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.
Re C13/C12 debate. Oceans may have a slightly higher proportion of C13 but if the oceans are degassing then C12, being lighter would degas perferentially as it would take less energy to go from water to atmosphere than C13. Similar to O18/O16 water. Hence a lower proportion of C12 in the atmosphere is to be expected.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
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.
But the question of where upwelling and downwelling is not so simple, according to new research posted just the other day here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/how-ocean-currents-affect-global-climate-is-a-question-oceanographer-may-be-close-to-answering/
which suggests significant upwelling may be occurring in the Southern ocean around Antarctica. Not necessarily all in the tropics as previously thought.
It raises an interesting question – does the latitude of upwelling and downwelling affect the CO2 budget, since water of different temperature has different CO2 solubility? Could changes over time in the latitude of upwelling in particular have an effect on CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere? (Downwelling by its nature will never be too far from the poles I guess.)
Here is an interesting article about Japanese satellite results, at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Japanese Satellites say 3rd World Owes CO2 Reparations to The West
Posted on 31 October 2011
[excerpt]
“ It seems that the Japanese have a nice tool on orbit and set out to figure out who was a “maker” and who was a “taker” in the CO2 production / consumption game. Seems they found out that CO2 was largely net absorbed in the industrialized ‘west’ and net created in the ’3rd world’. “
See also Murry Salby’s video at time 10:38 – the major global CO2 sources are NOT in industrial areas – they are in equatorial areas where deforestation is rampant.
As I’ve posted to Ferdinand Engelbeen in the past:
“Variations in biomass (e.g. deforestation and reforestation) may be the huge variable that would make your mass balance equation work better.”
As Richard Courtney ably summarizes above:
“The unresolved issues are
(a) what is the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle?
(b) how does the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle vary?
(c) what causes the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary?
(d) does the anthropogenic CO2 emission induce the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle to vary discernibly?”
To summarize:
This is an important scientific debate about the carbon cycle and the primary sources of increasing atmospheric CO2. It is entirely possible, some say it is probable, that increasing atmospheric CO2 is NOT primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, others say it IS, and the scientific debate goes on.
To be clear, however, the only significant apparent impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, because CO2 is a plant food.
The claim that increasing CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming is being falsified by these facts:
– there has been no net global warming for 10 to 15 years, despite increasing atmospheric CO2;
– predictions of catastrophic global warming are the result of deeply flawed climate computer models that are inconsistent with actual observations;
– the leading proponents of catastrophic global warming hysteria have been shown in the Climategate emails to be dishonest.
A decade ago, we wrote:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Since then there has been NO net global warming.
Also a decade ago, I (we) predicted global cooling would commence by 2020 to 2030. When this cooling does occur, many of these scientific questions will be answered.
In the meantime, society should reject the claims of the global warming alarmists, because they have a demonstrated track record of being wrong in ALL their major climate alarmist predictions.
In science, such an utter failure on one’s predictive track record is a fair and objective measure of the falsification of one’s hypotheses.
Repeating, from 2002, with ten more years of confirming data:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
phlogiston:
Thankyou for your post at September 3, 2012 at 4:05 am.
I write to add that your post illustrates why I am willing to allow my post September 2, 2012 at 12:49 pm and Ferdinand’s post at September 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm to stand without my further contribution to the debate.
As you illustrate, the arguments cannot be resolved because there is insufficient data. We know little about processes in the carbon cycle and we keep finding new pieces of the ‘jigsaw puzzle’ that each suggest the ‘picture’ of the puzzle is not what we think it is.
Any debate leads to an unending series of exchanges each saying, “Yes, but…”.
Your post demonstrates this perfectly. Thankyou.
Richard
Peter Foster says:
September 3, 2012 at 3:57 am
Re C13/C12 debate. Oceans may have a slightly higher proportion of C13 but if the oceans are degassing then C12, being lighter would degas perferentially as it would take less energy to go from water to atmosphere than C13. Similar to O18/O16 water. Hence a lower proportion of C12 in the atmosphere is to be expected.
Agreed, but the equilibrium for the pre-industrial times was about -6.4 per mil in the atmosphere, compared to zero to 1 per mil in the deep oceans and 1 to 5 per mil for the ocean surface. That only changed a few tenths of a per mil over glacials and interglacials, according to the ratio measured in ice cores air, thus including huge changes in vegetation and (deep) ocean flows. See page 3 at:
http://scar2012.geol.pdx.edu/doc/abstracts/Session_3.pdf
Both ocean surface as the atmosphere start to decrease the d13C level since the use of fossil fuels, where the ocean surface lags the atmosphere with 2-3 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The current -8 per mil in the atmosphere is unseen over the recent glacials/interglacials, work at the Dome C ice core will extend that to 800 kyr…
phlogiston says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:05 am
It raises an interesting question – does the latitude of upwelling and downwelling affect the CO2 budget, since water of different temperature has different CO2 solubility? Could changes over time in the latitude of upwelling in particular have an effect on CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere? (Downwelling by its nature will never be too far from the poles I guess.)
It is quite sure that the place of upwelling affects the CO2 budget, if that changes (or the flow distribution changes). At the current upwelling places, the average temperature is near 30°C and the partial pressure of CO2 is around 750 microatm. Every drop of 1°C gives a drop of 16 microatm in pCO2(aq), thus an upwelling at colder places will give less and less outgoing CO2 flux, in ratio with the pCO2 difference between seawater and the atmosphere. With 400 ppmv in the atmosphere and a drop of 16 microatm/°C, the break even point is at about 10°C, below that temperature, the upwelling does become a net sink… Even earlier, as much of the extra CO2 is captured by the biosphere, because the upwelling is rich in nutritients, which are in high demand…
The most important changes as well as in oceans flows as in vegetation growth/area are the changes over glacial/interglacial periods. These show a quite linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature changes of about 8 ppmv/°C. Thus it looks like that even the worst change in conditions and (deep) ocean flows has only a modest influence on long term CO2 levels.
“Leonard Weinstein says:
September 2, 2012 at 7:03 am
cba,
ERL is the “effective radiation level” of radiation to space. The actual radiation does leave from a range of locations, including from the ground, from clouds, and from a range of altitudes from near ground to TOA (from absorbing and radiating gases). An integrated average of these altitudes does give a value for ERL, and use of this average to calculate a black body radiation to space is an effective simplification to balance outgoing radiation to absorbed solar radiation. The altitude of the ERL does determine the so called greenhouse effect, by coupling with the lapse rate. Thus adding absorbing gases like CO2 would raise the location of the ERL, and thus raise the ground temperature once (average) equilibrium is established. The effect is changed by feedbacks such as change in cloudiness, but that is not what Steven Mosher was referring to, or considering. He is correct as far as what he said. I disagree with Steven on some points, but not this one
”
********
Sorry Leonard but there is nothing physical about this ERL. Also, the lapse rate will change as the concentrations of ghgs change according to conservation of energy. Increasing the ghg concentrations will change the emissivity and provide more emission for a given T. Except for where there are clouds and solids and liquids present, there is no continuum present in the atmospheric emissions. One can achieve some meaning or useful information from gross simplifications in some cases but not in this case.
The spectrum emitted is not that of a black body but rather what appears as a composite of different bb curves at different Ts depending upon wavelenth. Stefan’s law was derived empiracally but was later shown to be Planck’s law integrated over all angles and wavelengths. There is spectral emission leaving the Earth at every wavelength including the deepest absorption line bottoms. That power is based upon the T of the layer emitting that precise wavelength.
Assuming one can emit a continuum at an altitude in the atmosphere, that spectrum is not emitted as it would be a spectrum based upon the T of that emitter and would require a different T value to emit the same amount of power as would actually be emitted. Since there would be a change in the lapse rate due to the change in ghg concentration and due to changes in the energy transfers, assuming there is an altitude based on the current lapse rate and that it would be constant for a different concentration is even in error.
Note that for clear skies there is a substantial excess of emissions over what is required to balance the incoming average power, about 270 vs 240 w/m^2. It takes cloud top emissions at lower temperatures for there to be a balance at 240 w/m^2. Without some accomodation for clouds and atmospheric effects one cannot even achieve a balance between incoming and outgoing that is close to what we observe for averaged condition.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 2, 2012 at 2:36 pm
“A vast ice sheet doesn’t sink much CO2…”
That’s not how the overturning circulation works. The water is flowing up from the tropics, where it gets cold, gains salinity, and sinks.
“Another error I have seen many times.”
No error on my part. The whole point of the discussion, the whole point of citing the LIA as a point at which cold water may have downwelled, was to point out that colder temperatures would increase oceanic concentration and, pari passu with respect to the coupling constant, decrease atmospheric pCO2. You were suggesting they would co-vary with temperature change, which is incorrect.
“But assuming that the ocean waterflux between downwelling and upwelling didn’t change too much over the centuries…”
Your assumption is equivalent to your answer. This is circular reasoning at its most profound.
“That is all we need to know…”
I and others keep telling you no, that is not all you need to know. I have explained it to you in minute detail in the past. There is a fundamental error in your logic, but I despair of making you see it.
“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…”
Nature cannot ignore the trend in temperature as you suggest, and the variations are 90 degrees out of phase with the CO2 level.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
“As long as these two flows are in equilibrium…”
Again, circular logic. You cannot just assume they are in equilibrium, and then claim this shows they are in equilibrium.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 3, 2012 at 3:51 am
“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.”
They do have the same factor, though. That is what is evident from the data. The notion that such agreement is happenstance, when the agreement is continuous across all frequencies, is a pipe dream. The odds are infinitesimal. It follows that there is a common response which is driving atmospheric CO2 levels.
“…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…”
Again, this is faulty logic, addressed earlier in this response.
phlogiston says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:05 am
“Could changes over time in the latitude of upwelling in particular have an effect on CO2 exchange between ocean and atmosphere?”
Peter Foster says:
September 3, 2012 at 3:57 am
“…but if the oceans are degassing then C12, being lighter would degas perferentially as it would take less energy to go from water to atmosphere than C13.”
Those are a couple of very astute observations, IMHO. I think the answer in both cases is yes, the only question being the magnitude of the effect.
Bart says:
September 3, 2012 at 10:56 am
That’s not how the overturning circulation works. The water is flowing up from the tropics, where it gets cold, gains salinity, and sinks.
If the current upwelling is a lot richer in CO2, causing the increase of 70 ppmv over the past 50 years, then either the historical CO2 levels were 140 ppmv higher, which is contrary to lower temperatures, or the seawater was over 10°C colder, which means completely frozen at the sink places. Both are not seen in any proxy…
You were suggesting they would co-vary with temperature change, which is incorrect.
You were introducing the mass of CO2 in Henry’s Law equations, but mass doesn’t play much role, only pressure (difference) plays a role, as long as there is enough mass available. Thus if the water temperature changes, that gives a change in uptake, directly proportional to the change in pCO2 difference between the water side (at ~16 microatm/°C) and the atmospheric side, thus increasing the uptake at the sink places, but as that gives a subsequent drop in the atmospheric CO2 content/pressure, a drop of 16 ppmv in the atmosphere brings the CO2 content in the sinking waters again at the previous level. Even with a slow tau (estimated at ~53 years e-fold time), that would be reached within a few decades. Thus the 60% (must be an error, probably 30%?) lower CO2 levels in the LIA, would show up with a 60% (30%?) lower CO2 content at the upwelling places…
Your assumption is equivalent to your answer. This is circular reasoning at its most profound.
Besides temperature and CO2 levels of the past, the total water mass sinking at that time could give changes in total CO2 releases today. I only excluded that one, because nothing is known of that variable in the past and even very little today… But it is not of interest, as the discussions are about temperature influence, not ocean flows, see further.
I and others keep telling you no, that is not all you need to know. I have explained it to you in minute detail in the past. There is a fundamental error in your logic, but I despair of making you see it.
I always wonder why brilliant people have so much problems with simple logic and simple math. If you add twice what is measured as increase in the atmosphere, it is quite simple logic that this addition is the sole cause of the increase. No matter if every single human induced CO2 molecule is captured in the next available tree or not and replaced by some other, unknown process that completely mimics the human emissions over the past 160 years…
They do have the same factor, though. That is what is evident from the data.
Pure coincidence. Whatever the change in CO2 content of upwelling waters, the effect of a temperature increase today will give 16 ppmv/°C temperature change, nothing more, independent of the change in upwelling CO2. That is the result of Henry’s Law. There may be more upwelling from the deep oceans, but that is not the result of a temperature increase, which effect is limited and independent of any extra CO2 inflows out of the oceans. The fast reactions of the CO2 rate of change on temperature and the slope of the CO2 rate of change have different causes. Thus could be as good (or even more logic) from human emissions as from deep upwelling…
Bart says:
September 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Those are a couple of very astute observations, IMHO. I think the answer in both cases is yes, the only question being the magnitude of the effect.
Any shift of the upwelling to colder places than the main upwelling today would give less CO2 releases…
The historical 13C/12C ratio changes over glacials/interglacials and over the Holocene is known: independently measured in ice cores, firn, direct measurements, tree wood and sponges. These show very little variation over even the highest temperature changes, maximum 0.4 per mil over an ice age – interglacial, +/- 0.2 per mil over the Holocene in air and the same between 1400-1850 in the ocean surface (sponges) with a resolution of 2-4 years. Since 1850 we see an accellerating drop of 1.6 per mil as well as in the atmosphere as in the oceans surface, where the oceans lags the atmosphere with 2-3 years…
Friends:
At this point I think it useful to remind of all I said in my post addressed to phlogiston at September 3, 2012 at 4:05 am.
In particular, I draw attention to my comment in that post saying
Considering the subsequent debate in this thread it is now reasonable to state
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
It is a scientific stance when confronted with insufficient data to say (as I do with respect to the cause of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration),
“I don’t know, but I want to know”.
Richard
Richard, if man is a net contributor of CO2 into the atmosphere, and the natural environment is also a net contributor of CO2 into the atmosphere, then can you explain why the observed annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is always less than the anthropogenic contribution?
Note, as Murry Salby rightly points out, we have reliable observations of atmospheric CO2 and we have reliable estimates of anthropogenic emissions, so we do have enough information to know that this is the case.
dikranmarsupial:
At September 4, 2012 at 5:41 am you ask me
Yes, of course I can answer that.
Firstly, the anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions are NOT both net contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere. Please remember that nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each CO2 molecule of CO2 emitted by all anthropogenic activities. Therefore, the natural emission is a negative net emission to the atmosphere when the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is – as it is – less than the anthropogenic emission. But, of course, that is merely a mathematical fact because the sequestration from the atmosphere does not significantly discriminate between anthropogenic and natural CO2.
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is because the system of the carbon cycle is adjusting in such a manner that the total of all emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) is being sequestered at a lesser average rate than the average rate of the total of anthropogenic and natural emissions. But so what?
That tells us nothing about what the change in atmospheric CO2 would be in the absence of the anthropogenic emission. That change (i.e. absent the anthropogenic emission) may be more, less, the same, or of opposite sign to what is observed with the anthropogenic emission.
At issue is the cause of the adjustment to the system of the carbon cycle. There is inadequate data to determine that cause.
Richard
Thank you for your reply. Just to be clear, are you saying that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, i.e. the oceanic and terrestrial reservoirs absorb more CO2 from the atmospheric reservoir each year than they emit into it?
richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2012 at 7:11 am
Richard, I am very pleased to see that we agree that nature is not a net contributor to the increase in the atmosphere. At least not in the past 50 years. Thus we may say that the human emissions are the sole cause of the increase over that period.
Of course we can’t be sure what nature would have done without the human emissions, but we have a pretty good idea, because ice cores show a nice relationship between CO2 and temperature (proxies), of about 8 ppmv/°C, where we are now at about 100 ppmv higher levels for the current temperature. Thus if we stop the human emissions today, I expect a drop of CO2, slowly decreasing to the old dynamic equilibrium CO2 level for the temperature of the moment.
Without knowing any of the current natural releases and uptakes, one can calculate the half life time of such a decrease to equilibrium:
The current sink rate in average is ~4 GtC/year (2 ppmv/year) for a level of 210 GtC (100 ppmv) above equilibrium. That gives an e-fold time of ~53 years or a half-life time of ~38 years.
I know, the IPCC has a more complicated formula, because of taking into account the saturation of the deep oceans, but that still is far ahead of us, as that needs 10-20 times more carbon than today and there is no practical limit in the more permanent carbon storage by land vegetation…
richardscourtney says:
September 4, 2012 at 3:12 am
“As you illustrate, the arguments cannot be resolved because there is insufficient data.”
I have to disagree. Ferdinand and dikranmarsupial are hung up on a fundamental error in logic, this faux “mass balance” argument, and are not experienced enough in systems theory to understand what the data compel. If, in the 16th century, you had said that the data were unclear as to whether the Sun revolved around the Earth or the Earth around the Sun, you would have been wrong. The data were clear to Copernicus, but his contemporaries refused to believe them.
I have demonstrated the fundamental error in logic of these two on many occasions. I have even provided simulation results which have illustrated it for Ferdinand. In the simulation, I chose the parameters so that it happened that the accumulation in the atmosphere was on average equal to the half the human input, yet they are not the driver of the rise in the simulations, or at least, not in the simulations where I did not make them so.
I have been over it so many times, it makes my eyes water just thinking about it. To someone intimately familiar with feedback systems, it is a trivial problem.
The entire conundrum is summed up in the two phrases Ferdinand and I used earlier. Ferdinand said:
I said:
The two statements are equivalent: there are natural inputs and anthropogenic inputs. Both go into the sinks. A little bit is left over to accumulate. Yet, the first implies that the human contribution is responsible for the rise, while the latter implies that the natural input is responsible for the rise. There is nothing magical or at all dispositive about the fact that the rise is approximately half the accumulated human emissions. It could have been one third, or 3/2 – the latter might have given the “mass balance” enthusiasts some pause, but I suspect they would just then say that all of the human produced CO2 was hanging around, and nature was providing half again more. But, there would be no more support for that interpretation than that human inputs were being rapidly sequestered, and all of the rise were natural.
Less actually, in the present circumstances, because we do have tie-breaking data to consider. The data are clear as to which interpretation is the correct one. The rate of change of CO2 matches, in both coarse and fine detail, long term and short term, the variations in the scaled temperature anomaly with respect to a particular baseline. In the long term, all three, CO2 rate of change, rate of human emissions, and temperature are on average linear trends.
But, the human emissions do NOT match in every detail, they just happen to have a similar very simple morphology of a linear trend over the long term. But, there is nothing rare or unusual in a slowly evolving time series evidencing a linear trend – it is probably the most common functional morphology in the universe.
Far more, far far more, rare and unusual is to have a match between both trending behavior and all the short term variation. And, the same scale factor which matches all the short term variation is the same scale factor which mathes the trend for the CO2 and temperature data. And, that scaling leads to an all but perfect match in the integrated scaled temperature anomaly and the CO2 measurements from the best, most modern, and most direct measurements we have since 1958. There is no room for human inputs to have a significant impact.
The evidence is clear: the cause of the rise in CO2 over the last 60 or so years is temperature, not humans. Copernicus would have seen it right away.
Let me attempt to illustrate with some simple formulas. The CO2 rate of change can be represented by the equation
dCO2/dt = a + b*t + p(t)
a linear trend in time “a + b*t”, plus a functional term for short term variation in time p(t).
The temperature can be represented by a similar expansion
T = c + d*t + q(t)
The rate of human inputs can be represent by a third such expression
dh/dt = e + f*t + r(t)
a,b,c,d,e and f are constants.
There is a scale factor k1 such that b = d*k1. A similar factor k2 makes b = k2*f. When plotted with appropriate offsets, dCO2/dt, k1*T, and k2*dh/dt all look similar, and all integrate into a similar, approximately quadratic, function.
BUT… within reasonable limits for the quality of the data, p(t) = k1*q(t), whereas k2*r(t) is nothing like p(t).
That is the deciding factor: simple scaling matches both “b” and “p(t)” to “d” and “q(t)”. Simple scaling does not match “b” and “p(t)” to both “f” and “r(t)”.
Bart, I suspect you have misunderstood Ferdinand’s comment “…the sinks must absorb a total amount which is equal to the natural contribution + halve the human contribution.”. He is saying that the total amount of C02 absorbed by natural sinks is equal to the total amount of CO2 emitted by natural sources plus half of the amount of CO2 emitted from anthropogenic sources. He is NOT saying that natural sinks are absorbing all of the molecules of CO2 from natural sources but only half of the molecules emitted by anthropogenic sources. This would be impossible as there is no physical mechanism by which CO2 molecules from natural sources can be differentiated from CO2 molecules from anthropogenic sources (for a given isotope). The mass balance argument does not assume such a mechanism exists, and if you think it does, that is because you don’t understand the argument.
Also, he is not saying that there is a rule in the carbon cycle somewhere that says that the total amount of natural uptake will always be equal to the total amount of natural emissions plus about half the amount of anthropogenic emissions. It is a deduction we can make from the observation of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 and of anthropogenic emissions if we assume that the carbon cycle obeys the principle of conservation of mass.
It is true that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has closely followed 0.45 times cumulative anthropogenic emissions, but this is largely due to anthropogenic emissions having risen approximately exponentially, as described in my paper (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u). If anthropogenic emissions rose (say) linearly, the airborne fraction would probably no longer be constant.
dikranmarsupial says:
September 4, 2012 at 9:20 am
I understand the argument perfectly. You, and he, are wrong.
We’ve been over it before. I demonstrated where your reasoning was wrong in excruciating detail. If you wish to make the argument again using the language of mathematics, I will show you where you are wrong, again.
“…but this is largely due to anthropogenic emissions having risen approximately exponentially, as described in my paper (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u). If anthropogenic emissions rose (say) linearly, the airborne fraction would probably no longer be constant.”
It may or may not be exponential, or similar to an exponential. At this stage, it hardly makes any difference – the rate of change of emissions has risen approximately linearly and the accumulation of the emissions, wherever they may be, is therefore approximately quadratic. But, there is no statistically significant difference between either of these series and a slowly evolving exponential which would be evident at this time.
The reason for the approximately 50% atmospheric rise is put down to rapid partitioning with the oceans. In the orthodox interpretation, the entire surface carbon reservoir is essentially fixed, and the added human inputs accumulate with little loss. This, of course, begs the question of how an equilibrium ever got established in the first place, but that conundrum is assiduously avoided. In any case, under the orthodox interpretation, the partition would be the same regardless of the functional form.
dikranmarsupial, Ferdinand and Bart:
I am replying to all of you in this one post for clarity. I do not intend any insult to any of you by not providing individual responses: you each replied to my single post at September 4, 2012 at 7:11 am so I am making a combined answer to your replies in hope of avoiding a disjointed answer.
dikranmarsupial, at September 4, 2012 at 7:27 am you ask me
Yes, of course I am saying that. And I thought I was clear. However, I obviously was not because at September 4, 2012 at 7:36 am Ferdinand says to me
The fact – which I stated – that nature is a net sequestration of CO2 from the air does NOT imply, does NOT suggest, and does NOT indicate that nature is “not a net contributor to the increase in the atmosphere”. My post I explained why it does not.
And, in addition to that misinterpretation of what I said, Ferdinand, you unfortunately immediately follow that statement with the completely illogical deduction which – in fact – is merely a restatement of the misrepresentation
My post explained why that cannot be inferred from the available information.
Bart, at September 4, 2012 at 8:53 am you also disagree with me. However, you claim the data indicates that the human emissions are not the cause of the increase of the rise in atmospheric CO2. I could merely point out that your claim is the exact opposite of the claim from dikranmarsupial and Ferdinand which proves the data is not sufficient for a definitive indication. But, in courtesy, I choose to point out that I do not accept your analysis for the same reason that I do not accept the ‘mass balance’ argument of dikranmarsupial, Ferdinand and others.
In conclusion, I repeat what I wrote in the post you have each replied because it explains why I don’t agree with any of the definitive conclusions on this subject wherever they are from.
Richard
Bart says:
September 4, 2012 at 10:47 am
Or, if you have a link to the discussion where we went over it before, when you were using your proper name, you can just look over it again and see where I explained it before.
Bart wrote: “You, and he, are wrong” and the IPCC (the mass balance argument is mentioned in their reports), and e.g. Raupach et al. (who also use the mass balance argument – see my paper for the exact reference) and pretty much every scientist that actively works on carbon cycle. it may be that you are a Gallileo and the current scientific paradigm is due for re-writing, but the chances are against it.
BTW, your model is making exactly the same mistake as Humlum et al. There is a correlation between temperature and the annual increment in atmospheric CO2. It has been known about since the mid 1970s (Bacastow) and is entirely uncontraversial. The problem is that the correllation only explains the variability in DIFF12 CO2, not its mean value, and it is the mean value of DIFF12 CO2 that gives rise to the long term increase.