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.
DocMartyn says:
February 17, 2011 at 6:47 pm
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.
It seems more a matter of language: Steady state or dynamic equilibrium is the same for me: there is an equilibrium between the amount of carbon released and amount of carbon sequestered, where the setpoint of the dynamic equilibrium is dictated by temperature.
If the temperature increases, the oceans will release more CO2 than they absorb, until the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere is the same as the average partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans. The same for CO2 in the alveoles, but here there is an increase of uptake with higher CO2 in the atmosphere, as the availability of CO2 is a limiting factor for plant growth. The combination of oceans and vegetation uptakes and releases were the main factors of CO2 levels over the past near 1 million years (and probably far beyond). Other geological factors like volcanic vents and rock weathering are much smaller and slower but may play a huge role over geological times.
It is possible to make a differentiation between CO2 uptake by the oceans and by vegetation, based on O2 use and d13C isotopic changes. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
The uptake 1993-2002 by the oceans was about 1.7 GtC/year and by land vegetation about 1 GtC/year, both with large margins of error.
Thus while the seasonal (and permanent) natural CO2 fluxes in/out the atmosphere are huge, more or less permanent CO2 sequestering by oceans and vegetation is quite limited, even if we are already 100 ppmv above the steady state setpoint for the current temperature…
David says:
February 18, 2011 at 5:39 am
David, I had a short but heavy discussion with Segalstad at a meeting in the European Parliament (where Anthony and several other skeptics were too). Segalstad (and Essenhigh) and many others are simply wrong in these matters. The 5 years residence time is how long in average any CO2 molecule of any source remains in the atmosphere. That is a matter of throughput: indeed some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere (150/800 GtC) is exchanged each year with CO2 from other reservoirs. That is exchange, not one-way addition or removal. In reality it is 18.75% in and 19.25% out, thus the real removal rate is 0.5% of the atmosphere (4 GtC/800 GtC). That is the reason that the human addition of about 1% carbon per year still gives an increase of the atmospheric CO2 level and that we are fully responsible for the increase.
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.
Some more research since 1998 has shown that the main CO2 sink is in the deep oceans, the second one in vegetation, see the link here:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
So, there is no missing sink, only some large error margins in partitioning between the two main sinks.
According to Henry’s Law (which is for pure dissolved CO2), and the chemical equilibria between CO2, bicarbonate and carbonate in seawater, the partitioning between atmosphere and the upper part of the oceans is about 10:1 (NOT 1:50!) that means that an increase of 100% in the atmosphere will increase the total carbon content (DIC) of the upper oceans (the “mixed layer”) with 10%. Or the current 30% increase in the atmosphere did increase the DIC of the upper oceans with 3%. For about a 1000 GtC content of the ocean mixed layer, that means an increase with 30 GtC. That is all. That was measured at different points in the oceans over time and in a few continuous series. Here for the Bahama’s:
http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html
See figure 1 and compare the increase in % DIC over the past 20 years with the increase in % of seawater pCO2 (which is what Henry’s Law dictates). Also compare that with the atmospheric pCO2 % increase at Mauna Loa or elsewhere.
Thus Segalstad is wrong and the Revelle factor still is alive and kicking…
Further, there is nothing wrong with the carbon isotope changes. The measured values are about 1/3rd of the expected values if all human CO2 should stay in the atmosphere. But we know that about 1/5th of all CO2 is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs. For the biosphere, that has less influence, as most of the isotopic changes return in the non-growth seasons. But what goes into the deep oceans only returns many hundreds of years later, thus the deep ocean releases of today have the deep ocean isotopic composition of hundreds of years ago. In that way, we can make an estimate of the deep oceans – atmosphere exchanges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The mismatch in the first decennia may be a question of CO2 releases from the biosphere.
Indeed the atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of a fully dynamic system with many ins and outs, but the evidence from ice cores (and several proxies) is that the CO2 levels in the past 800,000 years were mainly dictated by temperature, only disturbed in recent times by our releases…
At the other side, as said before, the Bern model of the IPCC overstates the excess CO2 half life time, as the longer terms are only of interest for extreme releases of fossil CO2 where also the deep oceans are saturating, but by far not relevant for the current and near future releases.
With all the talk of Vostok, we need to be reminded of a universally ignored problem: T tracks CO2 only on a millennial scale, not on a multi-decadal scale. The long term correlation is easily explained as a tandem response to ice sheet extension; the lack of any short term correlation all by itself refutes the claim of CO2 forced heating: there is NO evidence in the ice cores for any such phenomenon!
The claim of current CO2 forced T rise has no analog in the cores. –AGF
Ferdinand Engelbeen this is what you get when you plot Human Carbon emissions vs Keeling.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/AnthropogenicCarbonvsKeelingCO2.jpg
As you can see, the line shape gives us an S type curve. The curve should be approximately linear in a chemical dynamic equilibrium box model.
The last part of the curve suggests that atmospheric [CO2] will tail off even with higher emissions. The first part of the curve suggests that either pre-1950’s human generated carbon release is underestimated, or that the pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 300 ppm.
This is a model based on what the atmospheric CO2 would be if the t/1/2 of CO2 sequestration was 250 y-1.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/SteaystateCO2fittedforthalfof250yea.jpg
There is no fit to Keeling what so ever.
This was the best fit I got, running a simple steady state model.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/SteaystateCO2fittedtoKeelingCurve.jpg
Here I assumed the efflux rate from the atmosphere was 29 y-1. I got a 1:1 fit with Keeling.
This is obviously too simple, as CO2 disappearance is likely to be a mixture of first and second order rate constants, but 29 years works nicely for a model. As a kineticist, the rule is within one order of magnitude, so a t1/2 for 14C matches the 29 y-1 of the model.
This shows how the model responds to a complete stop of human generated CO2, in the year 2006.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/SteaystateCO2after2006ELE.jpg
50 years to get to 1966 years, 100 years to get to 1918 years and 150 years to get back to 1887.
Izzat CO2 video a file that can be down loaded for safe keeping. That’s avery interesting thing to have around.
A G Foster says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:40 am
With all the talk of Vostok, we need to be reminded of a universally ignored problem: T tracks CO2 only on a millennial scale, not on a multi-decadal scale. The long term correlation is easily explained as a tandem response to ice sheet extension; the lack of any short term correlation all by itself refutes the claim of CO2 forced heating: there is NO evidence in the ice cores for any such phenomenon!
The claim of current CO2 forced T rise has no analog in the cores. –AGF
One need to be careful: there is a quite good short term (0.5-2 years) correlation between temperature and CO2 increase rate, thus opposite to the AGW thesis. See e.g.:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf which also shows the LIA drop of CO2 at cooler temperatures with a lag of only 50 years. That CO2 follows temperature changes doesn’t exclude the opposite influence, where the calculated (theoretical) influence of CO2 on temperature for a large part is filled in over some 30 years. That this is hardly visible in the temperature record is a matter of several other (natural) influences like PDO, ENSO,… which give a lot of variability around the trend. Not that I think that the influence of CO2 is that big, but you can’t prove from the trend that there is no influence at all…
A G Foster says:
February 18, 2011 at 7:40 am
Universally does not include myself and others that I know. Thank you for your response. It is funny that a trump card like that is ignored (pretty much universally). It is the real inconvenient truth.
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen February 18, 2011 at 3:24 am:
So, 5ppm is not much. That is what you are saying, yes?
You do realize what you are saying, don’t you? This graphic is a historical map delineated in bands 5ppm wide (less if you count the color blendings), and you are saying that the +/- for each station is the full 5ppm, meaning that the colors represented could be the next band over, to the high or low side. That means this map means nothing. All those color changes might exist and might not, not until they change by 10ppm or more. All this is, then, is a pretty, meaningless – and pretty meaningless – graphic.
Your +/- is fully one quarter of the extremes shown on the legend.
This is nothing but false precision.
The only place that Co2 heats our atmosphere is in computer models.
“”””” Feet2theFire says:
February 17, 2011 at 5:37 pm
@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. “””””
Easy for you to say Feet; basically I’m a simple minded individual, and when I see numbers, and graphs, and movies, and other publishings; specially ones put out by my Gummint using my tax dollars, I’m silly enough to believe what they tell me. After all if they dont’ give a tinkers damn about the Nyquist Sampling theorem; why should I. Two stations for the entire Arctic should be plenty; one for the white areas and one for the brown areas.
You know we peons out here, who have to both finance this sort of “data”, and then run our lives according to that data, take a dim view of being lied to by our government agencies.
I’m told that around 1900, there were precisely 12 weather stations in the Arctic; that is from +60 deg to the pole. That number grew apparently up to around 86 or so; so they say, and then it dropped down into the 70s I believe; possibly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In any case; we are asked to believe a trail of climate data that relies on an unstable reporting system like that.
Personally, I don’t believe ANY global Temperature records data prior to 1980; due to a Jan 2001 report by John Christy et al, and I don’t believe ANY CO2 data besides Mauna Loa, and that goes back to 1957/8.
There are some things in “Science” that we actually believe that we know reasonably well; for example, there is Paul Dirac’s number for the magnetic moment of the electron. In some elsewhere defined units system, this number is 1.00115965221 with a standard deviation of 4 in the last digit. Well that is the experimentally MEASURED value. That does not agree with the theory which gives the number as1.00115965 246 with a standard deviation of about 20 in the last digit. Obviously a totally screwed up theory, compared to the precision of Climatism, which gives the Universal Climate Sensitivity Constant as 3.0 deg C per doubling +/-50% , or 1.5 to 4.5 deg C per doubling.
So Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) can explain “everything” that goes on outside an atomic nucleus; other than gravitation, and lots of stuff that goes on inside; and if you need to get inside the inside, the you need QCD or Quantum Chromodynamics.
So if it was up to me to control Taxpayer Funding of climate research; I would shut down every single government grant, laboratory or agency such as NOAA/NASA/NCDC etc until such time, as that entire collection of otherwise unemployable “scientists”, have come up with a completely accurate Absorption Spectrum for CO2 in a standard dry atmosphere (0-32km alt.) over the wavelength range from 0.1 micron to 100 microns; that atmosphere comprising N2, O2, Ar, CO2 and nothing else, covering the Temperature range from -90 C to +60 C (near surface), containing laboratory measured values, as well as the theoretically calculated values; no I don’t need it good to 10 significant figures; I’d be reasonably happy with a standard deviation of 0.1%, anywhere in the range.
Currently it would seem we know it (we think) well enough to say it is logarithmic with CO2 over some small range, or linear over some small range, or even square root over some small range; but generally just non-linear, and we know it within a factor of three or so.
It seems like the measured values for the observed CO2 absorption band in the neighborhood of 15 microns in air; do not agree with the theoretically calculated values; not even to within 10%. I’d say that is one screwed up theory.
It would seem that the very first crudest theory of Atomic Spectra was able to predict as of then, unobserved spectral lines of Hydrogen; to better than 1% (lot better), and yet today with our Teracomputers, we can’t get within 10% for one of the pieces of information that is going to determine, if humans become extinct (from terminal stupidity) or not.
Ferdinand, this is amazing that you can expect anyone to assign any significance to this graphic whatsoever.
I’d liken it to the man behind the curtain – it is all a graphic meant to impress the ignorant.
It has imprecision bands actually half the height of what is depicted. It is the same as a static graph with a Y-axis from 360 to 380, which – because the short height – allows “spikes” that look huge, but if measured from zero wouldn’t even be perceptible wobbles.
What this really says is that the +/- is only 1.3% for any bit of data, not to mention how few data points exist for any point in time.
I’ve worked with precision temperature gauges, and +/- 1.3% is only about 2.5 times what the PRECISION and 4 times what the REPEATABILITY are listed at. So the data is barely outside the signal-to-noise ratio, as I see it. The full width depicted is only a range of +/-2.6%. Tsk tsk tsk…
While this graphic may be instructive as a general guide, I wouldn’t ever read anything definitive into it or put it out for public consumption. I mean, those gradations of color are – as close as I can tell from the legend bar – representing 1/10th of the +/- (o.5 ppm), while the precision of the data is +/- 5.0 ppm??? Give me a break.
And add to that the wide dispersal of geography of the sites. You say +/- 5 ppm means that it doesn’t matter because the +/- is “only” 5 ppm. You only make my argument for me. It is not “only,” not when the entire graphic is “only” 4 times that – and t2 times the error band.
Anthony, I will continue to read WUWT?, but I shall no longer be posting. Two main reasons. I am clearly not welcome because of my views ( not by you, but many who post), and the second is that people are using my posts to attack my father. They equate my level of understanding to him. The truth is I left the house at 15 and never looked back. My father and I still have a strained relationship and do not speak very often (and I cannot blame him), but I do not want to tarnish his reputation in any way. Most here will be heaving a sigh of relief and say things like “good riddance to bad garbage”, blah, blah, blah. To those people I present a very large middle finger!! I have made it clear that I am not an academic, but have a deep interest in this field and have the temerity and understanding to ask the hard questions. Both sides of the debate are laden with cowards. I am disappointed in the behavior of many skeptics and followers who do not seem to understand the lengths to which these fellows will go to perpetuate the gravy train. Both sides of the debate. The truth is the only loser in all this. It is no wonder getting anything accomplished in academia is like elephants mating!! Thank you very much for your patience with me. I am certain I have tested it!! WUWT? has changed my life for the better. 70,000,000. WOW !! Live long and prosper.
Ferdinand –
Besides the fact that the 1940-1970 period refutes your claim that “there is a quite good short term (0.5-2 years) correlation between temperature and CO2 increase rate,” doesn’t it occur to any of the AGW folks that if points like this can be in dispute that the science certainly is not settled. It is just far too early in our collection of data to draw conclusions other than tentative ones – much less project current knowledge out for 100 years with any confidence at all.
It is well and good/i> to draw those tentative conclusions – as long as it is understood – and stated – that they are tentative and merely working hypotheses, for the time being. Scientists do need some frameworks within which to place their evidence. As long as everyone understands that they are only part way on to the continuum no one begrudges anyone for having points of view (frameworks) that differ from one’s own.
The problem the skeptics have is the blatant certainty claimed by the AGW folks on something there is still too much uncertainty about. AGW folks being willfully blind to things like the 900+ scientists who’ve found evidence supporting that MWP was global is only one issue. I say “willfully” because the papers are out there, but they keep pretending they are not, or (evidently) believing that those scientists are somehow delusional.
The “blatant” and the “willfulness” add up to hubris, and hubris breeds blind spots. And blind spots – where do those fit into science, except as issues and personalities that future scientists will laugh at? Do the pro-AGW folks really want to be the laughing stocks of future scientists and textbooks?
Re Vostok: Interesting that in Hansen’s record “hottest ever” 2010, his GISS site showed Vostok recorded an icy “plunge” from -53.5 to -55.8.
What was that about Global Warming showing up most in the colder regions?
Oh, silly me! I forgot that the new AGW paradigm is that intense cold, massive snow cover and record low temperatures is now proof of their theory. Every weather and climate event is “Global Warming” ’cause we UNIPCC ‘climate scientists’ predicted it!
I’m not sure even the late great John Daly would have thought they’d sink this low!
George E. Smith 11:09 am –
All good points. You might then agree with the points I made to Ferdinand at 11:16am. The precision seems to be about +/-1.3% for this graph.
If any of this basic precision of data and predictability is not a magnitude better than it is, then all those imprecisions are multiplicative when added together – meaning not worth a whole lot.
I would point out that – based solely on what is shown in this graphic – Mona Loa has what I would term a “NH bias” which should be adjusted downward, if the SH is so consistently a few ppm less than Hawaii.
I would again point out that every time I look at this graphich and its swirls and then go look at the station map at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/documentation_obs.html#ct_doc , I see something else that seems delusional. Looking at the eastern half of Asia in the video, there is a consistently impressive almost Mandelbrot-ian mesmerizing effect. That is done with precisely FIVE stations, none of them north of Mongolia – all the way to the pole! Yet the bulk of the swirling is in that area that has no stations whatsoever. Ay-yi-yi.
This video is not science. It is fiction.
DocMartyn says:
February 18, 2011 at 9:07 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen this is what you get when you plot Human Carbon emissions vs Keeling.
Here you are plotting the year by year emissions against the Keeling curve, which is the resulting accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. That makes no sense, as one need to plot accumulation of the emissions (thus total emissions) against accumulation in the atmosphere. That gives a complete different view of what happened (and still happens) in reality:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
The physical response of the uptake by the oceans is linear to the difference in pCO2 in the atmosphere vs. the average pCO2 in the surface waters, not to the increase in pCO2 over one year… And something similar for vegetation I suppose…
But your next graphs show where the problem is: the (more or less) measured/calculated/estimated influx of natural CO2 is about 60 GtC from vegetation decay and 90 GtC from (deep) ocean releases near the equator. The estimated outflux are – at steady state – of the same order. The decay rate of these quantities is a few months half life time, directly related to (seawater) temperatures. See the (somewhat outdated) NASA graph at:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/Images/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg
Other natural influxes and outfluxes (volcanic vents, rock weathering, sea carbonate formation) are orders of magnitude smaller and essentially balanced within the much larger fluxes (e.g. volcanic vents are estimated at 1% of human emissions or less than 0.1 GtC/year).
The rapid response to temperature changes says nothing about reactions on sudden releases of extra CO2 from non-temperature related sources (a mega volcanic event, a meteor impact or extra CO2 from human origin). But we know that the delta temperature/delta CO2 level ratio was quite stable over the past 800,000 years (be it with a 600 years smoothing for the far past). Thus it looks like that there were no such huge natural events in the past near million years (even the Pinatubo caused a drop in CO2 increase rate, due to extra cooling caused by its volcanic dust, neither does the Tambora eruption CO2 show up in high resolution ice cores). Thus your estimate of natural influx (and related decay rate) is way too large, except for temperature related influxes, but these have a very fast decay time, completely based on temperature changes.
Feet2theFire says:
February 18, 2011 at 10:58 am
You do realize what you are saying, don’t you? This graphic is a historical map delineated in bands 5ppm wide (less if you count the color blendings), and you are saying that the +/- for each station is the full 5ppm, meaning that the colors represented could be the next band over, to the high or low side. That means this map means nothing. All those color changes might exist and might not, not until they change by 10ppm or more. All this is, then, is a pretty, meaningless – and pretty meaningless – graphic.
The film in the intro shows the daily measurements, which are heavily influenced by the seasonal changes. The yearly averages of all stations within one hemisphere are all within 2 ppmv (a +/- 1 ppmv band). The difference between the NH and the SH is increasing, because it takes more time to distribute the increasing CO2 emissions in the NH over the equator (a lag of about 14 months), that is the largest contribution to the differences. Despite that, all “baseline” stations over the globe are within a +/- 2 ppmv band for yearly averages.
Compare that to the measured increase over the past 50+ years of about 60 ppmv. It doesn’t matter at all that one station gives an increase of 58 ppmv and another says 62 ppmv… The accuracy of the local measurements at all stations is about +/- 0.2 ppmv, fine enough to detect any small local disturbance.
Feet2theFire says:
February 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
Besides the fact that the 1940-1970 period refutes your claim that “there is a quite good short term (0.5-2 years) correlation between temperature and CO2 increase rate,” doesn’t it occur to any of the AGW folks that if points like this can be in dispute that the science certainly is not settled.
While I agree that the science of the impact of more CO2 on temperature is far from settled, the impact of temperature on the CO2 increase rate is measured since the Mauna Loa and South Pole data started. See e.g. the graphs of Pieter Tans, starting half-way:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Ferdinand –
Your 1:09 pm response was non-responsive to what you quoted from me. While it is appreciated that sometimes what others say triggers tangential thoughts, to the questioner, it looks like dodging the question.
As to the NH Co2 taking 14 months to cross into the SH, I am fully aware of how little mixing of air from one hemisphere to the other there is. That doesn’t explain at all why the SH is for all intents and purposes a different balance altogether.
But your bringing this into the mix is also no-responsive.
In addition, I don’t accept the assumption at face value that CO2 crossing into the SH is even anything worth talking about. If you have a study that asserts this, put it forward. I don’t accept that it goes NH>SH anymore than SH>NH, not on your assertion, nor at the assertion of any AGW-er. AGW-ers have jumped to too many conclusions, evidently based on their demonization of CO2. So pardon me if I ask for sources.
But could you please be responsive?
Dear Ferdinand I see you are in favor of a bucket and sponge model; the free water is the atmosphere and the sponge is the oceans. You note the water level, add water and again measure the water level, anything that does not match goes into the sponge.
Very sophisticated, I can see why such analysis provides you with no insight into sinks; there can be no sinks as you have a bucket and sponge.
You have a model that looks for accumulation in the atmosphere and you have a model that reports accumulation in the atmosphere
I do like the summative influxes though, in fact I have just been screaming down the phone to my bank demanding that they make my account equal to the sum of all of the moneys I have ever deposited. Strangely they believe I am mistaken that this is the best methodology.
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen 1:41 pm:
Two things (at least)…
“…starting half-way”? See, that is the point – you pick a convenient starting point and think we are too inert to recognize that you leave out what is inconveniently true. For example, the chart labeled “CO2 Trend at Mona Loa Observatory” begins in 1960, right in the middle of the 1940-1970 [BTW, I actually meant “1940-1976ish”] period I mentioned, the time of the decline. And there, right in the insert of the graph, is a smaller graph that shows that the CO2 was most steeply rising during that exact time period – yet the global temperatures were falling until the “Great Climate Change of 1976-1977.” The larger graph there shows Mona Loa from only 1960.
The graph labeled “atmospheric carbon dioxide history” is suspect for the very reason that it is so closely aligned to the now-trashed Mann et al hockey stick, in that it is missing the LIA and the MWP, therefore bringing into question how much massaging was done to the proxy data in order to erase those centuries-ling events from the CO2 record like Mann did from the temperature record. That the AD 1000-1800 level is so blatantly flat-line non-changing makes me very skeptical of what was done to the data. Yes, color me skeptical.
This coheres with my understanding that the most basic premise of AGW is that the total of all non-human CO2 is and has always been exactly the same. This oversimplification was a handy meme in order to blame any rise on human activity. But it suffers from one main weakness: They didn’t prove the flat-line. Showing it on Tans’ graph doesn’t convince.
One of the more interesting things about NOAA’s CO2 weather tracker is that high CO2 concentrations are not occurring where fossil plants are located or at the times when electrical production is at peak.
For example look at the Southeastern United States during the months of May-September. Electrical demand is at the highest during these months…yet the CO2 concentrations are at approximate low of 365 umol/mol.
Next look at South America. Notice how highest CO2 concentrations appear deep in the Amazon river basin. A long way from any industrial or power plant sites.
Then look at Africa. Notice how the highest concentrations again appear inland in central Africa. Again well away from regions with major industrial or power plant sites.
Now look at China. Notice how the highest concentrations again appear in central China, again well away from the coastal areas where most of the population and major areas of industrial/utility plants are located.
Even if one were to discount the many detailed science criticisms of the graphic. The graphic itself can lead a reasonable to question wither man-made CO2 is really much of an issue.
Regards, Kforestcat
Feet2theFire says:
February 18, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Your 1:09 pm response was non-responsive to what you quoted from me. While it is appreciated that sometimes what others say triggers tangential thoughts, to the questioner, it looks like dodging the question.
As to the NH Co2 taking 14 months to cross into the SH, I am fully aware of how little mixing of air from one hemisphere to the other there is. That doesn’t explain at all why the SH is for all intents and purposes a different balance altogether.
Sorry, but I thought that I answered your question. But I will try another way:
– The measurement accuracy of the ground based stations is +/- 0.2 ppmv. I don’t know the accuracy of the satellite measurements, but I suppose less than the colored bandwith (thus better than +/- 2 ppmv).
– The NH has a larger seasonal CO2 amplitude than the SH, simply because the NH has more land vegetation. The seasonal amplitude is mainly the result of vegetation growth in the warm months and vegetation decay in cold months. That is confirmed by the 13C/12C changes over the seasons: when CO2 is taken away by plants, that is preferentially 12CO2, leaving more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. That can be seen as an increase of the 13C/12C ratio during the warm months, opposite to the decrease of total CO2 in the same seasons. The SH has less land vegetation, which makes that there is little seasonal variation.
– The seasonal differences are visible in the film, which is based on millions of satellite CO2 measurements 200-2008 at about 5,000 meter peak height (NOT from any ground based stations). These show a lot more variability in the NH than in the SH. Partly by changes in wind patterns and circulating cells, thus showing different daily mixing patterns of CO2, within certain limits (full scale +/- 10 ppmv over the full globe).
– The ground based stations show similar (seasonal) variability, more near ground than at height and far more in the NH than in the SH. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
– The NH in (yearly) average shows slightly higher levels than the SH, simply because the main human emissions are in the NH. As humans emit 4 ppmv of CO2 per year and only 2 ppmv shows up in the atmosphere, the difference is absorbed by oceans and vegetation, also mainly in the NH. That means that there is a continuous flow of CO2 from higher to lower levels, thus from the NH to the SH (and from ground level to altitude) to bring all places to the same level (which never will happen). But anyway that takes time:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
All data can be downloaded from:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm and several other places.
Better so?
Re: “The ONLY credible atmospheric CO2 real measurements we have are the Mauna Loa Records”
These are the most INCREDIBLE. No scientist worth his paypacket would declare after less than 2 years work that he had found a definite annual increase trend in measuring anything. This is what Keeling did. He had an agenda, to prove man-made emissions of CO2 were a problem. The idea of some mythic “background of well-mixed CO2” still hasn’t been shown to be proved, and even if such a critter did exist then trying to find it in the middle of an area of such immense volcanic activity and from under the summit of the largest active volcano in the world is silly. Claiming that he found this is obvious nonsense. How can anyone believe this makes sense? Because we’re told it does.
Even, as it’s claimed, Mauna Loa measures “pristine” background CO2 coming from across the Pacific Ocean, there is no way that can be untangled from the constant spewing of CO2 into the atmosphere around these volcanic islands with thousands of earthquakes above and below the warm CO2 releasing waters or the from the venting and eruptions and mixed up in the atmosphere by winds and sun and rain.
And, that claiming this ‘pristine CO2 level coming from over the Pacific’ is representative of ‘background’ global CO2 levels is also nonsense. How?
They decide what the CO2 level should be by deciding at what level they exclude ‘volcanic’. ? Does that make sense? It’s all volcanic or other local. Even this mythical “pristine global background” arriving on the moisture laden trade winds from the NE is in the Ring of Fire.
Map, Hawai’ian Hotspot in the Pacific Ring of Fire: http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/ggr346/text/chapters/ch12.html
His son controlled Scripps and he oversaw, still does?, Mauna Loa. Keep the con in the family, the data from all the stations is manipulated just as Keeling manipulated it from the beginning, the only improvement is better co-ordination.
You also need to factor in that CO2 comes down every time it rains, whatever is up there readily joins to water, and, that plants also breathe out CO2. They only eat it in photosynthesis to make glucose, which mostly it seems, they do before the morning is over.
And to compound the con, they always say Mauna Loa is a “pristine” site for measuring CO2, uncontaminated by local production. Most take it on trust and don’t know that it’s surrounded in volcanic production of the stuff, and those that do know find excuses for it, even antis take the ‘scientific method’ described as though it made sense. It can’t make any sense. Of all their “pristine stations” this one is most absurd to be named this.
Volcanic CO2 is identical to any man-made, and more here on the other stations with data contamination from volcanic activity, and the AGW mangling of the Suess effect: http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Enough of taking seriously any data AGW produce.
And re residence time: the IPCC also says it’s only a few years: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
Thinking of that graph showing IPCC out of kilter with the other studies, but the IPCC shorter residence times are buried in the bulk of the report.