Readers may recall these WUWT stories: Earth’s biosphere booming, California’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide, and Forget deforestation: The world’s woodland is getting denser and change could help combat climate change. NASA satellite imagery pointed this out long ago.
Now confirmation from another source: From the University of Colorado at Boulder
Earth absorbing more carbon, even as CO2 emissions rise, says CU-Boulder-led study
Planet’s carbon uptake doubles in past 50 years, researchers ponder how long trend can continue
Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them, according to a surprising new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.
The study, led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate.
“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”
A paper on the subject will be published in the Aug. 2 issue of Nature. Co-authors on the study include CU-Boulder Professor Jim White, CU-Boulder doctoral student Caroline Alden and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists John Miller and Pieter Tans. Miller also is a research associate at the CU-headquartered Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.
According to Alden, the trend of sinks gulping atmospheric carbon cannot continue indefinitely. “It’s not a question of whether or not natural sinks will slow their uptake of carbon, but when,” she said.
“We’re already seeing climate change happen despite the fact that only half of fossil fuel emissions stay in the atmosphere while the other half is drawn down by the land biosphere and oceans,” Alden said. “If natural sinks saturate as models predict, the impact of human emissions on atmospheric CO2 will double.”
Ballantyne said recent studies by others have suggested carbon sinks were declining in some areas of the globe, including parts of the Southern Hemisphere and portions of the world’s oceans. But the new Nature study showed global CO2 uptake by Earth’s sinks essentially doubled from 1960 to 2010, although increased variations from year-to-year and decade-to-decade suggests some instability in the global carbon cycle, he said.
White, who directs CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, likened the increased pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere to a car going full throttle. “The faster we go, the more our car starts to shake and rattle,” he said. “If we drive 100 miles per hour, it is going to shake and rattle a lot more because there is a lot more instability, so it’s probably time to back off the accelerator,” he said. “The same is true with CO2 emissions.”
The atmospheric CO2 levels were measured at 40 remote sites around the world by researchers from NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., including stations at the South Pole and on the Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii.
Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere primarily by fossil fuel combustion and by forest fires and some natural processes, said Ballantyne. “When carbon sinks become carbon sources, it will be a very critical time for Earth,” said Ballantyne. “We don’t see any evidence of that yet, but it’s certainly something we should be looking for.”
“It is important to understand that CO2 sinks are not really sinks in the sense that the extra carbon is still present in Earth’s vegetation, soils and the ocean,” said NOAA’s Tans. “It hasn’t disappeared. What we really are seeing is a global carbon system that has been pushed out of equilibrium by the human burning of fossil fuels.”
Despite the enormous uptake of carbon by the planet, CO2 in the atmosphere has climbed from about 280 parts per million just prior to the Industrial Revolution to about 394 parts per million today, and the rate of increase is speeding up. The global average of atmospheric CO2 is expected to reach 400 ppm by 2016, according to scientists.
The team used several global CO2 emissions reports for the Nature study, including one by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. They concluded that about 350 billion tons of carbon — the equivalent of roughly 1 trillion tons of CO2 — had been emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes from 1959 to 2010, with just over half moving into sinks on land or in the oceans.
According to the study, the scientists observed decreased CO2 uptake by Earth’s land and oceans in the 1990s, followed by increased CO2 sequestering by the planet from 2000 to 2010. “Seeing such variation from decade to decade tells us that we need to observe Earth’s carbon cycle for significantly longer periods in order to help us understand what is occurring,” said Ballantyne.
Scientists also are concerned about the increasing uptake of CO2 by the world’s oceans, which is making them more acidic. Dissolved CO2 changes seawater chemistry by forming carbonic acid that is known to damage coral, the fundamental structure of coral reef ecosystems that harbor 25 percent of the world’s fish species.
The study was funded by the National Research Council, the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
A total of 33.6 billion tons of CO2 were emitted globally in 2010, climbing to 34.8 billion tons in 2011, according to the International Energy Agency. Federal budget cuts to U.S. carbon cycle research are making it more difficult to measure and understand both natural and human influences on the carbon cycle, according to the research team.
“The good news is that today, nature is helping us out,” said White also a professor in CU’s geological sciences department. “The bad news is that none of us think nature is going to keep helping us out indefinitely. When the time comes that these carbon sinks are no longer taking up carbon, there is going to be a big price to pay.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One of these days, I am going to sit down and write out all of the equations, maybe even submit it to Anthony for a post. I am pretty sure that, considering three reservoir states for land, sea, and atmosphere, as well as human inputs and deep ocean forcing, I can derive an analogous model based on first principles which is effectively
dCO2/dt = (CO2eq – CO2)/tau1 + a*H
dCO2eq/dt = -CO2eq/tau2 + k*(T-To)
CO2 = current atmospheric concentration
CO2eq = instantaneous CO2 equilibrium level
H = rate of human inputs
a = fraction of human inputs instantaneously (or, at least, rapidly) flowing into the atmosphere
tau1 = short time constant
tau2 = long time constant
T = temperature
To = baseline effective temperature
k = coupling constant
With tau1 short, the effect of H is rapidly attenuated. With tau2 long, the second equation effectively becomes an integral over relatively short timelines. “To” can vary to adjust the baseline in line with observations. This set of equations can qualitatively describe all of the observations to date, whereas the hypothesis of majority human forcing of atmospheric CO2 levels cannot do so.
Bart says:
August 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm
If we consider the case of constant partial pressure across 800-1600 years and assume nothing appreciable happens to change concentrations in the depths, then what would matter is the temperature differential between downwelling waters now and those at the time the currently upwelling waters downwelled.
It is quite different of what you expect:
Assuming that we start at equilibrium, where CO2 influxes = outfluxes.
Suppose that the temperature at the downwelling places 800 years ago was average 1°C lower than today.That would increase the ancient CO2 outflux to the deep oceans with about 10%.
For an unchanged deep ocean waterflux, the CO2 content thus increased with 10%.
Assuming that the ocean waterfluxes remained the same and no further enrichment, the new current upwelling thus is enriched in carbon with some 10%.
A 10% increase in CO2 at the upwelling places with the current temperatures will give a pCO2 which is a lot higher than without the enrichment (need to check how much exactly). Thus let’s say a substantial increase in pCO2 difference between the oceans and the atmosphere, leading to an increase of 10% in CO2 influx.
That will give an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as the downfluxes in first instance remain the same.
But the increase in the atmosphere decreases the pCO2 difference between the upwelling places and the atmosphere and increases the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the downwelling places. The net result is that the upwelling fluxes decrease and the downwelling fluxes increase over time. Until both are again in equilibrium at a 5% higher level than original and a CO2 level in the atmosphere that is somewhat higher than before (around 10 ppmv).
Summary: the ancient lower temperature at the sinks increases the CO2 levels of today with about halve of what is expected from the temperature change, but in opposite direction of the historical change.
HenryP says: @ur momisugly August 4, 2012 at 1:03 pm
….Don’t forget we are still looking at extremely small change. Most recently I am not too sure anymore of the satellite results, as far as accuracy, precision and global representativity is concerned.
Overall, yes, noting the nature of the relationship of the speed of warming/cooling in degrees C per annum versus time, I do think that I will now have to go with my idea that the whole global warming and global cooling cycle is governed by the UV-O2-O3 cycle. Most recently I heard that there is some shrinkage going on in the upper atmosphere? Do you know anything about that and why? (a shrinking atmosphere would also be a cause of an increase in ozone concentration)…
_______________________________
Henry, do not forget that at this time we are at Solar Maximum for cycle 24 even though it is nothing much. A slight upward trend of the satellite data would be expected. the phase shift between total solar irradiance and global temperature is exactly one quarter of the solar cycle, 90 degrees, or 2.75 years. and see NASA: Solar Variability
The Shrinking Atmosphere
Do not forget the effects of the solar wind/cosmic rays Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low (see also articles on Solar Accumulation Theory)
Bart,
I think that the base for our discussion is the speed of reaction against a change in CO2 upwelling.
There are two points to consider:
– The carbon content and the temperature of the upwelling waters at the surface, these two give the pCO2 of the water at the surface, all other variables being constant.
– The pCO2 difference between Co2 in water at the upwelling place and CO2 in the above atmosphere. That gives the flux into the atmosphere, all other variables being constant.
Where you go wrong is that you only look at the first point, but the second point is as important: A 10% increase in pCO2 of the upwelling waters, either caused by an increased carbon content or an increased temperature, or both, doesn’t lead to an increased influx, if the pCO2 of the atmosphere increases with the same absolute amount in pCO2, thus ultimately giving the same pCO2 difference and thus the same influx.
Such an increase in the atmosphere is easely reached by a huge change in natural influx and very fast by the human emissions…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: @ur momisugly August 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm
“Where you go wrong is that you expect that the unbalance goes on for a very long period. But what you don’t realise is that the equilibrium is regained quite fast.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bart says: @ur momisugly August 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm
A) you have no basis for making that conclusion. Your analysis is flawed….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wil certainly agree with that. There can be no equilibrium in a chemical system with constantly changing sinks and sources. A dynamic system like the CO2 cycle can NEVER be in equilibrium. Also a dynamic system can NEVER be well mixed.
These are two of Engelbeen’s assumptions that are flat out wrong. I worked in a ‘continuous process’ Chemical plant and no chem engineer in his right mind would ever make such foolish assumptions. You make sure the stuff is mechanically mixed and then drive the chemical reaction to X% completion and suck off the residuals hopefully for recycle.
For some reason Engelbeen seems to see the carbon cycle as static with plenty of time for mixing and equilibrium to be reached before any changes are made. Not only is there a day/night photosynthesis cycle but the rate of photosynthesis varies over the course of a 24-hour cycle.
As I said before the The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS)… sweeps the ground creating a scan ‘swath’ that extends roughly 800 km on either side of the ground track… Ninety ground footprints are observed each scan. One spectrum with all 2378 spectral samples is obtained for each footprint. A ground footprint every 22.4 ms. The AIRS IR spatial resolution is 13.5 km at nadir That AVERAGED data is then compiled and reported as a monthly average and NASA still finds the CO2 varies despite averaging over space and time. AIRS Carbon Dioxide image for July 2003. Unfortunately Engelbeen does not understand that an average has less variation than individual values.
An example of what I am talking about is Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Temperature Graphs. The blue line is the monthly (average) data and the red is the 13 month average. Each time the data is averaged the high minus the lows value (range) is decreased. It is amazing that Engelbeen can not understand something that simple.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“The net result is that the upwelling fluxes decrease and the downwelling fluxes increase over time. Until both are again in equilibrium at a 5% higher level than original and a CO2 level in the atmosphere that is somewhat higher than before (around 10 ppmv).”
Each year that you have more CO2 outflowing, the atmospheric concentration decreases, too, as there is less CO2 left in the surface system. At the end of the cold spell, your atmospheric content may have decreased precipitously, proportional to the number of years your temperature stayed low times the flux imbalance. Now, when you go back to normal temperatures, your content will start climbing again, as the upwelling water in the pipeline has a concentration consistent with your previous high level, and the pCO2 may be elevated much higher than 10% relative to equilibrium. Depending on the timing, you can then get socked with the upwelling of the rich CO2 waters coming back up again.
And, this doesn’t happen just once. The process has been going on for eons. Delays inserted into systems like this tend to lead to oscillations, with the frequency and amplitude of the oscillations dependent on the governing parameters. Without other dynamics coming into play, there is theoretically no limit to how low the concentration can go, or how high, subject to the fundamental limit of all the CO2 in the combined surface and deep oceans system becoming concentrated at the surface all at once. So, the ocean currents theoretically can become segregated into a bead-like formation of extra-high CO2 and extra-low CO2 bubbles.
There really is no limit to the possibilities. But, in real science, we start with data, and then form our hypotheses. And, the data say that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are almost entirely governed by temperatures, and that human inputs have little consequence. How, precisely, the system works to produce the data is the question at hand, not looking for excuses to ignore the data.
Ferdinand, the correlation holds for longer periods too. Average decadal accumulation in CO2 depends on the average decadal temperature. You can take any period length. If the temperatures were lower since ~1960, the atmospheric CO2 would be lower now.
We’ll see when the cooling gets going. I predict a decline in CO2 annual change, in spite of the record emissions.
Gail Combs says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:56 pm
I worked in a ‘continuous process’ Chemical plant and no chem engineer in his right mind would ever make such foolish assumptions.
Gail, I too worked 17 years as a chemical process engineer in a batch plant (including a near explosion of a reactor due to a runaway process…) and 17 years as process automation engineer in a continuous process plant…
Even if there are continuous changes in a process system, one can calculate what will happen if one of the reaction inputs changes, all other variables remaining constant (or constantly changing as before the one variable of interest changed).
Of course one must work with averages, or it is near impossible to find out anything which is going to happen. That includes that the day-night cycle or the seasonal cycle of CO2 is not of the slightest interest to know what will happen if you add 8 GtC/year from an outside source to the carbon cycle…
Ferdinand said:
“the day-night cycle or the seasonal cycle of CO2 is not of the slightest interest to know what will happen if you add 8 GtC/year from an outside source to the carbon cycle…”
How about the millennial temperature cycle from MWP to LIA to date (probably solar induced) and temperature irregularities along the horizontal path of the thermohaline circulation caused by that millennial solar cycle ?
The effects of such factors would make our 8Gt completely insignificant.
Higher temperature without more light skews plant activity towards more CO2 production as compared to CO2 consumption.
The figures being produced as regards the relative balances of individual components within the carbon cycle are mere guesses without adequate validation.
Bart says:
August 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm
At the end of the cold spell, your atmospheric content may have decreased precipitously, proportional to the number of years your temperature stayed low times the flux imbalance. Now, when you go back to normal temperatures, your content will start climbing again, as the upwelling water in the pipeline has a concentration consistent with your previous high level, and the pCO2 may be elevated much higher than 10% relative to equilibrium.
If the atmospheric CO2 content in/decreased in the past, the inflow and outflow of that period would have been adjusted in accordance, with a maximum of 16 ppmv/°C change in (area weighted) average equilibrium in the atmosphere, according to Henry’s Law. That translates to some 10% change in outflow for a global (and local) change of 1°C.
The long-term equilibrium changes with about 8 ppmv/°C over many millennia, long enough to show even a change of a 5 ppmv over a period of 600 years (or 50 ppmv over 60 years) in the worst resolution ice cores. Thus a much higher than 10% change in CO2 level, either in influx or outflux, needs a lot more temperature (change/offset) than the 0.6°C we have seen in the past 50 years.
But the main point of difference is that a new equilibrium in in/outflows is reached medium fast (without human help) to very fast (with human help) for any increase in inflow, no matter if that is caused by an increase of carbon content from the past outflow or from a temperature increase today.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 5, 2012 at 1:26 am
How about the millennial temperature cycle from MWP to LIA to date (probably solar induced) and temperature irregularities along the horizontal path of the thermohaline circulation caused by that millennial solar cycle ?
According to the Law Dome DSS ice core, with a resolution of ~21 years, there was a drop of ~6 ppmv in atmospheric CO2 content for a drop of ~ 0.8°C between the MWP and LIA with a lag of ~50 years after the temperature drop:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
6 ppmv is equivalent to a drop of 12 GtC, that is about the quantity currenlty released by humans over 1.5 years.
Further, from Bender e.a.:
From 1994–2002, We find the average CO2 uptake by the ocean and the land biosphere was 1.7 ± 0.5 and 1.0 ± 0.6 GtC/yr respectively
The temperature increase 1994-2002 was about 0.2°C. Despite the temperature increase (which was even more since 1960), the biosphere evolved from near neutral before the 1990’s to an increasing sink for CO2, with the exception of a few El Niño years, which causes droughts in tropical areas.
Edim says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Ferdinand, the correlation holds for longer periods too. Average decadal accumulation in CO2 depends on the average decadal temperature. You can take any period length. If the temperatures were lower since ~1960, the atmospheric CO2 would be lower now.
That is what you expect. But how do you explain the past? We have had some 0.8°C decrease in temperature between the MWP and LIA and a similar increase since the LIA. Each taking some 500 years long. Going back from the current baseline, at about 0.5°C below current temperature, that would imply that we had a ~600 years period at 0-0.3°C below the baseline. At a rate of 100 ppmv/°C/50 years, where would that end?
And think about the consequences of such a scenario for the 10,000 years long interglacials and 100,000 years long glacials…
And it doesn’t even fit for the period 1900-1960, (rightly) assuming that the ice cores show the right CO2 levels (be it 8-year smoothed):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2005.jpg
We’ll see when the cooling gets going. I predict a decline in CO2 annual change, in spite of the record emissions.
Despite the non-increasing of the temperature over the past 10-15 years, there is no leveling in the rate of change of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. That still is average increasing in ratio with the emissions (as the subject of this article states).
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2012 at 12:48 am
….. Gail, I too worked 17 years as a chemical process engineer in a batch plant (including a near
Of course one must work with averages, or it is near impossible to find out anything which is going to happen. That includes that the day-night cycle or the seasonal cycle of CO2 is not of the slightest interest to know what will happen if you add 8 GtC/year from an outside source to the carbon cycle…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you worked as a chemical process engineer, then you know darn well you do not use AVERAGES to determine if a batch is WELL MIXED. Only multiple point source data can answer the question“Is this well mixed?” The whole concept of AVERAGES completely obscures the answer to that question as you very well know. The fact you have been dancing around that very simple issue here at WUWT for years in your defense of the Warmist team’s version of the CO2 storyline, tells me you are not nothing but a Trojan Horse Warmist using baffle gab to confuse the issue.
Muller should have taken lessons from you.
I should add to my August 5, 2012 at 4:02 am comment. The reason I hammer at “Well Mixed” is that it is the assumption underpinning the entire edifice of ‘Mankind is causing increasing CO2.’ If the assumption that ‘CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere’ is not true, then the scrapping of all that other data pointed out by Jaworowski, Segalstad and Beck can not be justified. The tossing out of “Outliers” by Mauna Loa Observatory can not be justified. All of a sudden we have data showing CO2 varied between 100-1000ppm in preindustrial times and the current data measurements are nothing to get excited.
No wonder Engelbeen guards that assumption as if it was his first born!
Ferdinand, it’s the temperature level that drives the change in CO2, not temperature change. I don’t accept ice core records, for many reasons. It’s just physically implausible. Assuming linear relationship between the temperature and annual change in CO2, and using HADCRUT3 temperature anomaly, I get (approx.):
delta(CO2) = 2*Ta + 1.2, (ppm/year)
This also holds for other periods (longer than one year) – average annual change is driven by average temperature.
Ferdinand Angel’s Leg says
with a maximum of 16 ppmv/°C change in (area weighted) average equilibrium in the atmosphere, according to Henry’s Law. That translates to some 10% change in outflow for a global (and local) change of 1°C.
Henry says
yes, we heard you the first time.
I am not too sure about your calculation
and I think you that you have no idea what happens in a big storm
Nevertheless, just to throw another spanner in your wheel,
We know from recent observations (flying was suspended) that there has been increased volcanic activity from the mid atlantic rif and earlier on we had more volcanic activity from the pacific rif. So how did you calculate, exactly, how much CO2 was added to the atmosphere by the noticable increased volcanic activity, directly from beneath the ocean floors?
Anyone interested in this paper?
Plass, G. N. (1956) The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
Tellus A, Vol. 8, No. 2, 140-154.
As a geologist familiar with the diffusion of elements (Si, Mg, Mn, Fe, Na, K, Fe, Mn, etc) in solid rock (igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary) resulting in changes in bulk composition and mineralogy of pre-existing rocks without melting, I need a heavy dose of convincing that CO2 can remain quiescent as kilometres of ice accumulates on top of it. Here is a picture of garnets that have grown in what were originally mud that underwent compaction, folding, squeezing, attendant heating:
http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=ie7&q=garnet+schist+picture&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSCA&redir_esc=&ei=JHkeUIqDBIHX6wGb94GIBQ
Intrusion of a limestone by granite results in a skarn “halo” around the intrusion without melting in which the limestone becomes recrystallized locally as marble and minerals diffusing from the granite create a variety of alumino-silicate minerals in the skarn – garnets, pyroxenes, micas, etc. Have a basic rock intrude the same limestone and you could get sapphires, rubies, etc growing in the skarn.
Has anyone done the heavy lifting to determine that CO2 would not migrate under pressure or is this area left untouched so as not to spoil the picture?
Philip Mulholland says:Anyone interested in this paper?
Plass, G. N. (1956) The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
Henry says
You have to be kidding me. As if the errors of Tyndall and S.Arrhenius perpetuating to this day, were not enough?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
Gail Combs says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:17 am
Come on Gail, didn’t you ever discard an 8-sigma outlier from a regular series of measurements? If you want to control any process with a noisy input, you filter the input, or you end in the sky.
All the raw Mauna Loa data are available on line and show the same avarage and trend, no matter if you include or exclude the outliers.
And again, the remarks of Jaworowski and Segalstad are completely obsolete, some are misleading and the worst are simply stupid. Or do you have some knowledge that CO2 migrates from lower levels to higher levels? Or that there is no difference between the average age of the ice and the enclosed bubbles at the same depth in the ice?
About the late Ernst Beck: I admire the tremendous amount of work he has done. But where he did go wrong is to lump all known historical measurements together: the good, the bad and the ugly, without any quality control of methods (some were accurate to +/- 150 ppmv…) or siting. The latter even worse than the siting problem for temperatures in the US. Measurements from the middle of Vienna, or within and under leaves of growing crops: all were averaged as the historical CO2 levels of the past…
The fact you have been dancing around that very simple issue here at WUWT for years
Well that is because I have studied that simple problem for years now, a problem any housewive with a household budget recognizes without problems: if you add some money into your wallet in the morning and you end the day with the same amount + half that extra, every housewive knows that she has spent more than earned that day and that the extra money comes solely from the extra addition in the morning …
But it seems that some who call themselves skeptics are not very skeptic when anyone comes with an alternative theory, no matter how badly that violates the mass balance and/or several other observations…
Edim says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:25 am
delta(CO2) = 2*Ta + 1.2, (ppm/year)
We have reasonable temperature records back to about 1850. Please use these to backcalculate what the theoretical CO2 level was at that year with the help of your formula…
My formula works for today and back to ice ages:
delta(CO2) = 0.55*(emissions) + k1*dT
where k1 = 4 for seasons to years and k1 = 8 for decennia to multi-millennia.
The formula only needs some better formulation for the short-term…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:25 am
“But the main point of difference is that …”
Is that you have little experience with complex dynamical equations and do not understand how they evolve. So, you dream up contrived, simplistic models which artificially and arbitrarily constrain your viewpoint in order to avoid dealing with the facts.
I don’t mean to be harsh, but I am compelled to point out that you are in over your head.
Edim says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:25 am
“Ferdinand, it’s the temperature level that drives the change in CO2, not temperature change.”
From the earlier discussion with Ferdinand I linked to earlier, I made the following graphs. All of the temperature sets are more or less affinely related so any one will do. For GISTEMP, I used the integrated temperature anomaly to project this level of CO2. To Ferdinand, this is damning evidence that, pre-1958, the relationship diverges, as the level does not match up with the ice core proxy.
There are at least two utterly reasonable and possible explanations for the divergence, though:
A) the ice core proxies are wrong.
B) there was a state change some time before 1958 which has to be accounted for in the parameterization of the model. Here, I put in an equilibrium temperature shift in 1945, and this results in better agreement with the ice core proxies.
In any case, the question is moot. The relationship holds without question in the post-1958 era, and it precludes any significant human impact on CO2 levels.
HenryP says:
August 5, 2012 at 4:43 am
We know from recent observations (flying was suspended) that there has been increased volcanic activity from the mid atlantic rif and earlier on we had more volcanic activity from the pacific rif.
The undersea volcanic activity is largely unknown, but as the deep oceans at the local temperature and pressure are largely undersaturated in CO2, I don’t think that much of it will directly reach the atmosphere. Most will be dissolved in the deep ocean waters, which already contain an enormous amount of CO2. To be the cause of (or even to contribute substantially to) the 30% increase in the atmosphere, the deep ocean CO2 content should have increased accordingly… Still the oceans (surface an deep) are proven CO2 sinks…
Philip Mulholland says:
August 5, 2012 at 5:59 am
Anyone interested in this paper?
The effect of a CO2 doubling in that paper is way too high. Based on the radiation spectra as can be seen in Modtran, the real effect of a CO2 doubling before any feedbacks is 0.9°C. With water vapour feedback (as far as real) 1.3°C.
From then on, we only have climate models, which are proven wrong, because of too high (and only positive) feedbacks. But more water vapour gives more clouds, which is a negative feedback…
“B) there was a state change…”
I would like to point out that, the equilibrium temperature appears to wander about in occasional sharp jumps even in the post-1958 record, but they are small enough that an average value works fairly well. Either that, or the temperature records themselves have occasional spurious sharp jumps.
The equilibrium temperature is governed by dynamics which are effectively chaotic, and the temperature records are governed by human processing which also is effectively chaotic.
So, such behavior is utterly reasonable and not particularly noteworthy, certainly not to the level that it significantly impacts the conclusion that human inputs have little effect. If I had the time, I would process the data to produce an estimate of the equilibrium temperature and its variation, and fit the data to the model even better than it already fits.