There is quite a bit of buzz surrounding a talk and pending paper from Prof. Murry Salby the Chair of Climate, of Macquarie University. Aussie Jo Nova has excellent commentary, as has Andrew Bolt in his blog. I’m sure others will weigh in soon.
In a nutshell, the issue is rather simple, yet powerful. Salby is arguing that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation. This goes back to the 800 year lead/lag issue related to the paleo temperature and CO2 graphs Al Gore presented in his movie an An Inconvenient Truth, Jo Nova writes:
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Salby is no climatic lightweight, which makes this all the more powerful. He has a strong list of publications here. The abstract for his talk is here and also reprinted below.
PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.
Salby’s talk was given in June at the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysic meeting in Melbourne Australia. He indicates that a journal paper is in press, with an expectation of publication a few months out. He also hints that some of the results will be in his book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate which is supposed to be available Sept 30th.
The podcast for his talk“Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” is here (MP3 audio format). The podcast length is an hour, split between his formal presentation ~ 30 minutes, and Q&A for the remaining time.
Andrew Bolt says in his Herald Sun blog:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
Dr. Judith Curry has some strong words of support, and of caution:
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
Dr Roy Spencer has suspected something similar, See Atmospheric CO2 Increases: Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason? plus part 2 Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio both guest posts at WUWT in 2008. Both of these are well worth your time to re-read as a primer for what will surely be a (ahem) hotly contested issue.
I’m pretty sure Australian bloggers John Cook at Skeptical Science and Tim Lambert at Deltoid are having conniption fits right about now. And, I’m betting that soon, the usual smears of “denier” will be applied to Dr. Salby by those two clowns, followed by the other usual suspects.
Smears of denial and catcalls aside, if it holds up, it may be the Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 – “Never mind…”
commieBob August 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm
asks about the source of the figures I gave earlier.
The specific information is given here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q4 under the question “What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?” where it states:
“According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC”
1PgC = 1 billion tonsC so I used that unit in preference.
1 billion tons C = 44/12 billion tons CO2, so I converted to billion tons CO2, as CO2 is what we are talking about.
So, 441.5 billion tons C = 441.5 x 44/12 billion tons CO2 = 1618.83 billion tons. I rounded to 1620 billion tons.
Similarly Q4 states,
“Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC.”
174PgC = 174 x 44/12 billion tons CO2 = 638 billion tons CO2. I rounded to 640 billion tons CO2.
I hope this helps.
With respect to your observation, “your arithmetic makes no allowance whatsoever for any source of CO2 other than human beings”.
My “arithmetic” gave (assuming the information is accurate) information on total human emissions and total increase in atmospheric CO2.
Here in Scotland we remember Rabbie Burns who said, “Facts are chiels that winna ding, an’ downa be disputed”, which being translated means, ‘facts are shields that won’t let you down (won’t dent) and cannot be disputed’.
Now, I gave you two facts about CO2, 1.total human emissions and 2. total increase in atmospheric CO2, both between 1850 and 2000. If anyone can come up with any logical explanation of those two facts that disproves my conclusions that 1: Human emissions are more than able to account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 and and 2. The oceans have been and continue to be a sink of CO2 , let them try.
It needs hardly be said that my conclusions fundamentally refute the proposition that the increase in CO2 during the period in question was caused by anything other than human action.
Richard Courtney (and Smokey)
Here’s a paper you may remember, Richard (since you commented on it).
http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm
It was posted by Dr. Vincent Gray (a sceptic) on John Daly’s (also a sceptic) web-site several years ago. It includes a graph of CO2 data from about 1000 AD taken from the Law Dome ice core (antarctica). The first thing you might notice is the variability (or lack of) in the early part of the record up to ~1800. Vincent Gray makes the following comment
There is no “pre-industrial” equilibrium carbon dioxide concentration. There was variability in the order of 10ppmv between 1006 and 1800.
So from the peak of the MWP to the depths of the LIA CO2 concentrations varied by ~10 ppm. Either the temperature difference between the MWP and LIA is pretty small (tiny would be a better word) or, as is more likely, the CO2 response to temperature is nowhere near as large as some people have recently tried to claim. In fact, the CO2 variability looks to be fairly consistent with Ferdinand Engelbeen’s figure of ~8pppmv/degC.
Note also that the graph only goes up to 1978. Current CO2 concentration are at 390 ppm which is way off the scale on Vincent’s graph.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“…Smokey, I repeat here that I don’t expect a huge feedback from CO2 on temperature, and that any such feedback would be largely beneficial.”
Thank you for that statement, Ferdinand, because that is what the whole debate is really about.
And I promised some charts showing that there is, in fact, a lag between temperature rises and subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2:
CO2 lags temperature by 5 months: click
CO2 lags temperature, past 400,000 years: click
CO2 lags temperature by 800 ±200 years on geological time scales: click
Another chart showing the 800 year CO2 lag following temperature: click
Got more charts if anyone needs ’em.
John Finn:
At August 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm you say;
“Let’s try to simplify this:
1. Human emissions are increasing atmospheric CO2 by ~4 ppm per annum.
2. Due to increased sink capacity around 50% of this excess is being absorbed, so that only ~2 ppm remains in the atmosphere
3. However this is just an average figure. The actual amount depends on temperature at the time.
4. If it’s a warm month/year less is absorbed and more released so that more remains in the atmosphere. Vice Versa in a cool year. Michael’s graph illustrates this.
I’d like Richard Courtney to comment on this because I believe he is also in error.”
Me in error on this? Me? Nonsense!
I have repeatedly explained why you are plain wrong. You repeatedly failed to read or understand my explanation so I provided an explanation by a third party. You have ignored that, too.
So, I will try explaining it in another fashion in the hope that this time you will read the explanation. This time I will try as best I can to copy your format.
A.
Nature is emitting CO2 to the air at a rate of more than 150 GtC/year.
B.
The variation of CO2 in the air during each year is ~15 GtC/year.
C.
The variabilities of the natural inputs and outputs of the system are not known.
D.
Human’s are emitting CO2 to the air at a rate of less than 7GtC/year.
E.
The increase of CO2 in the air over each year is ~3 GtC/year.
So, E is less than D, is much less than B, and is very much less than A.
The natural system is changing because if it were not then E would be approximately equal to D.
Which is changing; A and/or C?
We cannot know because the innumerable natural inputs and outputs of CO2 to the air are not monitored.
So, how much of the change to the system is natural? Is it all, part, or none?
We cannot know because we do not know C.
But we do know as a certain fact (which I have repeatedly explained above) that the system can easily sequester ALL the anthropogenic emission each year.
Now, address that or go away. I will not reply if you yet again ignore it and yet again spout your same nonsense.
And Smokey says he is going to reference the immense literature on the lags of CO2 behind temperature at all time scales so I will leave that to him.
Richard
John Finn:
At August 6, 2011 at 2:46 pm you say;
“Richard Courtney (and Smokey)
Here’s a paper you may remember, Richard (since you commented on it).”
Where and when did I comment on it? I certainly have not in this thread.
However, the ice core data are smoothed by diffusion and they are not supported by stomata measurements from ancient plants.
The leaves of plants adjust the sizes of their stomata with changing atmospheric CO2 concentration and this permits the determination of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations by analysis of leaves preserved, for example, in peat bogs.
(refs. e.g. Retallack (2001), Wagner et al. (2004), Kouwenberg et al. (2003)).
The disagreement with the ice core data is clearly seen in all published studies of the stomata data. For example, as early as 1999 Wagner reported that studies of birch leaves indicated a rapid rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 327 ppmv (which is similar to the rise in the twentieth century) from late Glacial to Holocene conditions.
This ancient rise of 67 ppmv in atmospheric CO2 concentration is indicated by the stomata data at a time when the ice core data indicate only 20 ppmv rise.
(refs. Retallack G, Nature vol. 411 287 (2001), Wagener F, et al. Virtual Journal Geobiology, vol.3. Issue 9, Section 2B (2004), Kouenberg et al. American Journal of Botany, 90, pp 610-619 (2003), Wagner F et al. Science vol. 284 p 92 (1999)).
Now, do you really want to hang your arguments on the ice core data?
I assure you that I can really ‘go to town’ on the many reasons they are misleading. However, that side-track would ‘get you off the hook’ of continuing to try to sell your mistaken idea that the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is known.
Richard
Re the ‘impossible to distinguish between emissions from fossil fuel burning and vegetation based on 13C/12C isotope ratios’ and variations –
As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.
On this cynical practice Mišo observes, “Few readers will be bothered to follow the trail all the way and especially not the ‘policymakers.’ But the few that do frequently find out that the argument is circular (A quotes B and B quotes A), etc.”
Thus, there exists no proof of any such distinct ‘human signal’ anywhere in samples of atmospheric CO2. Therefore, once again, the public has been shown compelling evidence of how it was duped by junk science.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/analysis-ipcc-insider-inserted-false.html
and,
Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 is isotopically identical to industrially emitted CO2, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
and,
plants breathe out carbon dioxide when they’re not eating it in photosynthesis, and breathe in oxygen.
http://www.saburchill.com/chapters/chap0025.html
http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/oxycycle.html
Richard Courtney
In response to your points
A.
Nature is emitting CO2 to the air at a rate of more than 150 GtC/year.
Yes – and also absorbing about the same amount hence the rough equilibrium value of ~280 ppm observed between 1006 and 1800 in the Antarctic Law Dome data presented by Vincent Gray in his paper posted on the John Daly site .
B.
The variation of CO2 in the air during each year is ~15 GtC/year.
No – the variation is not ~15 GtC/year. The variation is ~15GtCO2/year or ~4GtC/year which equates to a variation of ~2 ppm/year. However, while the variation is ~2 ppm/year the average increase is also ~2 ppm/year. We see this in the last 10-12 years data. Between 1998 and 2010 CO2 levels increased by ~24 ppm (i.e. ~2 ppm/year) . The largest increase was 2.98 ppm (1998); the smallest increase was 0.9 ppm (1999).
C.
The variabilities of the natural inputs and outputs of the system are not known.
Why not? In (A) you told us that nature was emitting ~150 GtC/year to the air. Since CO2 levels stayed within a fairly narrow range varying by only ~10 ppm over the ~800 years between 1006 an 1800 (Ref: Vincent Gray, John Daly site) I think we can conclude that the inputs and outputs were pretty much in balance. I accept the temperature difference between the MWP and LIA would account for the 10 ppm difference in CO2.
D.
Human’s are emitting CO2 to the air at a rate of less than 7GtC/year.
It’s more like 8GtC/year but we’ll let that pass. Of more concern is the fact that you are confusing ‘GtC’ with ‘GtCO2’ . I’ll assume this is a simple error- for the moment.
E.
The increase of CO2 in the air over each year is ~3 GtC/year.
Again I think it’s more like ~4GtC/year. As we’ve seen over the past few years the average increase has been ~2ppm/year. The ‘conversion rate’ is 2.1 GtC per ppm so 4GtC/year is nearer the mark.
So, E is less than D,
Yes it is. That’s because ~50% of the excess is absorbed due to increased sink capacity. This is well documented. Ferdinand has provided several references and graphs on this thread alone. It’s you that seems to have the problem with reading and understanding, Richard – not me.
is much less than B,
No it’s not – it’s the same as B. As I pointed out in response to (B) you have confused ‘GtC’ with ‘GtCO2’. Your argument falls over here.
and is very much less than A.
Totally irrelevant since all ice core data shows that inputs = outputs so the net effect is ZERO.
John Finn:
Note that the “CO2 RATE” is the change in CO2 over a period. This is, in effect, what a graph of CO2 concentration would look like – if there were no human emissions. See Michael’s graph here.
http://naturalclimate.home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/CO2_growth_vs_Temp.pdf
I don’t think it says that. The chart is real-world data, with human emissions included. The way I read it, if the temperature anomaly was zero, the dCO2 would be around 0.13 ppm per month, or 1.56 ppm per year. Something besides the temperature anomaly is causing it to go up, that is clear. But what? A couple of ways to look at it:
If you’re in the “human emissions have no effect” camp, you would need to explain how CO2 is increasing at this rate without human emissions contributing. So you would need to argue that the temperature has increased compared to equilibrium, and that increase has caused the oceans and/or biosphere to outgas at 1.56 ppm per year. Remember that the reference point (zero) of the UAH MSU Global data set is the average of 20-years (1979-1998) (or at least it was when this data was taken). So we need to argue that the past was colder than our reference point, and that’s pretty easy to do, because the temperature has been going up since the LIA.
Let’s see if it works. We know from the fastest-reacting slope of the chart that the impact of a 1°C temperature anomaly is 0.693 ppm/mo, or 8.3 ppm/yr (this was determined from a different correlation that used the very nice, relatively noise free section including the El Nino of 1998, otherwise the slope drops due to all the noise – yes, I cherry picked it to get the maximum response). This correlation chart is shown here:
http://naturalclimate.home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/dCO2Slope.pdf
This agrees with figures Ferdinand Englebeen is using above, let’s just be clear that we are talking about an ANNUAL rate, not a maximum total response. So a small increase in temperature, in place for a long time, can have a very large effect.
And since you mentioned that there is no lag, I should also point out that there is no lag in the RATE. But there is absolutely a lag in the primary function, it depends on how much the anomaly is, and how much time the system has to react. If it were a step function that never reversed, the curve could be described and its time constant understood, but the lag would be evident. If it were a sine wave, you would get a phase shift and a dampening of the response. It will behave just like any RLC circuit. There will definitely be a lag in the response, as the “tank” fills, so to speak. There is no question this will happen, because the ocean acts as a very large capacitor.
So to help prove the “emissions don’t matter” case, we need to know two things. What is the anomaly from our zero reference, and how long was it in effect? With these two factors, we can estimate the ppm difference per month, and integrate it to see what the total effect is. To do that, I’m going to take a 0.7°C constant slope, and integrate it over 161 years, or 1932 months (since 1850)… Just to see if it makes any sense at all. Applying the rate above to this slight temperature increase over time results in an end CO2 level of 748 ppm today. So I add a factor to the rate, and adjust it until the CO2 level comes out to 390 ppm today. That factor is 0.2345. Meaning the relationship between temperature and CO2 rate in ppm/mo that we clearly see in the actual data is more than 4x higher than is necessary to bring 2011 CO2 to 390ppm, without any anthropogenic emissions at all. So something is actually having the opposite effect of emissions.
With that said, the very simple model was not adjusted for any equilibrium effect, which would make that factor I mentioned smaller. For example, we have estimates that the lag must be 800 years, so I assume that means 3 to 6 time constants = 800 years. Using 5 TC= 800 years, one TC is 160 years, which is the same period I used. Some of the CO2 we are outgassing in the model would also serve to increase the equilibrium level of the ocean (which I assumed was stable at 280ppm atmospheric). For example, if suddenly the 0.7°C rise stopped, about 63% (1-e^-1) of the total effect from the 1850 temperature increase (which was 0.7/161 years) would have been realized, and slightly less than that for year 1851, and so on. So the difference to equilibrium is getting smaller, and should be accelerating as the delta T gets bigger each year. It will be a significant but not huge effect that will make the 0.2345 factor larger, so the effect of temperature on CO2 rate is really less than 4x sufficient to explain the total difference. It is probably 2 or 3 instead. Maybe I’ll add that and find out.
The 2nd way to look at it is that its quite obvious that anthropogenic emissions are real, because I have 4 cars and drive them all. This means that the “factor” I used is actually overstated to make room for the human emissions, and the carbon dioxide cycle is even faster still. The maximum monthly slope in the Mauna Loa data can be used to estimate the minimum possible turnover rate, and last time I did that, it was 7.2 years, meaning its probably quite a bit faster than that. Is this where the 4x or 10x factor goes? Don’t know.
With all that said, it’s a simple exercise, too simple, but worth discussing. I don’t have a position on it, other than I think the original chart is cool and indicates that CO2 rate is exceptionally responsive to temperature. I don’t think its wise to dismiss the anthropogenic contribution, but likewise I don’t see any evidence it has much effect, and the data clearly shows that CO2 is very strongly affected by temperatures. But the chart also shows that the rate is increasing over time, which I think points to a non-natural source. But if the carbon dioxide transfer rate is very fast, you’ll never see very much of the anthropogenic contribution because it is small to begin with and most will get absorbed very quickly.
The truth is probably somewhere between.
Any thoughts?
Now I think I’ll listen to the podcast and see what this guy has to say.
Michael D Smith,
After reading your post, I think I agree with it. I’ll have to think it over some, but I can’t see any glaring errors. The only minor quibble is when you say you have 4 cars and drive them all. At the same time? ☺
The central question in the debate, however, isn’t whether humans are adding CO2. The question the alarmist crowd needs to answer is whether anthropogenic CO2 is causing any global harm. If it is, show us where exactly, and provide testable evidence that CO2 is the cause, and not something else. We already know that more CO2 = more food production. Therefore, if CO2 causes no global harm and increases agricultural productivity, then on balance, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial. QED
Smokey.
Well in response, the 1st 100ppm delays 8% of outward energy, which doesn’t affect temperature, thereafter, more doesn’t delay any more heat. Its like sunblock. More doesn’t mean more sun is blocked. If you have a factor 10 block, doubling the amount you put on your face won’t make it factor 20. C02’s saturation window closes when its optimum 10 microns are achieved – not that it is delaying at this subzero temperature level (minus 29C) for any length of time, or that such radiation at subzero temperatures will suddenly cause global warming, or anything crazy like that. Imagine radiation at -29 causing a temperature increase of 2C at ground level – its like saying that putting eggs in the freezer will cook them.
addendum to:
P Wilson says:
.
August 6, 2011 at 9:05 pm
15 microns. 10 microns is the average at which radiation leaves earth, so most radiation is invisible to c02
richard verney says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:03 am
” ————In summary, what was the natural sink in each and every year since 1950, and what was the corresponding biomass each year? Increase in biomass is very probably only part of the explanation.
_____________________________________________
Sorry I missed your reply to my post. I see your point.
However CO2 content of deep ocean upwelling is as far as I know not well monitored over decades.So the absorption rate may be what is reflected in atmospheric content, and relates to the climate of many centuries ago.
As this source shows, it’s a very complex set of interactions that determine areas and rates of absorption, and most would not be known on a global scale.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html
I feel the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due, partially or heavily, to a rapid increase in the number of animals including human, via respiration (CO2 release).
For instance, human population was more than doubled from 3 billion (in 1958: start of Mauna Loa) to the current 7 billion, following a curve apparently similar to the CO2 concentration trend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png
No doubt many of other animals (including termites?) have increased during the same period, though I don’t know of any precise data on this issue.
I appreciate hearing from anyone in the know. Thanks.
After listening to the podcast, I added CO2 emissions to my model (as a monthly rate, same as dCO2). The P value on emissions was 0.5 (not significant). How about that? The P value on Temp Anomaly was 1.64e-26 as a driver of dCO2. Let me say that one more time: The rate of increase in emissions has no discernible effect at all on the rate of increase of CO2. Things that make you go Hmmmm. I wonder why this is news. Isn’t this something that should have been checked a few decades back in the process?
John Finn:
You are even wrong on basic facts.
For example, you say the variation of CO2 during each year is 2 ppm.
No! It is not. IT IS ABOUT TEN TIMES THAT.
See
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I will try to explain for you what you will see if you click on the link. I recognise that you have not understood anything else I have written, and what you see at the link is more complicated than any of my statements which you have not understood. But I will try to explain for you what you will see if you do click on the link
The picture is called a graph. It shows how CO2 measured at Mauna Loa has varied.
Up the side on the left are some numbers. These show values of CO2 in ppmv.
Along the bottom are some more numbers. These show time in years.
The annual values of CO2 are provided as the black lines (joined by the black lines) in the picture
The monthly values of CO2 are provided as the red dots (joined by the red lines) in the picture
The red dots wiggle up and down during each year. This indicates the variation during each year.
Look across from the top of a ‘wiggle in a year’ to the left side and read off the number.
Look across from the bottom of a ‘wiggle in a year’ to the left side and read off the number.
Now, subtract one number from the other and the result is the annual variation of CO2 during a year as measured at Mauna Loa.
Please note that Mauna Loa was deliberately chosen as a measurement site that would provide little variation of CO2 in the air during each year. Other places provide more variation in each year, but I have tried to explain to you what you will see if you click on the link.
Now, I lack both the time and the patience to hold your hand through all your other errors. So, go away.
Richard
Michael D Smith:
Thankyou for your post at August 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm. It is clear and concise.
But I suspect that John Finn will not read it just as he ignored all the explanations I gave him. It is apparent that he is only here to ‘proclaim the true faith of AGW’.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
August 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Simply, your assertion is nonsense! The temperature changes could be the cause of all or none of “the variability in sink rate / increase speed”.
Please Richard, the influence of temperature on the CO2 rate of change is known for decades. It is acknowledged by sceptics (Dr. Spencer and many others and now Prof. Salby) as well as by warmers. My information is from a “warmer” I respect for his scientific integrity: Pieter Tans, head of the NOAA unit which runs the baseline stations where CO2 is measured. For the data, see half way his speech at the festivities for 50 years Mauna Loa CO2 measurements:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
And you also assert, “temperature changes largely compensate each other over 2-3 years”.
Really? You know that? How?
Simply make a 3-years moving average. I haven’t done that, but have a look at the 21 year averaging of the temperature record:
ftp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Over time you see flat periods and periods where the average temperature increases. That means that the short term responses in both directions fully compensate each other in flat periods and there is a residual plus in upgoing periods.
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your comment to me at August 7, 2011 at 1:06 am .
This response is a brief note to assure you that I am not ignoring your comment, and I will reply to it probably this evening or, perhaps, tomorrow morning. But it is now 9.40 am on Sunday here and – as you will understand – I am already in my ‘working clothes’ and must now rush away.
Richard
P Wilson says:
August 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Oceans contain some 37,400 billion tons (GT) of c02, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2 and humans contribute only 8 GT
How much each reservoir contains doesn’t matter, as long as there are no exchange flows between the reservoirs. How huge the exchange flows are doesn’t matter, as long as there is no difference in in and outflows for a given reservoir. The only point that matters is the balance between the inflows and outflows.
For the atmosphere it is quite exactly known: the human inflow is calculated (from fossil fuel sales) and what is in the atmosphere is measured. What nature does is the difference between these two: a net sink over the past 50 years.
Thus even if the deep oceans contain 50 times the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, that doesn’t matter, because more CO2 from the atmosphere is going down into the deep than is coming out…
If 8.6 GT per year are put into the air, half is said to be absorbed by the oceans, which is 4.3 GT. Yet, we put 4.3 GT p.a into the air around 1970. Why then did not the oceans absorb all 4.3GT p.a produced by humans in 1970.
If more CO2 is going from the oceans to the atmosphere or reverse is a matter of CO2 partial pressure difference between the CO2 which is in the ocean surface and CO2 which is in the atmosphere. The old equilibrium was at about 290 ppmv in the atmosphere. We were at 325 ppmv in 1970, thus 35 ppmv above equilibrium. We are at 390 ppmv now, thus 100 ppmv above equilibrium. The sink rate now is about 4 GtC/year, the sink rate in 1970 thus should be around 1.5 GtC/year. These are not exact figures, but it shows the idea: one need higher partial pressure differences to push higher amounts of CO2 in the oceans (and vegetation).
Richard S Courtney says:
August 7, 2011 at 12:01 am
John Finn:
You are even wrong on basic facts.
For example, you say the variation of CO2 during each year is 2 ppm.
No! It is not. IT IS ABOUT TEN TIMES THAT
Ok – we’re talking about different things here. You are talking about the seasonal or ‘within year’ variability. I was referring to the year on year increases (~1ppm to ~3ppm). However the seasonal variability is simply a reflection of the net input-output effect throughout the course of the year. (see your point A from earlier post). The net effect over the complete year is ZERO.
Tom Quirk has a PDF that I sourced at Icecap.us It has many plots of CO2 around the world and charts of seasonal variations as opposed to annual variations. It seems from my reading, that seasonal variations are up to ten times annual variations, that local increases are absorbed locally within a season, that the major discernible output areas seem to be tropical, and the southern hemisphere produces proportionally more than the northern Hemisphere, given its 20% land mass and little major industrial output (oceans?). The O2/13 isotope does not follow projections for a MM fingerprint either. As it backs up the paper we are discussing it is well worth the 17pp PDF read.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TomQuirkSourcesandSinksofCO2_FINAL.pdf
Oops, C13 isotope!
Michael D Smith says:
August 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm
John Finn:
Note that the “CO2 RATE” is the change in CO2 over a period. This is, in effect, what a graph of CO2 concentration would look like – if there were no human emissions. See Michael’s graph here.
http://naturalclimate.home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/CO2_growth_vs_Temp.pdf
I don’t think it says that. The chart is real-world data, with human emissions included.
Michael
The chart refers to dCO2 using ppm (parts per million) as units. This refers to the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the previous year (or 12 month period to be precise). Temperature clearly contributes to the magnitude of the increase AND the effect is immediate. However you also say this
The way I read it, if the temperature anomaly was zero, the dCO2 would be around 0.13 ppm per month, or 1.56 ppm per year. Something besides the temperature anomaly is causing it to go up, that is clear. But what?
Well observed. If temperature remained constant we would still see an increase in atmospheric CO2. Temperature changes amplify or moderate the increase but the underlying increase is still there. That’s because humans are continuing to emit ~8GtC per year into the atmosphere. Don’t get me wrong I don’t particularly have a problem with this. I expect some warming from CO2 but nothing ‘catastrophic’. However I see no point in denying that human activity is clearly responsible for the steady increase in atmospheric CO2 which I believe is now nearer 2ppm per year (rather than the 1.56 ppm per year that you noted).
Richard S Courtney says:
August 7, 2011 at 12:08 am
Michael D Smith:
Thankyou for your post at August 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm. It is clear and concise.
But I suspect that John Finn will not read it just as he ignored all the explanations I gave him.
Read it and responded, Richard
It is apparent that he is only here to ‘proclaim the true faith of AGW’.
Richard
I can point you in the direction of umpteen posts where I have argued against AGW supporters (including Michael Mann). WUWT and ClimateAudit have both cited comments made by me in an exchange with Mann on the Realclimate blog. You’re starting to get a bit silly now, Richard.
Richard Courtney in August 2011:
Please note that Mauna Loa was deliberately chosen as a measurement site that would provide little variation of CO2 in the air during each year.
Richard Courtney in Feb 1999
I recently visited Hawaii and observed the Mauna Loa site, and this has convinced me that measurements of carbon dioxide from that site are not indicative of “the well mixed background.”
I suppose there are some signs of some progress. However, since your 1999 statement, Richard, CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa have risen by 24 ppm. I’m still waiting for an explanation. Unfortunately you appear to have chosen to use a misunderstanding between us as a convenient excuse to close the discussion.