Effect of CO2 levels on phytoplankton.
Story submitted by Don Healy
This article opens up a whole new vista into the relationship between CO2 levels, oceanic plant growth and the complex relationships that we have yet to learn about in the field of climate science. If phytoplankton respond like most plant species do, we may find that the modest increases in CO2 levels we have experienced over the last 50 years may actually create a bounty of micro plant growth in the oceans, which would in turn create the food supply necessary to support an increase in the oceans’ animal population.
At the same time, it would explain where the excess atmospheric CO2 has been going; much of it converted into additional biological matter, with only a limited existence as raw CO2.
There may well be a naturally balancing mechanism that explains how the earth was able to survive atmospheric levels of CO2 as high as 7000 mmp in past geologic history without turning into another Venus. Just surmising of course, but this fits with what we know about the response of terrestrial plants to elevated CO2 levels, so it is a plausible theory. Hopefully more studies along this line can clarify the situation.
From the article:
The diatom blooming process is described in the article by Amala Mahadevan, the author of the study and oceanographer at WHOI, as inextricably linked to the flow of whirlpools circulating the plants through the water and keeping them afloat.
“[The study’s] results show that the bloom starts through eddies, even before the sun begins to warm the ocean,” said Ms. Mahadevan.
This study explains the causation of phytoplankton’s phenology—the reasons behind the annual timing of the microscopic plant’s natural cycle—as it is influenced by the ocean’s conditions.
“Springtime blooms of microscopic plants in the ocean absorb enormous quantities of carbon dioxide, much like our forests, emitting oxygen via photosynthesis. Their growth contributes to the oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, amounting globally to about one-third of the carbon dioxide we put into the air each year through the burning of fossil fuels. An important question is how this ‘biological pump’ for carbon might change in the future as our climate evolves,” said researchers.
WHOI describes the study as being conducted by a specially designed robot that can float just below the surface like a phytoplankton (only much, much larger). Other robots, referred to by WHOI as “gliders” dove to depths of 1,000 meters to collect data and beam it back to shore. Together, the robots discovered a great deal about the biology and nature of the bloom. Then, using three-dimensional computer modeling to analyze the data, Ms. Mahadevan created a model that corresponded with observation of the natural phenomena.
Full story:
http://www.thebunsenburner.com/news/cause-of-north-atlantic-plankton-bloom-is-finally-revealed/
==================================================================
Eddy-Driven Stratification Initiates North Atlantic Spring Phytoplankton Blooms
Abstract
Springtime phytoplankton blooms photosynthetically fix carbon and export it from the surface ocean at globally important rates. These blooms are triggered by increased light exposure of the phytoplankton due to both seasonal light increase and the development of a near-surface vertical density gradient (stratification) that inhibits vertical mixing of the phytoplankton. Classically and in current climate models, that stratification is ascribed to a springtime warming of the sea surface. Here, using observations from the subpolar North Atlantic and a three-dimensional biophysical model, we show that the initial stratification and resulting bloom are instead caused by eddy-driven slumping of the basin-scale north-south density gradient, resulting in a patchy bloom beginning 20 to 30 days earlier than would occur by warming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ferdinand
Surely that figure you give applies to the oceans? I didn’t realise that it was considered correct for surface temperatures as surely it doesn’t take into account that of consecutive years in the lia, one could be very cold whilst the next was very warm without a change in the atmospheric concentration of co2
Tonyb
And, BTW, I would appreciate it if you would say “Here are my trends and those I derive using my interpretation of Bart’s observation” rather than “Here are Bart’s and mine trends”. These are not “my trends”. I had nothing to do with them.
oriwoggu says:
July 10, 2012 at 10:29 am
….. However it is very easy to show that the ocean is iron starved. Just dump iron sulfate or nano-particles of iron in the ocean and there is an immediate algae bloom.
What is happening?
If you run the numbers, fishing removes more than a megaton of iron from the core ocean each year. Naturally sulfur and other trace minerals are removed as well. These are minerals that have always been in the ocean and no one is replacing them…..
___________________________
You forgot about rain, streams, rivers and erosion. At one point in time the Appalachian Mountains were higher than the Rockies. Now the highest peak is 6,684 ft compared to 14,440 ft for the Rockies. That is a heck of a lot of minerals carried out to the sea over geologic time spans.
Why is it that Alarmists always leave out the other part of the story?
And, for any taking notes, Ferdinand and I have had long discussions about this matter. Ferdinand clings to a world of unicorns and pixie dust in which natural dynamics behave in any way he pleases, without any mathematical moorings based on the known evolutionary characteristics typical of natural systems. He further bases his conclusions on gross integrated measures, which of course magnifies errors in the low frequency domain – that is how you get random walks: by integrating noise.
But, when one plots the CO2 derivatives, one finds that there is little or no correspondence between the rate of change of CO2 and the rate of emissions, whereas the temperature profile fits like a glove.
Of course, derivatives also magnify error at the high frequency end, which is why CO2 data pre-1958, based on unverifiable proxy “measurements” which have very poor resolution at the high frequency end and significant error in the low, are virtually worthless for identification of the system.
Old England says: @ur momisugly July 10, 2012 at 11:28 am
Could there be a clinical diagnosis of the green dementia that CAGW alarmists and activists clearly suffer from out there waiting to be described and written up ? I wouldn’t mind contributing towards a research fund for it.
____________________________
I am sure Dr. Diederik Stapel, a leading social psychologist, would be very happy to write up the report for you. I hear he is looking for work. Or perhaps we can find one of his students. (That field is almost as bad as Climology)
“””””…..Thousands Of Tons Of Potentially Toxic Iron Dust Dumped In Ocean Without Permit
And begins,
News filtering out of Australia indicates a massive geoengineering of the Southern Oceans, done without the necessary government approvals, and with no regard whatsoever to potentially adverse ‘ecosystem impacts.’ Iron oxide laden dust, originating from the Lake Eyre Basin area of central Australia, reportedly has blanketed the ocean surface from the Australian coast to New Zealand. The iron-fertilizer-in-the-ocean “dump” came on so suddenly, even Greenpeace was caught off guard. (Otherwise, there surely would have been banners of protest.) At least we can rest assured this poor Trevally fish, a plankton feeder found off Australia’s coast, probably never knew what hit him. New Zealand’s Business Scoop has the gory details……”””””
Who are they trying to josh. The Tasman Sea is directly connected (water to land) to millions of tons of iron sands on the West Coast of New Zealand. You only have to go out to Muriwai Beach to see all of the iron sand capable of being leached into the ocean, ad infinitum.
Julian Flood says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:45 am
Yes, I was overstating the case. C4 discriminates less strongly against the heavy isotopes. This does not alter the reasoning in my post: the light isotope signal may well be due to an increase in heavy isotope pull-down rather than/as well as a simple increase in light isotope input. A diatom organic product will have proportionately more heavy carbon in it than the equivalent made by a C3 plant.
Your reasoning is the opposite of what happens: by incorporating relative more of the light isotope in algues and to a lesser extent in diatoms, more of the heavy isotopes are left in the surface waters and the atmosphere (at equilibrium, which is far from reached). If a part of the diatoms/algues drop out of the surface layer, these drop down to the deep ocean layers and may either form low 13C sediments or are resolved by bacteria back to low 13C inorganic (bi)carbonates. That process thus must give a d13C difference between the oceans top layer and the deep oceans. That is exactly what is measured: the oceans mixed layer has a d13C level of +1 to +5 per mil (higher with high levels of biological activity), while the deep oceans are at 0 to +1 per mil, the atmosphere is at -8 per mil and organic sediments are at -24 per mil, including from diatoms at -13 per mil…
Further, both the atmosphere and the oceans surface layer show a declining trend, completely in ratio with the burning of fossil fuels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
It would be very remarkable that any natural process, including algal blooms, would follow the human emissions with such an incredible linear ratio…
Tonyb says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:14 am
Surely that figure you give applies to the oceans? I didn’t realise that it was considered correct for surface temperatures as surely it doesn’t take into account that of consecutive years in the lia, one could be very cold whilst the next was very warm without a change in the atmospheric concentration of co2
Hi Tony,
The 1°C temperature change between the MWP and LIA is the maximum one can expect for the oceans surface. That is based on sediments (Saragossa Sea and others), but of course, that is only an estimate, as it is based on proxies. And indeed as good as today, temperature swings from year to year may cancel each out. The main point is that a more permanent temperature change over longer periods (glacials – interglacials, MWP-LIA) gives a change of ~8 ppmv/°C.
The current temperature swings over short time give ~5 ppmv/°C for the seasonal changes over the globe and ~4 ppmv/°C for short term (1-2 years) changes around the trend (Pinatubo cooling, 1998 El Niño).
The resolution of the best ice cores is not fine enough to see yearly variations and other proxies like stomata data have a better resolution, but the accuracy (+/- 10 ppmv) is not good enough…
Bart says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:29 am
For those who haven’t followed our many exchanges in the past, if I may abstract the discussions (Bart will certainly correct me if I make a mistake):
– My interpretation is that the increase in the atmosphere is almost entirely caused by human emissions with a small contribution of a more persistent temperature change and that the variability in increase rate is mostly caused by short term temperature variability.
– Bart’s interpretation is that the increase in the atmosphere and the variability in increase rate is entirely caused by an absolute difference between a base temperature and the real temperature, including its variability.
My interpretation fits all observations from the past 800 kyr (with very low resolution) to the past 50 years (with very high resolution). That includes the mass balance, that is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, the carbon increase in the oceans and vegetation. Further the 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratio decline in all compartiments, and the overall oxygen use.
Bart’s interpretation needs several assumptions, including:
– human CO2 is almost immediately absorbed somewhere in the carbon cycle.
– some natural process follows the human emissions with an incredible fixed rate.
– while the short-term temperature influence over months to years is 4-5 ppmv/°C and the very long term temperature influence over decennia to millennia is ~8 ppmv/°C, the medium term temperature influence over years to decennia would be indefinitely and at least over 100 ppmv/°C.
– the latter needs a near permanent source of CO2 for a fixed temperature difference with the baseline.
Besides that all this may not violate any of the observations, the interpretation that temperature is responsible for the variability in the rate of change ánd the trend thus needs a small influence from temperature on fast CO2 processes, a huge influence on medium fast processes and again a small influence over very long periods, including eliminating the result of the medium fast processes.
Both interpretations show the same long term trend and the same variability over the past 50 years with high resolution. But an extension of Bart’s interpretation shows more and more deviation with reality in the past 105 years, Further expansion would even give zero CO2 over hundred of years in the LIA and surely over 100 kyr in the glacial periods.
Of course, ice cores don’t show any short term small variability over less than a decade, but that doesn’t change the average or the trends over such and longer periods. Even the current 100+ increase over 160 years would be measurable in the lowest resolution ice core of Vostok if that took place 420,000 years ago.
One can object to all observations, including ice cores, which don’t fit the prefered model. But that kind of behaviour we know already from the CAGW people. Don’t use that here…
At last, for a nice explanation of what goes wrong with Nart’s interpretation (he is not the first and not the last), see what someone at the other side of the fence writes:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html and
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roys_risky_regression.html
FerdiEgb says:
July 11, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“My interpretation is that the increase in the atmosphere is almost entirely caused by human emissions with a small contribution of a more persistent temperature change and that the variability in increase rate is mostly caused by short term temperature variability.”
Can’t happen. There is no justification for arbitrarily removing the parts of the temperature correlation you don’t like and replacing them with anthropogenic inputs. The whole temperature record agrees very closely with the CO2 derivative, you have to use either all of it, or none of it. But, the correlation is too high, so you must use all of it. And, that leaves no room for significant anthropogenic influence.
“My interpretation fits all observations from the past 800 kyr…”
Not this one.
“That includes the mass balance…”
Completely bogus argument, as I have demonstrated many, many, many times.
“Further the 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratio decline in all compartiments, and the overall oxygen use.”
Merely consistent with your narrative. Necessary, but not sufficient.
“But an extension of Bart’s interpretation shows more and more deviation with reality in the past 105 years, Further expansion would…”
Pre-1958 measurements (actually, estimates) are unreliable and unverifiable. Further “expansion” is not justified, because we do not know how long the relationship has held. This is a nonlinear system. I have linearized it about a current local operating condition justified by the observations. It is always perilous to extend a local model beyond the region of its observable range of validity.
“Of course, ice cores don’t show…”
Unreliable, unable to be verified.
“http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html…”
Not a reliable source, not a particularly gifted analyst.
Ugh. I just looked at the skepticalscience link. It’s basically the equations we went over several conversations ago which I showed you were wrong. The guy who runs that site is not only bombastic, ill-mannered, and duplicitous, he’s not very smart, either. It’s a bad combination.
Bart aays:
It is a bad combination – but that set of traits is usually a package deal.
Gail Combs says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:22 am
It appears you missed the point (and the original post wasn’t as on point as it should have been).
I looked at the relative element concentrations in the ocean and sulfur, phosphorus, potassium, etc. are all relatively abundant. Iron, which is 5% of the earth’s crust is only .0034 ppm (by weight) of sea water – that’s 3 parts per billion. Iron is the primary limiter of plant growth in the ocean. There is a long time lag between iron flowing down the river and iron appearing in the core ocean. The ocean is mixed but it isn’t that well mixed. We’ve created a iron concentration gradient in the ocean where some areas are nutrient starved.
The point is that doubled CO2 would cause at least a 50% increase in plant growth. The fossil fuel CO2 is less that 1/16 of the carbon cycle so fossil fuel consumption doesn’t explain why CO2 keeps increasing. You have to generate CO2 and curb CO2 consumption to have the CO2 level rise.
The solution is to add iron back in.
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote:
quote
JF wrote: A diatom organic product will have proportionately more heavy carbon in it than the equivalent made by a C3 plant. /JF
Your reasoning is the opposite of what happens: by incorporating relative more of the light isotope in algues and to a lesser extent in diatoms, more of the heavy isotopes are left in the surface waters and the atmosphere (at equilibrium, which is far from reached). If a part of the diatoms/algues drop out of the surface layer, these drop down to the deep ocean layers and may either form low 13C sediments or are resolved by bacteria back to low 13C inorganic (bi)carbonates.
unquote
Could you run that by me again? I think that diatoms reject less heavy carbon. Therefore more heavy carbon is incorporated into organic products and exported to the deep ocean. The total amount of carbon exported will be less as diatoms are made of silica.
So your statement above seems to make no sense. Perhaps I am reading it wrongly, but ‘incorporating relatively more of the light isotope’ is the exact opposite of the situation.
JF
Incidentally, I’m sorry to see you quoting Sceptical Science.
Julian Flood says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:15 am
Could you run that by me again? I think that diatoms reject less heavy carbon. Therefore more heavy carbon is incorporated into organic products and exported to the deep ocean. The total amount of carbon exported will be less as diatoms are made of silica.
You need to think about the relative incorporation of 12CO2 vs. 13CO2 into organics by C4 plants vs. C3 plants.
– C3 plants reduce their 13C/12C ratio compared to the atmosphere at -8 per mil to average -27 per mil.
– C4 plants reduce their 13C/12C ratio compared to the atmosphere at -8 per mil to average -13 per mil.
Thus, indeed C4 plants reject less heavy carbon than C3 plants, but still reject heavy carbon compared to the atmosphere.
If we may assume that the same preferences are at work in the oceans surface layers, that gives a reduction from average +2 per mil in surface waters to -15 per mil in C3 plants and from +2 per mil to -3 per mil in C4 plants.
Thus even if C4 plants make less distinction between the different isotopes, still relative more 12C is removed from the surface layer than 13C. That increases the 13C level in the surface layer, compared to the deep oceans, which is what is observed. Thus algal blooms, be it coccoliths, chalk free algues or diatoms increase the d13C difference between the ocean surface an the deep oceans and can’t be the cause of the d13C decline, both in the atmosphere and the ocean surface, and thus are not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean surface…
Bart says:
July 11, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Can’t happen. There is no justification for arbitrarily removing the parts of the temperature correlation you don’t like and replacing them with anthropogenic inputs. The whole temperature record agrees very closely with the CO2 derivative, you have to use either all of it, or none of it. But, the correlation is too high, so you must use all of it. And, that leaves no room for significant anthropogenic influence.
Bart, you are comparing the short term variability of temperature with the short term variability of the increase rate. That shows a high correlation. That simply means that the temperature variability influences the increase rate variability. But that really says nothing about the rest of the equation: nothing about the increase in rate of change and nothing about the trend itself.
You use some arbitrary term to the temperature range to fit the average increase rate and declare that as part of the whole equation, even if that may be completely spurious and a second, omitted variable may fit that as good or better.
“My interpretation fits all observations from the past 800 kyr…”
Not this one.
Yes it does! Wood for Trees doesn’t have the emissions in its database, neither allows summation of terms and there are no monthly data for the emissions, so I decided to use the yearly values. That gives a less nice fit of the variability for both the temperature-only as for the combined emissions + temperature graph, but both minic the trend ánd the variability in trend quite well.
“That includes the mass balance…”
Completely bogus argument, as I have demonstrated many, many, many times.
What is bogus is that the human emissions just disappear (in space?) and that some unknown natural process exactly mimics the human emissions trend with exactly the same composition in 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio. And that this process doesn’t use or produce any oxygen for its release.
“Further the 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratio decline in all compartiments, and the overall oxygen use.”
Merely consistent with your narrative. Necessary, but not sufficient.
Agreed, but that is a sufficient condition to reject alternative interpretations if they don’t fit the observations. That rejects the oceans as source (too high in d13C) and the diatom blooms (leaving extra 13C in the surface waters)… And that rejects the biosphere as a whole, because more CO2 is absorbed than released, as seen in the oxygen balance. Thus where is the source of your non-human increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Pre-1958 measurements (actually, estimates) are unreliable and unverifiable. Further “expansion” is not justified, because we do not know how long the relationship has held. This is a nonlinear system. I have linearized it about a current local operating condition justified by the observations. It is always perilous to extend a local model beyond the region of its observable range of validity.
It is quite simple: the relationship only holds for the past 60 years, because most of the time in that period, temperature and CO2 levels did go up and you simply made it fit by an arbitrary offset, giving a completely spurious correlation (for the trend, not for the variability around the trend). Still impossible to fit that with any offset if you take into account the centuries of cold temperatures during the LIA or the 100 kyr ice ages or glacial-interglacial transitions. In all these cases the emissions + temperature change formula still works.
“Of course, ice cores don’t show…”
Unreliable, unable to be verified.
Bart, as I said before, rejecting data because they don’t fit one’s theory (or model) is what we find objectional if the CAGW people do that. It is as objectional if you do that, because the data don’t fit your theory. Ice core CO2 data are reliable and accurate within +/- 1.2 ppmv for samples within the same core and +/- 5 ppmv for different cores at the same average gas age, whatever their temperature, accumulation rate or dust inclusions. Thus similar values even for very different conditions. The only point is that these are assymetric moving averages of the atmospheric CO2 levels over one decade to several centuries. Thus leveling out the year by year temperature influences.
Verification is hard to obtain, but historical measurements taken at places where even today “background” CO2 levels are measured, show values around the ice cores over the same period, within the (huge) error margin of the historical measurements. That means about 290 ppmv around 1900. Your theory can’t fit that.
“http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html…”
Not a reliable source, not a particularly gifted analyst.
The website and his owner are quite unreliable, but the analyst in this case knows where he is talking about. He nicely shows that your fit of the trend is bogus…
To Ferdinand and Bart,
I suggest that my approach to mass balance satisfies both of your arguements and produces a better statistical fit. Click on my name and leave your comments on my blog. I am in the process of applying this approach to global CO2 data and would appreciate suggested improvements. I hope to develop a model for global atmospheric background CO2 that quantifies both anthropogenic and natural contributions. Both are there and neither is constant.
FerdiEgb says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:10 am
“But that really says nothing about the rest of the equation: nothing about the increase in rate of change and nothing about the trend itself.”
Incorrect. There is a marked trend in the dCO2/dt series, which begets precisely the correct curvature in the integrated CO2. If you add in an anthropogenic component, you no longer match the curvature, because the emissions data also has a trend in it.
“You use some arbitrary term to the temperature range to fit…”
The only other term is a bias, which is actually merely a redefinition of the temperature baseline. If the emissions were at a constant rate, then they could take the place of that bias. But, they are not. Hence, there is no room for their contribution to any significant extent.
“That gives a less nice fit of the variability for both the temperature-only as for the combined emissions + temperature graph, but both minic the trend ánd the variability in trend quite well.”
It does not match in the fine detail. If you use temperature only, every bump and squiggle matches. If you dilute the temperature input and add in emissions, you no longer match the bumbs and squiggles.
“What is bogus is that…”
Arguing where it goes it one thing. But, denying it can go anywhere, which is what your argument boils down to, is quite simply wrong.
“Thus where is the source of your non-human increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
Deep ocean, decaying vegetation, mineral weathering, microbial activity… There are many possibilities. You are claiming greater knowledge about all these processes than we actually have. Perhaps I cannot explain it right now. Perhaps others can or cannot. But, we know what we have to look for, because it has to be consistent with dCO2/dt proportional to temperature anomaly.
“…the relationship only holds for the past 60 years…”
Highly unlikely, impossible without an abrupt shift. If the best, direct measurements of the modern era contradict the indirect and unverifiable measurements, I know where I will (and have) place my bets.
“In all these cases the emissions + temperature change formula still works.”
Doesn’t. As I said, you lose the fine detail.
“…rejecting data because they don’t fit one’s theory (or model) is what we find objectional if the CAGW people do that.”
And, Hitler loved dogs. Does that make dog lovers Nazis? I reject it because the best, most modern and direct measurements contradict it, at least according to you. I haven’t looked at extending the result beyond the modern era myself. Maybe I’ll take a look as time permits – there are several different temperature measures to choose from. But, a negative result means little – we simply do not have good measurements extending that far back, and they get progressively worse as time retreats.
“He nicely shows that your fit of the trend is bogus…”
We went over that. If you want to have the argument again, you can restate it, and I will show you again where it is wrong. But, I’m not going to sully myself again by visiting that website. I always feel like I need to shower after looking at it. And, in any case, it’s not like the jerk would allow me to comment showing where he is wrong because, among his other faults, he does not allow contrary viewpoints to appear unless he can exploit an obvious error in them. And then, if it turns out he is wrong after all, he will modify the comments to make himself look better. A truly loathsome character.
The bottom line is that, in the modern era, the relationship holds: the derivative of CO2 concentration is almost perfectly proportional to temperature anomaly, and CO2 concentration thus lags temperature and is thus the effect, whereas temperature is the cause.
Of this, there can be no doubt. Whatever magical processes you imagine could have driven CO2 prior to 1958, since 1958, it has been controlled by temperature.
That relationship leaves no room for significant anthropogenic effect. Period. In the modern era (since at least 1958), temperature is driving CO2 concentration, and humans have very little net impact on it.
Fred H. Haynie: I do not mean to ignore you. I would like to peruse your site, but I have very little free time – basically what I get here and there waiting for simulation programs to finish. At some point in the future, I will try to get around to it. But, I will say, I would like to reread the old slide show you used to have. Is that available anywhere? I cannot seem to find it.
Bart,
Try http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
Bart says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:12 am
The bottom line is that, in the modern era, the relationship holds: the derivative of CO2 concentration is almost perfectly proportional to temperature anomaly, and CO2 concentration thus lags temperature and is thus the effect, whereas temperature is the cause.
Of this, there can be no doubt. Whatever magical processes you imagine could have driven CO2 prior to 1958, since 1958, it has been controlled by temperature.
The bottom line is that indeed the variability of the derivative is almost perfectly proportional to the temperature variability, thus temperature changes are indeed the cause of the variability in the CO2 rate of increase. No doubt about that, But it is impossible that temperature has driven the current increase in absolute CO2 levels, for a lot of reasons.
– there are only a few natural processes which can absorb or release huge quantities of CO2 in relative short time, based on changes in temperature. That are:
– the ocean surface layer: limited in capacity, proven net absorber of CO2 and too high in 13C/12C ratio. Thus not the source.
– the deep oceans: high capacity, limited exchange flows, unknown net mass balance, but too high in 13C/12C ratio. Thus not the source.
– the biosphere: high capacity, huge exchange flows, but with a limited more or less permanent storage flux and a proven net absorber of CO2 (based on the oxygen balance). Thus not the source.
– temperature is not the cause of a huge release of extra CO2 from the oceans surface: Henry’s Law gives an increase of 16 microatm for 1°C warmer seawater. 1°C increase is all what you can expect as warming since the LIA, thus an increase of maximum 16 ppmv over several hundred years.
– the deep oceans have no measurable increase in temperature, as far as measured. And an increase in upwelling flux means also an increase in downwelling flux. With an increase in pCO2 of the atmosphere, downwelling gains more CO2 uptake and upwelling looses release.
– temperature is not the cause of a huge release of extra CO2 from the biosphere: higher temperatures in general mean more uptake.
– add to that, that about halve of the extra yearly injection by humans must be stored somewhere, that leaves no room at all for any natural source.
Thus, sorry, temperature can’t be the cause of the observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in modern times.
Ferdinand,
Consider what happens when there is upwelling off the coast of Peru and the rapid increase in SST as it crosses the equatorial Pacific. Also, consider the rapid uptake and transport of CO2 by clouds. These rates change from year to year and are a couple of orders greater than anthropogenic emissions. Working with global averages can be very missleading. Higher temperatures support faster rates of decay.
Fred H. Haynie says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:36 pm
A long note…
I think I have seen a previous version, but with a fast look I already encounter several problems:
Carbon dioxide is continually being adsorbed by condensed moisture in clouds and
released as those droplets evaporate as they fall through warmer air.
CO2 is only very slightly soluble in fresh water, 100 times less than in seawater. While there is fractionation at the sea-air border and back, there was a kind of equilibrium between air (at -6.4 per mil) and the ocean surface (at +1 to +5 per mil) over millennia, with only small changes in d13C level, even over glacial-interglacial intervals. The drop of currently 1.6 per mil starts around 1850 or even before… As rain and fog are processes which were going on all the time, the current drop is certainly not related to such processes, as we have had warmer and colder periods in the far past, including related changes in moister/rain, without such a drop…
The shapes of the Arctic carbon dioxide curves are very similar to the Arctic sea ice extent curve.
Sea ice extent, mid-latitude seawater temperature and vegetation growth (both on land and in the oceans) all are heaviliy dependent of temperature. The latter is the main cause of the d13C increase in spring-summer-fall and d13C decrease in fall-summer-spring, mainly in the NH. The main oceanic exchange over the seasons is in the mid-latitudes, sea ice plays a minor role.
In fact, the natural exchange rates change with changes in sea surface temperatures. These rates can be an order of magnitude greater than the increased emissions from anthropogenic sources.
No they are not: while the exchange fluxes are an order of magnitude larger, the changes in (sea) surface temperature cause changes in the net natural sink rate of 4 +/- 2 GtC/year, but human emissions are currently around 8 GtC/year, double the temperature caused natural variability..
When sea ice forms it covers the water which then can no longer absorb carbon dioxide.
I thought that the THC got stronger in winter and weaker in summer, only the sink place shifts together with the edge of the ice sheet more southward in winter, but I may be wrong here…
The observed year to year increase in measured atmospheric carbon dioxide is very likely the result of increases in Arctic SST.
To obtain that, the Arctic ocean should be near boiling now… The Arctic ocean still sinks a lot of CO2, even more than years ago, as an increase of 1°C gives an increase of 16 microatm in equilibrium with the atmosphere at ~16 ppmv extra, but the increase in the atmosphere is over 100 ppmv now, thus pushing more CO2 into the deep of the Arctic Ocean…
This is strong evidence that the long term accumulation in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from both organic and inorganic sources) is a natural process.
That is based on the similarity between the alleged trend in temperature difference between equator and poles and the observed 13C/12C depletion. But that is three bridges too far: there is no resaon to expect that CO2 is massively and repeatedly absorbed and released during its trip between the equator and the poles. Further, the burning of fossil fuels alone already should give three times the observed drop in d13C ratio, if that was not diluted by the deep ocean exchanges…
The half life of any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a gas is short, a matter of days rather than years.
I have heard of residence times of 5 years and beyond, but a matter of days? And where should that be absorbed?
BTW, the residence time is only about circulating CO2 between the different compartiments, that says next to nothing about the adjustment time needed to remove an excess amount of CO2 above equilibrium out of the atmosphere, which is in the order of 53 years…
Ferdenand,
You are working with longterm global averages that completely miss actual exchange rates. Show me some actual rate data. How long does it take for a molecule of CO2 to go from the ocean surface to clouds? How much is returned to the ocean in rain? How much is delivered to the upper atmosphere in thunder-clouds? How long does it take for CO2 absorbed in the Arctic to get back to the equator? Which are the rate controlling factors and how are they changing? The earth has never been in equilibrium and changes on a daily basis. Have you ever studied the rapid dispersion of a power plant plume? With any wind and a normal lapse rate, they rapidly approach background levels. The reported “residence times” are measures of cycle lengths (oceans, land, and biosphere).
FerdiEgb says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:44 pm
“The bottom line is that indeed the variability of the derivative is almost perfectly proportional to the temperature variability…”
It fascinates me that you recognize the unlikelihood of matching complex time series via scaling without there being a connection, as here, yet you do not see the glaring unlikelihood of the fact that scaling the temperature anomaly to match all the complex ups and downs of the CO2 derivative also provides a perfect match with the overall trend, and you want arbitrarily to remove that trend from further consideration.
But, you cannot do that. You cannot just say “I’ll take the variable part, and ignore the rest because it does not conform with my preconceived conclusion.” You must take all or nothing. And, when you do, any significant dependence on human forcing becomes untenable. There isn’t room for anything else but a constant bias in the rate of change. The rate of emissions has not been constant, ergo, there is no room for it.
“But it is impossible that temperature has driven the current increase in absolute CO2 levels, for a lot of reasons.”
Then, you have a contradiction. By the nature of reality, contradictions cannot exist. Therefore, if you find one, you must examine your premises. You will find that at least one of them is mistaken.
Your list of premises is not evidence, it is narrative. It is chocked full of assumptions which only have weight because they have been assumed for so long. When you look closely, you will find that none of them are certain, many based on nothing more than intuition, even if it is the intuition of many people. Human intuition is notoriously bad when dealing with complex systems.
I will let you have the last word, if you please. But, I urge you to think this through, and consider the reliability of the stones in the foundation you have built for your narrative. Because, most of them are only dried sand, and the data are rock solid.
Ferdinand,
I would appreciate it, if you would read my blog http://www.retiredresearcher.wordpress.com and leave a detailed “peer review” comment there. We can continue our debate as long as you like, there. This blog is a more recent approach to the mass balance problem than what you apparently read and I wish to improve on it.
fhhaynie says:
July 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm
How long does it take for a molecule of CO2 to go from the ocean surface to clouds? How much is returned to the ocean in rain? How much is delivered to the upper atmosphere in thunder-clouds? How long does it take for CO2 absorbed in the Arctic to get back to the equator? Which are the rate controlling factors and how are they changing?…
Dear Fred, that are questions I would ask you, not reverse. You have extraordinary claims about the fate of (human) CO2 in the atmosphere, thus it is up to you to show that there is a substantial uptake and release of CO2 in rain and fog, which changes the 13C/12C ratio in the same direction and same speed as observed in the atmosphere. For the human emissions, that is easy to show.
But I don’t think that your natural absorbing and releasing mechanism changed substantially over the past 160 year, ultimately following what one can expect from human releases (which disappear somewhere else, without leaving a trace?).
BTW, I have left some comment on your blog, as the residence time is not of the slightest interest to know what causes the increase in the atmosphere… And I know what plumes from point sources do, was part of my job to calculate the dispersion of a theoretical chlorine leak into the atmosphere, based on a monitoring network. Fortunately that was never tested in practice…
Bart says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:58 pm
you do not see the glaring unlikelihood of the fact that scaling the temperature anomaly to match all the complex ups and downs of the CO2 derivative also provides a perfect match with the overall trend, and you want arbitrarily to remove that trend from further consideration.
The difference between the two examples is that the sponges (and ice cores) are showing the direct, measured trends, while in the second example, you are staring at the derivative, which shows a high correlation between temperature variations and CO2 increase variations. But the correlation stays exactly the same, even if you detrend the temperature. The cause of the real trend may be influenced by temperature alone, or a small temperature influence (in the same range as the variability) plus a large part of the human emissions or any mix inbetween (I am working at it to make that visible…).
The fact that you need to introduce an offset to match the trend (which does change if you want to match other periods in time), makes it already clear.
The main problem which makes your solution near impossible is that it needs three different temperature-CO2 related processes: a fast one that keeps track of fast temperature changes with a fast, but limited response (of ~4-5 ppmv/°C) over months to a few years, a slower one with a near unlimited response in time (over 100 ppmv/°C) over periods of decades and a very slow one which counteracts the second one and brings everything back to a limited response of ~8 ppmv/°C over periods from 50 years to millenia. If that were true, the third reaction should already working now by overruling the second one…
Your list of premises is not evidence, it is narrative. It is chocked full of assumptions
Sorry, but 13C/12C and 14C/12C ratio trends are measured in the atmosphere as well as in the oceans surface. That are not assumptions. Which excludes the oceans (deep as well as surface) as source of any extra CO2. As good as the measured oxygen balanse excludes the whole biosphere as source. Thus there is no known natural source for the extra 140 GtC in the atmosphere (an increase of ~20% over 50 years). Time to have a second look at your theory…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“But the correlation stays exactly the same, even if you detrend the temperature.”
I know I said I’d give you the last word but… What????
If you detrend the temperature, then the exact same trend in the dCO2/dt series no longer correlates!
That’s the beauty of the whole thing – when you scale the temperature so that the varying stuff matches, so do the trends!
Why would you take out something which is a perfect fit in both data sets? How can you possibly think you can justify that?
You cannot. You must keep it. And, THAT is what makes the human contribution necessarily negligible.