From the “fun with conjecture department”, another graduate school paper parroting the claim from NOAA’s Susan Solomon that excess man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
From CO2science: In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.
It seems to me that Gaia does a fine job of respirating CO2. It doesn’t just “sit there”, as you can see the process is quite dynamic:
More at NOAA ESRL Carbon Tracker
Via Eurekalert: If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer
While governments debate about potential policies that might curb the emission of greenhouse gases, new University of Washington research shows that the world is already committed to a warmer climate because of emissions that have occurred up to now.
There would continue to be warming even if the most stringent policy proposals were adopted, because there still would be some emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. But the new research shows that even if all emissions were stopped now, temperatures would remain higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels because the greenhouse gases already emitted are likely to persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
In fact, it is possible temperatures would continue to escalate even if all cars, heating and cooling systems and other sources of greenhouse gases were suddenly eliminated, said Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics. That’s because tiny atmospheric particles called aerosols, which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on.
“The aerosols would wash out quickly and then we would see an abrupt rise in temperatures over several decades,” he said.
Armour is the lead author of a paper documenting the research, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. His co-author is Gerard Roe, a UW associate professor of Earth and space sciences.
The global temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution, which began around the start of the 19th century. The scientists’ calculations took into account the observed warming, as well as the known levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols already emitted to see what might happen if all emissions associated with industrialization suddenly stopped.
In the best-case scenario, the global temperature would actually decline, but it would remain about a half-degree F higher than pre-Industrial Revolution levels and probably would not drop to those levels again, Armour said.
There also is a possibility temperatures would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution, a threshold at which climate scientists say significant climate-related damage begins to occur.
Of course it is not realistic to expect all emissions to cease suddenly, and Armour notes that the overall effect of aerosols – particles of sea salt or soot from burning fossil fuels, for example – is perhaps the largest uncertainty in climate research.
But uncertainties do not lessen the importance of the findings, he said. The scientists are confident, from the results of equations they used, that some warming would have to occur even if all emissions stopped now. But there are more uncertainties, and thus a lower confidence level, associated with larger temperature increases.
Climate models used in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments take into consideration a much narrower range of the possible aerosol effects, or “forcings,” than are supported by actual climate observations, Armour said. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel, sponsored by the United Nations, makes periodic assessments of climate change and is in the process of compiling its next report.
As emissions of greenhouse gases continue, the “climate commitment” to a warmer planet only goes up, Armour said. He believes it is helpful for policy makers to understand that level of commitment. It also will be helpful for them to understand that, while some warming is assured, uncertainties in current climate observations – such as the full effect of aerosols – mean the warming could be greater than models suggest.
“This is not an argument to say we should keep emitting aerosols,” he said. “It is an argument that we should be smart in how we stop emitting. And it’s a call to action because we know the warming we are committed to from what we have emitted already and the longer we keep emitting the worse it gets.”
The paper was published in the Jan. 15 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.
If greenhouse gas emissions stopped now, Earth still would likely get warmer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Momma nature is a b!tch.
Sorry, but I’m gonna keep my CO2 spewing F-150. I have to haul firewood – cuz it has been a helluva cold winter. Oh, wait – that emits the evil CO2 too! I’m screwed either way.
Looks like nature has it under control. Kinda like forever.
Residence time for a CO2 molecule is not the same as residence time for elevated CO2 level du to man made emissions.
I think this the reason for the mismatch between C02 science 5 yo 16 years which refers to the former and Susan Solomon who refers to the latter.
This cr&p is so full of certain uncertainties, i hope this is not his PhD thesis.
It sounds like he is not really able to tell us what is going to happen but he is certain of the uncertainties that something might happen but not exactly sure what!
Does that sound about right?
“Zeke is correct. You have to look at the rates of CO2 absorption by the oceans and CO2 emission by the oceans. If there is an imbalance the CO2 ppm in the air will change.”
The oceans will absorb some portion of any increase, but so will the general biomass. Plants will absorb CO2 and that carbon will end up within biological molecules (carbs, proteins, fats…). The carbon gets out of the biomass, and back into the atmosphere as CO2, both when animals exhale, when things rot and when they burn. That throws a huge wrench in the estimation. What is the residence time of carbon from CO2 in the biomass? For carbon that ends up in wood for houses, much longer than carbon that ends up in food crops.
To be a permanent sink (as are the oceans when absorbing up to their saturation level) the gross global biomass must increase. The sum total of C molecules within organic molecules (and thus not in the atmosphere as CO2) can only go up if the mass of organic molecules goes up – either more life, or more long lasting products made from living materials (wood, cotton, rayon…).
Lets hear it from the farmers who use CO2 to improve crop yields inside greenhouses.
I must assume they can measure the CO2, they claim 1,000ppmv improves yields by 100%.
So just stop the CO2 feed into one greenhouse and record the time taken for the the CO2
level to drop below present normal levels.
That should give an indication of plant useage. Then repeat the test in in a sealed greenhouse
over a swimming pool of water at 25C. Record CO2 levels then cool the water to 4C.
You can precalculate the expected drop from the CO2/water absorption scale. Water at
4C can hold nearly 3 grams of CO2 per kilogram of water. That is HUGE compared to
395ppmv in the atmosphere at STP. About 0.7grams CO2 per kilogram of atmosphere.
There is anecdotal evidence that radiation has increased. The graph I link to shows the rise in melanoma in NY. More radiation, more skin cancer. Anecdotal, but it is interesting. Now, can back radiation from CO2 cause skin (or any type) of cancer? Has this been claimed by the AGWers yet?
http://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/diseases/cancer/skin/report/2010/images/year_of_diagnosis_by_race_760x474.png
According to mainstream climate science, 50% of the mann made CO2 produced each year is absorbed in a year. From this it is pretty straight forward to estimate how much is left each year.
yr fraction remaining
1 .5
2 .25
3 .125
5 .0313
10 .001
So while it could be said that the CO2 will stick around for many years, there isn’t very much of it after a couple of years. In any case, the notion that this is all due to mann made CO2 seems very far fetched given that natural production of CO2 is so much greater than human production. A very small estimating error in natural production could more than equal the total human production.
Pure and utter BS. Is this the kind of PhD that is being churned out today in the field of “climate science”? We are getting to the stage where a PhD means nothing anymore; rather like in social science.
And here was I thinking that modern temperature is higher than the pre-industrial age temperature because we are recovering from the LIA.
The parameters change. More CO2 = more CO2 absorption. Self regulating system.
Oh, good grief. So much BS, I can’t be bothered shuttling up and down the page to copy and paste bits to criticise. Steeptown – you say “We are getting (my emphasis) to the stage where a PhD means nothing anymore; rather like in social science.”? We’re well into that stage already IMO, and it’s not just PhDs – think about the Nobel Peace Prize, f’rinstance. Any sort of qualification or honour now seems to be awarded almost exclusively to those prepared to parrot the “approved” BS in which the world now wallows.
Perhaps the truest statement there is that “the overall effect of aerosols (…) is perhaps the largest uncertainty in climate research. Given the way these “experts” sneer at the likes of Svensmark when he develops a very plausible theory showing both (a) how it happens and (b) that it’s nothing at all to do with the great demon Seeohtoo, that’s hardly surprising. Modern “academia” is proud of its ignorance, and will fight to defend it.
Maybe we really should worry that civilisation as we know it really will end in 2012, or not long after. We’ll reach that point when the number of idiots who believe in this cargo cult rubbish increases so much that there aren’t enough people left who believe in real science and understanding the real world to run a civilisation. What an epitaph. The Human Race: Buried in Bullshit.
David Falkner 10:36pm:-
“Now, can back radiation from CO2 cause skin (or any type) of cancer? Has this been claimed by the AGWers yet?”
It will be, now that you’ve given them the idea:-)
Steve says: February 16, 2011 at 10:30 pm
quote
To be a permanent sink (as are the oceans when absorbing up to their saturation level) the gross global biomass must increase. The sum total of C molecules within organic molecules (and thus not in the atmosphere as CO2) can only go up if the mass of organic molecules goes up – either more life, or more long lasting products made from living materials (wood, cotton, rayon…).
unquote
Or a stable population of short-lived materials. If it’s stored as grass which quickly rots, it only matters if the new grass doesn’t grow fast enough to make up the deficit — the total stored will remain the same.
Or maybe we can imagine the grass population staying constant but holding less CO2 for some reason, a change of species for example, like an ocean where silica run-off is replacing calcareous phytoplankton with silicaceous diatoms.
But see:
Global phytoplankton decline over the past century Daniel G. Boyce,1 Marlon R. Lewis2& Boris Worm
The article is behind a paywall. Does anyone know how the southern ocean decline compares with, e.g. the North Atlantic?
JF
I’m confused!
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
James says:
February 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm
The parameters change. More CO2 = more CO2 absorption. Self regulating system.
It clearly only self-regulates to a degree else there wouldn’t be ~75 ppm more CO2 than 50 years ago.
Regarding the time taken for the post-industrial CO2 ‘pulse’ (280ppm -> 390 ppm) to return to pre-industrial levels (280 ppm): Assuming the rate of absorption is a function of the excess (as appears to be the case currently) the half life of the pulse should be ~40 years. After 55 years ~37% (1/e) of the excess should remain.
Re: Zeke Hausfather says:
February 16, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Zeke (and others) are correct. The residence time of individual molecules is not the same as the time taken to remove the pulse. For example, if there were 750 GtC of carbon in the atmosphere and each year 150 GtC is absorbed and 150 GtC is emitted by the biosphere then the total atmospheric concentration (750 GtC) remains exactly the same. However the average residence time for a CO2 molecule is ~5 years.
Could it be that easy to prove?
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm
“SAMPLE RESULTS FROM CO2 ENRICHMENT STUDIES
BIBB LETTUCE
By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.
CARNATIONS
CO2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.
ROSES
The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.
TOMATOES
Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the CO2 concentration. More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.”
James Sexton says:
“I would attribute the larger amount in the NH to heavier industrialization. There’s more there, because more is emitted there………just guessing.”
I doubt that the effects of industry are particularly visible in the animation for a couple of reasons. First, the total contribution of fossil fuel burning is only about 3-4% of total turnover, so natural seasonal variations likely dominate, if you look at the Mauna Loa trace, the seasonal variation is much larger than the long term trend over the same time period.
Secondly, the NH shows much greater variation than the SH in the animation, peaking in the winter and dipping in the summer, around Aug-Sept the NH goes down to well below anything seen in the SH; and I would expect the contribution from industrial output to be much more even, and it is clearly being overwhelmed in the summer.
Mike said:
“You have to look at the rates of CO2 absorption by the oceans and CO2 emission by the oceans. If there is an imbalance the CO2 ppm in the air will change.”
Of course you do. Obvious.
So what effect has the natural change in sea surface temperatures since the LIA had on both those rates ?
Warmer sea surfaces will clearly skew the balance towards more CO2 in the atmosphere due to reduced absorbency.
Hence the monotonic change shown by the Mauna Loa record despite changes in the rates of human CO2 emissions.
The ice core records are most likely an inadequate proxy for past CO2 levels being far too coarse to reflect even centennial changes accurately and most likely also becoming more coarse and inadequate the further back one goes.
Just as the biosphere ‘breathes’ CO2 so do the oceans but on different timescales related to oceanic cycling which results in changing sea surface temperatures over multicentenial timescales.
The CO2 content of the air just reflects the natural balance between the two constantly shifting processes with the ever varying action of the sun and oceans combining to alter the tropospheric temperatures and cloudiness levels to add a further confounding effect on the biosphere’s CO2 processing rate and the CO2 absorption characteristics of the sea surface temperatures.
None of that has been accurately unravelled to provide a reliable indication of human as compared to natural effects.
It really is very wrong to start from a suggestion that the pre industrial levels were somehow set at some ‘ideal’ CO2 level such that any subsequent changes are significantly human induced.
Zeke reckons it will take 50 years for the excess co2 in the atmosphere to decay to pre-industrial levels if mankind stops all emissions now. Assuming an exponential decay curve, the time constant would be 50 years, given 4 gigatons per year for 200 gigatons above the assumed natural equilibrium level.
However it has taken mankind well over 150 years to build that level up, so the decay would be quite rapid really.
However it is pointless postulating that mankind stop all co2 emissions immediately. We might stabilize at current emission rates if every country industrialized and used 80 percent nuclear energy, like France for example. This would stabilize co2 levels at 400 gigatons above pre-industrial equilibrium, 485 ppm or something.
With a lot of effort, such a nuclear powered industrial economy might halve its emissions to stabilize at something like today’s levels. Would the results be worth the effort though? The results of all this excess co2 are not unambiguously different to nature. It takes an act of faith to believe it is.
The value of 280 ppm for the preindustrial era are based on the assumption, that the icecore-data show reliable values of the CO2 content in the atmosphere in the past. But as Jaworoswski and other have shown this is not the case. Before 1985 values up to 550 ppm CO2 were measured in icecores. After 1985 these values were omitted with out any explanation. I do not believe that CO2 content in the atmosphere had such a high value but it shows that CO2 data from icecores are not reliable . An other way to determine the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel is measuring the delta 13 C. The measured value of delta 13 C shows not such an increase as compared to the calculated value using the IPCC data of -7 per mill for delta 13C for the preindustrial era and a 21 % increase (1988) of CO2 due to human activities.
James Sexton says: But, most of us here are pretty familiar with GISS……..
Thanks James. No disrespect intended to any of the erudite bloggers here and I am fully aware of and appreciate the work of the people and site you mentioned.
My post was aimed at the rising tide of confused people who are crying out for information but don’t know where to start. They are making this known on blogs in Australia as the proposed carbon tax and Jo Nova’s BoM audit request has really stirred the possum!
I know of no site other than John Daly’s where 66 x 2 mouse clicks allows one to view up to 140 odd years of world temperature surface records clearly illustrating no “unprecedented” warming has occurred!
With WUWT being the leading science blog, curious but uncommitted people will visit and maybe my post may spark one two to have a wider look.
What does everyone think of this.
There is an article on the BBC’s website by Richard Black, their (warmist) Environment Correspondent, quoting a report that global warming will cause more rain in the UK. The report is apparently based on ‘actual records since 1766’, plus computer models.
HOWEVER – the report goes on to say that ‘much more work’ needs to be done on the computer models – as there is much uncertainty as to whether the models are valid.
Don’t you think it would be better to wait until the reporters are certain they can stand by their findings – rather than the usual ‘we think its all disastrous but we’re not sure yet’ approach..?
Zeke is correct, let me explain with an alalogy
Place a leaky bucket under a dripping tap with a dripping rate exactly equal to te leakage so the water level reamins in equilibrium. Then you pour an extra pint into the bucket. Let’s say this extra pint was colored red to distiguish it from the other.
Afte some time the red colour would diminish from the bucket as the color was thinned out, but the water level would not necessarly sink to the original level in the same rate.
The water color show the residece time for each water molecule. This is, however, of no interest seen in a macro perspective. The water level show whats matter, namely for how long time an elevated level will persist.
The water lever is analog to the CO2 level which may have a half life of approximately 40 – 60 years even though each molecule have a residence time of only 4 years
In 2010, Human emissions of Carbon (through CO2) were about 9.5 billon tons (9.5 GTs).
Oceans and Plants absorbed about 4.69 GTs and,
The amount that stayed in the air was about 4.80 GTs. The global concentration of CO2 increased by about 2.30 ppm to 388.57 ppm. [Each 1 ppm of CO2 is about 2.13 GTs Carbon].
Thae airborne fraction of CO2 was once again about 50.0%.
The amount that Oceans and Plants absorb each year is about 2% of the excess Carbon in the atmosphere above the equilibrium level which seems to be about 280 ppm.
CO2 has been about 280 ppm for the past 24 million years since C4 grasses evolved between 36 million to 24 million years ago. C4 grasses, being relatively efficient users of CO2 compared to the plants that evolved before, were able to drawdown CO2 levels lower where they were in pre-history before C4 grasses evolved and CO2 levels dropped down to 280 ppm). It has stayed right at this level ever since give or take a short bump up at times and short bump down in an ice age for example.
So right now, there is about 830 GTs Carbon in the atmosphere and there is an excess of 233 GTs Carbon above the 280 ppm level. 2% of 233 GT excess equals 4.66 GT (which is exactly what Plants and Oceans absorbed in 2010). If you go back and look at the historic levels of emissions and CO2 that remained in the air, this 2% seems to hold up almost exactly every year).
So, if human emissions stopped, how long will it take to remove 233 excess GTs of Carbon at a drawdown rate of 2% per year.
We will back down to 285 ppm within 140 years.
If we cut our emissions in half, back down to 4.75 GTs per year, Oceans and Plants will then absorb the exact same amount and the CO2 levels will stabilize.
That is how the Math is done when one is objective and looks at the actual numbers.
CO2 concentration is already dropping. They are hiding the decline.
Go to:
http://www.carboeurope.org/education/schoolsweb.php
Start date: 1-1-2007
End date: 1-1-2011
Choose CO2 (Y-axis)
Station: NL StellingWerf College, Oosterwolde
Show graph!