An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
The highlights of the paper are:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
The paper:
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
- a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
- b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
- c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
- d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Greg House, the inside of a Dewar flask is normally given a reflective coating so that it reflects heat back inside the flask. If I put some nice hot tea into the flask, then the tea is warmer than the outer wall of the Dewar flask. If the outer wall did not have a reflective coating, my tea would cool faster than if the reflective coating were present. This is because the reflective coating reflects some of the IR radiation emitted by the tea back into the flask, where it is reabsorbed. This is an experiment that has already been performed, and we know the result as it explains why the manufacturers of Dewar flasks add the reflective coating.
Bart says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:50 am
You are making the same mistake Phil did. If the pCO2 of the atmosphere was 60% lower, the current upwelling waters are likely as much as 60% higher than what sinks today.
You are completely violating Henry’s Law: for an equal temperature, a 60% lower level in the atmosphere will give a 60% lower CO2 level in the sinking waters. If the temperature was substantially lower for the same atmospheric pCO2 level, then the pCO2 of the sinking waters would increase, but that means some 9°C below freezing point, which is impossible, and even 18°C below freezing point if the CO2 levels were 60% lower at that time. The only possibility to have higher upwelling CO2 levels today from the far past, is that the far past levels were 140 ppmv higher than today, compared to 1960 or 200 ppmv higher than today, compared to 1850…
Again, you don’t get it. You have no data whatsover to tell you that.
A sink is a sink. It does not discriminate between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic.
We have the inventory of emissions data and we measure the increase in the atmosphere. That is enough. It doesn’t matter at all where and how large the natural sources or sinks of CO2 are, all we need to know is the difference between these two. In figures:
Increase in the atmosphere = emissions + natural sources – natural sinks
with nowadays figures:
4 GtC/yr = 8 GtC/yr + X – Y
thus X-Y = -4 GtC/yr.
It doesn’t matter at all if all the human emissions are captured within a fraction of a minute, or float around for decades, what counts is that the total natural sources are less than the total of natural sinks. Thus it is physically impossible that any natural source is the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, or the increase in the atmosphere must be larger than the emissions alone. Indeed carbon is carbon and if there was an additional natural source plus the additional human emissions, that would need an extra sink to obey the observed mass balance: 4 GtC increase in the atmosphere per year in average (with a +/- 2 GtC/yr temperature related wiggle, but since 1960 always positive and less than the emissions).
Starting from equilibrium, where X = Y, one can calculate what happens with an extra natural source of say 10 GtC/yr in any year:
4 GtC/yr = 8 GtC/yr + X + 10 GtC – Y – Y1
where X = Y and Y1 the necessary balance in mass equation:
Y1 = 4 – 8 – 10 = -14 GtC/yr.
All what happened is that an extra natural source must be fully compensated by an extra natural sink to close the mass balance.
Thus any extra natural CO2 source has no effect on the increase in the atmosphere, as long as the net increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions.
doesn’t
Please explain in layterms how any extra (deep) ocean CO2 flux with a 13C/12C ratio of zero to +5 per mil d13C will DEcrease the atmospheric d13C level, currently at -8 per mil…
CO2 levels are 180 degrees out of phase with the rate of change of temperature, so that doesn’t work. CO2 levels are 90 degrees out of phase, with phase lagging, from temperature, so that doesn’t work.
The CO2 rate of change levels follow the temperature changes with a ~9 months lag, seems quite good to me…
Allan MacRae says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:06 am
…CO2 data from Salt Lake City exhibited NO human signature – only the natural daily cycle was apparent.”
Rush hour data in the Diekirch (Luxemburg) valley are clearly visible, if there is nightly inversion, because any emissions are captured near ground and not readily mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. See:
http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html
Fig. 12 says it all.
For all: local hourly to seasonal levels are mainly influenced by local to seasonal natural sources and sinks. Indeed, the human contribution is small and in most cases undetectable. But that doesn’t prove that there is no contribution. As good as the contribution of a sealevel change is completely dwarfed by the waves and tides. One needs 25 years of continuous gauging to statistically draw a conclusion of the sealevel change in between the noise. One only needs 2-3 years to see the effect of human emissions on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere…
Bart says:
September 1, 2012 at 11:21 am
This is a nonlinear feedback system with significant transport lag. Such systems tend to develop oscillatory behavior, generally with a period comparable to the length of the lag.
Agreed, but it is a damped oscillation, as the final result of a historical change (with whatever length) is halved when it gets back into equilibrium in the current period. A current non-oscillatory change of ~100 ppmv over 150 years time in the past would even be visible in the Vostok ice cores with a resolution of ~600 years and even an oscillatory change certainly over the past 1000 years for the Law Dome DSS core with a resolution of ~20 years. But none such levels are measured, while the recent increase is, even with an overlap of 20 years with the direct measurements.
So, we really do not know what level of CO2 is in the pipeline
The problem with this theory, besides the d13C levels, is that you have an unknown change in CO2 upwelling at one side, but your whole relationship is based on a temperature anomaly. The latter should explain the trend without the need of an unknown variable, or it should explain the CO2 increase without the influence of the temperature variable. Both together is a little too much of coincidence, the more that the accumulation in the atmosphere completely mimics the accumulated human emissions. Plus the addition of humans which disappears without leaving a trace? If carbon is carbon, it shouldn’t matter for the sinks that the human emissions and any extra natural additions are both injected into the same atmosphere, thus the sink rate counts for both and should remove a total CO2 mass equal to halve the human emissions + all the extra natural additions…
Allan MacRae says:
September 2, 2012 at 3:39 am
1. Incremental CO2 level is caused by surface warming, prob. due to ocean exsolution of CO2.
or
2. Incremental CO2 level is driving LT temperature anomaly.
but
Global LT temperatures have been essentially level since ~1997, while CO2 has risen.
LT correlates with delta CO2, not with CO2, contrary to greenhouse theory.
This suggests 1 above is more likely true than 2.
Sorry, but 1. is wrong: incremental CO2 level is caused by the human emissions, which are modulated by temperature (changes). Temperature variations modulate the SINK rate, not the increase rate, as about halve the emissions in mass are removed from the atmosphere.
2. may be right, independent of 1., but its influence seems small and overwhelmed by natural variability.
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 7:17 am
It is often claimed that Henry’s Law prevents the oceans emitting sufficient CO2 to provide the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is false because it assumes the system is stable and in equilibrium.
Richard, the system indeed is not in equilibrium, it is already 100 ppmv above equilibrium, if we may believe the ice core record over the past 800 kyrs and it is in global area weighted average ~7 ppmv above equilibrium for the ocean surface, based on millions of ships samples. Thus the oceans are currently a net sink of ~2 GtC/year for CO2, not a source at all…
phlogiston says:
September 1, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Amazing video. Some might quibble that this is a non-Newtonian fluid. But, the same principle holds: transport lags coupled with nonlinearities tend to generate oscillatory, for want of a better word, clumping.
dikranmarsupial says:
September 2, 2012 at 4:18 am
“No correllation, no matter how strong, with the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 can explain the linear component of the long term rising trend in CO2.”
But, it does rule out significant human influence, because it adds too much curvature to the CO2 absolute level if included.
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 7:17 am
“This is false because it assumes the system is stable and in equilibrium. But the carbon cycle system is not stable (as the seasonal variation demonstrates), it is not in equilibrium (as the seasonal variation demonstrates), and the oceans can emit more than sufficient CO2 to provide the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 (as the seasonal variation demonstrates).”
I second that motion. As in military affairs, one has to be aware of the hazard of engaging the enemy on ground of their own choosing. When we allow the warmist to artificially constrain the space over which the debate may occur, we cede to him the high ground, from which he can lob ordnance into our positions at his leisure.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:02 am
“You are completely violating Henry’s Law: for an equal temperature, a 60% lower level in the atmosphere will give a 60% lower CO2 level in the sinking waters.”
You are completely wrong. The relationship is
1) c = k*p
but c and p are constrained by the total amount of the carbon in the system. We can express this constraint as
2) a*c + b*p = g
where a and b are weighting factors and g is total carbon in the system. Assuming for simplicity that g is a constant, that gives
3) a*dc/dT + b*dp/dT = 0
From (1), we get
dc/dT = p*dk/dT + k*dp/dT
Making the appropriate substitutions
dp/dT = (b*p/(b+a*k)) * dk/dT
dc/dT = -(a/(b+a*k)) * dk/dT
Thus, the change in p due to decrease in k is negative, while the change in c due to a decrease in k is positive. And, k decreases with a decrease in temperature. QED.
“We have the inventory of emissions data and we measure the increase in the atmosphere. That is enough.”
It isn’t. You don’t know the input from all sources. You do not know the output from all sinks.
“Please explain in layterms how any extra (deep) ocean CO2 flux with a 13C/12C ratio of zero to +5 per mil d13C will DEcrease the atmospheric d13C level, currently at -8 per mil…”
I don’t care to make an effort, because it requires assumptions about unquantified processes and atmospheric mixing dynamics. We here simply do not have enough information at present to explain it. Your insistence on knowledge of all the parameters affecting the system yields you a result which you claim to be consistent with your hypothesis, but consistency is not proof.
“The CO2 rate of change levels follow the temperature changes with a ~9 months lag, seems quite good to me…”
It’s a full quarter wavelength for the oscillations. It is quite bad. As in, completely inconsistent with the data.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 2, 2012 at 9:41 am
“Agreed, but it is a damped oscillation…”
…exicted by continuous random processes. Neglecting the excitation provided by an external source is the same mistake fringe skeptics make when they assert that colder atmospheric CO2 cannot heat the warmer surface by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
“…but your whole relationship is based on a temperature anomaly.”
But, a temperature anomaly relative to what? Even our temperature anomalies are relative to an arbitrarily chosen baseline. Everything is relative.
But, it does not matter with regard to contradicting significant influence of human contributions. As noted to dikranmarsupial above, the trend in dCO2/dt resulting from temperature cannot combine with the trend in human rate of emissions and produce the correct curvature when integrated. Since the temperature relationship accounts for both that curvature and all the shorter term variation in perfect phase sync with those shorter term variations, the human contribution is the variable which gets kicked out of the mix.
Small erratum which makes no difference to the conclusion: dc/dT = -(a*p/(b+a*k)) * dk/dT
dikranmarsupial:
At September 2, 2012 at 8:13 am you ask me
Sorry, but I do not understand your question. This reply is merely my failure and not an evasion.
For an understanding of my problem please see my answer to Allan MacRae at September 2, 2012 at 7:17 am and note its points (a) to (d).
Richard
No problem Richard. Colloquially, we could say that a high correlation between X and Y suggests that the variations in X “explain” the variation in Y. However, we agree that the value of the corellation coefficient does not depend on the mean value of X or Y. So the correlation coeffcient measures the extent to which (X – mean(X)) “explains” (Y – mean(Y)).
We could therefore decompose X into two components, one that is explainable by a correlation, (X – mean(X), and a component that cannot be explained by a correlation, namely mean(X), and likewise for Y.
Would you agree with that?
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at September 2, 2012 at 10:21 am
We have been over this many times.
The issue is that you insist on (a) calling a ‘net annual sink’ a ‘sink’ and (b) calling a ‘net annual sourced’ a ‘source’. But the oceans are a source for ~half the year and a sink for ~half the year.
For half the year their output is two orders of magnitude greater than the annual emission.
Clearly, if (as you say) “the system indeed is not in equilibrium, it is already 100 ppmv above equilibrium” then the oceans would not be such a large source for half the year: instead, they would be a sink with varying uptake.
The reality is that the ocean surface layer is pumping out and sucking in the CO2 of the seasonal variation with an effect close to temperature equilibrium for the (ocean surface layer):(atmosphere) interface.
But that interface is not the total system. Of more importance is the equilibrium between deep ocean and the surface layer. The transfer rate between surface and deep layers will be much slower than between air and surface. And if the total system equilibrium changes then the transfer between surface and deep layers will change. The slow transfer rate will require decades (perhaps centuries) to establish an altered equilibrium state. During that time the annual atmospheric CO2 concentration will rise or fall depending on the sign of the change.
And I have ignored effects of biological activity in the ocean surface layer and on land.
In summation, Henry’s Law is not applicable.
Richard
dikranmarsupial:
Thankyou for your question to me at September 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm, but I regret that I am unable to answer it.
Clearly, pointing to my earlier post was not an adequate explanation of my difficulty. I will try to state it succinctly.
The lack of agreement between anthropogenic emissions and and the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the observed ability of sequestration to cope with total (natural and anthropogenic) emissions suggest that the anthropogenic emissions are not the cause of the rise. But the anthropogenic emissions may be the cause of the rise.
This is because the system may be adjusting to an altered equilibrium. The most likely cause of the alteration to the system equilibrium is response to global warming. However, it is possible that the alteration may have been induced by the anthropogenic emission, and we proved this possibility numerically in three different ways
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)).
Therefore, I would not expect an observable relationship between the anthropogenic emission and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the rise were induced by the anthropogenic emission: the rate and form of the rise would be determined by the rates of system adjustment whatever the cause of the change to the equilibrium state of the system.
Perhaps it would help to understand what I am saying by reading my very recent post to Ferdinand. He, like you, thinks of the issue in terms of accountancy of sources and sinks, but I don’t. And he, like you, is sure the rise is caused by the anthropogenic emission, but I don’t know if it is or not. Please note that Ferdinand and I have been arguing (often ferociously) about this for many years but I hold him in high regard in this subject.
Richard
dikranmarsupial says:
September 2, 2012 at 8:57 am:
“Greg House, the inside of a Dewar flask is normally given a reflective coating so that it reflects heat back inside the flask. If I put some nice hot tea into the flask, then the tea is warmer than the outer wall of the Dewar flask. If the outer wall did not have a reflective coating, my tea would cool faster than if the reflective coating were present. This is because the reflective coating reflects some of the IR radiation emitted by the tea back into the flask, where it is reabsorbed. This is an experiment that has already been performed, and we know the result as it explains why the manufacturers of Dewar flasks add the reflective coating.”
=====================================================
I know, there are some other examples with reflective coating too like this light bulb e.g.: http://www.pegasuslighting.com/par38-halogen-ir-light-bulbs-48w-flood-25-degree.html, and some people even claim that a blanket warms by trapping IR radiation.
The problem is, that if people honestly believe that the back IR radiation warms (even if it in fact possibly does not), they can also honestly “use” this “effect”. At the same time, a vacuum flask will work also without the reflective coating, a blanket warms anyway by suppressing convection and the light bulb will produce light also without the reflective coating.
We should not confuse science and marketing. If you mean that someone proved it in a scientific experiment, then present a valid link to this experiment, which includes detailed description and all the data. And even then we should look at it closely and check, if the conclusions are justified. Again, we have been talking about science, and unfortunately I have not seen the experimental scientific proof yet.
Richard, you (rather intemperately) questioned my post pointing out the mathematical error in the paper by Humlum et al. I am happy to discuss the physics of the carbon cycle with you, but only AFTER we address the mathematical error in Humlum et al. that we are discussing essentially at your request.
The question I asked was not complicated, the answer should be fairly obvious from inspection of the formula for a correllation coefficient. Does the correlation coefficient between X and Y allow you to determine anything about the relationship between X and the mean value of Y?
Greg House – the silvering has nothing to do with marketing. Dewar constructed the original flasks for his own scientific research, they were only patented later by someone else. This was more than a century ago, so perhaps unsurprisingly there isn’t a convenient link to the experiment.
Bart says:
September 2, 2012 at 11:29 am
Bart, Henry’s Law says:
c = k*p
p was 60% lower during the LIA. To compensate for that, k must increase a lot, which can be obtained by a lower temperature. The solubility of CO2 in fresh water changes with some 30% for 10°C change, thus you need 20°C cooler water at the sink places only to compensate for the loss in pCO2 of the atmosphere. In seawater, the change is somewhat higher, good for 16 ppmv/°C. Thus only to compensate for the lower atmospheric pCO2 (assuming 100 ppmv lower than today, that is 30%, not 60%), you need a cooling of ~6°C, while the temperature at the sink places today is and historically was already near freezing point. To obtain and increase of 70 ppmv nowadays, the temperature at the sink places needs to be even much lower. That is physically impossible. A vast ice sheet doesn’t sink much CO2…
but c and p are constrained by the total amount of the carbon in the system. We can express this constraint as
Another error I have seen many times. The only constraint is that the pCO2 of air and water at the surface are in ratio with each other, where the temperature says what that ratio is. It doesn’t matter if you heat and shake a coke bottle of 0.5 or 1.0 or 2.0 liter: at the same temperature the same CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above will be measured (minus the small percentual loss out of the liquid, assuming all were filled at the same concentration). Even if you would continuously refresh the coke in the bottle and bring it to the same temperature as the other samples, the same pressure will be reached and there will be zero net flux between coke and atmosphere at that pressure.
Of course, near the upwelling places, there is no equilibrium at all, neither is at the downwelling places. But assuming that the ocean waterflux between downwelling and upwelling didn’t change too much over the centuries, then the carbon flux out of the oceans and into the oceans is only dependent of the local temperature and the local difference between pCO2 in seawater and the total atmosphere. No matter how much total carbon is in the deep oceans or in the atmosphere.
As said before, any substantial change of CO2 levels and/or temperature of the past will give a change in current upwelling carbon flux, which will increase/decrease the current CO2 levels with halve that amount back to the previous (dis)equilibrium. Any current increase of temperatures at the upwelling and downwelling places, will release more CO2 and sink less CO2, which will be fully compensated with an increase of 16 ppmv/°C.
There was not a 140 ppmv higher level than today in the past 1,000 years, neither an over 10°C cooling then or a 10°C warming in the past 50 years, which can explain the 70 ppmv increase…
It isn’t. You don’t know the input from all sources. You do not know the output from all sinks.
The natural inputs and outputs are only roughly known, but they are not of the slightest interest, because we know the difference quite exactly over the past 50 years: more sink than source. That is all we need to know: there is no substantial contribution of the natural cycles to the atmospheric increase, only a substantial contribution to the “missing” sinks, only known with large margins of error, but still a net sink, not a net source.
I don’t care to make an effort, because it requires assumptions about unquantified processes and atmospheric mixing dynamics.
Come on Bart, this has nothing to do with processes or mixing dynamics: at all places in the oceans (except near fresh water discharges) at all depths, the d13C/12C ratio of the oceans is substantially higher than in the atmosphere at all places and all heights of at least 95% of the atmosphere (except over land near huge CO2 sinks). Thus any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a steady, accellerating, decline completely in ratio with the human emissions.
the human contribution is the variable which gets kicked out of the mix.
Since the human contribution is already twice the observed increase in the atmosphere, then there is hardly any contribution of temperature to the trend, only a direct influence of temperature variations on the variability in the sink rate of change…
dikranmarsupial says:
September 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm:
“Greg House – the silvering has nothing to do with marketing. Dewar constructed the original flasks for his own scientific research, they were only patented later by someone else. This was more than a century ago, so perhaps unsurprisingly there isn’t a convenient link to the experiment.”
====================================================
Or there was no experiment at all.
I can only say it again: a claim that something works certain way alone is not the scientific proof. Even well known scientists made scientifically unsupported claims. A very interesting example is “discovery” of non-existing N-rays by a well known scientist. Before it was debunked about a 100 scientific papers on the N-rays were published.
It looks like concerning “greenhouse gases warming” we do not have a scientific fact, just a claim by certain scientists.
dikranmarsupial:
re your post addressed to me at September 2, 2012 at 1:39 pm
There is no error in the paper. You have not shown any reason to suspect one exists.
The answer to your specific question is yes. But I took the trouble to explain why your question is meaningless. But your response is “intemperate” and offensive.
We are not discussing at my request. I gave you the courtesy of responding to your nonsense.
Discuss properly or I will not assist you.
Richard
Richard, O.K. so you accept that a correlation coefficient between X and Y does not explain the relationship between X and the mean of Y, just (Y – mean(Y)). In this particular case, the correlation between temperature and diff12CO2 only explains the relationship between temperature and (diff12CO2 – mean(diff12CO2)). Do you agree with that?
richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 12:49 pm
For half the year their output is two orders of magnitude greater than the annual emission.
Yes and no.
The oceans give a continuous input of CO2 near the equator where the deep oceans are upwelling and a continuous output near the poles into the deep oceans. As long as these two flows are in equilibrium, there is no decrease or increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The oceans give a seasonal input and output of CO2, depending of the temperature changes in the different seasons, mainly in the mid-latitudes. As long as the net balance after a year shows equal outputs and inputs, there is no decrease or increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
Vegetation gives a seasonal input and output of CO2, opposite to the oceans, depending of the temperature changes in the different seasons, mainly in the mid-latitudes. As long as the net balance after a year shows equal outputs and inputs, there is no decrease or increase of atmospheric CO2 levels.
The seasonal change in temperature is about 1°C globally, where the NH and SH act in opposite direction and the temperature change in the NH is dominant. The seasonal CO2 change is about 5 ppmv globally, again with the NH (vegetation) as the dominant influence. Thus the reaction of CO2 on the seasonal temperature changes is about 5 ppmv/°C. While the fluxes are two orders of magnitude larger than the human emissions, the net effect is of the same order of magnitude and the net result at the end of the full seasonal cycle is halve the human contribution, as is the interannual variability.
The annual contribution of humans is about 4 ppmv/year, the observed increase in the atmosphere is about 2 ppmv/year. Thus after 2-3 years, the trend signal is already beyond the temperature changes over the seasons and beyond the interannual variability.
The variability in rate of change is clearly influenced by the variability in temperature, but the trend is hardly influenced by temperature: 4-5 ppmv/°C for the short term variability from seasons to interannual and 8 ppmv/°C from multidecades to multimillennia. The latter includes glacials and interglacials, including changes in deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges and profound changes in vegetation extent and growth.
Thus while the ocean surface follows the atmosphere quite rapidely, and therefore the global average pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface is only 7 microatm, the difference between the overall equilibrium for the current temperature taking into account the deep ocean mixing is already 100 microatm (100 ppmv)…
In all cases, Henry’s Law holds anyway, only the dynamism of the entire carbon cycle shows a long term equilibrium around 8 ppmv/°C, including the biosphere, while the oceans alone show 16 ppmv/°C, according to Henry’s Law.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
See what happens when you use data-driven science? Truth breaks out!
I’m no climate scientist, but my 2 cents: it seems to me that what the authors did was smooth out the data and look at year-to-year temporal correlations in a system where year-to-year variations far exceed year-to-year changes due to the long-term trend. However, it’s the long-term trend that’s the problem, not the variations. They implicitly assume that the short-term variations have the same causes as the long-term trend. To use an ironic analogy, it’s as if they’re conflating weather with climate. The authors’ conclusion that, “Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980,” should be amended to include the words “short-term” before both uses of the word “changes”. I think Richard Telford (August 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm) is probably right.
“””””……richardscourtney says:
September 2, 2012 at 12:42 am
George E. Smith:
I assume your post at September 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm is intended to add emphasis and to clarity my post. If so, then thankyou……””””
You’re welcome Richard; I’m sure you’d do as much for me.
George
PS It’s good to see your regular participation.
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your post at September 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm in response to my post at September 2, 2012 at 12:49 pm.
The two posts explain why I think Henry’s Law does not apply and your response explains why you think it does. We have been arguing this for years so I am sure our repeating those arguments here will resolve nothing.
Hence, I am willing to let our two posts stand so others can assess our views for themselves (and it gives you the ‘last word’).
Richard
Bart says:
September 2, 2012 at 11:29 am
But, it does rule out significant human influence, because it adds too much curvature to the CO2 absolute level if included.
Thinking of the curvature of the temperature trend, the basic assumption in that case is that the medium-term (3-50 years) influence of temperature on the CO2 rate of change is the same as the short-term (0.5-2 years) influence of temperature on the CO2 rate of change. But that are quite different processes. The short term influence is mainly seasonal to interannual and there the oceans surface (and fast vegetation reactions) are involved. But the oceans surface layer has a limited capacity to induce atmospheric CO2 changes (as are the seasonal changes in vegetation growth and decay). Longer term processes involve the deep oceans (and more permanent carbon storage on land: peat, lignite, coal). Even in your working hypothesis, the medium term trend is mainly from the deep ocean upwelling near the equator, while the fast response to seasonal and interannual temperature changes comes mainly from the mid-latitudes ocean surface layer and land vegetation.
That means that the trend in the temperature series doesn’t necessary has the same CO2/temperature factor as for the fast temperature variability, as different processes and different time constants are at their base.
Further, once you said that nature doesn’t detrend the temperature series. In fact it does better, as the trend in the natural cycle is negative: taking into account the human emissions, the trend of the net yearly natural cycle shows an increasing sink capacity in ratio with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…