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.
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 7:15 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
The bottom line is that the mass balance method on which you base your arguments is flawed with faulty assumptions and does not agree with observations.
Dear Fred,
All what the mass balance says is that humans emit 8 GtC/year and that the increase in the atmosphere is 4 GtC/year. Thus nature absorbs 4 GtC/year. Somewhere. It doesn’t make any difference if the human emissions are absorbed within a minute by the next nearby tree or reside 10 years or longer in the atmosphere before being captured by the oceans. In all cases, the emissions exceed the increase in the atmosphere. That is all what counts. Thus nature is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, whatever clever model or construction you or Bart may invent…
Dear Ferdinand,
You illustrate my point with your “mass balance” example. You assume that natural emissions do not increase over the long term. That is a false assumption on any time scale. A statistical analysis of the data not only shows that is a false assumption, but gives you values and probabilities for both anthropogenic and natural emissions over the long run. It is not a clever model that I invented, but is certainly more clever than the model you use.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 5:43 am
“Both show a reasonable good correlation with the observations.”
You are leaving out an important part of what you are doing:
dCO2/dt = k1*(emissions) + k2*dT/dt – trend(dT/dt)
You cannot take the trend out of dT/dt. Or, rather, you can, but Nature cannot.
“- The mass balance.”
This argument has been completely discredited numerous times.
“- The 13C/12C balance.”
This argument assumes greater knowledge of the flows than we have.
“Your approximation doesn’t fulfill both requirements.”
It certainly fulfills true mass balance. With an all-encompassing model of the diffusion processes, the 13C/12C ratio can be explained. This is a very thin reed of an argument, basically a logical fallacy – you don’t see any way it can be satisfied except your simplistic explanation, therefore your simplistic explanation is correct. In the same way, witch doctors justified virgin sacrifices to the island volcano.
“Thus at the same temperature as before, there is no net gain of CO2 anymore, as the pCO2 of both water and atmosphere are in equilibrium, no matter how much new water is heated.”
Now, you are truly violating mass balance. The cold water brought more CO2 in. When the temperature equilibrates to the same as the ambient, that added CO2 cannot disappear.
“Both show a reasonable good correlation with the observations.”
You also do not appear to be giving full disclosure of what you are doing to manipulate this data. The numerical derivatives of T are very noisy, so you must be filtering them heavily somehow.
If all the bumps and squiggles line up, as they do, between dCO2/dt and T, then when you take the derivative of T, you should get a 90 deg phase advance, and the bumps and squiggles should no longer line up. So, it also appears that you have shifted data in time to make it line up in phase.
Perhaps it would help if you list the precise steps you took, so I can check and see if I can replicate what you have produced.
Engelbeen seems like a nice enough guy but he’s ignoring (actually I suspect he’s just not understanding) Henry’s law. Henry’s law of gas-dissolution implies that at least 98% of human CO2 emissions will end up in the oceans and only 2% at most will be left behind in the atmosphere as permanent additions to the CO2 greenhouse. At the Earth’s average surface temperature of 15C Henry’s law sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for CO2 between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC. Atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC exist in chemical equilibrium with each-other. This means that when you increase PCO2 you create a disequilibrium in the partitioning ratio and force more CO2 down to the oceans in order to restore equilibrium. This phenomena is readily observable whenever you open a fizzy-drink. The fizz that you hear is the decarbonization of CO2 as it rapidly equilibrates with the atmospheric PCO2. So, the idea that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by 110ppmv is at odds with some well-established and universally-accepted tenets of orthodox science, such as Henry’s law and the principle of consistency of conclusions with observational data.
Henry’s law is very inconvenient to CAGW-advocates and they’ve done their best to try and muddy the waters. They have two central counterarguments against it. Their first is that the surface-ocean is becoming over-saturated and because the atmospheric CO2 equilbirates with the surface-ocean, it can no longer absorb the extra CO2. This is absurd for multiple reasons. But the main reason I see is is because the residence time of oceanic DIC in the surface-ocean before being transferred down to the deep ocean is only 10 years according to the IPCC’s own figures, which means anthropogenic CO2 can only accumulate for 10 years before being transferred down to the deep-ocean. But their main argument comes from the chemical-buffer the Revelle Factor. Likewise the Revelle Factor is plain ludicrous. According to the Revelle Factor as PCO2(aq) increases, this decreases pH, which in turn decreases CO32, and as CO32 decreases, the value of the Revelle Factor increases accordingly. The higher the PCO2(aq), the lower the pH and concentration of CO32, the higher the Revelle Factor. However if the Revelle Factor were true we would not be able to make fizzy-drinks.
[Double-post. Delete this one, keep the 10:11 version? Robt]
Engelbeen seems like a nice enough guy but he’s ignoring (actually I suspect he’s just not understanding) Henry’s law. Henry’s law of gas-dissolution implies that at least 98% of human CO2 emissions will end up in the oceans and only 2% at most will be left behind in the atmosphere as permanent additions to the CO2 greenhouse. At the Earth’s average surface temperature of 15C Henry’s law sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for CO2 between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC. Atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC exist in chemical equilibrium with each-other. This means that when you increase PCO2 you create a disequilibrium in the partitioning ratio and force more CO2 down to the oceans in order to restore equilibrium. This phenomena is readily observable whenever you open a fizzy-drink. The fizz that you hear is the decarbonization of CO2 as it rapidly equilibrates with the atmospheric PCO2. So, the idea that humans have increased the atmospheric CO2 level by 110ppmv is at odds with some well-established and universally-accepted tenets of orthodox science, such as Henry’s law and the principle of consistency of conclusions with observational data.
Henry’s law is very inconvenient to CAGW-advocates and they’ve done their best to try and muddy the waters. They have two central counterarguments against it. Their first is that the surface-ocean is becoming over-saturated and because the atmospheric CO2 equilibrates with the surface-ocean, it can no longer absorb the extra CO2. This is absurd for multiple reasons. But the main reason I see is because the residence time of oceanic DIC in the surface-ocean before being transferred down to the deep ocean is only 10 years according to the IPCC’s own figures, which means anthropogenic CO2 can only accumulate for 10 years before being transferred down to the deep-ocean. But their main argument comes from the chemical-buffer the Revelle Factor. Likewise the Revelle Factor is plain ludicrous. According to the Revelle Factor as PCO2(aq) increases, this decreases pH, which in turn decreases CO32, and as CO32 decreases, the value of the Revelle Factor increases accordingly. The higher the PCO2(aq), the lower the pH and concentration of CO32, the higher the Revelle Factor. However if the Revelle Factor were true we would not be able to make fizzy-drinks.
I suspect what you actually did was:
dCO2/dt = k1*(emissions) + k2’*(Ta – trend(Ta))
where Ta is the temperature anomaly. Again, Nature has no way of evaluating trend(Ta).
chipstero7 says:
July 19, 2012 at 10:11 am
Thanks. I myself am not well versed in the actual calculation of the proportionality factor from Henry’s law or, at least, never tried or had the information available to calculate it for the entire oceans and atmosphere. But, I have read intimations of exactly what you have stated elsewhere, and it seems logical and reasonable.
What I do know is that the data show that, to a relatively high level of accuracy as these things go, atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958, when we started getting reliable measurements, obey the differential equation
dCO2/dt = k*(Ta – To)
where Ta is the temperature anomaly. The relationship holds very well with any of the temperature sets, though not necessarily with the same constants “k” and “To”. But, this is merely a manifestation of the fact that all of the temperature sets are essentially affinely related.
Once, you have the constants, you can integrate the equation to get an estimate of the CO2 level at any given time – human inputs are superfluous. We conclude that human emissions have no significant effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Ta is essentially a constant plus a trend plus various cyclic processes and noise. When we choose the value of k such that the linear trend component of dCO2/dt matches that of k*Ta, we find that the cyclic processes and noise, all the bumps and squiggles, remarkably all line up in effectively perfect proportion as well. Because the rate of human emissions also has a trend, we cannot add it in to any significant degree without changing k, and that will move the bumps and squiggles off scale. Again, we conclude that there is no room for significant human emissions.
A model, which I believe I am now in a position to derive from first principles, which allows this type of behavior is
dCO2/dt = (Co – CO2)/tau1 + k1*H
dCo/dt = -Co/tau2 + k2*(Ta – To)
CO2 = atmospheric concentration
Co = equilibrium CO2
tau1 = short time constant
tau2 = long time constant
H = human inputs
Ta = temperature anomaly
To = reference temperature offset from Ta
k1 and k2 = coupling constants
With tau1 short, the input from H is effectively attenuated to an insignificant level, and CO2 tracks Co to high fidelity. With tau2 long, Co is effectively the integral of the scaled and offset temperature anomaly.
Ferdinand wrote: “Which makes that the total CO2 solubility of the ocean waters is some 100 times higher than of fresh water”.
What makes you think that the Revelle Factor should only hold true for oceanic water and not fresh water? This is not true. This statement is a clear indication to me that you do not understand how the Revelle Factor works. The Revelle Factor applies to fresh water too. The Revelle Factor is apparently brought about by changes in the relative concentrations of HCO3, CO32 and CO2(aq). The Revelle Factor is expressed as: (dPCO2ml/PCO2ml)/(dDIC/DIC). It express a proportional change in PCO2(aq) corresponding to a proportional change in DIC. Here’s how it works. When you increase PCO2(aq), this decreases pH, which in turn decreases CO32 in accordance with the Bjerrum plot. Calculating the value of the Revelle Factor based on the relative concentrations if DIC is a rather straightforward matter. At the current concentrations of DIC the Revelle Factor comes out at abut 10.2. This means that the oceans can only absorb 10% of anthropogenic CO2. But the Revelle Factor applies to fresh water just as it applies to the oceans. When you increase PCO2(aq) in fresh water, the same thing happens, you decrease pH and you decrease CO32. The Revelle Factor is just a chemical reaction brought about by changes in the concentration of HCO3, CO32 and CO2(aq), all of which are present in fresh water. The only difference is, for fresh water the decrease in CO32 occurs at slightly lower Ph values.
“A model, which I believe I am now in a position to derive from first principles…”
I say “a model” because, with the diffusion processes involved, the rates of exchange are not generally perfectly modeled by simple time constants. This possibility can be accounted for by designating the various constants as linear operators. But, the essential physical characteristics will remain the same.
Bart says:
July 19, 2012 at 9:34 am
You are leaving out an important part of what you are doing:
dCO2/dt = k1*(emissions) + k2*dT/dt – trend(dT/dt)
As already said on another occasion, I have detrended dT/dt. That introduces an error over the 45 year time span 1960-2005, where the average temperature increase is 0.6°C. Over time periods of 50 years to millennia, that gives a change of ~5 ppmv. For the 1960-2005 period that gives an error of ~0.1 ppmv per year in the rate of change. Hardly detectable.
Thus what I have done is bypassing the medium frequency response, which in my opinion is inbetween the high frequency response of 4-5 ppmv/°C and the very low frequency response which is ~8 ppmv/°C. Your model medium frequency response is around 100 ppmv/°C…
You also do not appear to be giving full disclosure of what you are doing to manipulate this data. The numerical derivatives of T are very noisy, so you must be filtering them heavily somehow.
As already said in the first message where the trend was shown: I did plot the 12-month moving average of the calculated CO2 levels, as that removes the noise and removes the seasonal changes in temperature, emissions (which are only known as yearly values, I used simple linear interpolation for the monthly emissions) and CO2 levels. I first plotted the three noisy monthly changes, but that is simply a mess where you can’t see the wood for the trees in the noise. The averaging gives a 6-month lag in the plot, compared to the two other series. If you take that into account, the correlation with the observations is slightly better than your calculation…
But I will make a plot where all three are made with 12-month moving averages, as that gives a better insight of the real changes, without the distracting noise.
Now, you are truly violating mass balance. The cold water brought more CO2 in. When the temperature equilibrates to the same as the ambient, that added CO2 cannot disappear.
Now you are violating Henry’s Law: the moment you introduce colder water, the average temperature drops, including at the surface, thus some of the CO2 from the above atmosphere is lost in the colder water. When everything is back to the previous temperature, the same pCO2 in water and air is again at equilibrium, thus the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is back. Nothing more and nothing less for the same temperature and air volume (and water composition). That is btw exactly how continuous measurements of seawater pCO2 on seaschips work…
And I don’t think we will ever agree about mass balances and d13C impossibilities. Simple logic is not the same as simplistic…
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 9:13 am
You illustrate my point with your “mass balance” example. You assume that natural emissions do not increase over the long term. That is a false assumption on any time scale. A statistical analysis of the data not only shows that is a false assumption, but gives you values and probabilities for both anthropogenic and natural emissions over the long run. It is not a clever model that I invented, but is certainly more clever than the model you use
Dear Fred,
Sorry, but the mass balance must be obeyed at all times, no matter if human emissions increase or are zero or natural emissions increase or decrease or stay the same. We emit 8 GtC/year. The increase in the atmosphere is 4 GtC/year. That means that, to close the mass balance, the natural sink múst be 4 GtC higher than the natural emissions. No matter that the natural emissions are 10 or 100 or 1000 GtC/year or if they halved or doubled since the previous year. The natural sinks simply múst be 4 GtC larger…
Ferdinand,
There is your circular reasoning. Let’s increase the natural emissions by 8GtC/year along with the 8GtC/year anthropogenic and still have only a 4GtC/year accumulation. Input – output= accumulation and input – accumulation = output. In this case, the output = 12 GtC/year. The natural sinks will absorb both emissions proportionally, so in this case, each will contribute 2GtC/year to the accumulation. Now let’s double the natural increase to 16GtC/year and still have only a 4GtC/year accumulation. 24 – 4=20. In this case, the natural increase accounts for 2.67GtC/year and the antropogenic emissions account for 1.33GtC/year. The mass balance has been maintained without assuming anything and the natural sink rate to natural emissions ratio is not a constant.
chipstero7 says:
July 19, 2012 at 10:11 am
Wow, what a revelation…
There are a few things to be considered in this case:
There is a close contact between the ocean’s mixed layer, the upper few hundred meters, with the atmosphere. Any change of CO2 in both will be exchanged in 2-3 years back into equilibrium. “Equilibrium” in this case means a lot of continuous exchanges between the hot equator and the cold poles (via the deep oceans) and the seasonal swings back and forth.
That equilibrium means that an increase of 30% in the atmosphere will give an increase of 30% in dissolved CO2 in the oceans, per Henry’s Law. As good as that is the case in fresh water. But then comes the difference: in fresh water, very little CO2/H2CO3 is dissociated into HCO3- and CO3–. About 3%. 97% still is free CO2/H2CO3.
Ocean water is alkaline. That forms a buffer for extra CO2, and a lot of CO2 is dissociated into mainly HCO3- and some into CO3–. free CO2/H2CO3 is less than 1% of total DIC. Thus for the same free CO2 level by Henry’s Law, seawater holds about 100 times more CO2 + HCO3- + CO3–.
Now the Revelle factor. For fresh water, a CO2 doubling in the atmosphere gives a free CO2 doubling in water and that means a near doubling of total CO2, as the Revelle factor is ~1.
For seawater, a CO2 doubling gives a doubling of free CO2 in water, but in this case the rest of the DIC doesn’t double anymore but increases with 10%, because the pH decreases slightly, and that has a huge effect on the reaction chain, pushing the free CO2 level upwards, so that the new equilibrium is reached much faster. Still, seawater contains 50 times more CO2 than fresh water for a CO2 doubling in the atmosphere.
So the Revelle factor simply is a buffer factor which decreases with decreasing pH, as the buffer is increasingly used up.
The Revelle factor doesn’t block any absorption of CO2 at any pressure, it only gives an impression of how much more CO2 will be absorbed at increased CO2 pressure, no matter if that is at 7 bar for a coke (in a highly acidic phosphoric acid solution) or at 0.0004 bar for atmospheric CO2.
Now the deep oceans:
The ocean surface thus is in rapid equilibrium with the atmosphere. But the deep oceans are not. Indeed there are exchanges, but these are limited in area and flux. Further, there is a disconection of hundreds of years between the points of downwelling and upwelling. Thus while the 1:50 ratio in total carbon is true, that is only relevant over very long time periods.
Human emissions are ~8 GtC/year. The atmosphere shows an increase of 4 GtC/year, vegetation absorbs ~1.2 GtC/year, the ocean surface ~0.8 GtC/year, thus the deep oceans are probably responsible for the difference of 2 GtC/year. That is all, for a CO2 increase of 100 ppmv (210 GtC) above equilibrium. Thus that takes a lot of time. All sinks together need ~53 years e-folding time to remove the extra CO2 above equilibrium, or ~40 years half life time…
BTW, DIC of the deep oceans is higher than of the ocean’s surface, thus any exchange between the two would increase DIC in the ocean’s surface, if not for the fallout from biolife in the surface…
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
There is your circular reasoning. Let’s increase the natural emissions by 8GtC/year along with the 8GtC/year anthropogenic and still have only a 4GtC/year accumulation. Input – output= accumulation and input – accumulation = output. In this case, the output = 12 GtC/year. The natural sinks will absorb both emissions proportionally, so in this case, each will contribute 2GtC/year to the accumulation.
Fred,
You must make a distinction between what adds to the atmosphere and what is simple throughput. In your first case, the natural input increased with 8 GtC/year as did the natural output. Thus all what happened is that the turnover increased from let’s say 150 GtC/year to 158 GtC/year without any effect on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The only effect on the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is from the 8 GtC extra… Without these, you would have a loss of 4 GtC/year in the first year, with decreasing sink rates over time, until the old temperature driven equilibrium is reached again…
Only in the case that the increase in the atmosphere is larger than the emissions alone, then there is a real contribution of the natural fluxes to the atmospheric increase…
Ferdinand,
So you are saying that the sinks can tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions and only increase their rates to equal the rate increase of the natural emissions. It doesn’t work that way. The natural input/output ratio is not a constant as you assume (throughput).
“That equilibrium means that an increase of 30% in the atmosphere will give an increase of 30% in dissolved CO2 in the oceans, per Henry’s Law”.
How does it all prove that CO2 is building up the the atmosphere because the oceans are absorbing about 30% of human emitted CO2? You are not making any sense to me. Your conclusion does not follow logically from your explanation. On the contrary, Henry’s law demands that the vast majority of anthropogenic CO2 must be absorbed by the oceans. Hence only a small fraction of the human emissions can end up as permanent additions to the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse at equilibrium. As you may have noticed, the ‘partitioning ratio’ between atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is about 1/50 conservatively. This means that, no matter how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere from whatever sources, the system will end up at equilibrium with about 50 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere at the current global mean temperature of about 15C.
“In fresh water, very little CO2/H2CO3 is dissociated into HCO3- and CO3–. About 3%. 97% still is free CO2/H2CO3.”
Have you seen the Bjerrum plot? I would recommend taking a look at the ‘Wolf-Gladrow’ version. There really isn’t that much of a significant difference between the relative concentrations of DIC in fresh and sea-water. But of course how much CO2(aq) exists relative to HCO3 and CO32 is dependent on PCO2 anyway, isn’t it?
“Now the Revelle factor. For fresh water, a CO2 doubling in the atmosphere gives a free CO2 doubling in water and that means a near doubling of total CO2, as the Revelle factor is ~1”
I am not sure what you are meaning to say here. I can’t quite follow you. Are you meaning to suggest that in fresh water the Revelle Factor is 1 or less? A Revelle Factor of 1 would give us a partitioning ratio between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC of 1:1. In other words, for every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere one would exist in the water at equilibrium. That is in violation of Henry’s law, isn’t it? Henry’s law ordains that at a temperature of 15C there should exist about 50 times as much dissolved CO2 in water than in the atmosphere at equilibrium.
“Still, seawater contains 50 times more CO2 than fresh water for a CO2 doubling in the atmosphere”
I have no idea what you meaning to say here.
“So the Revelle factor simply is a buffer factor which decreases with decreasing pH, as the buffer is increasingly used up.”
Exactly. But the Revelle Factor applies the same to fresh water and sea water. Your explanation makes no sense. As PCO2 increases and as the oceanic pH decreases very slightly below its current level of about 8 then the relative concentrations of DIC change. As pH decreases below 8 the concentration of CO32 (carbonate ions) decreases, CO2(aq) increases and the change in HCO3 is essentially inconsequential. Currently about 88.7% of DIC in the oceans exists in the form of HCO3, about 0.5% exists in the form of CO2(aq) and about 10.8% exists in the form of CO32. These occur in the following proportions: [CO2(aq)]:[HCO3]:[CO32] = 1:175:19. We can get an approximate value of the Revelle Factor by simplistically taking the ratio of HCO3, adding it to the ratio of CO32 and then dividing it by the ratio of CO32 again. Hence we get: 175 + 19 = 194/19 = 10.2. A Revelle Factor of 10 is now considered average. As you can see from the above calculation, as CO32 decreases, the value of the Revelle Factor increases. For example if the ratio changed to 2:175:18 the Revelle Factor would increase to about: 175 + 18 = 193/18 = 10.7. Forgetting for a moment that the Revelle Factor contradicts Henry’s law, it applies to sea-water and fresh-water. If you increase PCO2(aq) in fresh water, the pH decreases, CO32 decreases and the Revelle Factor increases. It’s that simple. Of course, if the Revelle Factor were true, no-one would be able to make fizzy-pop. It’s logically absurd.
“The ocean surface thus is in rapid equilibrium with the atmosphere. But the deep oceans are not. Indeed there are exchanges, but these are limited in area and flux. Further, there is a disconection of hundreds of years between the points of downwelling and upwelling. Thus while the 1:50 ratio in total carbon is true, that is only relevant over very long time periods.”
Really? Any evidence to support this claim? You state things as matters-of-fact as if you know them without a shadow of a doubt. Is that really so? You have all the answers, but none of the questions. The residence time of CO2 in the surface-ocean before being transferred to the deep-ocean according to the IPCC is a mere 10 years. That’s all. Therefore, this implies that anthropogenic CO2 can only accumulate in the surface-ocean for that very short amount of time before going down to the deep-ocean. So, I don’t see why equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic DIC would take hundreds of years, as you claim it does.
“Human emissions are ~8 GtC/year. The atmosphere shows an increase of 4 GtC/year, vegetation absorbs ~1.2 GtC/year, the ocean surface ~0.8 GtC/year, thus the deep oceans are probably responsible for the difference of 2 GtC/year.”
Are those the IPCC’s figures? The IPCC themselves admit that their figures for the carbon-cycle end at 1994. I wouldn’t trust them, personally. The last time I checked, they were all based on computer-simulations anway.
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm
So you are saying that the sinks can tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions and only increase their rates to equal the rate increase of the natural emissions. It doesn’t work that way. The natural input/output ratio is not a constant as you assume (throughput).
The sinks don’t make a differentiation between anthro CO2 and natural CO2, they only react on an increase in total CO2, But if the increase in the atmosphere is known and the emissions are known for a given year, we know the difference between the natural inputs and outputs. It is entirely possible that some inputs increased since the previous year, but as long as that doesn’t lead to a change in increase of the atmosphere higher that from the emissions alone, that doesn’t add to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere…
It is like a bankaccount (used several times here): if you add more money per year to your local bank account than the local bank makes as gain after a year, better look for another bank, even (or certainly…) if you know that your neighbour has put more money than you on his local account.
Ferdinand,
Knowing the accumulation rate and anthropogenic emission rate does not make the natural input/output rate ratio constant as you must assume to make your mass balance work. I check my bank accounts each month and the accumulation rate is not constant. Both deposites and spenditures vary from month to month and the ratio is not constant and the longterm trend has been accumulation. Based on your model, you wouldn’t make a very good accountant.
“The sinks don’t make a differentiation between anthro CO2 and natural CO2.
Actually, according to the IPCC they do. The IPCC say that the oceans are absorbing 70.6 gigatonnes/year of carbon from the natural reservoir of 597 gigatonnes corresponding to 11.8% and the oceans are absorbing 22.2 gigatonnes/year of anthropogenic carbon from the human reservoir of 165 gigatonnes corresponding to 13.4%. So, a discrimination is occuring.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am
“But I will make a plot where all three are made with 12-month moving averages,”
If you did not perform moving averages on the temperature, then you did not compute dT/dt. The numerical derivative of T is very noisy, as one should expect, since the derivative operation amplifies high frequency noise. It looks like this.
If you had done this properly, with a numerical derivative and then 12 month moving average of the dCO2/dt and dT/dt values, you would have gotten something like this. As can be readily seen in this plot, the derivative of T leads the derivative of dCO2/dt, i.e., they do not match up in phase. Hence, dCO2/dt is NOT proportional to dT/dt, and the effect of T on CO2 is not proportional, either.
“the moment you introduce colder water, the average temperature drops”
You’re not thinking this through, Ferdinand. It is very elementary. I have taken out a volume of water with less dissolved CO2, and replaced it with an equal volume of water with more dissolved CO2. Inside the container, there is now instantaneously more CO2 in total. Nothing about the “average temperature” changes that. Now, nothing gets in, and nothing gets out. What happens to the pCO2 in the air portion when the temperature everywhere increases back to ambient?
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
You are 100% correct. But, it will not have any effect. It’s been tried.
As I told you at July 19, 2012 at 10:06 am: “If all the bumps and squiggles line up, as they do, between dCO2/dt and T, then when you take the derivative of T, you should get a 90 deg phase advance, and the bumps and squiggles should no longer line up.” I have just demonstrated I knew what I was talking about.
One more try? Please remove the previous two posts?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am
“But I will make a plot where all three are made with 12-month moving averages,”
If you did not perform moving averages on the temperature, then you did not compute dT/dt. The numerical derivative of T is very noisy, as one should expect, since the derivative operation amplifies high frequency noise. It looks like this.
If you had done this properly, with a numerical derivative and then 12 month moving average of the dCO2/dt and dT/dt values, you would have gotten something like this. As can be readily seen in this plot, the derivative of T leads the derivative of dCO2/dt, i.e., they do not match up in phase. Hence, dCO2/dt is NOT proportional to dT/dt, and the effect of T on CO2 is not proportional, either.
“the moment you introduce colder water, the average temperature drops”
You’re not thinking this through, Ferdinand. It is very elementary. I have taken out a volume of water with less dissolved CO2, and replaced it with an equal volume of water with more dissolved CO2. Inside the container, there is now instantaneously more CO2 in total. Nothing about the “average temperature” changes that. Now, nothing gets in, and nothing gets out. What happens to the pCO2 in the air portion when the temperature everywhere increases back to ambient?
fhhaynie says:
July 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
You are 100% correct. But, it will not have any effect. It’s been tried.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 11:45 am
As I told you at July 19, 2012 at 10:06 am: “If all the bumps and squiggles line up, as they do, between dCO2/dt and T, then when you take the derivative of T, you should get a 90 deg phase advance, and the bumps and squiggles should no longer line up.” I have just demonstrated I knew what I was talking about. Your “model” does not work.
Bart says:
July 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm
“One more try? Please remove the previous two posts?”
Just in case that confuses anyone, I botched the tags the two earlier times I tried to post this so it was all just html underlines, and the moderator graciously removed them for me.
chipstero7 says:
July 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm
How does it all prove that CO2 is building up the the atmosphere because the oceans are absorbing about 30% of human emitted CO2?
The oceans are not absorbing 30% of human emitted CO2…
Have a look at the amounts:
The atmosphere nowadays contains ~800 GtC
The ocean’s mixed layer contains ~1000 GtC
The amount of free CO2 (that is gaseous + non-dissolved H2CO3) is ~1% of DIC in seawater, thus ~10 GtC.
A 30% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (+ 240 GtC to 1040 GtC) gives a corresponding 30% increase of free CO2 in seawater, per Henry’s Law. That is an increase of ~3 GtC in the ocean’s surface. Or only 1.25% of the increase in mass of CO2 in the atmosphere… That is all.
But lucky for us, seawater is a buffer, thus a lot more CO2 is dissociated than if it would have been fresh water: about 10% of the increase in the atmosphere, or 30 GtC. Thus after 2-3 years 10% of the increase in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean surface and there it stops. The other sinks: semi-permanent storage in the biosphere, and long-range storage in the deep oceans are not or less limited in capacity, but are limited in removal speed. Most plants don’t double in growth with double CO2 and the exchange rate with the deep oceans is limited. That gives that only halve of the emissions in quantity is removed per year, not all of it. And thus the rest stays in the atmosphere as “airborne fraction”.
the ‘partitioning ratio’ between atmospheric and oceanic CO2 is about 1/50 conservatively.
The ‘partitioning ratio’ of 1:50 says nothing about the ultimate distribution between the different compartiments: it is only a ratio of the current amounts. Only the pressure differences between atmosphere and oceans (for the deep oceans at the sink and source places) counts, as that is the driving force for uptake and release, not quantities.
There really isn’t that much of a significant difference between the relative concentrations of DIC in fresh and sea-water. But of course how much CO2(aq) exists relative to HCO3 and CO32 is dependent on PCO2 anyway, isn’t it?
It is the other way out. The Bjerrum plot shows the relative concentrations for a fixed DIC at different pH units. In reality, what is fixed is pCO2(aq) for a fixed pCO2(atm). The rest of DIC is 3% for fresh water and 99% for seawater. Thus seawater contains some 100 times more CO2 than fresh water for the same pCO2 in the atmosphere…
Henry’s law ordains that at a temperature of 15C there should exist about 50 times as much dissolved CO2 in water than in the atmosphere at equilibrium.
Again you are looking at the current ratio of masses in air and water, but that has nothing to do with Henry’s Law, as the bulk of the CO2 mass in the deep oceans is not in contact with the atmosphere and is undersaturated in CO2 at the 5°C in the deep oceans. For the oceans surface, see the above answer…
But the Revelle Factor applies the same to fresh water and sea water.
No it doesn’t. You are mistaken by the Bjerrum plot, as that only shows the relative ratio’s, not how much is ultimately dissolved. For fresh water of the same volume as the ocean’s surface layer, that would mean that not more than ~10 GtC can be dissolved at the current atmospheric pCO2, because less than 3% is dissociated and DIC is about the same as the amount of free CO2, not much more. The Revelle factor in this case is ~1.03. Henry’s Law is only applicable for the ratio between pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq) and doesn’t apply for any other dissociated form of CO2. In seawater the same amount of free CO2 can be found, but as 99% is dissociated, the total amount of DIC is 100 times that of free CO2 and thus about 100 times what is found in fresh water. There the Revelle factor still is ~10.
Forgetting for a moment that the Revelle Factor contradicts Henry’s law, it applies to sea-water and fresh-water.
The Revelle factor has nothing to do with Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law says something about the ratio between pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq). The Revelle factor says something about the ratio between a change in pCO2(aq) and the resulting change in DIC. Completely independent of each other.
Of course, if the Revelle Factor were true, no-one would be able to make fizzy-pop. It’s logically absurd.
pCO2(aq) always follows pCO2(atm) according to Henry’s Law, regardless of the Revelle factor. Thus you can make fizzy-pop from acidic lemon juice as good as from basic seawater. The main difference is that you can push more CO2 in seawater than in lemon juice, thanks to the Revelle factor: that is an indication of how much more CO2 you can dissolve, compared to fresh water. But by pushing more CO2 into the solution, ultimately the pH lowers so much, that the Revelle factor sinks to 1…
The residence time of CO2 in the surface-ocean before being transferred to the deep-ocean according to the IPCC is a mere 10 years.
The same problem as always with “residence time”. The residence time is about how much is exchanged per year between the ocean surface and the deep oceans. That is about 10% per year. That doesn’t say anything about how much CO2 is removed out of the ocean surface into the deep oceans… If we may assume that the exchange rate stays about the same at 100 GtC/year, then 10% of all CO2 in the ocean’s surface is exchanged with CO2 from the deep oceans. Now humans add 8 GtC/year into the atmosphere. 4 GtC is somewhere absorbed, 4 GtC increases in the atmosphere or a 0.5% increase in the atmosphere per year. A 0.5% increase in the atmosphere gives an increase of 0.05% in the ocean’s surface, of which 10% is removed into the deep oceans first year, 9% next year, 8.1% third year,… Thus it takes far over hundred years to remove the human emissions from only one year via that route…
I don’t trust the IPCC either, but the quality of many remarks used by some skeptics is not really good, to say the least.
But I do trust the data sampled by scientists which are only interested in delivering good data, not influenced by what others may like or wish. Like how much CO2 is taken away by the biosphere, based on the oxygen balance, how much DIC increased in the surface of the oceans taken by continuous sampling in a few places, where the human CO2 is going into the deep oceans and how it spreads, etc…
Bart says:
July 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm
What happens to the pCO2 in the air portion when the temperature everywhere increases back to ambient?
That increases back to the same pCO2 for the same temperature and the same composition. No matter how much water was exchanged and is heating up. Only the pressure matters and that remains the same for the same temperature and composition.
As said before, the continuous measurement of pCO2 of seawater is like that: spraying seawater in a small compartiment with air, and measuring temperature and CO2 levels in the air. The spraying gives a fast equilibrium and the temperature can be used to adjust for the temperature increase of the seawater between oceans and spraycell. There is no continuous accumulation of CO2 due to the increase in temperature, only a fixed increase in pCO2 in the air volume.
The rest is for tomorrow…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Ferdinand, this is ludicrous. Think!
Good luck gentlemen and keep up the good work.
The truth is out there for you to find.
Since I wrote my January 2008 paper in icecap.us, I’ve ruptured my quadriceps tendon, my wife and I had a preemie daughter at 7 months by emergency caesarian, and I lost about $2 million of net worth in the market crash and ensuing market melee.
It has been a challenging time at best, and yet life goes on. I turn 65 in one week and hope to live long enough to seen my beautiful daughter well-launched in this wonderful world.
I think we have clearly demonstrated that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature.
My bet is that within ten years the hypo I proposed in 2008 will be the accepted wisdom in climate science – that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales and temperature drives CO2.
Why ten years? Because I’ve proposed similar major changes in other fields of endeavour, and it took ten years for them to be accepted too, even after the facts were obvious to a few capable individuals.
Please do keep listening to each other and do not be quite so dismissive of the other’s contrary viewpoints – I find the more I listen, the more I think, and the more I learn.
My best wishes to all of you – now please excuse me, I have a four-year-old daughter who needs my full attention.
God bless, Allan
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 19, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“There is no continuous accumulation of CO2 due to the increase in temperature, only a fixed increase in pCO2 in the air volume.”
Looking again, I think maybe this is the source of your misunderstanding. Go back to my discription at July 18, 2012 at 6:26 pm of what is going on:
This is not a one shot deal. It is a repeating process in which a volume of lower CO2 warm water is replaced a like volume of higher CO2 cold water over and over again. Yes, you get “only a fixed increase in pCO2 in the air volume” each time you do it. But, you are doing it continuously, increasing the pCO2 each time.
This is analogous to the continuous upwelling flow from the deep ocean. And this, I believe, may well account for the approximate integral relationship between CO2 and temperature difference, that temperature difference ultimately being the difference between the water which is currently downwelling versus that which is upwelling.