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.
I hate to say it, but this may be the least compelling argument against AGW that I’ve ever read. Sorry, Prof Salby.
I can understand the difficulty some commentators have in accepting that the man-made contribution to the atmospheric CO2 contribution is small, especially given that we have emitted our the past thirty years or so about twice as much as the CO2 level has actually increased. Wny its just not logical.
But the real point of this is that atmospheric CO2 is just a fraction of the CO2 in the oceans: 662 billion tonnes vs 37,200 billion tonnes.
So the amount we add may matter hugely (if equilibrium is reached very slowly) or matter not at all (if equilibrium is reached very quickly). Of course the answer is somewhere in between and the critical parameter is how quickly the CO2 levels in the atmosphere respond to alterations in the climate system. The key point of Salby’s presentation for me is that he seems to have proven that the CO2 interchange between ocean and atmosphere is rapid (a couple of years).
CAGW seems to muddle cause and effect more often than not. An open mind is called for on this one I think.
Steve Brown wrote “The key point of Salby’s presentation for me is that he seems to have proven that the CO2 interchange between ocean and atmosphere is rapid (a couple of years). ”
If that is Prof. Salby’s point, then it is entirely uncontraversial. The IPCC WG1 FAR gives the residence time as about 4 years and that is essentially the same value given in AR4, and I suspect the next WG1 report as well. It is also uncontraversial that temperatures are correllated to dCO2/dt, this has been known for some time, but that doesn’t mean that this correlation explains the long term increase in atmospheric CO2 (hint: if you differentiate a linear function you get a constant, and correllations only explain variability, not he constant offset). ISTR that Roy Spencer made exactly the same error a number of years ago and his blog article was republished here. These same canards crop up again and again an again, and as Fred Singer says all they achieve is to give skeptics a bad name (note I do not endorse his terminology).
dikranmarsupial says:
April 20, 2012 at 9:50 am
Mrrh, I seem to recall that WUWT published a very good series of articles a while back (by Willis?) explaining why the CO2 data are reliable, even though Mauna Loa happens to be a volcano. Note also that Mauna Loa isn’t the only station where CO2 measurements are made, and you get essentially the same result if you look at the other stations not sited on volcanos.
=========
If you read the description of how they measure it, in that article by Willis, you’ll see they arbitrarily decide what is volcanic and what the mythical ‘man-made well-mixed background’ that’s supposedly coming in across the ocean to drop into their measuring pots..
Anyway, all ended up being controlled by Keeling and his son and now taken over in ‘central’ control. Has anyone looked at these other stations? I’d read somewhere that several had been taken out of the mix a few years ago, and, some are also not in the claimed “pristine” sites if this geologist has his information right: http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ From which:
“1.2 The Location of CO2 Monitoring Station in regions enriched by volcanic CO2
Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe, 2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano – both observatories within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai’i and/or Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the active Raoul Island volcano.”
But, my biggest gripe about it is that the AIRS data for both the upper and lower troposphere still hasn’t been released – why not? The scant information which came out with the mid troposphere results was that carbon dioxide was not “well-mixed”, much to their surprise, but lumpy, and that they’d have to go away and look at wind systems to understand what they were seeing. What ‘pictures’ they released are sleight of hand, because not showing this conclusion…
There are two things to bear in mind about carbon dioxide, the first that it is heavier than air – it will not readily rise into the atmosphere, this is very well known and understood in real physics:
“Usually the large amounts of carbon dioxide released by Kilauea get dispersed by winds so we can breathe nice, healthy, oxygen-rich air on the caldera floor. Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.” From – Don’t daydream in low-lying places in Kilauea caldera
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2005/05_06_02.html
This happens to all carbon dioxide released by coal burning too. It will sink. It takes wind to disperse it, but when that wind stops, it will sink to the ground, and, it won’t be able to rise back into the air under its own volition, because it is heavier than air. Gravity.
The second thing to bear in mind about carbon dioxide, is that as a real gas and not the imaginary AGW ‘ideal gas’, it has real attraction, and in the atmosphere gets attracted to any water vapour and water, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid – carbon dioxide is fully part of the water cycle – which somewhere I read was 9 days? Whatever, it does not get to stay ‘accumulating in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years well-mixed’, because that is against its nature.
I think the reason we’re not getting the AIRS data released is because the real carbon dioxide is shown. That’s why Beck’s, and the thousands of different measurements over a couple of centuries, show this nature. It will be found in greater number where it is produced in greater number, locally, and dispersed by local winds – which don’t cross hemispheres. The ‘background well-mixed’ is not seen from their data, because they won’t produce the data.
dikranmarsupial says:
“If the natural environment were a net source of CO2 into the atmosphere then CO2 levels would be rising faster than anthropogenic emissions (as both the net natural and anthropogenic sources would be contributing to the rise). However, we know that isn’t the case, so the hypothesis cannot be correct.”
If plants are accelerating their growth rate as a result of higher CO2 then your statement can be falsified.
“CO2 from fossil fuels discerned from natural sources”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17784055
“Researchers have demonstrated a way of distinguishing between carbon dioxide in the air coming from fossil fuel burning and that from natural sources”
It relies on the fact that Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 years. the carbon in fossil fuels would have virtual no carbon 14 due to decay.The piece seems to suggest that the only natural source of CO2 is from plants.
So what about the CO2 ejected from volcanos???
What – you mean you aren’t controlling the ads?
Between the article and the comments: “Join Michelle and tell Barack you’re in.”
“The telling slide in the presentation is the Japanese satellite that shows global CO2 emissions by region. Net CO2 increase is not coming from the industrialized regions of the world. The CO2 increase is coming from the tropical regions. The jungles of the Amazon and the Congo. How can this be due to burning fossil fuels?”
Fossil fuel CO2 stimulates tree/plant growth, resulting in higher CO2 from the jungle at night.
I think the point is – does the addition of 5 Gigatons per year extra into the atmosphere (nothing controversial here) shift the equilibrium point between the atmosphere and the oceans and the ground or does it just add some additional CO2 causes a perturbation away from the equilibrium point.
If the extra CO2 is absorbed rapidly (I hadn’t realised FAR said 4 years) by natural processes the extra CO2 is adding CO2 to in a combination of the atmosphere, the biosphere and the oceans. The atmosphere is just a small fraction of that so if we get to equilibrium quickly then there is no impact in the long run.
I don’t think this a canard – I think this is a fundamental point which needs a proper investigation
Ed says:
April 20, 2012 at 9:54 am
“Plants breath out carbon dioxide.”
Well, they do in the sense that they respire, so they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and they put it back in at the same time. Yet, when growing they take more out than they put back. That’s where the carbon plants are partly made of comes from.
Or are you claiming that plants are a net source of CO2? If so, where do the carbon compounds they are made from come from? Again, it’s elementary conservation of mass and arithmetic.
======
They’re using carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, using visible light for a chemical change to sugars, releasing oxygen in the process, they don’t even do this all the time the Sun’s visible light is available to them, but certainly not in all the hours of darkness. Like us, when they are not creating food out of it, they are breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.
Are they a net source? Well I think so, but how the heck are we ever going to tell from corrupt data and corrupt physical processes as promoted by the AGWScience Fiction department?
Take us for example, we’re around 20% carbon and the rest mainly water – we need carbon dioxide in large amounts to be able to breathe at all – every lungful of air has to contain an optimum 6% of carbon dioxide to efficiently transport oxygen through the blood, as well as for other processes – we certainly don’t get this from the atmosphere – we create it ourselves, out of our own processes from what we get by eating plants, our Carbon Life Cycle.
As some have pointed out in these discussions, we’re at a historic low in the amount of free carbon available and below a certain level all plant life will die and we with it, and, here’s the rub, there’s a theory among biologists that plants created fauna to diversify their own propagation – if so, that we’re actively introducing more into the atmosphere from the carbon dioxide sequestered in fossil fuels is part of God the Plant’s greater plan… 🙂
I missed alot. I cannot fathom how so many otherwise intelligent people can be misled by this ridiculous “mass balance” argument. We do not know how much CO2 is being exchanged naturally to within limits needed to establish anthropogenic emissions as the culprit of the rise in atmospheric concentration. We do not know the sensitivity of the semi-permanent sinks, which can sequester that mass potentially arbitrarily. These sinks expand and contract dynamically in response to atmospheric partial pressure. You cannot make a mass balance argument without knowing the behavioral characteristics of those sinks, which can absorb mass and lock it away for as good as forever.
LazyTeenager says:
April 19, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“The answer should expose a few dumbasses.”
It did, at least one. You didn’t include results from interest and fees, which vary according to how much you have in your account, and at the whim of your financial institution.
Ninderthana says:
April 19, 2012 at 8:49 pm
“…would rule out a NET NATURAL GAIN of water from the dam.”
You guys are stuck on stupid. You are treating a dynamic feedback system as though it were a finite containment vessel.
richard verney says:
April 19, 2012 at 9:09 pm
“…had the capacity of today’s carbon sink been available say 30 years ago, there would in fact have been little, if any, rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Exactly! The sinks expand in response to increasing influx. This is a dynamic feedback system!!!
jimmi_the_dalek says:
April 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm
“… the ocean capacity is not lower, because although it is slightly warmer, which means the solubility of CO2 at a constant pressure would be slightly less…”
Solubility is NOT the only way the ocean removes CO2 from the system. There are permanent sinks in the formation of carbonates and living creatures, which effectively capture a large share of the influx and permanently sequester it!!!
Philip Bradley says:
April 19, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“Explain to me how long-term fluctuations are more or less than the sum of the short term fluctuations for the short time periods that comprise the long-term period.”
We have a way of quantifying fluctuations. It is called frequency. Natural systems typically respond differently to different frequencies.
Jan P. Perlwitz says:
April 20, 2012 at 4:49 am
Please see the discussion starting here. Your argument is jejune.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 20, 2012 at 6:25 am
“That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is purely anthropogenic in origin is demonstrated by the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising more slowly than cumulative anthropogenic emissions, which established beyind reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink.”
It establishes no such thing. See link provided to Jan above.
Ed says:
April 20, 2012 at 8:47 am
“You still haven’t explained how nature can be the source of the roughly 15 gt per year increase in atmospheric CO2, which Salby claims, when we are emitting 30 gt per year, meaning nature must be absorbing the other 15 gt.”
I explain it thoroughly at the link provided to Jan above.
ferd berple says:
April 20, 2012 at 8:01 am
The other graphic that I found compelling was the graph of the net increase in CO2 by year, which varies widely, in step with temperature and soil moisture, while the increase in human CO2 by year is constant.
Of course it is, that’s what the Mass Balance equation tells you to expect:
d[CO2]/dt= Fa+Fn-Fs (where Fa= human sources, Fn= natural sources, Fs=natural sinks)
Our data tells us that d[CO2]/dt≅Fa/2 so 2(Fn-Fs)≅-Fa, however if Fa increases linearly there’s no reason to suppose that (Fn-Fs) does so and so d[CO2]/dt will fluctuate due to the fluctuations in (Fn-Fs). Without the additional flux, Fa, the [CO2] will decrease because at present the natural Carbon cycle is a net sink.
As pointed out above this is not a static analysis, but a dynamic one (all three fluxes can vary with time, temperature etc.), and should be familiar to anyone who has done a university level chemical kinetics course.
mwhite says:
April 20, 2012 at 11:41 am
So what about the CO2 ejected from volcanos???
It contains no C14, it’s a very small fraction of the natural sources however.
Ed_B said:
“If plants are accelerating their growth rate as a result of higher CO2 then your statement [that the natural environment isn’t a net carbon source] can be falsified.”
You’ve got things the wrong way round and are actually arguing the same thing as me and the mainstream view of the carbon cycle and against Salby without realising it!
If plants accelerated their growth they would be *more* of a sink for CO2 rather than less (and there is evidence that this is happening). This is the exact opposite of what Salby claims, that the natural environment is the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
I am going to repost the comment from here:
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 (because it is a dynamic system):
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.
Bruce Cobb says:
April 20, 2012 at 7:22 am
Ed asks:
If the increase from 280ppm before the industrial revolution to 393ppm today was due to natural sources then what happens to our 30 billion tonnes per year?
It is actually only about 5 gt per year according to the ipcc- a nitpick, I know. In any case, what happens to it is the same thing that happens to all C02. It becomes a very small part (roughly 3.3%) of the total C02 emissions available for carbon sinks. The big point here, that Alarmists don’t want to hear is that natural sources and sinks of C02 are dynamic, not static. A very small change in one can and does dramatically affect the overall balance. Man’s very small contribution of C02 simply gets lost in the noise.
That’s the point, it doesn’t get lost in the noise, it exceeds the annual growth in atmospheric CO2 by a factor of two, the noise is the fluctuation of the natural sources and sinks. The Dynamic vs Static argument is a canard.
Bart says:
April 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm
I am going to repost the comment from here:
Yeah you got it wrong there too!
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.
But no-one’s doing a static analysis, which is why your comments are wrong.
Phil. says:
April 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm
“But no-one’s doing a static analysis, which is why your comments are wrong.”
That is exactly what they are doing. They are not taking into account the permanent sequestration into land and ocean sinks which are dynamic with unknown response time. Stop embarrassing yourself. You do not understand the argument. I get it.
Bart says:
April 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Phil. says:
April 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm
“But no-one’s doing a static analysis, which is why your comments are wrong.”
That is exactly what they are doing. They are not taking into account the permanent sequestration into land and ocean sinks which are dynamic with unknown response time. Stop embarrassing yourself. You do not understand the argument. I get it.
Unfortunately you don’t! Explain why “the permanent sequestration into land and ocean sinks” are not included in Fn above. We’re talking about what’s happening now and in the near future not in thousands of years time. Permanent sequestration is part of the continuing sinks, Fs, it just isn’t large enough to exceed Fa+Fn.
Bart, the mass balance argument is as follows:
(i) Assumption: The cabon cycle obeys conservation of mass, such that any carbon that is emitted into the atmosphere that is not taken up by the environment remains in the atmosphere.
[This is essentially saying that carbon dioxide doesn’t spontaneously appear or dissapear, if it is in the atmosphere it had to come from somewhere, if it leaves the atmosphere it has to go somewhere.]
(ii) Assumption: The carbon cycle is a closed system, with natural sources and sinks and anthropogenic sources (anthropogenic uptake of carbon is essentially negligible – we are not doing any significant carbon sequestration at the current time).
[This is a statement of the obvious. If there are other sources or sinks that are not natural and not anthropogenic, then they would have to be either supernatural or extraterrestrial, so if you dis agree with this assumption it is basically like saying space pixies are stealing CO2 from the atmosphere. Note we do not assume we know what the natural sources or sinks are, or how they operate, just that they exist.]
(iii) Assuming conservation of mass and that the carbon cycle is a closed system, then we can write that
dC(t) = Ea(t) + En(t) – Un(t)
where dC(t) is the change in atmospheric CO2 in year t, Ea(t) is anthropogenic emissions in year t, En(t) is total natural emissions (from all natural sources) in year t and Un(t) is total natural uptake (from all natural sinks) in year t.
[This is a simple restatement of (i) and (ii) in mathematical form, and you will find the same thing stated in Prof. Salbys’ presentation, so he would agree with the mass balance argument at least this far. Note that this does not assume any of the sources or sinks are static, nor do we make any assumption about the values or behaviour of En(t) or Un(t). ]
(iv) We can rearrange the equation to give
dC(t) – Ea(t) = En(t) – Un(t)
furthermore if the left hand side is negative (i.e. Ea(t) > dC(t)) then we know that the right hand side must also be negative (i.e. Un(t) > En(t))
[this is basic algebra, so I doubt anyone will question this step]
(v) We have good data for both dC(t) (from the network of CO2 monitoring stations) and of Ea(t) fas fossil fuel use is taxed. Prof. Salby explicitly states in his presentation that both sources of data are reliable. They tell us that the left hand side of the equation IS negative and has been every year for at least the last fifty. Thus we know that for at least fifty years total natural uptake has exceded total natural emissions.
[if you disagree with Salby on the reliability of the data, then make your case. If you doubt the data show what I say they show then download the data from the carbon dioxide information and analysis center and plot them for yourself.]
(vi) if the natural environment has been taking more CO2 out o the atmosphere each year than it has put in then it has been opposing the rise in CO2, not causing it.
[If you disagree with this you are using a non-standard defintion of “causing” something to rise than generally agreed]
There you are, seven steps. If the mass balnce argument is wrong then point out in which step the flaw appears.
dikranmarsupial says:
April 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You could have sorted this out for yourself if you had read my earlier posts. You say
dC(t) – Ea(t) = En(t) – Un(t)
But, what you are not acknowledging is that Un(t) responds dynamically to both Ea(t) and En(t). An increase in either one will cause Un(t) to respond.
Thus, you can separate Un(t) into two components, Una(t) and Unn(t), the part which is in response to Ea(t), and the part which is in response to En(t), respectively. Now, your equation reads
dC(t) – Ea(t) + Una(t) = En(t) – Unn(t)
You do not know Una(t). It can be anything from zero to Ea(t). As a result, the right side can be either positve, or negative.
Bart, did you not read the bit where I wrote “Note that this does not assume any of the sources or sinks are static, nor do we make any assumption about the values or behaviour of En(t) or Un(t).”
The mass balance argument makes no assumptions about the values of En(t) or Un(t). It makes no assumptions about the physical mechanisms governing the behaviour of the natural sources and sinks. The mass balance equation is not a model of the carbon cycle. It is a constraint on the behaviour of En(t) and Un(t) that is imposed by conservation of mass, nothing more. Your repeated efforts to intepret it as a model of HOW the carbon cycle works merely indicates that you don’t understand the argument.
It tells us that if we know that anthripogenic emissions exceed the observed rise in CO2 then natural uptake (whatever it was) must have been greater than natural emissions (whatever they were), because if it didn’t then the principle of conservation of mass would be violated. This ought to be pretty obvious to anyone capable of operating a bank balance.
So, which step (i)-(vi) is incorrect?
dC(t) – Ea(t) + Una(t) = En(t) – Unn(t)!!!
Why can you not understand? The sinks can absorb whatever mass they like. They are not constant!
If Ea(t) = Una(t), then the increase is entirely natural!
Sorry Bart, I have made it as easy for you to point out the error in my argument by stating it clearly in small steps. The fact that you are avoiding doing so is a tacit (and rather transparent) admission that you can’t point out a flaw in any of the steps. There is a good reason for that, which is that the mass balance argument is correct. Just consider for a moment that just possibly you don’t actually understand it as well as you think you do (if you did understand it and it was wrong, then you would be able to point out the step that was incorrect).