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.
Sensor’s link begins: “With global warming comes increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which benefits at least one species—weeds.” 1) Grade school grammar requires “come”; plural subject, plural verb. 2) Does this introduction accept that warming has caused the CO2? (hence, no AGW? –AGW orthodoxy reverses the cause and effect, you know) 3) Are we to suppose that weeds benefit more than cultigens from CO2? Adam’s curse continues and worsens.
Neither CO2 nor any supposed resultant heat can be considered anything but the most insignificant factors in the spread of pine beetles. The single most important cause of their spread is firefighting, which disrupts their natural extermination. This is typical alarmist irrational nonsense.
@sensor operator:
These have to be the feeblest arguments against CO2 since Hansen started the shrillness.
Oxygen is breathed in by animals. CO2 is breathed in by plants. Ergo, an increase in CO2 – which, BTW is not nearly what it was in earlier epochs – helps plants.
It is not just a lab experiment. Look at those patterns in the video: In the NH, every time the plants die off over the winter the CO2 in the atmosphere increases by several percent, and every time the plants start growing again the CO2 drops again. It couldn’t be more clear: CO2 in the atmosphere is used by plants.
That happens in the SH basically only where there are plants, not where there is ocean, where it remains essentially flat, vis-a-vis the seasons.
But arguing that WEEDS proliferating is an argument about keeping CO2 in the atmosphere down – how feeble and peripheral of an argument is that? Come on. You can do better than that!
That is the AGW argument, isn’t it? You do know that reducing the loss of heat (in re-radiating) is not the same as warming, don’t you?
1. Based on the fact that UHI hasn’t been properly quantified and allowed for, even though some studies suggest it is probably a magnitude bigger than the oft-depended on Wang-Jones study, we don’t, in fact, know this is true. The adjusted NOAA/GISS/CRU numbers say it is true, but many, many of the individual stations’ histories do not show warming in the raw data – even ones that after adjusting are clearly shown to have warming. So, if the warming is an artifact of the adjustments (as seems possible), and possibly 90% the UHI is not properly accounted for, is it any wonder that some people still aren’t convinced that this is true?
2. If this is intrinsically true, then why is it that the increase of CO2 after WWII did not bring with it an increase in temperatures until around 1980? Does this not suggest that something else is going on and that the assumption about CO2 is perhaps wrong or only part of the story?
3. Courtesy of Phil Jones: And why is it that there were two other 2-3-decade periods since 1880 that show the same rise in temperature (the same slope), even though the industrialization level – the human part – was not enough to “cause” a temperature rise?
You see, you take it on faith that this is true, even when there are plenty of arguments why it is still to be questioned. But you deny the counter-arguments and repeat the assumption as if they didn’t exist.
keith at hastings uk – We’re putting out about 29GT (very solid number from fossil fuel consumption) of CO2 per year. The rise in CO2 levels given that level of output should be at least 4 ppm/year, but we’re seeing a little over 2 ppm/year increases.
That means that about 45% of the CO2 we put out is being absorbed by the biosphere, primarily (according to changes in ocean pH) by the oceans.
Plants take in and then release a lot of CO2, which accounts for the yearly swings in CO2 concentration (as seen in the video at the top of this topic), but these aren’t a permanent sequestering of CO2 – eat the plant, digest it, and out comes the CO2 again. It would be great if they did, but that won’t be the case unless we bury all the plants and never let them rot. Or maybe turn them into coal or oil – but they don’t form very fast, certainly not as fast as we’re burning them.
Feet2theFire – “…an increase in CO2 – which, BTW is not nearly what it was in earlier epochs…”
Hm – certainly not recently. Watch the video I linked earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4&feature=player_embedded
We’re about 100 ppm higher in CO2 than the world has seen for at least the last half million plus years. Glacial cycles were driven by solar changes (orbital variations changing heating), and CO2 lagged behind as a feedback. But now we’re changing CO2 first; CO2 is the forcing change on the climate rather than orbital changes.
Sensor operator,
“And higher CO2 is better for weeds as well.”
I wondered how long it would be before some alarmists came up with that one. It reminds me of a guy I heard about who went to one of those get-rich business opportunities and after an hour of listening to the pitch replied “I’d hate to earn that much – I’m thinking of all the income tax I’d have to pay.”
@Keith. at hastings uk:
Which is not to say we shouldn’t migrate to cleaner energy, and more secure (politically) energy (gas a good start, replacing coal), but why panic and risk destroying economies en route?
I agree, except that there IS no cleaner energy at present that is capable. If there was, people would be changing over in droves. Wind will never be adequate. Solar has always been long on hope and far short on delivery. Tides? As a very small adjunct only. I like the potential of Thorium MSR, but it isn’t happening anywhere except China, and that is still down the road just a bit.
As to panicking and destroying economies: That I saw right away, too – but I saw it causing a great dying off of humans as a result. I see the AGW people as being amazingly inert to the number of people this will kill, because if industries die, the quality of life drops precipitously. For many that means loss of jobs, and how that can avoid killing off half a billion to 2 billion people I don’t know. Yes, I am pulling those numbers out of thin air, but I don’t see them as being unreal. Without the current level of technology, we couldn’t get food to people – we couldn’t grow enough, and we couldn’t ship it, and we couldn’t keep it fresh. And if people don’t have jobs they can’t afford it. Tent cities would proliferate. Sanitation would be negatively impacted. Our infrastructure would be on thin ice.
The real problem is not CO2. The real problem is land use, due to increasing population. While the AGWers are all wailing about CO2, the land use problem isn’t being solved. UHI is real. As to how big a problem it is, though, remains to be seen. Raw temps far away from cities do not show much increase, so perhaps even land use isn’t a global warming problem. In the meantime, we are overfishing the oceans and no one is doing enough about that. When the fish are all gone, what will the Japanese (the most criminal over-fishers) eat?
We have real problems, and we are wasting so much time and energy on this stupid, stupid fantasy. And the others are not getting addressed. Shame on the AGW people.
Sensor operator says:
February 17, 2011 at 11:32 am
This also leads to larger regions for insects to infest plants and crops (pine beetle is one example).
——————————
Mountain pine beetle (dendroctonus ponderosae) has resided in his present range, from B.C to Mexico, for a very long time. It has never been -30Celsius in Mexico, and yet it is often claimed that that is a winter temperature that is necessary to keep the population in check.
The recent massive infestation in the pine forests of BC and beyond has not been mirrored in the warmest regions of its range. Furthermore, the BC outbreak started in the coolest parts of the province and is coming to an apparent end now in the warmer south, where it has made less of an impact than had been anticipated. (Where have we heard that expression, before?)
Well the first thing I noticed looking at that video, is that the high levels of CO2 (380-390) and the low levels (360-370) occur right at the North Pole; well over the arctic ocean. So the CO2 at the north pole is being inserted adn removed, right there at the north pole; or over the arctic ocean.
And those high red/brown levels of CO2 occur in the February through March time frame. The CO2 peaks right when the arctic ocean ice cover peaks. There is no migration of CO2 into or out of the arctic region around the pole; it comes and goes right there in the arctic, and it cycles to the extent of about 18-20 ppm. If you follow that cycle, you will see that the red to blue transition is shorter than the blue to red transition. That 20 ppm drop in CO2 occurs in just 5 months, and then takes the next seven months to return to the red.
There is only one possible phenomenon that can explain that change, since there is no “Growing season” in the arctic; well only the ice growing season, and as the sea ice grows, the sea water that freezes, must give up its CO2, which is far less soluble in ice than in sea water; and since the cold sea water is already CO2 saturated per Henry’s Law, any oceanic CO2 expelled from the ice is also expelled from the saturated ocean water into the atmosphere.
The ONLY credible atmospheric CO2 real measurments we have are the Mauna Loa Records, that start at 315 ppm in 1957-8, and now are at 390 ppm in 2011 That is a 23.8 % increase in 53 years. So there’s proxy data that says it might once have been as low as 280 ppm; but there is also proxy evidence that it once was over 7000 ppm.
I’ll accept the 1958-2011 actual data, and pass on the proxy guesses.
During that steady 23.8% increase in CO2, there has been absolutely no matching Temperature rise as predicted by the Teracomputer models; just a random walk and some occasional spurts; particularly when the US National debt goes up.
But in any case; if we were to assume that that 280 ppm Historical base pre-industrial level was correct; and I use the word assume with caution, as you know what that means; then that 18-20 ppm is being removed at a rate of 3.6 to 4.0 ppm per month; a rate which if continued would remove the 110 ppm excess, in 27-30 months; so that is the decay time constant; no more than three years, so 99% can be removed in 15 years.
So nyet: BS on the thousands of years of Solomon.
So when was the last time that the atmosphere was free of CO2 if the residence time is 1000 years ?
Most seems already to be said here: It seems a recurrent mistake of many skeptics to confuse the residence time of individual CO2 molecules (like the tiny amounts of 14C from the nuclear tests) with the decay time needed to reduce an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The first is based on the amount of CO2 which is exchanged over the seasons and permanently between warm and cold parts of the oceans: about 90 GtC (as CO2) is going back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere (more from the oceans at higher temperatures, more into the oceans at lower temperatures) and about 60 GtC is going into vegetation during the growing season and about the same amount decays in fall/winter. Oceans and vegetation work in countercurrent over the seasons, reason why the seasonal variation is quite modest. The NH variability shows that land vegetation is the dominant factor (as also the 13C/12C ratio shows), the SH has less land and shows less seasonal variation.
Thus in total about 150 GtC is exchanged between the oceans/vegetation and the atmosphere over the seasons. That doesn’t add or remove any CO2 to/from the atmosphere, as long as at the end of the year there was as much addition as removal.
Humans currently add some 8 GtC/year. The increase in the atmosphere is about 4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year). Thus the natural balance is 4 GtC more sink than source.
That means that the excess CO2 since the industrial revolution (100 ppmv, or 210 GtC), if we stop all emissions today, will sink next year with about 4 GtC. One year later with a little less than 4 GtC (as the difference between the real CO2 level and the _thermo_dynamic equilibrium CO2 level is a bit reduced) and so on… The real half life time of an excess amount of CO2 is around 40 years. See the work of Peter Dietze at John Daly’s website:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
The Solomon and the IPCC long term CO2 levels are based on the “Bern model”, which shows different half life times for different reservoirs: the ocean surface (very fast), the deep oceans (medium fast), vegetation (as more permanent storage in roots and peat) and rock weathering (very slow). For medium term, the deep oceans are the most important. There is no sign that these will be saturated with the current (and near future) CO2 emissions. The 10% near permanent CO2 residence in the atmosphere, according to the Bern model, is only applicable if we burn all available oil and lots of coal…
That all doesn’t say anything about the effect of any surplus CO2 on temperature…
Stupid question: when I saw the ice core’s CO2 line versus the real/measured CO2 values it struck me that the ice core line was fitting to the minimum of the measurements.
The warmistas say that CO2 is younger (the air bubble) then the ice (the 83 years gap)
Can it be that the ice core always tends to average to the minimum CO2 values over a period?
I mean that CO2 exits the bubble if there is less CO2 in the atmosphere but is not added to the bubble when there is more in the outside air? A one way process?
I mean such test could be theoretically done in lab to check. Is this idea totally rubbish?
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
February 17, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Most seems already to be said here: It seems a recurrent mistake of many skeptics to confuse the residence time of individual CO2 molecules (like the tiny amounts of 14C from the nuclear tests) with the decay time needed to reduce an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. e.t.c.”
Ferdinand, let us take you numbers for a moment and look at the pre -Industrial ecosystem; 280 ppm CO2.
In all those years there was mineralization of carbon; the true sinks of carbonates falling to the ocean bottom to make chalk in the future and the organic debris falling to the bottom to form methane/oil. We also have forests and peat marshes whereby carbon is mineralized.
All these sinks denude the atmosphere and the atmosphere is in ‘equilibrium’ with the oceans, w.r.t. CO2.
Do you think that the whole of the biosphere was carbon limited and life on land totally dependent on volcanoes?
Lars P says:
February 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Stupid question: when I saw the ice core’s CO2 line versus the real/measured CO2 values it struck me that the ice core line was fitting to the minimum of the measurements.
Not a stupid question. The question is which of the two curves are more reliable than the other. The drawback of the ice core values is the resolution: 8 to 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation speed (more at the coast, less at the center of Antarctica). For the rest, the average doesn’t change by averaging and the high accumulation Law Dome ice cores have a 20 years overlap (1960-1980) with direct measurements at the South Pole. Measurements of both are within the error margin of the ice cores (1.3 ppmv – 1 sigma).
The main problem with the historical measurements is that many of them were taken on land, near huge sources and don’t show “background” CO2 levels, while the Antarctic levels are background (background CO2 levels are within 5 ppmv for yearly averages over 95% of the atmosphere). Background levels show very little variability, except for seasonal influences. Many historical measurements, if repeated, show huge variability and lower values with high wind speed (which means better mixing with higher air layers, thus more background-like). High wind speed values over land and all measurements over the oceans show values around the ice core values…
DocMartyn says:
February 17, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Ferdinand, let us take you numbers for a moment and look at the pre -Industrial ecosystem; 280 ppm CO2.
In all those years there was mineralization of carbon; the true sinks of carbonates falling to the ocean bottom to make chalk in the future and the organic debris falling to the bottom to form methane/oil. We also have forests and peat marshes whereby carbon is mineralized.
All these sinks denude the atmosphere and the atmosphere is in ‘equilibrium’ with the oceans, w.r.t. CO2.
Do you think that the whole of the biosphere was carbon limited and life on land totally dependent on volcanoes?
All we know for sure (as far as one can be sure…) is that there was a pre-industrial (dynamic) equilibrium between CO2 capturing and CO2 releases, where the equilibrium setpoint was dictated by temperature. According to the Vostok and now Dome C ice cores, at least for the past 800,000 years some 8 ppmv/°C change in setpoint. Thus at one side CO2 capturing by cold oceans (via the THC) to the deep part, land vegetation long term capturing and carbonate formation. At the other side carbonate rock dissolution (via volcanoes and weathering) and deep ocean oversaturated CO2 return near the equator. Higher temperatures increase carbon sequestering by biolife, but increases CO2 releases from the oceans…
Even now, there is a short term response (0.5-2 years) of CO2 variability around the trend to (ocean) temperature changes at about 4 ppmv/°C. That influences the variability in natural sink capacity, but has little influence on the main trend (a maximum of 8 ppmv since the LIA for 1°C increase in temperature), which now is about 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium.
George E. Smith says:
February 17, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Well the first thing I noticed looking at that video, is that the high levels of CO2 (380-390) and the low levels (360-370) occur right at the North Pole; well over the arctic ocean. So the CO2 at the north pole is being inserted adn removed, right there at the north pole; or over the arctic ocean.
You need to be cautious with the satellite data: the AIRS CO2 values are from the mid-troposphere, not from the whole CO2 column. Limited CO2 measurements from Schauinsland (South Germany) at about 1,000 m high show more amplitude than at Barrow (high North Alaska), so I suppose that much of the variability seen by the satellites near the poles is brought there from the mid-latitudes vegetation growth and decay than from the poles themselves (via the Ferrel cells). Further, CO2 from the oceans has a higher 13C/12C ratio than atmospheric CO2, thus freezing in winter should increase the d13C ratio of atmospheric CO2, but we see a decrease (and a sharp increase in spring), which points to vegetation decay (and new growth in spring), not oceanic releases. Seasonal growth is more restricted than vegetation decay, which is more spread over the year, increased in summer, but still going on in winter…
The ONLY credible atmospheric CO2 real measurments we have are the Mauna Loa Records, that start at 315 ppm in 1957-8, and now are at 390 ppm in 2011 That is a 23.8 % increase in 53 years.
Here I disagree. The ice core CO2 record is not a proxy, but real direct measurements of CO2 in ancient air. There is an overlap of 20 years with the South Pole measurements for the Law Dome ice core. The same ice cores show that the CO2 levels were about 280 ppmv some 150 years ago. Confirmed by other ice cores with different temperatures, accumulation rate and resolution.
But in any case; if we were to assume that that 280 ppm Historical base pre-industrial level was correct; and I use the word assume with caution, as you know what that means; then that 18-20 ppm is being removed at a rate of 3.6 to 4.0 ppm per month; a rate which if continued would remove the 110 ppm excess, in 27-30 months; so that is the decay time constant; no more than three years, so 99% can be removed in 15 years.
It is not because a sudden start of leaves growing in spring removes lots of CO2 in a short time span, that this goes on forever. Once formed, the CO2 capturing goes on in growth of wood, roots and blossoms/fruit, but almost all of it returns a few months later as rotting leaves, eaten fruit, etc… It still is a cycle. The amplitude of the cycle is huge, but the net effect is small… In fact the whole net effect of the cycle is relative small, as the oceans go the other way round: the summer temperatures give more release of CO2 from the oceans. The net effect of both cycles is a global amplitude of about 5 ppmv for a global temperature amplitude of 1°C (the NH summer gives more warming than the SH winter gives cooling and vv.). The ultimate net effect after a full seasonal cycle is about 2 ppmv/year removal of CO2 from the atmosphere at the current conditions (100 ppmv surplus)…
@george Smith
George, if you look at the stations on this map http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2010/summary/network-global.pdf , you will see that there is no “North Pole” station. The map is cut off at about 75°N, anyway. The points you make would mean something if there was data up there, but there isn’t.
There are only 2 stations in Greenland, one in northern ALaska, one in northern Sacninavia, one on Spitzbergen, one in Iceland and one off the coast of Norway. That really shows that there are only three in the Arctic Ocean, and two of those are on coasts. The Alaska one is about 20° from the pole, about 1400 miles.
All of what you see in the Arctic is extrapolated. It isn’t real, no matter how real the data is that they use. Just like there are only 17 stations representing the 71% of the globe that is ocean, those stations are representing something that they don’t actually represent. Most of the graphic here is extrapolation, and with a false precision.
“David Falkner says:
February 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Now, can back radiation from CO2 cause skin (or any type) of cancer?”
No way. This back radiation is in the infrared range that is just felt as heat. The heat photons do not have the energy to ionize organic molecules and cause cell damage. Skin cancer is caused by higher energy photons such as ultraviolet. X-rays and gamma rays are also dangerous in high doses.
“Questing Vole says:
February 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
According to Hansard (the official record of the UK Parliament), Andrew Bridgen MP said in the House of Commons last Friday that
“each tonne of coal burned for power generation produces 2,215 kg of carbon dioxide”.
Would someone more knowledgeable care to explain? Is the O2 so heavy?”
The balanced equation is C + O2 –> CO2. The atomic mass of C is 12 and that of O is 16, so 12 grams of C produces 44 grams of CO2. So if 1000 kg (1 tonne) of pure carbon reacts with oxygen, 3666 kg of CO2 should be produced. Therefore the coal he is talking about cannot be assumed to be pure carbon.
Ferdinand Engelbeen You did not answer the question. In your ‘equilibrium’ model all mineralized carbon must be, in geological time, instantly replaced by newly entered carbon into the BIOSPHERE. You have not explained why the rate remained constant, when we know that enormous amount of carbon are sequestrated all the time.
Finally, I wonder why you think the saw-tooth pattern that unlies the Kelling curve is chemio-physical as opposed to biological?
Speaking as a biologist, I would suspect that having an atmosphere which is about 23% O2 might suggest that biology, not chemistry, is the major component of the atmospheres composition.
Not equilibrium, steady state. say it to yourself, STEADY STATE.
And the really hard question gets ignored.
It is the drain plug in the AGW theory, after all.
“David says:
jka, both views are cvorrect. Change the RT for an individual molecule to 50 years and you also change the rate of decline.”
No the point is that the rate of decline is independent of the residence time of the individual molecule. Let me add some more figures to the bucket analogy to illustrate.
Let the leaky bucket contain 10 pints of water and let the rate of leakage equal the rate of dripping of two pints per year. The average molecule will then have a residence time of 5 years, that is simple mathematics.
If you then pour one pint of extra water to the bucket, we can assume that the leakage will increase until the water level is again steady at 10 pints. But by how much the leakage will increase depends on the nature of the leakage, a hole in the bottom have different physical response to water level than a hole close to the surface and one hole behaves different than many small. This is not simple mathematics, it is a complex systems which needs to be measured and analyzed to estimate the decline.
This is similar to estimation of the rate of decline of the current level of CO2 at 390 ppm. if all man made emissions stopped now how long time wil lit take before it sink to preindustrial level of 280 ppm. It does not depend on each molecules residence time which can be easily calulated, but it is a very complex feedback mechanism which is not yet fully understood.
“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.”
This is a demonstrably incorrect claim, the residence time is given in the 1990 IPCC WG1 report (the version referred to by Prof. Essenhigh) on page 8 (last paragraph in first column) as being “about 4 years” (it is referred to there as the “turnover time”. It is the “adjustment time” that the IPCC WG1 report claims to be “of the order of 200 years”. They are not the same thing, and the distinction is clearly made in the report. A figure of about 4 years is also given for the turnover time on page 948 in the glossary of the most recent IPCC WG1 report (it is mentioned this is also called the “mean residence time” in soil carbon biology).
So rather than being shorter than the time quoted by the IPCC, the ~5 year time given by Essenhigh is actually *longer* than claimed by the IPCC (~4 years)
Sadly the conclusions of Prof. Essenhigh’s paper are completely wrong as it is the adjustment time that is relevant to the attribution of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, not the residence time (for which Prof. Essenhigh’s calculation is essentially correct and uncontraverisal). The reason why residence time is irrelevant has been explained more than once at WUWT, most notably the lucid explanations given by the apparently indefatigable Ferdinand Engelbeen.
Feet2theFire says:
February 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm
There are only 2 stations in Greenland, one in northern ALaska, one in northern Sacninavia, one on Spitzbergen, one in Iceland and one off the coast of Norway. That really shows that there are only three in the Arctic Ocean, and two of those are on coasts. The Alaska one is about 20° from the pole, about 1400 miles.
You don’t need many stations for CO2 measurement: for 95% of the atmosphere, the CO2 levels are within 5 ppmv, if averaged over a year. The main disturbances are in the first few hundred meters over land, where day/night and winter/summer for biolife are the main sinks and sources, besides most of human emissions. A few hundred meters higher over land or everywhere over the oceans, levels are (relative) fast mixed and only the seasonal differences are seen anymore and the NH-SH lag, as the ITCZ hinders the exchanges of air masses between the hemispheres. The trends at the different stations from near the North Pole to the South Pole are quite identical anyway, with an increasing NH-SH lag, as the human emissions (mostly in the NH) increased over time. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
The carbon tracker film in the introduction is not based on the station data, but on satellite measurements, which fully cover 90N to 60S. The satellite data were calibrated with air flight measurements, as the current satellite measurements have a peak resolution around 5000 m height. Even so, there is little difference between the satellite data and the ground station data, except for seasonal amplitude.
Sensor operator says:
February 17, 2011 at 11:32 am
“As for people claiming the virtues of CO2 on plant growth. Yes, in a controlled environment, if one increases the CO2 you can achieve higher growth rates. But, in the real world, higher CO2 also brings higher temperatures, which impacts where and how long things grow (as well as plant reproduction). This also leads to larger regions for insects to infest plants and crops (pine beetle is one example). And higher CO2 is better for weeds as well…”
Sensor you are incorrect. In my earlier post I gave the results from 522 different experiments on the four largest food crops. Many of these experiments were done in the real world in places like China and parts of Europe. The only thing controlled was “standard farming practices” and the only difference was added CO2. The results are real. To pretend otherwise is to ignore hundreds of real world results.
In regard to weeds what was found in “real world” studies is that the feared problems do not in general manifest, as the competition for soil and nutrients is equally enhanced for the desirable growth and in farming this is controlled equally well either organically or not. Yes, many insects exist were vegetation grows. This should be tautology. More areas where vegetation grows, more food for insects and people.
However more food grown on the SAME acreage allows more food with no increased labor in controlling both weeds and insects. Additionally many beneficial insects and bacteria are enhanced by additional CO2
As to heat stress from CO2, you could not be more wrong. The heartiness of the plants to survive both heat and cool as well as drought is greatly enhanced by additional CO2, often far more then the 30 to 30% increase in bio mass from a 300 PPM increase of CO2. The benefit far out weighs any possible harm from an increase in temperature from a doubling of CO2. With CO2 enhanced warming (which is mostly at night) frost damage would be limited and formerly cold areas are opened up to growing by both the warmth and the increased heartiness of the plant due to additional CO2.
You really should read the Idso’s book to get an inclusive look at the peer reviewed research and see where all your concerns are directly addressed in numerous studies.
My comment at February 18, 2011 at 5:16 am articulates the benefits of additional CO2. The KNOWN benefits of CO2, and strong evidence that the warming from a doubling of CO2 will be 1 c or less, is cause for me not to be concerned about the CO2 residence time debate. That being said the evidence, observed and in peer review literature is that the IPCC overstates how rapidly CO2 will accumalate in the atmosphere.
Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology
stated it clearly and concisely as follows…
“Solomon et al. (2009) have obviously not seriously considered the paper by Segalstad (1998), who addresses the 50% “missing sink” error of the IPCC and shows that the Revelle evasion “buffer” factor is ideologically defined from an assumed model (atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 increase) and an assumed pre-industrial value for the CO2 level, in conflict with the chemical Henry’s Law governing the fast ~1:50 equilibrium partitioning of CO2 between gas (air) and fluid (ocean) at the Earth’s average surface temperature. This CO2 partitioning factor is strongly dependent on temperature because of the temperature-dependent retrograde aqueous solubility of CO2, which facilitates fast degassing of dissolved CO2 from a heated fluid phase (ocean), similar to what we experience from a heated carbonated drink.
Consequently, the IPCC’s and Solomon et al.’s (2009) non-realistic carbon cycle modelling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda “pop” that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).
So why is the correct estimate of the atmospheric residence time of CO2 so important? The IPCC has constructed an artificial model where they claim that the natural CO2 input/output is in static balance, and that all CO2 additions from anthropogenic carbon combustion being added to the atmospheric pool will stay there almost indefinitely. This means that with an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 – 200 years (Houghton, 1990) or near infinite (Solomon et al., 2009), there is still a 50% error (nicknamed the “missing sink”) in the IPCC’s model, because the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supplied to the atmosphere; and carbon isotope measurements invalidate the IPCC’s model (Segalstad, 1992; Segalstad, 1998).
The correct evaluation of the CO2 residence time — giving values of about 5 years for the bulk of the atmospheric CO2 molecules, as per Essenhigh’s (2009) reasoning and numerous measurements with different methods — tells us that the real world’s CO2 is part of a dynamic (i.e. non-static) system, where about one fifth of the atmospheric CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks, due to relatively fast equilibria and temperature-dependent CO2 partitioning governed by the chemical Henry’s Law (Segalstad 1992; Segalstad, 1996; Segalstad, 1998).
The full write up is here. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
Read it before you tell me again how residence time does not matter. Dr Segalstad understands what you are saying very well, yet you are misreperenting what his message is.