Guest Post by David Middleton
Fingerprints are admissible evidence in criminal trials because of their uniqueness. The probability of two human beings having identical fingerprints is very low.
Measurements of δ13C depletion have often been cited as anthropogenic “fingerprints,” proving human culpability for the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 200 years or so…
While δ13C depletion certainly could be evidence of the Suess Effect, it is not a unique solution; therefore, not a “fingerprint.”
Examples of geologically recent δ13C depletion not of anthropogenic origin…
δ13C depletions were associated with warming events ~5,000 years ago in India, ~9,100 years ago in Poland and ~150,000 years ago in the Indian Ocean. It appears to me that δ13C depletion has been a fairly common occurrence during periods of “global warming.” It also appears that δ13C increases have occurred during periods of global cooling…
The red curve in Figure 5 is the Flinders Reef δ13C that was cited as “Human Fingerprint #1” in Skeptical Science’s The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. The rate of δ13C depletion is quite similar to that of the lacustrine deposit on the Yucatan. The Flinders Reef data do not extend back before the Little Ice Age; so there is no way to tell if the modern depletion is an anomaly, if the δ13C was anomalously elevated during the 18th and 19th centuries and the depletion is simply a return to the norm or if δ13C is cyclical.
Is it possible that Skeptical Science’s “Human Fingerprint #1” is not due to the Suess Effect? Could it be related to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age?
References
Cook, J. et al., 2010. The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism. Skeptical Science.
Banakar V., 2005. δ13C Depleted Oceans Before the Termination 2: More Nutrient-Rich Deep-Water Formation or Light-Carbon Transfer? Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. Vol. 34(3). September 2005. pp. 249-258.
Enzel, Y. et al. High-Resolution Holocene Environmental Changes in the Thar Desert, Northwestern India. Science 284, 125 (1999); DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5411.125.
Apolinarska, K. δ18O and δ13C Isotope Investigation of the Late Glacial and Early Holocene Biogenic Carbonates from the Lake Lednica Sediments, Western Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica, Vol. 59 (2009), No. 1, pp. 111–121.
Hodell, D.A., et al., 2005. Climate change on the Yucatan Peninsula during the Little Ice Age. Quaternary Research, Vol. 63, pp. 109-121. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2004.11.004
Pelejero, C., et al. 2005. Flinders Reef Coral Boron Isotope Data and pH Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2005-069. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
gavincawley says:
March 31, 2012 at 10:44 am
“The mass balance argument does not require any knowledge of the magnitudes of the natural fluxes, hence the uncertainty of our best estimates of them is irrelevant.”
The “mass balance argument” is, there is no way to sugarcoat this, stupid.
FerdiEgb says:
March 31, 2012 at 11:05 am
“Only the difference between all natural inflows and all natural outflows together is important.”
Again, sorry, it has to be said… Stupid.
John Whitman says:
March 31, 2012 at 11:34 am
Hey, I noticed you shortened your handle here at WUWT!
Not my intention, I still am the same Ferdinand Engelbeen, but the new WordPress rules which needed a login. Seems that I ever used that shortened login. Did cause me to resent the first comment here which were both promptly sent to the dust bin by WordPress and prompted a reaction of one of the Mods, because I was too impatient to wait for the dust bin to be searched by the poor Mods (sorry)…
The part of the atmospheric CO2 increase which could be considered as resulting from the temperature rebound from the LIA over the same period roughly 55 ppmv.
That is a little too high: even if we assume a full degree C increase of the ocean surface since the LIA, that wouldn’t be more than 16 ppmv. That is the increase in “fugacity”, or steady state equilibrium level with the above atmosphere for seawater for 1°C temperature increase. As increased land temperatures give more CO2 sequestering by plants, the overall increase in atmospheric CO2 at steady state probably is in the order of 8 ppmv, as was the case for the previous 800 kyr. Thus at maximum 8 ppmv of the 100+ ppmv rise in the past 160 years is from the rebound from the LIA.
What is the base of the temperature caused 55 ppmv increase by Prof. Salby?
Bart. If you feel there is an error in the mass balance argument, then the sensible thing for us to do is to go through it step by step and you can point out the specific error when it ocurrs. This is what I did when I heard about Prof. Essenhigh’s paper, I had an open mind about it and went through the paper line by line and equation by equation and identified errors in the reasoning.
Step #1: Do you agree that the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass, i.e. any carbon that is emitted into the atmopshere that is not taken up by oceanic and terrestrial sinks remains in the atmosphere? Yes, or no. If no, then explain why this is not the case.
I am willing to put my understanding to the test in a public forum. I am confident that you will not be able to find a flaw in any step. Are you willing to do the same?
FerdiEgb,
And in addition the significant uncertainty extends to the concept of significantly varying amounts of relatively low carbon 13 concentrations being emitted from the upper ocean marine organic matter. For the IPCC’s AGW fingerprint from lowering carbon 13 relative concentration in the atmosphere to hold any validity it must be assumed by the IPCC that the oceans must emit CO2 with standard reference atmosphere carbon 13 relative concentrations; oceans assumed emitting CO2 without the leanness in carbon 13 of that is contained in man’s burning of fossil fuels; it is odd the IPCC does that given that the oceans are the dominant actor in the earth’s carbon cycle by far. Yet, there is quite insufficient science showing that IPCC assumption is credible. It is like the IPCC has a conclusion that man was responsible and is arguing backwards to justify it and in the process proceeds by just hand waving forth an assumption about the dominant part of the carbon cycle, the oceans, without doing the science.
Carbon cycle science is primitive and needs independent skeptical attention. Funding orgs need support it independent of the IPCC’s advocacy of only research whose outcome supports their predetermined conclusions.
John
John Whitman If you doubt that the IPCC’s conclusion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin, then I suggest that you also engage in the step-by-step derivation of the mass balance argument that demonstrates they are correct, that started in my previous post. I invite skeptical attention, I would very much like to be proven wrong, and the challenge is yours to accept.
John Whitman says:
March 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm
And in addition the significant uncertainty extends to the concept of significantly varying amounts of relatively low carbon 13 concentrations being emitted from the upper ocean marine organic matter.
Some error here: plant life in the upper oceans use preferentially 12C for their organics, which leaves more 13C in the surrounding waters. That makes that surface waters are higher in 13C than the deep ocean waters. Thus any release from the deep oceans (at around zero per mil d13C) or the ocean’s surface (at 1-5 per mil) will increase the d13C level of the atmosphere (currently at -8 per mil).
Don’t underestimate what is already known from the carbon cycle. Not everything is known in detail but the main flows are quite well known.
gavincawley says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:59 pm
“If you feel there is an error in the mass balance argument, then the sensible thing for us to do is to go through it step by step and you can point out the specific error when it ocurrs”
Been there, done that Gavin. We’ve been going back and forth on this issue for years with Ferdinand. Last go around, I thought he had finally seen the light. Instead, he just breaks off when the going gets tough, and comes back spouting the same argumentum ad nauseam. I am sick of it.
This is very, very elementary. You guys are assuming you know more about the system than you do. The equations, based on what is definitely known, are underdetermined, and you are resolving the ambiguity in the solution by choosing one which fits your preconceived biases.
FerdiEgb says:
March 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm
“… the main flows are quite well known.”
More argument by assertion. Countless failed hypotheses have been buried with similar epitaphs on their headstones.
Bart says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:12 am
It is not because I had left the discussion after we agreed that we didn’t agree, that you may assume that I have seen “the” light…
Some fresh thoughts from a different person may be of help. You are right that we don’t know what the carbon cycle is doing in detail, but we do know the two most important items: how much humans emit and what the increase in the atmosphere is.
Again, it seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand that the natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs are of not the slightest interest to know how much nature supplies to or removes from the atmosphere. The two known variables (including their error margins) are sufficient to know the difference between the unknown sum of all natural inflows and unknown sum of all natural outflows. That is all what matters for the increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Bart says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:17 am
More argument by assertion. Countless failed hypotheses have been buried with similar epitaphs on their headstones.
See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.abstract
I found a new paper discussed at Jo’s site on the C13 concentrations and the oceans which seems to be much aligned to what David is telling:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/in-ice-ages-co2-hides-in-the-oceans-yes-we-knew-that/
FerdiEgb,
I liked your full name better as a handle. : ) It was more dignified.
For us to dialog on my interpretations of Prof Salby’s treatment of the delta natural CO2 emission resulting from delta surface temperature (the temperature-CO2 climate feedback) then I suggest you first read chapter 8-Radiative Transfer, section 8.7-The Greenhouse Effect, subsection 8.7.1-Feedback in the Climate System in Prof Salby’s book ‘The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate’ (published Jan 2012 by Cambridge University Press). The references in that subsection will take you to many other chapters within his book so you would be looking over 70 pages of his almost 700 page book.
It looks to me like there are significant oceanic sources emitting natural CO2 which is carbon 13 lean; natural ocean sources of emission with the similar carbon 13 leanness as the leanness in CO2 from man’s burning of fossil fuels; the magnitudes of emission rate of those natural oceanic sources of carbon 13 lean CO2 appear to be on the order of magnitude of the emission rate of the anthropogenic CO2 sources from burning fossil fuel over comparable time periods like the twentieth century. A finding like that would significantly weaken the basis of the IPCC’s anthropogenic CO2 fingerprinting which they say shows predominately anthropogenic causes for increased modern era CO2.
As we hopefully, in the future, have a common base (Prof Salby’s treatment in his book) then I look forward to your continued discussion on this matter.
John
Lars P. says:
April 1, 2012 at 11:01 am
Thanks for the link. The full (not paywalled) paper from Science can be found at:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/schmitt12scix.pdf
It is a very interesting paper with a detailed description of what is expected that has happened with ocean flows and vegetation over the last ice age – interglacial transition.
The variability in d13C was measured in three ice cores with different methods in different laboratories. While the ice core filtering is at multi centennial scale, the average variation over the last glacial maximum – Holocene era was not more than 0.6 per mil d13C. That includes quite huge changes in SST and vegetation area/growth. Since the start of the industrial revolution we have had a drop of 1.6 per mil d13C in only 160 years…
FerdiEgb,
Again, my interpretation of Salby’s treatment in his new book, is that the natural variation (excluding variation from fossil fuel burning) in carbon 13 relative concentration in the atmosphere for the satellite era (past thirty years) does seem to be inconsistent with your statement. I think it shows there are natural sources of carbon 13 lean CO2 that have emission rates comparable in magnitude to the sources from mankind burning fossil fuels over the same period. That would effective counter the assumption of yours that we would need massive vegetation destroying natural disasters of global dimension over the satellite era to have a major natural source of carbon 13 lean CO2 comparable to the anthropogenic source of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
John
FerdiEgb,
If current carbon cycle is as you say ‘[n]ot everything is known in detail but the main flows are quite well known’ and if as you say it includes the concept that lean carbon 13 CO2 emissions from natural sources, on the order of anthropogenic sources, cannot be occurring in modern times yet observation contradicts what you say is known then we do not have as you say an ‘error’. We have a significant open discourse on the science involving the carbon cycle and the Earth-atmospheric system.
Look forward to discussion of Prof Salby’s work on this matter.
John
Bart, If you feel that the mass balance argument is based on assumptions that are incorrect, or information that we don’t actually know, it would be very easy for you to point out the step where the problem ocurrs and I will be proven wrong. It is hard to understand your reluctance just to go through about six steps saying whether you agree with them or not. It would be ar less typing than was involved in your previous post. Do you agree with step #1? If you do, we will have narrowed down the steps where the error may lie. If you don’t then it is your chance to prove me wrong.
John Whitman wrote: “A finding like that would significantly weaken the basis of the IPCC’s anthropogenic CO2 fingerprinting which they say shows predominately anthropogenic causes for increased modern era CO2.”
No, this is not correct. The mass balance argument proves beyond reasonable doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. Questioning the validity of isotopic arguments is perfectly reasonable, but it doesn’t change the fact that the mass balance argument demonstrates that the IPCC’s position is correct.
John Whitman says:
April 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Most of all natural CO2 is around zero per mil d13C: that is all inorganic carbon (carbonate -rock- layers from plankton shells), sclero sponges, corals,… That is also the case for the inorganic carbonates dissolved in the (deep) oceans and ocean sediments, therefore also for volcanic CO2 from subduction volcanoes.
Low 13C CO2 comes mainly from organics and some from fractionation processes in the deep mantle (but even mantle plume volcanic releases still are around/above atmospheric d13C). Thus any substantial reduction of atmospheric d13C, which is already low, comes from organics. Either from living organisms or from fossil organics. See:
http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html
Thus while the bulk exchanges between the oceans and the atmosphere provide the atmosphere with a positive d13C CO2, some seeping of methane, oil or other organics from the (deep) oceans may influence the atmospheric d13C to the negative side.
The problem is that all these exchanges had only a small variability (+/- 0.15) around -6.4 per mil over the 450 years before the start of the industrial revolution. The same for the ocean surface waters: +4.95 +/- 0.15 at Jamaica (broadly the same over the whole North Atlantic Gyre). See:
C:\Users\Familie\Documents\Thuis\telenet\klimaat\klim_img\sponges.gif
Since about 1850, there is a constant accellerating drop in d13C as well as in the atmosphere as in the ocean’s surface and at the same time an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean’s surface. That is incompatible with an extra release from the oceans: both the d13C drop as the DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) increase in the oceans is opposite that expectation. The only alternative possibility is an enormous release (and oxydation) of organics from the (deep) oceans, be it methane clathrates or oil leaks. But think about the quantities involved: the BP oil spill of the Gulf is not even measurable in the CO2 increase. Moreover, that would be additional to the human emissions, but the human emissions are already twice what is observed as increase in the atmosphere. As the conservation of mass dictates: the difference with what is observed must be absorbed somewhere. The only alternative that is fast enough is the biosphere. That should sequester all the extra carbon from the oceans plus halve that of the human emissions. But that gives another contradiction: if that was true, the low 13C carbon from the oceans + halve the human emissions would be completely replaced by high 13C carbon from what remains from photosynthesis, the net result is that only the human emissions are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere and the d13C decline and that nature only shuffled some organic carbon from the ocean reservoir to the biosphere reservoir.
In reality, not such an increase of extra organics releases from the oceans is observed. And both oceans and the biosphere are net sinks for CO2.
FerdiEgb says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:34 am
“It is not because I had left the discussion after we agreed that we didn’t agree, that you may assume that I have seen “the” light…”
No, it was before that. I showed that the only variable you could know was a difference, which did not tell you what the natural flows were. You sidestepped the issue, continued stonewalling, and eventually, I gave up.
“Again, it seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand that the natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs are of not the slightest interest to know natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs .”
I think you got a little tongue twisted there. The “natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs” obviously IS the “natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs.” If you meant to argue that anthropogenic flows into the system have no effect on the amount nature removes, then you are wrong.
gavincawley says:
April 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm
” It is hard to understand your reluctance just to go through about six steps saying whether you agree with them or not.”
It would not be hard if you had been a part of this fruitless conversation from way back. I am, justifiably, reluctant to continue to waste time with people who refuse to think.
Write down the equations. Carefully label what is known and what is unknown. In the end, you will come up with the difference between natural inflow and outflow as being the only fundamental quantity known, but with nothing more than handwaving to assert how much of each there is individually.
“Do you agree with step #1?”
Well, it could have vanished into the wormhole which is transporting Phil Jones missing heat to the depths of the ocean without leaving any intervening trace of its passage. But, no, we do not do such pseudo-science here. The question is, how large are those sinks, how do they expand or contract in response to atmospheric concentration, and what is the rate at which at least semi-permanent sequestration occurs?
gavincawley says:
April 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm
“The mass balance argument proves beyond reasonable doubt that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin.”
The mass balance proves nothing. It does not tell you individually how much input and output is coming from and going into natural sources and sinks.
FerdiEgb says:
April 1, 2012 at 9:39 am
“See: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.abstract“
Reminds me of this.
Bart: wrote: “Write down the equations. Carefully label what is known and what is unknown. In the end, you will come up with the difference between natural inflow and outflow as being the only fundamental quantity known, but with nothing more than handwaving to assert how much of each there is individually.”
The mass balance argument does not tell us the magnitudes of the natural fluxes, and indeed I have made it clear in my posts on this thread that we do not know them, nor do we need to know them to know that the natural environment is a net carbon sink.
As you say “the difference between natural inflow and outflow as being the only fundamental quantity known” if we know that the difference between natural inflow and natural outflow is negative, that means that natural uptake must exceed natural emissions. Therefore the natural environment is a net carbon sink and has been actively opposing the rise in atmospheric CO2 rather than causing it. I am glad we agree that we do know the difference between natural inflow and natural outflow, that is real progress.
“Well, it could have vanished into the wormhole which is transporting Phil Jones missing heat to the depths of the ocean without leaving any intervening trace of its passage. But, no, we do not do such pseudo-science here. The question is, how large are those sinks, how do they expand or contract in response to atmospheric concentration, and what is the rate at which at least semi-permanent sequestration occurs?”
Sadly this sort of evasion rather than giving a direct answer to a direct question is all too common in discussion of climate science. Fortunately you had already conceded that we know the difference between natural inflow and natural outflow. When we look at the data we find that natural uptake has been greater than natural emissions for every year for at least the last 50 years (see my paper, or Ferdinand Engelbeen’s website or figure 1 of Raupach et al etc. or download the data from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center and perform the analysis for yourself).
So my question to you is how can the natural environment be causing a rise in atmospheric CO2 while taking in more CO2 than it emits?
Bart says:
April 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm
No, it was before that. I showed that the only variable you could know was a difference, which did not tell you what the natural flows were.
Again, it is totally unimportant what the absolute height of any of the in and outflows are, it is only important what the difference between all the inflows and all the outflows is. It doesn’t make any damn change to the amounts in the atmosphere, as long as the total flows into and the total flows out are equal. No matter if these are 10 or 100 or 1000 GtC/year. Only the difference between ins and outs is important and that is what we know: the difference between what humans emit and what we measure as increase.
Again, it seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand that the natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs are of not the slightest interest to know natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs .
That is not what I said. I said:
Again, it seems very difficult for a lot of people to understand that the natural flows between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs are of not the slightest interest to know how much nature supplies to or removes from the atmosphere.
What nature supplies or removes to/from the atmosphere is not inflows or outflows, but the difference between inflows and outflows. If inflows and outflows are equal, there is zero supply and no change in the total amount present in the atmosphere. Again flows are not important, the difference at the end of the year is important.
gavincawley says:
April 2, 2012 at 4:09 am
“So my question to you is how can the natural environment be causing a rise in atmospheric CO2 while taking in more CO2 than it emits?”
Like this:
M = measured concentration
A = anthropogenic emissions
N = natural emissions
U = natural uptake
We know M = A + N – U. We measure M. We calculate A. From that, we know N-U, and we know that A is approximately twice M, so we know N-U is negative. As you say, it is a net sink.
But, that’s all we know. We do not know N or U individually.
The reservoirs expand in response to both natural and anthropogenic emissions. This is the nature of a DYNAMIC SYSTEM.
Thus, we can take U as composed of two terms:
UA = natural uptake of anthropogenic emissions
UN = natural uptake of natural emissions
So, we only know N-UA-UN. Suppose UA = A. Then M = N – UN, N is greater than UN, and the rise is entirely natural. Equality would never be precisely the case, but it depends on the sequestration time. If that time is arbitrarily small, then it is possible to within an arbitrarily small deviation to have UA = A. We simply do not know. As the sequestration time increases, anthropogenic emissions induce a greater share of the measured concentration. But, we do not know the sequestration time.
This is a DYNAMIC SYSTEM. It actively responds to changing inputs. You cannot do a static analysis on such a system and expect generally, or even usually, to get the right answer.
FerdiEgb says:
April 2, 2012 at 4:34 am
“Again flows are not important, the difference at the end of the year is important.”
It is useless. See above.
Bart says:
March 31, 2012 at 12:01 pm
gavincawley says:
March 31, 2012 at 10:44 am
“The mass balance argument does not require any knowledge of the magnitudes of the natural fluxes, hence the uncertainty of our best estimates of them is irrelevant.”
The “mass balance argument” is, there is no way to sugarcoat this, stupid.
Really?
The rate of growth in CO2 in the atmosphere can be represented by the following DE:
d[CO2]/dt = Fossil Fuel Combustion+ Natural Sources-Natural Sinks
Anything stupid about this?
Measured values over the last 50 years yield the following to sufficient accuracy:
d[CO2]/dt = Fossil Fuel Combustion(FF)/2
So substitute that back in the original equation:
FF/2 = FF+ Natural Sources-Natural Sinks
Therefore -FF/2 = Natural Sources-Natural Sinks
So the measurements over the last 50 years show that Fossil Fuel Combustion is responsible for the growth. QED