive activities were severely curtailed, and yet there appears to be no change in the slope of the increase. Why?
Just a question.
Ferdinand Engelbeen writes:
“I don’t see any reason that the oceans should absorb CO2 faster than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That isn’t seen in the figures either: the increase in emissions and the absorption rate (oceans + vegetation) follow each other with a near constant ratio.”
Of course you don’t, because you have not investigated it. I just offered that example as one alternative hypothesis. There are a million others. And we should all be honest and admit that all of them have to be investigated scientifically before we can claim that they can be taken for granted. That’s how science works. It is not engineering.
The general run of climate scientist constantly repeats a narrative created by Karl Marx. The narrative is very simple. There was a Garden of Eden, a Golden Age, “L’Age d’Or,” when Earth was perfect and had a static balance of energy and of CO2 molecules. It lasted until Capitalism hit the world, in about 1850 when Jones’ temperature record starts. Capitalists upset the balance of everything. The wonderful static world became DYNAMIC – HORRORS! We must return the world to its pre-Capitalist, pristine, static condition. Workers of the World Unite!
The history of science shows conclusively that scientific progress always yields an account of the world that reveals an unbelievably more dynamic and complicated world. The idea that Earth’s CO2 budget and its energy budget were somehow pristine and static in the past belongs to the most outrageous science fiction. Of course, Mann and company have been busting their buns to turn the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age into domesticated pussy cats, as they must if they are to pursue their anti-scientific Marxist dream. And when you think of computer models, think static, static, and static because that is what they are.
We know nothing of Earth’s energy budget and nothing of its CO2 budget. When we learn something about them it will be because we have created sets of hypotheses which actually describe the regularities that exist among the various processes involving CO2 absorption and related phenomena. Those hypotheses will be mind boggling. But somebody is going to have to get up from the computer, go outside, and perform some experiments. I don’t think climate scientists have it in them to do that.
Engelbeen again:
“That isn’t seen in the figures either: the increase in emissions and the absorption rate (oceans + vegetation) follow each other with a near constant ratio.”
When the first “Green Revolution” was launched in the Sixties, it occurred to no one to say that increasing CO2 would help crop yield. Only recently are we getting reports of increase in tree size from CO2. Where are the hypotheses, the real stuff not the guesses, that describe the regularities in this phenomenon? We do not have them yet and we would be fools to think that we could. The work is just beginning.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm
James Sexton says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:38 am
I see you answered part of my questions with a response to another person. Thanks, but if… [snipped]… is true then how did we get to 2000 ppmv CO2 100 million years ago?
“Different times: different arrangement of the continents, different temperature/humidity, less calcite deposits,… The 8 ppmv/C only is for the last near million years, more ice age than interglacial, everything before that can’t be compared with current times…”
Thanks for getting back with me. It’s really appreciated. That being said, I’m even a bit more perplexed. While I accept there were different arrangements in other times, did not the “laws of conservation of mass” apply then as they do now? Quite obviously, we know there were different mechanisms in play in those past times. We don’t know what they were, we don’t know what engaged or disengaged the mechanisms. Given that, we don’t know some of them are not engaging to account for some of the “ins” or “outs” at our present time. While I can appreciate the assumptions and they certainly are plausible, the “8 in”- the “4 out” = 4Gt total increase”, from what I can see, is simply an assumption. This is counter-intuitive. Given the formula you’ve given us, wouldn’t we eventually move the atmospheric CO2 down to nil sans man’s CO2 emissions when we know of times it was quite the opposite. I’m not trying to be contrary, I’m just trying to understand the leap.
Thanks again,
James
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: (in response to Malaga View)
August 5, 2010 at 1:24 pm
“Take it in another view: if there were no human emissions in the past years and today, would the CO2 level in the atmosphere have increased, decreased or stayed level? And next year(s)?”
We do not know! The natural cycle is so variable and uncertain, our understanding of all the relevant mechanisms so lacking, and our inability to carry out controlled experiments so limiting, that the realistic error range of any supposedly comprehensive “prediction” would far exceed the magnitude of the observed increase. My best guess is that, because of the warming since the little ice age, CO2 levels would still have increased, but probably not by quite as much. I couldn’t prove it, though. So weird are some of the possible feedbacks I couldn’t even give a rigorous proof that they wouldn’t have increased even more!
Gail Combs says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm
More information on 13C
Please, some patience… the isotope changes will be in one of the next parts…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Take it in another view: if there were no human emissions in the past years and today, would the CO2 level in the atmosphere have increased, decreased or stayed level? And next year(s)?
I do not know – neither does anyone else!
We can all make guesses… but that is all they are: guesses!
Dave Andrews
Perhaps it would be a good idea to think a little before posting.
Are you suggesting that if human emissions doubled between year X and year Y then atmospheric CO2 would also double? Don’t be ridiculous.
Speaking of carbon dioxide, this just popped up on Chicago Tribune’s Breaking News:
Feds drop plans for FutureGen power plant
August 5, 2010 2:54 PM
CHAMPAIGN — The U.S. Department of Energy says it will drop plans to build a futuristic power plant in eastern Illinois but still use the location to store carbon dioxide underground.
The so-called FutureGen project originally was to include an experimental coal-fired power plant near Mattoon. Carbon dioxide from burning the coal would have been stored underground.
Now, the department says an existing plant in western Illinois will be retrofitted and carbon from that plant piped to Mattoon for storage.
FutureGen has been in the planning stages for years. Developers had been working the past 11 months to cut its costs.
— Associated Press
———————–
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to pipe carbon dioxide the width of the state!! What a waste of money!!