Foreword: This is the final entry in a four part series by Fedinand Engelbeen. While the narrative is contrary to the views of many of our readers, it is within the framework of WUWT’s goal of providing discussion on the issues. You won’t find guest posts like this on RC, Climate Progress, Open Mind (Tamino), or Skeptical Science where a guest narrative contrary to the blog owner(s) view is not allowed, much less encouraged in a four part series.
That said, I expect this final entry to be quite contentious for two reasons. 1) The content itself. 2) The references to the work of Ernst Georg Beck, recently deceased.
As Engelbeen mentions below, this part was written weeks before, and readers should not get the impression that this is some sort of “hit piece” on him. Unfortunately, it simply worked out that the appearance of part 4 happens after his death, since I had been running each part about once a week. I had considered not running it, but I’m sure he would invite the discussion, and we’d have a lively debate. It is our loss that he will not be able to. For that reason, I’d appreciate readers maintaining a civil tone in comments. Moderators, don’t be shy about enforcing this. My thanks to Ferdinand Englebeen for his hard work in producing this four part series. – Anthony
About background levels, historical measurements and stomata proxies…
1. Where to measure? The concept of “background” CO2 levels.
Although there were already some hints of a “global” background CO2 level of around 300 ppmv in previous years, the concept was launched by C.D. Keeling in the fifties of last century, when he made several series of measurements in the USA. He found widely varying CO2 levels, sometimes in samples taken as short as 15 minutes from each other. He also noticed that values in widely different places, far away from each other, but taken in the afternoon, were much lower and much closer resembling each other. He thought that this was because in the afternoon, there was more turbulence and the production of CO2 by decaying vegetation and/or emissions was more readily mixed with the overlying air. Fortunately, from the first series on, he also measured 13C/12C ratios of the same samples, which did prove that the diurnal variation was from vegetation decay at night, while during the day photosynthesis at one side and turbulence at the other side increased the 13C/12C ratio back to maximum values.
Keeling’s first series of samples, taken at Big Sur State Park, showing the diurnal CO2 and d13C cycle, was published in http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html , original data (of other series too) can be found in http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/literatur/keeling/Keeling_1955.doc :
Figure 1. Diurnal variation in the concentration and carbon isotopic ratio of atmospheric
CO2 in a coastal redwood forest of California, 18-19 May 1955, Big Sur St. Pk.
(Keeling, 1958)
Several others measured CO2 levels/d13C ratios of their own samples too. This happened at several places in Germany (Heidelberg, Schauinsland, Nord Rhine Westphalia). This confirmed that local production was the origin of the high CO2 levels. The smallest CO2/d13C variations were found in mountain ranges, deserts and on or near the oceans. The largest in forests, crop fields, urban neighborhoods and non-urban, but heavily industrialized neighborhoods. When the reciprocal of CO2 levels were plotted against d13C ratios, this showed a clear relationship between the two. Again from http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html :
Figure 2. Relation between carbon isotope ratio and concentration of atmospheric CO2 in different air types from measurements summarized in Table 3.4
(Keeling, 1958, 1961: full squares; Esser, 1975: open circles; Freyer and Wiesberg, 1975,
Freyer, 1978c: open squares). All 13C measurements have not been corrected
for N2O contamination (Craig and Keeling, 1963), which is at the most in the area of + 0.6‰
The search for background places.
Keeling then sought for places on earth not (or not much) influenced by local production/uptake, thus far from forests, agriculture and/or urbanization. He had the opportunity to launch two continuous measurements: at Mauna Loa and at the South Pole. Later, other “baseline” stations were added, all together 10 from near the North Pole (Alert, NWT, Canada) to the South Pole, all of them working continuous nowadays under supervision of NOAA (previously under Scripps Institute), some 60 other places working under other organizations and many more working with regular flask sampling.
We are interested in CO2 levels in a certain year all over the globe and the trends of the CO2 levels over the years. So, here we are at the definition of the “background” level:
Yearly average data taken from places minimal influenced by vegetation and other natural and human sources are deemed “background”.
For convenience, the yearly average data from Mauna Loa are used as reference. One could use any baseline station as reference or the average of the stations, but as all base stations (and a lot of other stations, even Schauinsland, at 1,000 m altitude, midst the Black Forest, Germany) are within 5 ppmv of Mauna Loa, with near identical trends, and that station has the longest near-continuous CO2 record, Mauna Loa is used as “the” reference.
As the oceans represent about 70% of the earth’s surface, and all oceanic stations show near the same yearly averages and trends, already 70% of the atmosphere shows background behavior. This can be extended to near the total earth for the part above the inversion layer.
Measurements above the inversion layer.
Above land, diurnal variations are only seen up to 150 m (according to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html ).
Seasonal changes reduce with altitude. This is based on years of flights (1963-1979) in Scandinavia (see the previous reference) and between Scandinavia and California (http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.4.1_Bishoff_113-116.pdf ), further confirmed by old and modern https://wiki.ucar.edu/display/acme/ACME flights in the USA and Australia (Tasmania). In the SH, the seasonal variation is much smaller and there is a high-altitude to lower altitude gradient, where the high altitude is 1 ppmv richer in CO2 than the lower altitude. This may be caused by the supply of extra CO2 from the NH via the southern branch of the Hadley cell to the upper troposphere in the SH.
From the previous references:
Figure 3. Amplitude and phase shift of seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2
at different altitudes, calculated from direct observations by harmonic analysis
(Bolin and Bischof, 1970)
From https://wiki.ucar.edu/display/acme/ACME :
Figure 4. Modern flight measurements in Colorado, CO2 levels below the inversion layerin forested valleys and above the inversion layer at different altitudes
As one can see, again the values above the inversion layer are near straight and agree within a few ppmv with the Mauna Loa data of the same date. Below the inversion layer, the morning values are 15-35 ppmv higher. In the afternoon, these may sink to background again.
If we take the 1000 m as the average upper level for the influence of local disturbances, that represents about 10% of the atmospheric mass. Thus the “background” level can be found at 70% of the earth’s air mass (oceans) + 90% of the remaining land surface (27%). That is in 97% of the global air mass. Only 3% of the global air mass contains not-well mixed amounts of CO2, which is only over land. These measured values show variations caused by seasonal changes (mainly in the NH) and a NH-SH lag. Yearly averages are within 5 ppmv:
Figure 5. Yearly average CO2 levels at different baseline stations plus a non-baseline station (Schauinsland, Germany, only values taken when above the inversion layer and with sufficient wind speed).
General conclusion:
Background CO2 levels can be found everywhere over the oceans and over land at 1000 m and higher altitudes (in high mountain ranges, this may be higher).
2. The historical data
2.1. The compilation by Ernst Beck.
Note: this comment was written weeks before we heard of the untimely death of Ernst Beck. While I feel very uncomfortable that this is published now, as he can’t react anymore on this comment, I think that one need to know the different viewpoints about the historical data, which is a matter of difference in opinion, and has nothing to do with what one may think about Ernst Beck as person.
What about the historical data? While I only can admire the tremendous amount of work that Ernst Beck has done, I don’t agree with his interpretation of the results. Not in light of the above findings of what one can see as “background” CO2 levels.
The historical measurements show huge differences from place to place, sometimes within one year, and extreme differences within a day or day to day or over the seasons for the same place. That there are huge differences between different places shows that one or more or all of these places are not measuring background CO2, but local CO2 levels, influenced by local and/or regional sources and sinks. This is clear, if one looks at the range of the results, often many hundreds of ppmv’s between the lowest and highest values. Modern measurements, sometimes interestingly done at the same places as the historical one’s, either don’t show such a wide range, and then can be deemed background for the modern ones and therefore the historical one’s must be inaccurate as method or there were problems with the handling or with the sampling. Others show huge variations also today, which means that neither the modern, nor the historical data are background.
But let us have a look at the compilation of historical CO2 measurements by Ernst Beck:
Figure 6. Compilation of historical data by Ernst Beck.
From: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
Beck only gives the yearly and smoothed averages and the instrument error. That doesn’t say anything about the quality of the places where was measured, thus which of these measurements were “background” and which were not. One may be pretty sure that measuring midst of London, even in 1935, would give much higher (and fluctuating) CO2 levels than near the coast with seaside wind. Moreover, a peak of some 80 ppmv around 1942 is hardly possible, but removing such a peak in less than 10 years is physically impossible. The total amount of CO2 involved is comparable to burning down one third of all living vegetation on land and growing back in a few years time. The oceans are capable of having a burst of CO2 with a sudden decrease of pH, but simply can’t absorb that amount back in such a short time span, even if the pH would go up again (and what should cause such a massive change in pH?). Therefore I decided to look into more detail at the peak period in question, the years 1930-1950.
2.2. The minima, maxima and averages
Here is a plot of all available data for the period 1930-1950, as used by Ernst Beck (plus a few extra I did find in the literature). These can be found at his page of historical literature:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/historical.htm
Figure 7. Minima, maxima and averages of historical measurements in the period 1930-1950
Not all measurements were published in detail. Several authors did provide only an average, without any indication of number of samples, range or standard deviation. But for those where the range was given, the results are widely varying. What is obvious, is that where the range is small, in most cases the average of the measurements is around the ice core values (Law Dome in this case, the values of three cores, two of them with a resolution of 8 years and an accuracy of 1.2 ppmv, 1 sigma). That is especially the case for the period 1930-1935 where several measurements were performed during trips over the oceans. And even most of the worst performers show minima below the ice core values.
And as one can see, the “peak” around 1940-1942 is completely based on measurements at places which were heavily influenced by local/regional sources and sinks. That doesn’t say anything about the real background CO2 level of that period. Moreover, the fact that the average of measurements at one part of the world is 600 ppmv and at the other side of the globe it is 300 ppmv within the same year, shows that at least one of them must be at the wrong place.
2.3. The accuracy of some apparatus
Some of the measurements were done at interesting places: Point Barrow and Antarctica, where currently baseline stations are established. Unfortunately, for these measurements, the portable apparatus was as inaccurate as could be:
Barrow (1948) used the micro-Schollander apparatus, which was intended for measuring CO2 in exhaled air (some 20,000 ppmv!). Accuracy +/- 150 ppmv, accurate enough for exhaled air, but not really accurate to measure values of around 300 ppmv.
The same problem for Antarctica (1940-1941): Accuracy +/- 300 ppmv, moreover oxygen levels which were too low at high CO2 (1700 ppmv), which points to huge local contamination.
2.4. What caused the 1941 peak?
The 1941 peak is heavily influenced by two data series: Poona (India) and Giessen (Germany). With a few exceptions, the results of Poona should be discarded, as these were mostly performed within and below growing vegetation, which may be of interest for those who want to know the influence of CO2 on growth figures, heavily influenced by CO2 production from soil bacteria, but not really suitable to know the background CO2 levels of that time.
Giessen is a more interesting place, as the measurements were over a very long period (1.5 years), three samples a day over 4 heights were taken. And we have a modern CO2 measuring station now, only a few km from the original place, taking samples every 30 minutes. Thus let us see what the historical and modern CO2 levels at Giessen are, compared to baseline places:
Figure 8. Historical data of Giessen, during a few days of extra sampling to measure diurnal changes.
Figure 9. A few days in the modern summer life of CO2 at Linden-Giessen compared to the raw data from a few baseline stations for the same days.
Data for Linden-Giessen are from http://www.hlug.de
Baseline stations hourly average CO2 levels, derived from 10-second raw voltage samples, are from ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
These are all raw data, including all local outliers at Barrow, Mauna Loa, the South Pole and Giessen. It seems to me that it is rather problematic to figure out anything background-like from the data of Giessen, modern and historical alike. And I have the impression that Keeling made not such a bad choice by starting measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa, even if the latter is on an active volcano.
2.5. Estimation of the historical background CO2 levels.
Francis Massen and Ernst Beck used a method to estimate the background CO2 levels from noisy data, based on the fact that at high wind speeds, a better mixing of ground level CO2 with higher air masses is obtained (see http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2_versus_windspeed-review-1-FM.pdf ). This works quite well, if you have a lot of data points with wind speeds above 4 m/s and a relative narrow range at high wind speeds. Here the “fingerlike” data range at high wind speed measured at Diekirch (small town in a shielded valley of Luxemburg):
Figure 10. CO2 levels vs. wind speed at Diekirch, Luxemburg.
Compare that to a similar plot of the historical data from Giessen:
Figure 11. Historical CO2 levels at Giessen vs. wind speed.
There are only 22 data points above 4 m/s, still a wide range (300 ppmv!) and no “finger” in the data at high wind speeds.
Further, the historical three samples of Giessen, taken in the morning, afternoon and evening already give a bias of some 40 ppmv (even the continuous modern sampling at Giessen shows a huge bias in averages). The afternoon measurements have a higher average than the morning and evening samples, which is contrary to almost all other measurements made in that period (and today): during daylight hours, photosynthesis lowers the CO2 levels, while at night under an inversion level, CO2 from soil respiration builds up to very high levels. And at the other end of the world (Iowa, USA) in 1940, CO2 levels of 265 ppmv were found over a maize field. Unfortunately, there are no measurements performed at “background” places in that period, except at Antarctica, which were far too inaccurate.
My impression is that the data of Giessen show too much variation and are too irregular, either by the (modified Pettenkofer) method, the sampling or the handling of the samples.
2.6. Comparing the historical peak around 1941 with other methods:
The ice core data of Law Dome show a small deviation around 1940, within the error estimate of the measurements. Any peak of 80 ppmv during years should be visible in the fastest accumulation cores (8 years averaging) as a peak of at least 10 ppmv around 1940, which is not the case (see Figure 7.).
Stomata data don’t show anything abnormal around 1940 (that is around 305 ppmv):
Figure 12. CO2 levels vs. stomata data calibration in the period 1900-1990.
From: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2004-1214-121238/index.htm
And there is nothing special to see in the d13C levels of coralline sponges around 1940. Coralline sponges follow the 13C/12C ratios of CO2 in the upper ocean waters. Any burst and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere would show up in the d13 levels of the ocean mixed layer: either with a big drop if the extra CO2 was from vegetation, or with a small increase, if the extra CO2 was from the deep oceans. But that is not the case:
Figure 13. d13C levels of coralline sponges growing in the upper ocean layer.
2.7. Conclusion
Besides the quality of the measurements themselves, the biggest problem is that most of the data which show a peak around 1941 are taken at places which were completely unsuitable for background measurements. In that way these data are worthless for historical (and current) global background estimates. This is confirmed by other methods which indicate no peak values around 1941. As the minima may approach the real background CO2 level of that time, the fact that the ice core CO2 levels are above the minima is an indication that the ice core data are not far off reality.
3. About stomata data.
Stomata index (SI) is the ratio between the number of stomata openings to the total number of cells on leaves. This is a function of CO2 levels during the previous growing season (Tom van Hoof, personal communication). Thus that gives an impression of CO2 levels over time. As that is an indirect proxy of CO2 levels, one need calibration, which is done by comparing the SI of certain species over the past century with ice core and atmospheric CO2 measurements. So far, so good.
The main problem of the SI is the same as for many historical measurements: the vegetation of interest grows by definition on land, where average CO2 levels may vary within certain limits for one period of time, but there is no guarantee that these limits didn’t change over time: the MWP-LIA change might have been caused in part by changes in the Gulf Stream away from NW Europe, this bringing less warm wet air over land, even changing the main wind direction from SW to E. That may have introduced profound changes in type of vegetation, soil erosion, etc., including changes in average CO2 levels near ground over land.
Further, land use changes around several of the main places of sampling might have been enormous: from wetlands and water to polders and agriculture, deforestation and reforestation, all in the main wind direction, as all happened in The Netherlands over a full millennium.
Conclusion:
Stomata index data may be useful as a first approximation, but one shouldn’t take the historical levels as very reliable, because of a lack of knowledge of several basic circumstances which may have influenced the local/regional historical CO2 levels and thus the SI data.
Tim F said at 1:08 pm
Keith D says: Suboceanic volcanoes are an unaccounted for source of CO2.
But there is no reason to expect a change in undersea volcanoes in the last ~150 years. In a sense, then, they are “accounted for, since they presumable are part of the natural equilibrium that had been keeping CO2 near 300 ppm for millennia.
If we know virtually nothing about a subject, in this case Suboceanic volcanoes, how – in that ignorance – can you say they are accounted for? “Accounted for” implies – – no, REQUIRES knowledge thereof. Or that we could or should expect or not expect change? Which requires knowledge thereof also.
And what if the half-life of an IR photon in the atmosphere as radiated from Earth? What is the half-life of a IR photon as radiated from a CO2 molecule? What percentage of those CO2 radiated IR photons go back toward the planet (prove your analysis) AND make it? (prove that analysis) Is the IR radiation from the plant a constant? If or not, what is the maximum amount of IR photons that can be absorbed by 389.92 ppm of CO2? 450ppm? 500ppm? Can a CO2 molecule absorb (as you put it) a second and third IR photon BEFORE reradiating “very quickly” (again as you put it) the first photon? And is the increase in ppm of CO2 an increase in density of CO2? Or, as suggested in the link studies above, would a decrease in the ppm of O2 & N2 cause an increase in ppm of CO2? Or could it be a general increase in density of the atmosphere?
I thought this was a climate blog. If we’re going to have articles about the man-made proportions of things that have absolutely no connection or relation to climate, I’d much rather see an article distinguishing the man-made parts of Dolly Parton from the natural parts of Dolly Parton.
FWIW there were inter-calibrations of the various wet methods against the IR method in the early sixties. The wet methods were shown to be unreliable, probably due to operator errors/inconsistent application. I think that Ferdinand underestimates this. It is not just that sampling was done in the wrong places (I too started from that point, but have always been aware of the difficulty of the analytical wet methods). Reading some of the older literature, one finds almost no (tempted to say none) examples where wet methods were calibrated against known samples of CO2 as was done by Keeling and Co, another reason to reject the wet methods.
Some time ago I sent Ferdinand a paper on the volcanic influence on the Mauna Loa record, the answer being, that it was small and infrequent. If the ML volcano was having a significant effect, it would show synchronously with the eruptions (it does not) and if Beck’s claims were true, M-L would be above, not below what Beck claimed in the wet method record.
One other thing that has increased greatly over this same time period is drilling holes in the Earth’s crust to explore and produce oil and gas. Does this better follow the curve except in the war years of the 40’s when all of the men were off to war?
Murray Duffin says:
September 24, 2010 at 11:13 am
Some hap-snap remarks on your long comment:
If we take the 3 low 1840 to 1850 readings as good, and correct them for the 10 ppm bias, we have 300 ppm for European air in 1845. If the ice core air/ice age shift can be believed, this would correspond to about 1765 ice. Looking at Law, Siple and Vostok average we find about 280 ppm for 1765. This would suggest a decompression loss of 20 ppm for 200+ year old ice. And a pre-industrial real atmospheric concentration of more like 300 ppm than 280 ppm.
The (gas age) 1850 CO2 levels are about 285-288 ppmv, from 6 different ice cores (individual accuracy +/- 1.2 ppmv, core to core better than 5 ppmv). Not far away from the historical measurements with an accuracy of +/- 10 ppmv:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_000_3kyr.jpg
Beck says the peak is not WWII because there are elevated readings in
> Alaska and Poona India.
Alaska (Point Barrow) measurements are unreliable. Accuracy of the apparatus was +/- 150 ppmv: outside air was used for calibration (that were the measurements which were noticed) if the values were between 200 and 500 ppmv, the apparatus was deemed fit for the purpose it was intended for: measurements of CO2 in exhaled air (some 20,000 ppmv)…
Poona has a lot of measurements below and in between leaves of growing crops. Not really comparable to “background” CO2 levels…
Now consider that a few year spike (bottom to bottom 1935 to 1952) gets averaged out over abouit 80 years during ice closure, so its maybe 4 ppm. By the time the core is made, 1942 ice is deep enough to form CO2 clathrates, but not oxygen or nitrogen per Jaworowski, so when the core depressurizes, some more of the peak is lost, now 1 ppm.
Several problems here: a one-year peak of near 100 ppmv would be seen in the two fast ice cores of Law Dome still as a peak of at least 10 ppmv over 10 years (the closure time is only 8 years with 1.2 meter ice equivalent snow precipitation). As the peak is Gaussian over several years, that would even be much higher than 10 ppmv in the ice cores.
IF CO2 clathrates were formed and air escapes via cracks during decompression, that would lead to too high CO2 levels, not too low, as N2/O2 under internal pressure would escape first before CO2 clathrates decompose. When the CO2 clathrates decompose, there is no or less pressure left to escape (CO2 gives only 0.03% of the pressure of O2/N2). Remaining clathrates are effectively destroyed by vacuum at measurement time.
Doesn’t CO2 rise lag temperature. So the Medieval warming was a few hundred years ago, so we couldn’t expect the CO2 levels to stay constant and not go up when we had that massive spike in warmth in the middle ages. That’s why we have all those amazing cathedrals in europe at the time, because of the warming, it took us out of the dark ages.
Why are lakes not becoming “acidified” while the ocean is? Undersea volcanoes….
Ferdinand, after reading ALL the parts I understand better what you are trying to show and my comment to part 1 was less than …. Well let’s leave it at – My Bad!
But, there is something I don’t understand in your analuysis:
Almost 99% of atmospheric CO2, contains the less heavy carbon, 12C. A small part, 1.1% of CO2, is somewhat heavier, since it contains 13C.
Terrestrial vegetation …., in the process of photosynthetic absorption of CO2, discriminate against heavy molecules prefering 12C to 13. In this way, the carbon trapped in continental flora contains a smaller than 1.1% proportion of 13C than of the carbon in atmospheric CO2. Phrased in another way, and inclusive of the first sentence, the carbon trapped in continental flora contains 99% + proportion of 12C very similar to carbon in atmospheric CO2, which is 98.9%.
Then –
The formula for d13C (in ‰) is as follows:
(13C/12C)sampled – (13C/12C)standard
——————————––––––––––––––– x 1.000
(13C/12C)standard
Because of discrimination during photosynthesis, the d13C of terrestrial organic matter (in vegetation….) has a mean value of -26‰. The d13C of atmospheric CO2 is close to -6‰.
WHAT? How does 1% of d13C in “Terrestrial vegetation” (or is it “terrestrial organic matter”) calculate to a value of -26 but 1% of d13C in “the carbon in atmospheric CO2”, calculate to -6?
BTW, the mean value of d13C in oil is around -30‰. Really not “about the same” (20% off) as “Terrestrial vegetation”.
Lars Kamél says:
September 24, 2010 at 1:43 pm
The stomata index data are calibrated against background levels of CO2, not local levels. It seems unlogical then to suggest that they should not be proxies for historical background level but historical local levels.
Indeed, the SI data are calibrated to recent background CO2 levels, so that the local bias e.g. of +40 ppmv is compensated for. The problem is that one doesn’t know how the local bias changed over the centuries before the calibration.
E.g. one of the main SI proxies is in the south of the Netherlands: leaves from oaks which stand there for over a millenium. In the same period there were tremendous changes in landscape and land use in the main wind direction (and a lot of industrialisation in the past century!). As even the main wind direction may have changed during the MWP-LIA cooling, there are a lot of possibilities that the local bias in different periods was quite different (and more variable) compared to current times.
The pic of the burning CO2 symbol is quite dramatic. I wonder what they are using for fuel – irony?
Ferdinand
I am grateful for your detailed explanation of the sea as a source and sink and I read the links you provided.
However the study did not provide an answer to the specific question I asked and nor did you, so I will rephrase it.
The ocean is 100 yards from my home. It mitigates the heat in the summer and warms us during the winter. The sea is at its warmest around now and coldest around March. As a result we rarely get a frost before February. Let us for the sake of convenience say that the ocean temperature is as follows
Jan 7C
Feb 7C
March 6C
April 8C
May 10C
June 12C
July 15C
August 16C
September 17C
October 16C
Nov 12C
Dec 9C
My question is during which months would the sea in front of my house be outgasing Co2 and in what months would it act as a sink?
Secondly, the study says there is a 6 month time lag between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere so in effect whilst one hemispheres oceans warms the other cools, thereby keeping co2 levels roughly equal.
However, there have been some periods-for example the 1940’s- when both hemispheres oceans were largely outgasing at the same time due to warm SST’s thereby presumably contributing co2 without one hemisphere offsetting the other. This was one of the periods that Beck noted as having high readings.
The oceans have such a vast potential for being a sink or source that it seems remarkable that they don’t contribute to much more dramatic fluctuations in Co2 than the Mauna Loa records show.
Incidentally these have been an excellent series of articles.
Tonyb
Henry Pool says:
September 24, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The problem I notice here again in the dicussions is that we forget that we donot really know the influence of volcanics and what goes on beneath the surface of 70% of earth. How much CO2 is added from that? We know from the past that there were heavy fluctuations in CO2 due to whatever reasons. Maybe, in the end, we might even find that the testing of atomic bombs triggered more volcanic activities and earth quakes. Do we know how many atomic bombs were tested, and how much energy this added to the atmosphere?
If the undersea volcanoes added a lot of CO2 recently to the (deep) ocean layer, that isn’t noticed at all. First, most of it would be absorbed in the deep ocean layers, where most of the earth’s carbon already resides. Next, any upwelling of extra CO2 from the deep oceans (and most volcanic eruptions/venting) would increase the d13C level of the atmosphere, while we measure a decrease. Theory rejected by the observations…
Btw, one modest earthquake has the energy of a many megatons atomic bomb test… Nature still is a lot more powerfull. But some of the tests may have triggered earthquakes which were ready to occur some time later.
How nice it is to read a relatively civil discourse among informed people of differing points of view; how gracious it is for Anthony to provide such a forum for such discourse, and how pleasant it is to witness that the attendees at this forum appreciate such graciousness.
If only other sites were so civil then we might make some real progress, scientific progress, which has emerged from the collision, discussion and amalgamation of variously informed individuals.
I have my own thoughts about the subject under discussion and I find that my thoughts are amended daily, by varying degrees, by everything which I read here.
It is fascinating!
@Engelbeen
“Stomata index (SI) is the ratio between the number of stomata openings to the total number of cells on leaves. This is a function of CO2 levels during the previous growing season (Tom van Hoof, personal communication). Thus that gives an impression of CO2 levels over time. As that is an indirect proxy of CO2 levels, one need calibration, which is done by comparing the SI of certain species over the past century with ice core and atmospheric CO2 measurements. So far, so good.”
No, that’s not so good. Gas exchange isn’t primarily regulated by stomata density. Stomata open and close as required. The relaxation and contraction that opens and closes them are the closest things to muscles that plants have.
Stomatal density, or SI, is controlled by a many immediate environmental factors and genetically through natural selection across generations. Temperature, humidity, and CO2 all play both immediate roles and long term roles. The temperature, humidity, and CO2 level present when the leaf is forming cause a wide variation in stomata count thus leaves on the same plant differ markedly depending on the position of the leaf (higher or lower on the plant) and what the environment was like as it was growing, changing level of competition from other plants, nutrient levels, sunlight, all play a role.
Adding insult to injury is that SI/CO2 correlation assumes that near ground CO2 levels in biologically active areas are good indicators of background CO2 levels – a concept which you, elsewhere in the same article, vigorously dispute in order to show that Beck’s survey cannot be used to determine the so-called background CO2 level.
This is yet another example of the logical fallacy called a hasty conclusion seen a lot in climate science. Correlation is not causation but with the world about to end from global warming I guess there isn’t time to do the science well, huh? Write that down. Those who grab at hasty conclusions often end up with egg on their face or get caught making the more dishonest logical fallacy of exclusion where contrary evidence is purposely discarded (also sometimes called “selection bias”). Take Michael Mann for instance who conflated a correlation between tree ring width and temperature with causation. This then led to the infamous “hide the decline” where tree ring data that contradicted the hypothesis was excluded and data from a more agreeable source was stitched in to replace it. That goes beyond mere cherry picking.
My purpose in life is increase the quantity of joy and vitality of Life on Eath (especially intelligent human life) by exploding the death-dealing lies in our way: Overpopulation panic (a half truth in that we do need to moderate growth) and global warming hysteria being the two biggest ones.
CO2 generates carbon-based life such as plants and people, and with natural farming breakthroughs, such as Sonic Bloom (R) http://www.originalsonicbloom.com, and use of composts in soil, among other things, we can restore to Sahara to verdancy and otherwise raise the carrying capacity of Earth.
But it requires CO2. I love Engelbeen! I hope he is right, for that means we feed the hungry every time we drive somewhere. It means we can improve our Earth consciously.
But greening the Earth requires TRUTH and that means listening to all opinions and considering them fairly. In that, Anthony Watts is a Godsend.
I have long since come to the conclusion that the true believers in the AGW scam work on the principle that ANYTHING that mankind does, any impact humanity has is bad. Every creature, and plant for that matter, has some effect on its surroundings and envnironment but with other creatures its taken as “natural”. Man on the other hand, is assumed to be malevolent. Co2 is latched onto because it is measureable and a way of accounting for man’s “sins”. The actual effect is not the point. This also explains why other, more obvious, climactic drivers such as the sun are totally ignored. It only counts where there is a measurable human impact.
The logical conclusion to this approach is set out in this article about the views of Finnish “philosopher” Pentti Linkola –
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html
This may seem extreme, but is it really that different from John Holdren and James Hansen and other who have advocated similar things in, perhaps, more subdued language.
Harold Pierce Jr says: September 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Consider this: Will o.ooo766 kg of a gas have the capability of influencing the physical state of 1.29 kg of the fixed gases? I don’t think so.
Consider this: Will 0.000020 kg of a solid (a typical amount of iron in your diet) make a difference in 1 kg of food eaten daily? I DO think so.
Consider this: Will 0.000001 kg of dopants make a difference in 1.29 kg of semiconductor? I DO think so.
Consider this: Will o.ooo766 kg of black paint (about 1 cm^3) have the capability of influencing the temperature of 1.29 kg of metal (about 6 cm on a side)? I DO think so.
Nature has lots of examples where small amounts of things cause big effects. Get over it.
Basic physics (specifically the Stefan-Boltzmann Law) tells us the earth would be significantly cooler with no GHG. This simple fact that the earth is as warm as it is says that GHG’s do influence the temperature of the earth.
Dave Springer says:
September 24, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Is that how science works now – by impressions?
Color me unimpressed by your impression.
Figure 11 is essentially identical to Figure 10 in shape.
The shape appears to be that of a smoking gun. You’re not going to get away with shrugging that off by saying there must be some sort of error in apparatus or procedures. Your “impression” isn’t worth a tinker’s damn.
Figire 10 and 11 are attempts to make something background like from the noisy data. For Diekirch that may be possible, as there are enough datapoints above 4 m/s wind speed, for Giessen, there simply are not enough datapoints.
But my “impression” is based on figures 8 and 9. The modern data from Linden/Giessen give a clear diurnal variation, while the historical data don’t. Many historical data give such a clear difference, with lowest values in the afternoon, due to photosynthesis, but the historical data of Giessen show higher values in the afternoon.
Moreover the (modified) Pettenkofer method used in Giessen has its critiques. From
a comment of PeterD on Jennifer Marohassy’s blog about Beck’s data:
Caldwell performed five series of tests comparing the Pettenkofer method with known values of CO2 and with the Letts and Blake modification of the Pettenkofer, which was itself of a high accuracy when compared with known CO2 volumes. His summaries show actual CO2 concentration to vary from 0.66 to 0.89 of the amount measured by the Pettenkofer method.”
In other words, the Pettenkofer values- and, by implication, many of those reported by Beck as supporting his >400 ppm values in the 1930s-1940s- may have been over-estimated by 50%!
You see, my “impressions” have some scientific base…
Moreover, as Eli Rabett already mentioned, we have no idea of how well the reagens were prepared, how frequently they were checked for exhaustion, how frequent the equipment was calibrated, how well the temperature was maintained (important for some types), how good the skill was of the persons involved, how careful sample taking and handling (contamination avoiding) was, etc.
Compared to the current calibration and quality control procedures (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html ), we simply know nothing of the historical ones, except for the initial tests of some of the equipment types in ideal circumstances.
Ferdinand,
You are a better man than me. You seem to never tire.
Steve Fitzpatrick
In fact, the more I look at Beck’s graph that follows oil and gas exploration to a tee. Up in 20’s to 1940, down during WWII and couple of years while economy recovered. I’m not speaking of the amount of carbon fuels we use and burn but the number of dry and wet holes it takes to supply it. What of all that co2. Does it dwarf our use?
We now know co2 has little to due with overall temperatures (Miskolczi) so this is merely addressing where some of the excess co2 is coming from out of curiosity.
When we drill a “dry” hole, is the hole hermetically sealed off or are any gases venting, and you know they are there, merely sent into the atmosphere? We know the huge amount of co2 volcanoes supply but it seems logical that all of the half to mile deep holes, wet or dry, would also vent co2.
This has to do with the question, does the atmosphere stop at the surface on dry land, or, does the atmosphere extend many miles deep in the cracks and crevasses in the soil and rocks. In that very stable environment co2, the heaviest of the gases would settle out to a higher concentration by gravity. You know it occurs. There is no mass convection in these tiny pores. We then drill a deep hole into this “sub-atmosphere” which know allows convection.
I see no problem for the future from this co2 aspect. Without going on and on does anyone get my point? Has anyone considered this aspect?
These types of questions are fun but might lead lead nowhere! Just exploring.
The CO2 concentration began to rise from the supposed pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm around 1800
http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide_2.gif ,
while human fossil fuel use did not begin to skyrocket until c. 1945, by which time the CO2 concentration was already around 310 ppm.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/Global_Carbon_Emission_graph.png .
Further, if human emissions were solely responsible for CO2 rise c. 1910 – c. 1940 and consequently most of the temperature rise c. 1910 – c. 1940, then the enormous leap in fossil fuel related CO2 emissions after 1945 would be expected to result in a much faster and steeper temperature rise than pre-war, instead of the 35 – 40 year hiatus.
Wouldn’t that suggest that, as with other aspects of claimed AGW, it’s not one thing or the other, but a combination of CO2 responding to rising temperature (from the LIA nadir), a human emission overlay and many other natural factors which the IPCC are only too ready to dismiss.
Ferdinand, thanks for reminding Eli of the Caldwell study. One of the things about CO2 that often gets washed out is the pioneer effect, the early increase in concentration due to land use changes as North America, Australia and Siberia were settled in the last half of the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth, that coupled with increasing coal consumption for such things as steel manufacture and the coming of the oil economy contributed to the increase in concentrations before 1950, which were small compared to those in the last sixty years, but not insignificant.
Ancient CO2 might be released through warming of deeper water where chemical and biological processes can be influenced. With warming: 1) Methane clathrates may begin to release gas into the sea; 2) methanogens may digest settled materials more efficiently and release more methane than in colder seas; 3) methanotrophs may proliferate in seas with more methane, converting it to CO2. In this final step, the carbon released could have originated from undersea vents, volcanoes, or decaying organic matter. The carbon could lack 14C. As a result, there is no unambiguous human signal in the loss of 14C from the atmosphere.
“Christopher Hanley says:
September 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Wouldn’t that suggest that, as with other aspects of claimed AGW, it’s not one thing or the other, but a combination of CO2 responding to rising temperature (from the LIA nadir), a human emission overlay and many other natural factors which the IPCC are only too ready to dismiss.”
A combination of many aspects? Now there’s some real reality and I so agree. This “it’s this” or “it’s that” are all off track unless science can rule out with emperical evidence all of the other aspect’s influence to be zero.
This is interesting, comparing breathing with fossil fuel emissions:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/co2-emission-from-fossil-fuel-burning.html
I think his sums are a bit out though. Av energy should be closer to 2 watts/kg, not 5.
Humans comprise about 100 million tonnes of the Earth’s biomass, domesticated animals about 700 million tonnes … giving 8 x 10**11 kg whereas he uses 4 … so his figure should be pretty close.
Admittedly I have not read the other three parts, but I was surprised in his dealing with the idea that the oceans cannot absorb CO2 at the rate of change after 1941. The half-life of CO2 appears to be about 5–6 years, so large changes could occur concurrently with changes in ocean temperatures.
It is also basically ingenuous to believe that CO2 has been as historically steady as Keeling maintained. The variations described by Beck back in the 1800’s and the peak in the 1940s lagging the warm peak of the 1930s fits what we know of Henry’s Law. They are much more believable – nature just does not do constant very well.