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 Engelbeen says:
July 21, 2012 at 8:53 am
“Thus an increase in sea surface temperature of 1°C only gives a maximum increase of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere within a few years.”
Completely irrelevant, static analysis. As I have demonstrated, a greater temperature than upwelling THC produces a continuous pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Bart says:
July 21, 2012 at 11:03 am
Completely irrelevant, static analysis. As I have demonstrated, a greater temperature than upwelling THC produces a continuous pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Come on Bart, you are breaking about all laws of chemistry one can think of, to start with Henry’s Law, because of your idée fixe that there must be some continuous source of CO2 with a small increase in temperature…
chipstero7 says:
July 21, 2012 at 5:36 am
Think of a saturated solution of baking soda. No CO2 is coming out of the solution at room temperature and DIC is sky high: 96 g/l of baking soda can be dissolved, of which about halve is CO2, thus a DIC of ~50 g/l, and still not saturated in CO2. The solubility of 100% CO2 gas in fresh water at 1 bar and room temperature is only 1.7 g/l, thus completely saturated, thus DIC in this case is only 1.7 g/l.
Now add some acid to the bicarbonate solution and look what happens: lots of CO2 bubble up from the solution and DIC lowers together with the loss in CO2.
But in all cases Henry’s Law holds: by lowering the pH of the bicarbonate solution, you push the equilibria towards the creation of more free CO2, which becomes in excess to the ratio with the atmosphere, and CO2 is pushed out of the solution. Thus even within a wide range of DIC, Henry’s Law still holds, but that is limited to the ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere and free CO2 in the solution, not to the rest of DIC…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 21, 2012 at 11:34 am
I have explained it to you in detail. There is no violation of any physical law. It is very simple – there is an oceanic conveyer belt which is transporting CO2 to the depths, and bringing it back up after 100’s of years. How much CO2 is being carried down depends on current temperatures. How much is emerging depends on temperatures when it sank. With a continuous incoming flow of past, CO2 rich waters, the atmosphere is naturally accumulating as the CO2 outgases from it at the current higher temperatures.
Your trivial exposition at July 21, 2012 at 8:53 am ignores everything we have been discussing, and you are just plugging your ears and shouting to avoid hearing what you don’t want to hear.
Bart,
All the time we were discussing the influence of 0.6°C over the past 50 years since 1960. That should trigger a continuous net input of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to a total increase of 70 ppmv. Now you think you have found the origin in the ocean waters in combination with the temperature increase as the source.
Deep ocean waters have a higher CO2 (DIC) content than the surface, thus by heating up, they emit CO2 and the surface waters by cooling down, absorb CO2. That is a continuous stream between the equator and the poles of nowadays ~40 GtC/year.
The current unbalance, measured over many years and many places is 2 GtC more sink than source. With an increase in temperature, you can temporarely increase the source flux and decrease the sink flux. That indeed leads to an increase of ~16 ppmv/°C, but there it stops, as the inputflows and outputflows, thanks to Henry’s Law, again are at the same disequilibrium with each other as before, all other things being equal. If you want an increase of 70 ppmv, you need a temperature increase of at least 4.3°C and probably double that.
That is is the fundamental error in your formula: there is no stop, because you only look at the source, without taking into account that other forces will counteract any disturbances of the overall process: any increase in the atmosphere reduces further releases and increases the sinks.
The problem is in:
The process stops when dCO2/dt = 0, which implies that CO2 asymptotically approaches tau*k*(T-To).
In reality, the process stops when pCO2(atm) = pCO2(aq), which is not more than 16 ppmv for a change of 1°C in seawater temperature. That is what makes that the continuous measurements of pCO2(aq) of seawater in a closed volume work. That is the dynamic overall equilibrium all over the earth, where the inputflows at the “warm” side with a huge pCO2 in water are fully compensated by the outputflows at the “cold” side with a very low pCO2 in water.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm
“In reality, the process stops when pCO2(atm) = pCO2(aq)… “
This is taken account of in my formalism. It is just a matter of parametrizing tau.
“…which is not more than 16 ppmv for a change of 1°C in seawater temperature.”
But, you do not know the temperature change. You do not know the temperature of the currently upwelling sea water when it first downwelled.
“This is taken account of in my formalism. “
Actually, what you are talking about is, again, a static analysis. This is the short term dynamics of what happens when a one-time volume of cool water surfaces. Once everything equlibrates, if another volume of rich-CO2 bottom water surfaces, you will get another jump. When you have a continuous stream surfacing, you get continuous pumping, and the process will not stop until the pCO2(aq_downwelling) = pCO2(aq_upwelling).
This, at root, is a simple mass balance equation. An actual, real mass balance equation, so it is particularly mystifying that you refuse to get it. If you are continually bringing up more CO2 from the ocean depths than you have sinking to the ocean depths, then that CO2 must go somewhere. It cannot simply wink out of existence. Part of it is going to accumulate in the atmosphere.
This is my best candidate for what is causing the temperature dependence of atmospheric CO2. It must behave as the scaled integral of the temperature anomaly, because that is what the data shows. As I have demonstrated, your model simply does not match up in phase, and cannot explain the observations.
Bart says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm
But, you do not know the temperature change. You do not know the temperature of the currently upwelling sea water when it first downwelled.
We know the temperature of the sea surface in 1960 and today. The difference between these two gives the extra increase of 70 ppmv, according to your formula. If we may assume that the deep ocean concentration didn’t change with 10% in 70 years time (a huge change in concentration over such a short time span of the deep ocean circulation is very unlikely), then all change is from the extra temperature increase. The temperature increase gives an extra push of 16 microatm to the releases into the atmosphere (whatever that might have been) at the warm side and an equal restriction to the sinks at the other side of the earth. When the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase with 16 microatm, the extra push/restriction is gone and the in/out fluxes fall back to the old levels, no matter what downwelled 800 years ago, or how much circulated before the temperature increase.
Once everything equlibrates, if another volume of rich-CO2 bottom water surfaces, you will get another jump. When you have a continuous stream surfacing, you get continuous pumping, and the process will not stop until the pCO2(aq_downwelling) = pCO2(aq_upwelling).
Agreed, in the open system as the earth is, except for the pCO2(aq) point. You need to take into account the area involved and the driving forces: pCO2(aq_downwelling) doesn’t need to be equal to pCO2(aq_upwelling), it is far from that: the pCO2(aq) at the downwelling places is down to 150 microatm, at the upwelling places up to 750 microatm.
What need to be equal is the downwelling flux and the upwelling flux for a dynamic equilibrium. The fluxes are directly proportional to the delta pCO2 between atmosphere and the sink/source ocean surface and the total area of each involved. Expressed in another way, the ocean and the atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium when pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq) are equal, where pCO2(aq) is the area weighted average of pCO2(aq) all over the earth. At this moment, pCO2(atm) is about 7 microatm higher than pCO2(aq), thus the oceans are a net sink for CO2 (surface + deep together).
This, at root, is a simple mass balance equation. An actual, real mass balance equation, so it is particularly mystifying that you refuse to get it. If you are continually bringing up more CO2 from the ocean depths than you have sinking to the ocean depths, then that CO2 must go somewhere.
Well, if you talk about mass balances: your equation shows a one-way increase from the deep oceans of 70 ppmv over 45 years time. The human emissions were 140 ppmv in the same time span. Together 210 ppmv input, while only 70 ppmv increase is measured, the difference of 140 ppmv has to go somewhere…
We have quite good calculations for the uptake by the biosphere (~40 ppmv), based on the oxygen balance. We have a quite good idea how much is dissolved in the upper ocean layer (~7 ppmv). Thus the rest should go into the deep ocean sinks. Or with other words, the 70 ppmv extra release from the deep oceans must be compensated with 93 ppmv extra sink capacity into the deep oceans to close the mass balance. Looks like the deep oceans are a net sink for a lot of CO2…
Thus in short, your solution only shows, according to the mass balance, that there may be increased circulation of CO2 from the equator to the poles, but that the deep oceans still are a net sink for CO2 and not the cause of the increase…
Further, your equation violates the Le Châtelier Principle, as there is no explicite term that takes into account the effect of the increase of CO2 on the source and sink fluxes.
And your solution violates the isotope balance: 70 ppmv extra from the deep oceans would give an increase in d13C from -6.75 per mil to -5.6 per mil in the atmosphere. But we observe a decrease to -8 per mil.
A simple explanation why your solution is wrong: temperature only causes the huge variability in year by year increase rate (in fact a variation in sink capacity) and has a limited influence on the trend. That the trend in temperature matches the trend in CO2 is pure coincidence, caused by the parallel increase of both. The trend itself is caused by the human emissions… A combination of temperature variability and human emissions matches all observations.
I am working on the phase shift (I think it is a matter of sample frequency in a chaotic changing system).
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:52 am
“We know the temperature of the sea surface in 1960 and today.”
The water which is now upwelling downwelled up to 1600 years ago. You are looking at the wrong temperature differential. It is the differential temperature between the currently downwelling CO2 and the upwelling CO2 at the time it downwelled.
There is a constant stream of new water upwelling with the temperature differential being that between now and when that water originally downwelled. This leads to a constant influx of CO2 into the atmosphere.
“If we may assume that the deep ocean concentration didn’t change with 10% in 70 years time (a huge change in concentration over such a short time span of the deep ocean circulation is very unlikely), then all change is from the extra temperature increase.”
Wrong. There is a continual flux of new CO2 into the surface ocean / atmospheric system, and you are looking at only part of the temperature differential.
“…the pCO2(aq) at the downwelling places is down to 150 microatm, at the upwelling places up to 750 microatm.”
Which tells you what? Think this through.
“The fluxes are directly proportional to the delta pCO2 between atmosphere and the sink/source ocean surface and the total area of each involved. “
Your units do not match. A flux is an amount per unit of time. You must integrate the flux over time to get the right units. That is what creates the integral relationship.
“Expressed in another way, the ocean and the atmosphere are in dynamic equilibrium when pCO2(atm) and pCO2(aq) are equal, where pCO2(aq) is the area weighted average of pCO2(aq) all over the earth.”
And, those are both increasing in time as CO2 accumulates due to the upwelling having greater CO2 content than the downwelling.
“Well, if you talk about mass balances: your equation shows a one-way increase from the deep oceans of 70 ppmv over 45 years time.”
Your formula is inapplicable. You are not using the correct total temperature differential. It is an accumulation due to the temperature differential between current temperatures and the time at which the currently upwelling water downwelled.
“I am working on the phase shift (I think it is a matter of sample frequency in a chaotic changing system).”
It is 90 degrees – this is obvious by inspection. It points to an integration over time. It is the result of the rate of change of CO2 being directly proportional to the differential temperature between the currently downwelling CO2 and the upwelling CO2 at the time it downwelled. It is elementary, with readily recognizable signature evident from the simple relationship d(sin(w*t))/dt = w*cos(w*t).
Allow me to repeat this very simple point: If you are continually bringing up more CO2 from the ocean depths than you have sinking to the ocean depths, then that CO2 must go somewhere. Part of it is going to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Bart says:
July 22, 2012 at 7:31 am
The water which is now upwelling downwelled up to 1600 years ago. You are looking at the wrong temperature differential. It is the differential temperature between the currently downwelling CO2 and the upwelling CO2 at the time it downwelled.
Besides that you have no idea what the temperature of that period was – it could be cooler than today – it is about the resulting CO2 flux. The input flux of 800-1600 years ago not only is enriched underway by fallout of biolife but also largely mixed in with other deep ocean waters. That is not the point. The point is that we are discussing the influence of a 0.6°C increase in temperature on that enriched flow over a period of 50 years. That should have caused a 70 ppmv increase in the atmosphere. Which is impossible.
If we may assume that neither the composition nor the deep ocean circulation changed over the period 1960-current, then the maximum increase in the atmosphere for 0.6°C increase is 10 ppmv. With that increase, the deep ocean fluxes are back to what they were before the temperature increase.
Wrong. There is a continual flux of new CO2 into the surface ocean / atmospheric system, and you are looking at only part of the temperature differential.
You don’t see it: the incoming flux in 1960 may have been much higher than that of 1560, due to a change in downwelling temperature since 40 BC, but that is not the point: if the incoming deep water flow didn’t change in amount and composition in the period 1960-current, then all extra CO2 influx increase in that period is from the temperature increase 1960-current, not from the already established flow in 1960.
Which tells you what? Think this through.
That tells us that there is a continous flow of CO2 between these two areas (my estimate, based on the dilution of the d13C ratio from burning fossil fuels, about 40 GtC/year). But that isn’t the only factor in fluxes: wind speed mixing and surface area also play a role.
Your units do not match. A flux is an amount per unit of time. You must integrate the flux over time to get the right units. That is what creates the integral relationship.
CO2 fluxes are directly proportional to the driving force, no matter what units are used. But the range shown in
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig06.jpg
gives fluxes of 11 moles CO2/m2/year as maximum sink rate and 13 moles CO2/m2/year as maximum source rate. Thus also the total area plays a role and the weighted average wind speed.
And, those are both increasing in time as CO2 accumulates due to the upwelling having greater CO2 content than the downwelling.
If CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the upwelling decreases and the downwelling increases, as the delta pCO2 over the upwelling and downwelling areas changes, all other variables staying equal. With 10 ppmv extra CO2 in the atmosphere, the influence of a temperature increase of 0.6°C is fully compensated.
Your formula is inapplicable. You are not using the correct total temperature differential. It is an accumulation due to the temperature differential between current temperatures and the time at which the currently upwelling water downwelled.
The mass balance has nothing to do with the temperature or the carbon uptake of 1600 years ago. Neither with the CO2 levels at the time that the coal deposits were formed. It has to do with the carbon balance today, at any moment of time and space. If the deep oceans add 70 ppmv CO2 from the past to the atmosphere today and humans add 140 ppmv from millions of years ago to the atmosphere today and we measure an increase of only 70 ppmv in the atmosphere today, then 140 ppmv must be stored somewhere else today…
Allow me to repeat this very simple point: If you are continually bringing up more CO2 from the ocean depths than you have sinking to the ocean depths, then that CO2 must go somewhere. Part of it is going to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Agreed, but if CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, that reduces the CO2 release from the ocean depths and increases the CO2 sink rate into the ocean depths, until everything is back into equilibrium…
Moreover, the observations show that there is more CO2 sinking into the oceans (deep + surface) than is brought up by the same oceans…
I’m going to try responding to one point only, in the hopes of breaking through the logjam.
“CO2 fluxes are directly proportional to the driving force, no matter what units are used.”
If I am driving an automobile at 100 km per hour, then after 1 hour I will have gone 100 km, and after 10 hours, I will have gone 1000 km. The distance traveled is the integral of position flux (a.k.a., velocity). Just so, if I am getting a net flux of X Gt/year of carbon, then after 1 year, I will have accumulated X Gt, and after 10 years, I will have accumulated 10X Gt. You are telling me that, no matter how long I drive, I will always have gone 100 km, and no matter how many years go by, I will have X Gt of extra carbon at the end. This is false.
There is a continuous supply of extra CO2 coming into the upper oceans every instant, and that will lead to a net positive accumulation in the upper oceans, and hence the atmosphere, over time.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm
“Agreed, but if CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, that reduces the CO2 release from the ocean depths and increases the CO2 sink rate into the ocean depths, until everything is back into equilibrium… “
When? When will it be back into equilibrium? Not anytime soon according to your own sources, where it is seen that the pCO2(aq) is 5X higher near upwelling regions than near downwelling ones. And, not according to the data, which says that the time constant is so long, we cannot currently see any significant difference between what is going on, and a straight integral of the scaled temperature anomaly.
Don’t you see, Ferdinand? What you have said is true, and I have not only not denied it, I made the point in my original derivation that there is a limit to how far the upwelling ocean can drive the atmospheric concentration.
BUT, you have to quantify the limit – you cannot just assume it is instantaneously reached. The data indicate that the limit is large, the time constant is long, and we are nowhere near that particular operating region. And, until we are near it, the system is going to behave indistinguishably from a pure integrator, and accumulate the net upwelling CO2.
Bart says:
July 22, 2012 at 2:58 pm
If I am driving an automobile at 100 km per hour, then after 1 hour I will have gone 100 km, and after 10 hours, I will have gone 1000 km. The distance traveled is the integral of position flux (a.k.a., velocity).
If you drive at 50 km per hour, the distance will be 50 km after one hour, not 100 km. Thus the distance travelled is directly proportional to the speed you drive, no matter the time period in question or units used.
The in/out fluxes are directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between ocean surface and atmosphere, all other variables staying the same. With a pCO2 difference of zero, there is no net flux at all. That is the direct result of Henry’s Law.
There is a continuous supply of extra CO2 coming into the upper oceans every instant, and that will lead to a net positive accumulation in the upper oceans, and hence the atmosphere, over time.
Yes, the extra CO2 coming into the upper oceans is continuous, but the release into the atmosphere isn’t: when the atmospheric CO2 increases, the pCO2 between the upwelling places and the atmosphere decreases and thus the incoming flux to the atmosphere decreases too. Ultimately, the CO2 content of the upper ocean water gets the same as of the deep oceans and the flux gets zero when the pCO2 of the atmosphere and of the water are equal, as is the case for a closed (measuring) system.
In een open system, which the oceans are, the equilibrium between inflows and outflows is reached again when pCO2(atm) increased enough to decrease the influx and increase the outflux back to equity. For a 10% increase in DIC of the deep ocean upwelling, that needs ~18 ppmv increase. For 1°C ocean surface warming, a 16 ppmv increase in the atmosphere is sufficient to bring the in/out fluxes back into equilibrium. One needs only a few decades with the natural exchanges to approach the new equilibrium. Or 4 years of human emissions…
where it is seen that the pCO2(aq) is 5X higher near upwelling regions than near downwelling ones.
Not of interest, only the local area pCO2(atm)-pCO2(aq) difference is of interest. The sign of this difference makes that an area is a sink or a source or a seasonal sink/source. And the height of the difference determines the height of the areal in/out fluxes. When pCO2(atm) = pCO2(aq) then the influxes and outfluxes are in equilibrium, where pCO2(aq) is the global area weighted average.
And, not according to the data, which says that the time constant is so long
Wrong variable as cause of the mid-frequency increase and no term for the negative feedback from the increase in atmospheric pCO2 in your formula…
The real, observed data show that the oceans are a net sink for CO2, where the ocean surface has a limited capacity. Thus the deep oceans are not the cause of the increase, neither is the temperature increase at the upwelling and downwelling areas. The long time constant does exist for the sink rate, not the source rate of the deep oceans and the real cause of the increase in the atmosphere are the human emissions, all other reservoirs are net sinks for CO2…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 23, 2012 at 9:12 am
“…when the atmospheric CO2 increases, the pCO2 between the upwelling places and the atmosphere decreases and thus the incoming flux to the atmosphere decreases too.”
There is a huge volume which has to approach equilibrium to get a significant decrease, and this takes a very long time.
“Ultimately, the CO2 content of the upper ocean water gets the same as of the deep oceans…”
Over eons of time… Time is the key variable here. Physical processes do not happen instantaneously, and 50 years is a blink of an eye in geologic time.
“Not of interest, only the local area pCO2(atm)-pCO2(aq) difference is of interest. “
Wrong. There are two areas to consider: where the CO2 rich water is upwelling, and where depleted CO2 water is downwelling. Until those equilibrate, there is a net flow into the atmosphere.
“The real, observed data show…”
The real, incontrovertible, observed data show that atmospheric CO2 is directly proportional to the integrated temperature anomaly.
We are getting nowhere. You have the evidence before you. I have provided a logical, reasonable, and physically viable mechanism which explains the observations, for which you have no explanation. Maybe if you think on it a bit, you will see the light. Until we meet again…
Bart,
Here a nice view of the releative importance of temperature and ocean currents on the equatorial release of CO2:
http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/oct03/noaa03-131.html
Bart says:
July 23, 2012 at 9:34 am
There is a huge volume which has to approach equilibrium to get a significant decrease, and this takes a very long time.
The volumes involved are not of the slightest interest, the pressure difference is. If you shake a coke bottle of 0.5 or 1 or 1.5 liter at the same temperature, you will find the same pressure in the atmosphere at equilibrium (minus the small amount needed to reach that pressure).
Do the calculation yourself: 16 ppmv increase in the atmosphere is sufficient to fully compensate an increase of 1°C ocean surface temperature back to equilibrium. That can be reached in 1-2 decades by the temperature increase itself or with 4 years of human emissions…
“Ultimately, the CO2 content of the upper ocean water gets the same as of the deep oceans…”
Over eons of time…
Agreed, that kind of time periods is not of interest here, but it is reached within minutes in a small closed system In the open oceans it will never be reached, as there is a continuous exchange of CO2 between water and atmosphere in opposite directions for different parts of the oceans. Of interest is here that in the open ocean system, a new equilibrium between CO2 influxes and outfluxes for a 10% in DIC in the deep upwelling will be reached in 2-3 decades…
The real, incontrovertible, observed data show that atmospheric CO2 is directly proportional to the integrated temperature anomaly.
The same real, incontrovertible, observed data show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is directly proportional to the human emissions and the variability is caused by the temperature variability (only the latter needs some better work-out).
Any theory that shows a good correlation is proven spurious if it violates one and only one observation. Your theory violates a lot of observations:
– It violates the mass balance, where an increase of 140 ppmv by human emissions disappears in an unknown sink, without leaving a trace (as mass) in the atmosphere.
– It violates Henry’s Law, where an increase of 0.6°C only gives an increase of maximum 10 ppmv in the atmosphere to get the old (dis)equilibrium in CO2 fluxes back to the same values.
– It violates the Le Châtelier Principle, as your formula doesn’t take in consideration any negative feedback that counters the disturbance caused by an extra injection of CO2.
– It violates the isotope balance as observed in the atmosphere and ocean surface layer.
– Both the oceans and the biosphere are proven sinks for CO2. There is no known natural source for 70 ppmv extra CO2 in 50 years time.
You are not the first (and surely not the last) who attributes a good correlation to the wrong variable…
“The same real, incontrovertible, observed data show that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is directly proportional to the human emissions and the variability is caused by the temperature variability (only the latter needs some better work-out).”
NO IT DOES NOT!!!!! The phase does not match up!!!!!
You are completely unglued from reality, Ferdinand, and this is now becoming insulting. The view count to my phase comparison shows zero, i.e., you have not even looked. You are just living in your own reality walled off from the world, and making things up as you go along. Be that way.
Bart says:
July 23, 2012 at 11:57 am
Come on Bart, your theory violates at least four laws of physics and has no known natural source for the increase in CO2. My theory does have problems with the variability of the increase, which is +/- 3% around the trend, but explains the trend and all known observations. That seems a little more realistic to me than the fact that the variability around the trend is for 60% explained by your theory.
As said before, I am working on that problem, but Dr Tans of NOAA used a response function for temperature anomalies, lasting a few years, which looks much better than my dT/dt response. See:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf slides 19 and 20. Thus your last straw(man) is sinking.
BTW,
The view count to my phase comparison shows zero, i.e., you have not even looked.
I did have a look, even several times (and even now two times), so I decided that I should see how to improve that part of the equation, but haven’t done any work on that yet. But the counter still shows zero views…
The only violation of physics is in your belief that CO2 can be continually pumped up from the ocean depths and a static equilibrium established instantaneously with no equal downwelling taking it back out again.
Dr. Tan has artfully manipulated the data, but his hypothesis is notably ad hoc. He has created a resonance response which will provide the necessary gain and phase shift for the dominant 2-year oscillation, while attenuating the longer term trend. But, that trend happens to integrate precisely into the curvature of the observed CO2, so throwing it away is arbitrary and capricious. If you knew more about systems theory, you would realize how contrived his argument is, and that is: very.
It is always possible to pile things higher and deeper with improbable assumptions and artifices, but experience tells us that, in general, the likeliest explanation is the simplest one. And, the obvious explanation here, which agrees with all the data, is that the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to the temperature anomaly.
Bart says:
July 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm
The only violation of physics is in your belief that CO2 can be continually pumped up from the ocean depths and a static equilibrium established instantaneously with no equal downwelling taking it back out again.
Bart, the direct application of Henry’s Law and the influence of changes in pCO2 of the atmosphere shows that any significant change in concentration of the deep ocean upwelling or any change in temperature of the upper oceans is fully compensated in a few decades, back to equilibrium between the in- and outfluxes, even without help of the human emissions. That includes an increase in throughput between upwelling and downwelling areas for any increase in DIC from the deep oceans (whatever that caused). And a simple increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere for a temperature increase gets the fluxes back to what they were before the temperature increase.
Henry’s Law only shows an increase of 16 ppmv for a global increase of 1°C in sea surface temperature, not 70 ppmv. Thus your attribution of the 70 ppmv trend to a temperature increase is spurious, violates a lot of physical laws and doesn’t fit any other period in time. Your formula doesn’t take into account the change in in/outfluxes caused by the change of pCO2 in the atmosphere…
You are so overfocused on the look-alike of the trends, that you forget that another, more likely variable, does match the same trend for the full 160-year period without the introduction of unknown and not observed second-order processes.
It is quite logical that Pieter Tans eliminated the longer term influence of temperature: that influence is maximum 10 ppmv (probably halve of that) for the past 50 years and thus less than 0.2 ppmv/year in the rate of change. Hardly measurable.
the likeliest explanation is the simplest one.
The simplest explanation is that the trend is caused by the 2x higher human emissions and that the variability in the sink rate for the other halve of the human emissions is caused by a temperature related process.
That also fits all other observations beyond the CO2 rate of change and trends, while your explanation violates several of them.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 24, 2012 at 12:11 am
“…the direct application of Henry’s Law and the influence of changes in pCO2 of the atmosphere shows that any significant change in concentration of the deep ocean upwelling or any change in temperature of the upper oceans is fully compensated in a few decades…”
Nonsense. You are applying Henry’s Law inappropriately and, most egregiously, violating conservation of mass.
“Henry’s Law only shows an increase of 16 ppmv for a global increase of 1°C in sea surface temperature, not 70 ppmv. “
Nonsense. A) This is based on your estimate from unreliable and unverifiable ice core data history B) it isn’t atmosphere to sea surface temperature which matters for this particular mechanism, but atmosphere to upwelling ocean water.
“It is quite logical that Pieter Tans eliminated the longer term influence of temperature…”
It is arbitrary and capricious, and it makes no sense when the slope perfectly matches the slope of the CO2 rate of change. The quality of the work at the link you provided is, to be kind, very poor. Fundamentally, all he is doing is applying a bandpass filter to the data, and saying “see, the bandpass filter isolates a particular frequency range in the data.” Trivially true, but this isn’t in any way extraordinary or groundbreaking – bandpass filtering principles have been known for centuries, since at least the time London actuaries first started applying filters to sift through mortality data to determine appropriate insurance rates. And, it has no compelling relationship to the problem at hand – it is the equivalent of twisting a lead pipe into a knot, noting that it looks like a pretzel, and concluding that pretzel bakers were responsible for the lead pipe.
“Hardly measurable.”
Very evident, rather, in the deviation from linearity of the CO2 concentration.
“The simplest explanation is that the trend is caused by the 2x higher human emissions…”
Occam’s Razor specifies the simplest explanation which agrees with all the observations is generally the correct one. It is effectively a statement of probability – the more items which are required to operate as specified to make your concept work, the less likely they are to work successfully in concert, as the probability of success decreases geometrically. Because the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to temperature anomaly, your explanation does not work, and is therefore disqualified.