Correlation of Net CO2 emissions with climate properties shows that the growth in CO2 may be natural
Story submitted by WUWT reader Steve Brown
The narrative of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been challenged at many levels but this presentation by Professor Murry Salby, Chair of Climate at Macquarie University rips up the very foundations of the story.
The talk (in the video below) was given at the Sydney Institute 2nd Aug 2011
He elegantly shows that there is a solid correlation between natural climate factors (global temperature and soil moisture content) and the net gain (or loss) in global atmospheric content when the latter is averaged over a two year period. The hanging question remains, if natural factors drive more than 90% of the growth in CO2 how significant is the contribution of human generated emissions. The answer is simple… not very.
The talk has been covered in the past on Judith Curry’s blog, and an abstract of the talk is here . But this is the first time I have encountered a video of the talk or been able to see the slides which he referenced.
Fascinating.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Posted this yesterday at TB’s site :
Some figures pertaining to mass, which may (or may not) prove helpful……
Total mass (Ta) of atmosphere = 5.14×10^18 kg.
Mass of CO2 (Tc) in atmosphere = 2.3 x 10^15 kg
Proportion of CO2 in atmosphere by mass (Tc/Ta) = 0,000447 or 447ppm.
This number is somewhat higher than the measured 392ppm by volume, but since CO2 is heavier than air, this makes sense, at least to me.
Now, let’s assume that all other things are equal, and the CO2 emitted by man simply accumulates in the atmosphere.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions (2009) amounted to 3.0398 x 10^13 kg.
Total mass (Ta1) of atmosphere now = 5.14003 x 10^18 kg
Mass of CO2 (Tc1) in atmosphere now = 2.3304 x 10^15 kg
Proportion of CO2 in atmosphere by mass (Tc1/Ta1) now = 0.000453 or 453ppm.
Theoretical increase in mass of atmospheric CO2 year-on-year (2009-10) =+6 ppm
Actual observed increase in volume of atmospheric CO2 year-on-year (2009-10) = +2.40 ppm.
Interesting……..
The short term data is very plain, and I had thought well understood: the data show about 6 GT Carbon emitted for every 1 C rise in temperature, with about a seven month lag, and about half of the human emissions ending in the atmosphere. What is controversial for me about his presentation is the idea that we can get CO2 levels which seem geologically very high by dint of natural processes, when temperatures are really not excessive by that standard.
Friends:
I remind people that this matter was previously discussed on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/
There is much interesting discussion there.
For example, and for obvious reasons I draw attention to the following comment I posted there.
Richard
PS I regret that I will be out of contact for at least a week (regulars on WUWT know that this often happens) so I will be unable respond to comments on the present thread.
————————————
Richard S Courtney says:
August 5, 2011 at 6:41 am
Friends:
Several here have pointed out that global temperature has been approximately static for about a decade but CO2 continues to increase in the air. They seem to think that this indicates temperature change is not the cause of the CO2 rise. However, that does not follow as is explained in the one of our papers which I referenced in my above post (at August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am ).
The continuing rise for decades after the temperature has risen is because a temperature increase causes the system of the carbon cycle to obtain a new equilibrium state, and the system takes decades to achieve that new equilibrium.
The short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic and the natural emissions of any year. But some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium (whatever caused the change to the equilibrium) and, therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration changes for decades after a change to the system (e.g. a change to global temperature).
I think it is important to note that Salby says very little that is new in his presentation. Only his soil moisture argument is novel. Everything else he says is covered by our paper which I referenced in my above post (at August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am ) and the WUWT articles of Roy Spencer (that Anthony links above). Indeed, Salby uses some of the same words as we use in our paper (please note that this is NOT an accusation of plagiarism: clear statements of the same facts are likely to use the same words).
Richard
I’m getting:
I can’t find it on YouTube.
commieBob
You just click on the Youtube icon next to the full screen button, bottom right.
@commieBob
Try this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts–9I
I’m a newbie here, and not a climate scientist, so this might sound naive. But let me give it a try, anyway:
I have long thought it is a relatively settled finding from the Vostok ice cores (among other things?) that atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag temperatures by about 800 years. I thought that the AGW camp has tried to assimilate this finding by claiming (a) that the lag is a consequence of outgassing of dissolved CO2 from the oceans, and (b) it creates a positive feedback that drives the whole thing: higher temps -> more atmospheric CO2 -> higher temps -> more CO2, etc.
Now, I am increasingly encountering the fear from the AGW camp that the oceans are acidifying, and that this is a result of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans due to higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2. My question is simple: Aren’t these AGW conjectures inconsistent? How can the warming oceans be outgassing CO2, creating a positive feedback, at the same time as they are absorbing it from the atmosphere, causing acidification? Presumably, these processes have to be on a “net” basis, and there can’t be a net increase and a net decrease in absorbed CO2 at the same time.
The AGW folks seem to want to suck and blow at the same time when it comes to oceans and CO2. I don’t think one has to be a board-certified climate scientist to assess the merits of that conjecture, does one?
For the video-challenged, it looks like some of the slides are in the second item of this blog entry, with links to a transcript.
I love it. How wonderful to see a clear presentation on the natural component. I was aware of the long term temperature/CO2 coupling from the 450,000 year ice core record, but this is much, much better as it tracks year-on-year changes over the 30 year satellite measurement period.
Still, no matter how cogent this information is, The True Believers will reject it because of it’s heresy.
What, humanity is NOT killing the earthmother?
A collection of headlines from the recent past which seem to point the finger directly at humanity, implying or stating that we are the cancer that is killing the earth.
http://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/earth-day-special-medias-top-25-worst-environmental-quotes
shortened by bitly in case the above link is broken in some way:
http://bit.ly/JmM6zK
Good reading here, h/t badblue.
When you catch up let us know.
RERT says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“What is controversial for me about his presentation is the idea that we can get CO2 levels which seem geologically very high by dint of natural processes, when temperatures are really not excessive by that standard.”
I think is strong evidence that the geological levels are probably underestimated. It makes little sense that the relatively small anthropogenic CO2 contributions compared to the natural sources have caused the atmospheric CO2 levels to be far higher than it has ever been in the last 800,000 years.
This seems nearly as preposterous as the warmist’s contention that natural CO2 sources and sinks are perfectly stable and always in balance even though they are all dependent on the climate which at the same time, they contend is rapidly changing.
Anything is possible wrote:
“This number is somewhat higher than the measured 392ppm by volume, but since CO2 is heavier than air, this makes sense, at least to me.”
Just multiply the 392 ppm with the ratio between the molar mass of carbon dioxide and the molar mass of air to get the approximate mass ratio:
Mc/Ma=392 * 10-6 * (44.01 g/mol)/(28.97 g/mol) = 0.000596 kg/kg(air)
Now multiply with the mass of air (=5.14*10^18 kg) and you get the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:
Mc = 3.06 * 10^15 kg.
So you see the mass of carbon dioxide from which you started, was a little bit low.
Then you add about 32 Gt anthropogenic CO2 per year.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n12/full/ngeo1022.html
Calculating everything back to ppm. The result would be a CO2-increase of about 4 ppm per year due to anthropogenic emissions alone, if all the CO2 staid in the atmosphere. A little bit less than you calculated.
“Actual observed increase in volume of atmospheric CO2 year-on-year (2009-10) = +2.40 ppm.
Interesting……..”
Yes, it is. These numbers are not reconcilable with the notions that there was a positive net flux – anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide from ocean/biosphere sources to the atmosphere, currently, and that most of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere came from natural sources. Instead, these numbers imply that the net flux – anthropogenic emissions is directed from the atmosphere to the oceans/biosphere, which agrees with the mainstream scientific literature on the carbon cycle that says about 60% or so of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are sequestered (e.g., Knorr, GRL, 2009; doi: 10.1029/2009GL040613) in the oceans/biosphere. If this didn’t happen the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic emissions would be much higher already, about 560 ppm, assuming that the sequestation ratio has not changed.
How is this reconcilable with the author’s speculation that only 10% of the 2.4 pm increase in CO2 per year was from anthropogenic sources? It’s not unless it is asserted that anthropogenic emissions weren’t actually 32 Gt per year, but more in the range of less than 2 Gt.
The central point should be that, obviously, the rise in CO2 is entirely beneficial. The biosphere is starved of CO2. More is better. I know that will make some folks’ heads explode, but that’s what happens when their cognitive dissonance meets reality.
I think this is one of the best posts of WUW I’ve seen. Good scientists present the data and let the audience make their own conclusions – exactly as Salby does in this lecture. It draws out what is assumption and what is the evidence, and clearly shows the current modeling dogma is based on an assumtion the is not supported by the evidence. The so-called smoking gun is demolished by careful work and thinking. So many briliant quotes in this lecture ‘all bets are off’ re the ratio of C12 and C13 in natural net contribution to rising CO2 levels is one of my favourites. Oh and also I like the way he distinguishes scientists and advocates masquerading as scientists.
I was expecting not to be persuaded, and in fact was.
While widely mis-understood, correlation, with certain caveats, is proof of causation. Its just that correlation doesn’t tell us what the causative mechanism is. The annual CO2 emissions correlation with satellite measured surface conditions of 0.93 (as I recall) is conclusive for me. And the argument put forward by Perlwitz above is irrelevant, because surface conditions (mostly temperature) explain almost all of the net CO2 emissions. Thus no other explanation is required and anthropogenic emissions are irrelevant, excepting some small residual.
The only other explanation is that intra-annual CO2 variations cause intra-annual global climate variations, and I have never heard that argument put forward. Rather the opposite, AGWers argue that short term climate variations are natural variation ‘noise’ to the CO2 climate signal.
Being skeptic means being skeptical about anything, right? While this talk was very interesting to listen to, I actually think it does not prove much. It shows that relation between natural emissions and sinks seems to be modulated by temperature and moisture and that this modulation amplitude is larger than amplitude of human emissions but that does not prove that human emissions don’t put some constant shift upon this modulation. And it sadly does not allow us to see how much of this modulation is due to sources and how much is due to sinks. And even the combination of temperature and moisture is at this level just excersise in regression and while it makes sense, I believe it needs some experimental proofing.
That map of global CO2 concentration was very interesting, though. It kinda shows that using just Mauna Loa measurements for CO2 concentrations is almost like measuring global temperatures using just single meteorological station. Yes it follows global mean somewhat, but not quite. And seeing that highest CO2 concentrations are definitely NOT where most industry and population is situated was priceless. Pity it was land only, seas would sure be interesting too. And pity it was only a static image, seeing it through an El Nino would sure be very interesting.
Very fine work by Salby. Without the “A” in AGW, GW becomes moot (particularly the mitigation part) regardless of how sensitive the climate.
Surely the simple arithmetic of the problem as given by Anything is Possible, and Jan P. Perlwitz, showing that mankind is burning enough fossil fuels to raise the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 4-6%, but that the observed increase is only ~2% per annum, means that Prof Salby’s thesis is untenable? The net flow must into the biosystem, not outwards.
Philip Bradley wrote:
“And the argument put forward by Perlwitz above is irrelevant, because surface conditions (mostly temperature) explain almost all of the net CO2 emissions.”
My argument can only be considered “irrelevant”, if one thinks conservation of mass isn’t part of the laws of nature. The numbers don’t lie.
Where does all the anthropogenic CO2 (32 Gt per year) go, if the observed long-term trend is only 2 ppm increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per year, currently, AND most of the multi-decadal CO2 increase is supposed to come from natural sources? Does the anthropogenic CO2 vanish into a wormhole?
There is a year to year variability in the natural carbon dioxide flux, which is controlled by different things, e.g., ocean temperatures, biosphere activity indeed. There is also a seasonal cycle. This doesn’t say anything about what causes the long-term increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Salby correlates the 2-year flux with atmospheric variables. He has filtered out the long-term trend with this approach. Then he draws a conclusion about the causes for the long-term trend from this? This is methodologically flawed.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm
There is a year to year variability in the natural carbon dioxide flux, which is controlled by different things, e.g., ocean temperatures, biosphere activity indeed. There is also a seasonal cycle. This doesn’t say anything about what causes the long-term increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Salby correlates the 2-year flux with atmospheric variables. He has filtered out the long-term trend with this approach. Then he draws a conclusion about the causes for the long-term trend from this? This is methodologically flawed.
If short term factors explain the CO2 changes, there is nothing to explain in the longer term. There is no methodological flaw. It is that simple.
It should be a relatively easy calculation to do test the hypothesis. We know the termal expansion of water per degree and we know the change in solubility of per degree of temperature rise.
Thus, the maximum amount of CO2 could be released by ocean heating can be calculated using the known change in sea level. As this is quite pathetic, my guess is that the CO2 didn’t come from the oceans and the heat isn’t hiding there either.
Thank you for posting this, Anthony. There is nothing better than seeing the whole presentation, complete with slides. It’s much better than abstracts of papers and the like.
One consequence of this work is that it confirms the accuracy of the satellite lower troposphere temps. Which I had some doubts about.
RERT says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm
“The short term data is very plain, and I had thought well understood: the data show about 6 GT Carbon emitted for every 1 C rise in temperature…”
That is the gain at the frequency of 1 cycle/year. But, it is a low pass filter, and the gain is asuredly higher for longer term processes, the only question being, how much higher?
jimmi_the_dalek says:
April 19, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“…showing that mankind is burning enough fossil fuels to raise the CO2 content in the atmosphere by 4-6%, but that the observed increase is only ~2% per annum, means that Prof Salby’s thesis is untenable? The net flow must into the biosystem, not outwards.”
No. Simple accounting like that simply does not prove anything when you are dealing with a dynamic feedback system. You can read through the gory details at my posts in the thread here.