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.
Ferdinand
“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.”
I find it hilarious that the same people here who scream about the accuracy and methods in the land temps, the same people who scream about buckets and SST methods, the same people who look at thermometer specs, who complain about calibration records, who worry about getting + sings wrong in METARS, who worry about the accuracy of ice cores, or tree ring methodology.. the list of skeptical nit picking goes on.. I’m amused that when it comes to work like this, they drop their skeptical approach entirely. why is that
Steven Mosher says:
September 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Ferdinand
“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.”
I find it hilarious that the same people here who scream about the accuracy and methods in the land temps, the same people who scream about buckets and SST methods, the same people who look at thermometer specs, who complain about calibration records, who worry about getting + sings wrong in METARS, who worry about the accuracy of ice cores, or tree ring methodology.. the list of skeptical nit picking goes on.. I’m amused that when it comes to work like this, they drop their skeptical approach entirely. why is that
===================
Amusement, about a topic that is deadly serious to many.
Why do you bother commenting? Shits and grins?
Steven Mosher says:
September 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm
“I’m amused that when it comes to work like this, they drop their skeptical approach entirely. why is that.”
Well, Mosh, I guess it’s because you are so much brighter and more principled than anyone else, and most of all because you are always right.
Suitably chastened, I will remember that in the future.
u.k.(us) says:
“Amusement, about a topic that is deadly serious to many.”
“Amused” is an alarmist code word, like “robust.” It is useful when there is no better argument available.
Ferdinand,
A fine article and I saw no disrespect toward Beck in it. It’s just science. I think you should also be commended for including in your article your doubts regarding the amount of warming attributed to CO2. In the increasingly poisoned debate about global warming, I know that is a tough stance for a research active scientist to take.
That said, I think some of your criticisms of Beck’s results are not the whole picture.
Your first argument against Beck’s CO2 graph is that the peak of 80 ppm in the early 40’s is hardly possible and the complete absorption of that peak over the next 10 years is impossible. I’m not so certain.
Consider, as you explained, that the over all sensitivity of the oceans results in an out gassing to the atmosphere of about 7 ppm per degree of warming on a global basis. Accepted. You also alluded to the north and south hemispheres working in opposition to each other as one is warming while the other is cooling annually, and the consequence of their average gives the 7 ppm per degree on a global scale. Also accepted. You further explained that CO2 is out gassed from the oceans at the equatorial regions, and absorbed in the polar regions. Also accepted. Now let’s put all of these things together and look at them on a decadal scale while keeping in mind two other important points:
1. Global temperature fluctuations are very pronounced at the poles and almost non existent in the equatorial regions. NASA/GISS, Hadcrut and others all show the same thing when you break them down by latitude.
2. An increase in global temperatures does not cause out gassing from the oceans to the atmosphere per se. Since the equatorial regions are stable temperature wise, they outgas based on what is delivered to them via ocean circulation from colder regions. The polar regions on the other hand, still absorb CO2 when the temperature goes up, but they absorb a lot less than they would have, resulting in a build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So let’s consider certain factors on a decadal scale. If one looks at the hemispheres, they aren’t just in opposition to each other annually, but over longer time periods as well. Check out ice extent for example, and in most cases it is in decline in one hemisphere while increasing in the other both seasonaly and on a decadal scale. The same is true for temperature in that the warming and cooling trends of the hemispheres over a period of decades are mostly in opposition to each other. I say mostly, because it isn’t always true.
While the SH was well below normal and the NH was well above normal from about 1930 to 1960, there was a very interesting time period, that correlates exactly to Beck’s results, when both experienced warming. NASA/GISS shows that the area 64N to 90N warmed one degree, and 64S to 90S warmed 4 degrees between 1930 and 1940. They both then cooled from 1945 to 1953, then resumed their more normal pattern of one cooling while the other was warming. Awful coincidental when one looks at Beck’s graph. So let’s put that all together with the original points I raised.
The sudden and very rapid warming evident in the temperature record would have resulted in a massive reduction of CO2 absorption in the key polar regions. At the same time, large temperature increases for those few years would no doubt have driven back the snowline on mountain tops and polar regions, exposing in a very short time period decayed biomass that had been under snow cover for years, perhaps decades or centuries, releasing large quantities of CO2. Consider also the snow melt itself. How much snow that would have otherwise been stable melts when the 64S to 90S temperatures surge by 4 degrees in just a few years? I don’t know, but my expectation is a considerable amount and the CO2 trapped would consequently also (though not entirely) be suddenly released. So the surge suddenly doesn’t seem all that unlikely. What of the absorption that followed?
As unlikely as you seem to think it is, it seems very plausible when one considers the above factors and then extrapolate to the next phase. From 1945 to 1953 the polar regions were both cooling instead of following their usual pattern of being in opposition to one another. Consider that this happened immediately following the sudden warming of both regions. What happens to the atmospheric CO2 as a consequence?
For starters, cooling scrubs a lot of moisture out of the atmosphere in the form of rain and snow. That rain and snow takes CO2 with it. At the same time, the colder temperatures cause an increase in the absorption rate of the ocean surface in the polar regions in particular. But there is one more factor, and it is a whopper.
As stated earlier, the equatorial regions outgas CO2, and are relatively stable temperature wise. So one would assume that the amount of CO2 out gassed would also be stable. Not so. The CO2 has to come from somewhere, and the source is CO2 absorbed in the colder polar regions. So what might the phase delay be between CO2 being absorbed at the poles, circulating to the equator, and then being out gassed? I’m no oceanographer, but a few years seems very plausible. In brief then:
1. During the 80 ppm peak in Beck’s graph, the polar regions were both working to increase CO2 levels instead of cancelling each other out.
2. Sudden warming of several degrees in polar regions would have released large amounts of CO2 from melted snow and exposed biomass.
3. During the decline in Beck’s graph, the polar regions were both working to decrease CO2 levels instead of cancelling each other out.
4. Massive amounts of moisture would have been scrubbed from the atmosphere, taking CO2 with it.
5. Out gassing from the equatorial regions would likely have fallen sharply as the water from the polar regions with far less than normal CO2 levels would have just been reaching the equatorial regions in that time frame.
In fact, if one considers all of these issues, one might ask the question as to how it would be possible for there NOT to be a CO2 spike in that timeframe. With that in mind, allow me to throw in one more coincidence that is simply too difficult to dismiss.
A big part of Climategate was exposing the fact that Mann et al had spliced actual temperatures to the ends of their graphs instead of using the proxy data that the rest of the graph was comprised of. Their excuse was “divergence”, that depending on the specific proxy being used, tree ring data ceased following global temperatures somewhere between 1950 and 1960. What do plants need to grow?
They need water, sun, and CO2. A shortage of any of the three becomes the limiting factor in their growth, regardless of the abundance of the other two. Look closely at Beck’s graph. The tree rings would have followed the temperature if they could, but they didn’t have the CO2 to do it with post 1950. Of course of that were true, then we would expect the divergence problem to disappear as CO2 levels began to increase again. You may want to google “bristle cone pines” and “divergence”. It seems that this species, which was amongst the first to “diverge” began to “undiverge” according to some recent (2005) papers, over the last decade or so. Since precipitation wasn’t much different, and the tree rings are tracking temperature again… One can only conclude that CO2 increases have enabled them to do so. Just as decreases disabled them in the 1950’s.
Michael:
Well, Mosh, I guess it’s because you are so much brighter and more principled than anyone else, and most of all because you are always right.
Suitably chastened, I will remember that in the future.
#####################################
It’s not a matter of being right. It’s a matter of always applying the same process of doubt. When I see people switch their process I wonder why? I dont know why, I wonder why? So when Jones switched from sharing data with Mc, to not sharing it with him, I just merely ask the question why? I find these changes in behavior funny.
I find it funny that people who doubt a temperature series because it only has 5000 stations, suddenly latch onto a single warm spot in greenland in the past. odd. Funny that they don’t see the structure of their thinking changing. I find it odd that people who get riled up about the calibration of thermometers would just let these measurments go un inspected. odd. I don’t know why, so there is nothing for me to be “right” about. I found a bug today. The difference between my answer and somebody else answer was bothering me. So I asked myself. If I saw this in a Mann paper what would I do? why, I’d go hard on it. I think it pays to be as hard on the science we like as the science we dont like. Maybe that’s funny to you. I dunno, we all have different senses of humor.
I don’t disagree with you, Mosh, that one should be as rigorous in evaluating evidence for as against propositions one favours, or for that matter, disagrees with.
However, there is the matter of tone to consider. You are indeed bright and principled, but imo you need sometimes to work a little harder on how you choose to express yourself. There are a dozen different ways you could have said what you said that wouldn’t have risked causing offence, and, more importantly for you, risked alienating people. These are those who, despite not themselves being lukewarmers, have done you the courtesy on many occasions of listening to what you have to say with due respect.
If you can give lessons, so can I, in this instance by mirroring your own technique. I’m hoping this one will stick, because I generally greatly value your contributions on a number of different blogs, as I did your book, co-authored with Tom Fuller, on Climategate, which I shelled out my hard-earned cash for.
I did not enjoy, however, your sarcastically-phrased comment to one of my posts elsewhere, where you assumed my intentions were quite different than they actually were. Be careful about imputing motives to individuals, or casting aspersions on whole groups of people who, did you but know it, are amongst your strongest allies.
David M Hoffer
You make precisely the same points-but expressed better-in your post of 9.21 as I did in my earlier post of 3.28.
I hope Ferdinand will deal with both of them together. If you have a specific answer to the temperature question I posed I would be interested to hear it.
Tonyb
Hi Ferdinand.
You made a good point and somehow I never doubted in my heart that the bulk of the increase in CO2 of the past 50 years probably was caused by man.
What still puzzles me is this:
The carbon dioxide content has increased by about 0.01% in the past 50 years from ca. 0.03% to 0.04% m/m. This compares with an average of about 1,0 % for water vapor in the air. (Water vapor in the air has nothing to do with clouds. That is still separate). Note that most scientists agree that water vapor is a much stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide… (if indeed carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which, like I said in an earlier post here, has yet to be proven to me). It is also logical for me to suspect that as a result of human activities relating to flying, driving, burning, bathing, cooking, boiling, countless cooling processes (including that for nuclear energy!), erection of dams and shallow pools, etc. etc., a lot more water vapor than carbon dioxide is put up in the air by humans. Especially the amount of new dams being put up for human consumption/ irrigation etc. must cause a definite increase in humidity on earth (shallow water evaporates quicker because of higher temps. attained quickly).
So, I reckon that an awful lot more than 0,01% was added to the atmosphere since 1960 due to human activities.
What puzzles me now is that nobody on any of the climate bloggs investigates, talks or writes about this increase in humidity – it is as if this does not happen or is not happening or it is considered completely inconsequential compared to the increase in CO2. That, to me, is completely incomprensible.
Milwaukee Bob says:
September 24, 2010 at 3:09 pm
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”.
As the difference in 13C/12C levels is expressed in per mil, the difference is in the next digits:
The zero per mil in the VPDB scale is at 1.123% 13C, the rest is 12C (the tiny fraction of 14C is somewhere at 10E-14: negligible as mass, still interesting for carbon dating)
The discrimination of 13C/12C by building organic matter gives -24 per mil VPDB, that means 1.097% 13C, hardly a difference, but easely detectable with mass spectrometers and good enough to discriminate the origin (organic/inorganic) of the CO2 which caused the change in d13C of the atmosphere, which was pre-industrial at 1.116% 13C (-6.5 per mil, nowadays -8 per mil). I left out some more decimal digits, but you can see that the differences in absolute levels are very small.
Oil indeed is lower in d13C, natural gas even much lower (-40, sometimes -60!), in general one uses the average mix of coal, oil and gas use (and burning efficiency) to calculate the emitted CO2 amounts and theoretical d13C level changes…
Tim Folkerts says:
September 24, 2010 at 4:13 pm
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.
Until a scientist constructs an apparatus and measures the heating effect of trace amount of CO2 in dry air, I shall assume that it is very small and causes little if any temperature change of the dry air.
“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.”
You can not use the S-B law to calculate the temperature of the earth because it is not a black body. This calculation assumes inter ali that the earth has a uniform absorptivity, emissivity and albedo which it certaintly does not.
This calculation does not take into account that earth has thick layer of an insulating gas mixture which regulates the earth temperature and keep it between -90 deg C and +60 deg C. Also there is no uniform illumination of the earth’s surface by sunlight which is due to the tilt of its axis of rotation This and unequal mass distribution of the two hemisphere causes these to heat and cool at different rates.
I suspect that the GHG’s have little or no influence on the temperature and climate.
The temperature plots of many deserts or arid regions show no increase overtime, i.e., CO2 has no influence on temperature in these regions.
Go to the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” at
http://www.John-Daly.com
Under the tab “Station Temperature Data” check out the many temperature-time plots of remote weather stations, in particular Death Valley, Tombstone and Dodge City.
Dave Springer says:
September 24, 2010 at 3:50 pm
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.
I think you misunderstood my opinion about stomata data. I don’t think that SI data are reliable enough to give more than a first approximation of CO2 levels in the past, as the difference between local average CO2 levels and global background levels may have largely changed over time. But some use the SI data to “prove” that ice core CO2 data are wrong, as the SI data are more variable and show higher levels some 600-1000 years ago. That is without taking into account the local bias factor. And changes in other factors also may play a role.
BTW, I too was in the opinion that stomata density was a direct result of CO2 levels at the moment that the leaves are growing in spring, but Tom van Hoof (stomata scientist) said that the SI of the new leaves is based on CO2 levels of the previous growing season. Maybe already incorporated in the buds formed in fall of the previous year…
I’ve been reading these comments for an hour and a half now. I’m off before DW smacks me one.
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.
The increase of less than 1°C since the LIA is good for about 8 ppmv increase in CO2 level (the opposite 0.8°C MWP-LIA cooling does show a drop of 6 ppmv in the Law Dome ice core). The increase since 1850 is about 100 ppmv, while humans have emitted somewhat less than 200 ppmv by burning fossil fuels in the same period. Plus land use changes and extra methane releases (which started already 6,000 years ago)…
Joseph Day says:
September 24, 2010 at 5:43 pm
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.
There are no signs of a warming in the deep ocean layers, but the level between 700 meters and the mixed layer (100-200 m depth) may be warming somewhat, including more methane releases from the continental shelves. But that is not different from the previous interglacial, the Eemian, which was warmer than today, with forests growing up to the Arctic Ocean, leaving less/no permafrost, no ice at the North Pole (at least in summer) and halve of the Greenland ice sheet melted away… In that period, the CH4 levels were around 700 ppbv. There were relative small changes in d13C over the ice ages.
The ice cores over the past 11,000 years also show 600-700 ppbv until about 1750. After that a rapid increase to 1800 ppbv nowadays. Including a large excursion of d13C. That points to a human source…
Charles Higley says:
September 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm
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.
You’re probably confusing the average time a CO2 molecule spends in the atmosphere with the decay time of an impulse of CO2. Each molecule has an average ‘lifespan’ in the atmosphere of ~5 years but these molecules are constantly being replaced (and added to by human emissions). This is due to the annual/seasonal/daily carbon cycle. The time taken for an impulse of CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere (e.g. the ~100ppm over the past ~150 years) is different. Estimates vary but I’ve seen a convincing argument that the half-life (i.e. 50 ppm removed) is ~55 years.
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.
You fail to appreciate the scale of an 80ppm increase (and decrease). The difference in CO2 accumulation rates between a powerful El Nino (1997/98) and a deep La Nina (1998-2000) is ~2 ppm. What on earth happened in the 1940s? Why haven’t we seen a sudden 80 ppm jump following this period of warming?
Several ice core records tell the same story. The only significant variation in the ‘recent’ past has been before and after ice ages. The rises and falls here were in response to temperature shifts of 5-6 deg and took thousands of years to be full realised. In the last 150 years we have observed an increase at least as large as that following the last ice age.
In Ferdinand’s post, he shows 5 locations which have been considered appropriate for measuring background CO2 levels. The measurements at each location (thousands of miles apart) are virtually identical. It is inconceivable that there was an 80 ppm increase in just a few years and even more inconceivable that there was an equivalent fall.
Regarding your comment that “nature just does not do constant very well”. I disagree. Despite the huge daily and regional variation in temperatures across the world, the global averages as measured by GISS, Hadley, UAH & RSS rarely show year on year variation of any more than a couple of tenths of a degree.
TonyB says:
September 24, 2010 at 3:28 pm
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?
If we may use the temperature profile of Bermuda, which has detailed pCO2(aq) calculations, then we can conclude that the SST near the English coast is low enough to be a permanent sink for CO2, of course more in winter than in summer. The Bermuda SST goes from ~19°C in winter to ~28°C in summer and only in summer the pCO2 of the oceans exceeds the 390 ppmv of the atmosphere. Thus the current border of outgassing of the oceans is at about 25°C. That doesn’t take into account the local/regional differences in pH and DIC (total inorganic carbon) which also influence the pCO2(aq), but it gives a rough indication of where the border between outgassing and uptake is. See:
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/archive/sst_series_bermuda_path.html
and
http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html
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.
I have the NH/SH SST plots from the Hadley centre here:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf at page 19
While the SH/NH SST temperatures are largely parallel, the SH SST shows a cooling in the period 1940-1950, which is not visible in the NH SST. Even so, the increase since 1960 in both the NH and SH SST’s is about double the SST peak around 1940, but from the different observations it is clear that the oceans were net absorbers of CO2 after 1960, not sources…
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.
There are several problems with the oceans, which prevent them to be very fast sources/sinks of CO2: the ocean surface DIC changes (CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) are only 10% of the changes in the atmosphere to reach a new equilibrium. The transfer rate between oceans and atmosphere is small and mainly a question of wind speed. And the main potential is in the deep oceans, which only have a limited exchange with the atmosphere via the THC.
On the other side, temperature changes also influence vegetation, but these act opposite: higher temperatures show more vegetation growth, thus more CO2 sequestering, while one has more CO2 releases of the oceans. The net result is about 4 ppmv/°C short term (5 ppmv over the global seasonal cycle of about 1°C) to 8 ppmv/°C for long term temperature swings.
Dr A Burns says:
September 24, 2010 at 6:12 pm
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/co2-emission-from-fossil-fuel-burning.html
Except that human/animal breathing CO2 is CO2 which was captured a few months to a few decades before out of the same atmosphere and thus doesn’t add to the total amount of CO2. In contrast, fossil fuels were captured many millions of years ago at CO2 levels which were many times higher than today, thus adding to the current amounts in the atmosphere…
Steven Mosher says:
September 24, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I find it hilarious that the same people here who scream about the accuracy and methods in the land temps, the same people who scream about buckets and SST methods, the same people who look at thermometer specs, who complain about calibration records, who worry about getting + sings wrong in METARS, who worry about the accuracy of ice cores, or tree ring methodology.. the list of skeptical nit picking goes on.. I’m amused that when it comes to work like this, they drop their skeptical approach entirely. why is that
I am every time supprised by that attitude too, maybe that is what is called “confirmation bias”. Most people are (far) more critical to what they don’t like than to what they do like as answer.
I try to be as critical to both sides of the fence, but even then, I am only human…
TonyB,
I can’t answer your question about temperature but I can advise that there is a very interesting paper by Annti Roine on equilibrium pressures of CO2 over sea water and the cycle of exchange with the atmosphere. Roine provides detailed theory and calculations followed by correlation of results with geological record and recent records. I discussed this at one point with Beck who advised that Roine’s approach and his were very close, and a more exhaustive analysis would appear in his new paper. He was already ill by then and I don’t know if that was ever published. I doubt it as the paper was intended to respond to Beck’s critics on other matters such as the ones raised here by Ferdinand. In any event, Roine’s paper is on his web site at:
http://www.antti-roine.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=73
Ferdinand,
In addition to your argument that the spike in Beck’s graph was not possible, your criticism of Beck’s results falls into two categories. I’ve already dealt with the “possibility” issue in my comment above, and TonyB asked a pertinent question in the same vein. I hope that you answer, but having gotten a few hours sleep, I’d like to comment on the other aspects of your argument.
The first category relates to the accuracy and suitability of the measurements Beck used. As you demonstrated, there are a considerable number of issues which bring many of the measurements in Beck’s data into question. This came up in a blog I was following and Beck lost his temper and made some remarks that made him sound frankly, a bit looney. I corresponded privately with him and at one point he asked “do they think I am so stupid as to make such a mistake?”. I responded to him that he needed to understand the nature of debate in an open blog and the difference between a serious question about the science and an attack intended to discredit him by creating a perception regardless of the science. Ultimately however, I said that if he wanted to silence his critics he would have to publish the exact methods he used to arrive at which samples to use, which to discard and why, and precisely how the various samples that remained were analyzed and quantified to arrive at his final graph. He agreed with me and advised that his upcoming paper would go into considerable detail on that matter. He was already ill by then and having lost touch with him I don’t know how far it proceeded. I haven’t heard of a recent publication. Hopefully his work is in the hands of colleagues or family members and we will eventually see it because he did in fact have answers as to how he removed data that was suspect for the very reasons you mention in your article.
The second matter in your argument relates to ice core data which does not reflect the spike in Beck’s graph. I corresponded on this matter as well with Beck, and he had some pretty good theories which he was intending to travel to somewhere (Vlostok?) with a colleague to gather additional data to either prove or disprove his theory.
Again, he was already ill and I don’t know if this occurred or not. The point however is that Beck had some compelling reasons why the spike he showed would not, in fact could not, show up in the ice core record. While he never shared the detailed calculations with me, he did explain his position. I hesitate to paraphrase it here because much of it was over my head and he had to dumb down some of the answers. I shall do my best however because his answers have merit and perhaps colleagues or others with more in depth knowledge can fill in the gaps. Any discrepancies between Beck’s actual position and my explanation are purely errors on my part.
In brief, Beck’s perspective began with how ice cores are formed. Snow falls in layers, each new layer compacting the ones below it. After a number of years, there is enough pressure from the weight of the snow to turn the bottom most layer into ice. Until then, the snow is porous and can exchange gases with the atmosphere. The lattice structure of snow traps water within it, and even ice has unfrozen water within the lattice structure. As a consequence, the ice core doesn’t show the CO2 levels from the year the snow fell, it shows the CO2 levels that the snow was exposed to during the course of being compressed into ice. I asked what a fair estimate of the resolution was, and got an answer well over my head. The dumbed down version was at best 30 years and at worst 200 years depending on a number of factors. In brief, the resolution of the ice cores is insufficient in his opinion to show the brief spike in his results. Again, this was to be part of the paper he was working on along with his explanation of how he analyzed historical CO2 data. Beck also surmised that as snow is compacted to ice, air pockets in the snow, which would be reflective of current CO2 levels as they would equilibrate to the atmosphere, not the snow they were trapped in that fell decades previous, would form bubbles and under sufficient pressure, clathrates. So any given sample of ice would have CO2 trapped within it from various time periods and various forms; bubbles, clathrates, water trapped in the lattice structure and so on. I asked how one would differentiate CO2 from a bubble versus CO2 from water trapped in the lattice structure of a snow flake eventually compacted to ice over a period of years and he answered something to the effect of “exactly!”. My impression was however, that he had thought of some mechanisms for quantifying this, and that was part of his intended trip to Vlostok to obtain the ice samples he would need.
Regardless if he was able to make that trip or not, or what happened to any data that resulted, one has to admit that his points have merit. My reading of the ice core data is that there is a known phase delay between the age of the ice and the age of the CO2 trapped within it. It makes considerable sense that a process which captures CO2 through the formation of ice over a period of a few decades would at best show the spike in Beck’s data only if it had lasted for at least 30 years. It did not.
Since the oceans hold many many times more CO2 than the atmosphere, it seems that any increase in atmospheric CO2, say a doubling, would have to be (eventually) almost entirely absorbed by the oceans to regain pressure equilibrium, even taking into account the modest degassing from a slight increase in temperature, if it were to occur. The only question is how fast the absorption would be. I imagine the absorption rate should increase as the pressure unbalance increases. Also, this absorption would have a nearly insignificant effect in ocean CO2 concentration. But do we know what atmospheric CO2 levels represent equilibrium with the oceans at current temperatures?
One last thing on Beck’s results. Beck had identified specific areas where carbon absorption into the ocean was much higher than average. He described one as the triangle bounded by Greenland, Spietzbergen and an island he didn’t name. He said that there were multiple smaller zones off South America and Antarctica with similar characteristics. The Greenland/Spietzbergen triangle experience warming of 12 degrees C from 1918 to 1936, and a study by Schneider and Steif showed similar results for the zones in the SH from 1939 to 1942. Also mentioned was a paper by Polyakov which he said also supported this. If key absorption zones fluctuated in temperature by that much, a spike in CO2 levels starts to look rather reasonable.
Point being that Beck, when calmed down and asked to explain his comments, had credible answers for his critics, much data to back them up, and was in the process of collecting still more data and publishing the whole thing at once. I hope that his colleagues and family have preserved as much of that work as possible so that others can continue it because I suspect that in the long run, Beck will be vindicated.
I find it interesting that no mention is made in the article or the subsequent comments about the CO2 record going back 600 million years by Berner. CO2 now is 1/18th of what it was 600 million years ago, and the temperature record (Scotese) all during this time has been in a tight range between 12C and 22C, about 6% of the time at 12C and about 46% of the time at 22C. Now, we are at 14.5C, only 25% off the bottom of the geological temperature range. Why does the agw crowd always fail to recognize this firm 600 million year record of CO2 and temperature, but is quick to jump on much smaller changes as proof of gw? History simply is not on their side.
Ferdinand and DavidmHoffer
Thanks for all the excellent information. A family party prevents me reading and answering until tomorrow, but one final question to Ferdinand.
Would the ocean around both our cool shores be a greater sink in January than it would be in say April?
tonyb