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.
Not the one i found, but related:
http://medienportal.univie.ac.at/uniview/forschung/detailansicht/artikel/speeding-up-evolution-orchid-epigenetics/
tallbloke says:
September 6, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Roger, the 9 Gt/y is CO2, not carbon. As carbon that would be 12/44*9 = 2.45 GtC/yr, but as that is estimated to be 10% of all volcanic degassing, the total still is impressive at ~25 GtC/yr.
Despite that this is larger than the human emissions, there is no reason to assume that these increased over time at the same rate as the human emissions. Further, almost al volcanoes have a 13C/12C ratio that is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial addition from volcanoes should increase the 13C/12C ration in the atmosphere, but we see a continuous decrease in ratio, completely parallel with human emissions…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Independent of the human and some natural inputs (like volcanoes), there is the influence of temperature on the equilibrium setpoint
Careful Ferdi, you need to differentiate between volcanic co2 emitted in eruptions, and volcanic co2 degassed from lava and the lava decomposed into soils. The rate of emission from the latter will be temperature dependent.
There is a little problem with that reasoning: the mass balance doesn’t fit…
Let us assume that the volcanic degassing for some reason (earthquakes, lunar spring tides,…) increased in one year with some 20 GtC extra, compared to the previous year. That gives the following mass balance:
No Ferdi, lets suppose the increase in degassing is due to more sunshine hours, for which there is plenty of evidence. Then you have increases and decreases in the rate which match temperature variation very well, because sunshine hours fits temperature change a lot better than co2 level does.
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural sources + 20 GtC – natural sinks
we know the human emissions and we measure the increase in the atmosphere, thus:
4 GtC = 8 GtC + natural sources + 20 GtC – natural sinks
or natural sources = natural sinks – 24 GtC
or any extra natural supply by any natural process must be compensated by an equal natural sink to obtain the mass balance, as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions.
All of your mass balance and isotope balance arguments are moot with the new discovery by Cardellini et al. You are going to have to rethink your argument structure in the light of the new empirical evidence.
With other words, even if volcanoes have a much higher contribution than estimated, that is fully compensated by the higher total amount of sinks. Even the 1992 VEI 6 impact of the Pinatubo didn’t show a peak in CO2 rate of change, to the contrary, the resulting cooling was stronger in absorption, thus showing a dip in the rate of change…
I don’t think the amount of co2 gas emitted in sporadic isolated eruptions is anything like as much as the amount constantly being emitted from the decomposition of solidified lava into volcanic soils worldwide, so this argument doesn’t work.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 6, 2012 at 2:21 pm
“If they are extremely powerful, they are extrmely powerful for human inputs, volcanic inputs and deep ocean inputs alike.”
But, the sources are not equally small, and the dominant input will be what creates the dominant output.
“…only that the net cause of the increase are the human emissions, because all natural sinks together are larger than all natural sources together.”
It. Does. Not. Follow.
The “natural sinks” are not sequestering only natural inputs. Apparently, you agree with this. What you do not seem to understand is that the sink rate increases in response to the anthropogenic input.
This is a natural feedback system. The ocean absorbs more due to an increase in partial pressure in proportion to the increase. Plants grow more. Animals feed off the plants. Carbon is sequestered at an increasing rate. That is feedback. If it is powerful enough, it will take the increase right back out again with only a small percentage rise.
If you take the anthropogenic input away, the natural input will stay the same, but the natural sink rate will shrink. At that point, you would see the input rate from natural sources exceeding the output rate from natural sinks.
But, by comparing natural input rate to natural sink rate including the sink response to anthropogenic inputs, you are putting your thumb on the scale.
You must compare only the natural sink rate in the absence of anthropogenic input to natural source input to determine if nature alone is a net source or a net sink.
You simply cannot determine culpability for the increase on this basis with the information you have. Your “mass balance” argument is a chimera. It does not support your point of view, it merely fails to disprove it. What does disprove it is the affine relationship between temperature and CO2 rate of change.
Friends:
I interrupt your conversation to draw attention to the post by Stephen Wilde at September 6, 2012 at 2:19 pm. He draws attention to the need to understand the carbon cycle.
You each seem so determined to argue your case that you are forgetting the importance of data. In this case – as I repeatedly said above – data which we do not have.
For example, the mass balance argument must now be wrong if it were right before the new information on volcanoes cited by tallbloke.
As I said in my post at September 4, 2012 at 3:12 am
Richard
Honestly, Ferdinand, your “mass balance” argument is very simple. You know it is very simple – that is why you are perpetually astounded that I seem to fail to “get it.” But, I DO get it, Ferdinand. I really do. And, it is insufficient, for the reasons I have stated.
richardscourtney says:
September 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Friends:
I interrupt your conversation to draw attention to the post by Stephen Wilde at September 6, 2012 at 2:19 pm. He draws attention to the need to understand the carbon cycle.
You each seem so determined to argue your case that you are forgetting the importance of data. In this case – as I repeatedly said above – data which we do not have.
Richard, I’ve been very impressed by your input to this debate, having read the whole comments thread before sticking my oar in. And I really don’t want to fall out with you on more than one topic at once, because you have formidable powers of argument and I do on occasion have logic failures since the serious accident I was in six years ago.
So maybe you can explain to me what flaw you see in Bart’s argument regarding the relationship between the rate of change of airborne co2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa and the temperature series from HADcru used. Bart contends that since they match so well, the source of the airborne increase must be temperature driven, and that there is no room left for a major proportion of non-temperature related co2 source such as that from human emission.
I think I can see one scenario in which the human emission might still be an important factor in the increase in the airborne fraction, and if it is the case, then it would help us to accurately calibrate residence times and so understand the carbon cycle better. That would be a situation in which the rate of increase of human emission coincidentally happened to match the non-linear rate of the natural, temperature driven increase in the airborne fraction. In such a situation, the choice of scaling of the rate of increase of change in airborne co2 levels to fit the temperature series would automatically include the human contribution, and would still match the temperature series well.
However, if the human contribution were very significant, a persistent error would appear in the size of the fluctuations of co2 level compared to the size of fluctuations in the temperature series, and this is not observed. If I understand Bart correctly, that the departures from the mean are scaled in the same way as the overall angle of the trend, then the implication is that human input to the increase in airborne fraction is small compared to the natural contribution from temperature dependent sources.
I’d be grateful if both you and Bart would let me know if I have understood the situation correctly as it applies to each of your arguments.
Thanks
Rog TB
Erratum, a persistent error would appear in the size of the fluctuations of co2 level rate of change compared to the size of fluctuations in the temperature series,
tallbloke:
I am replying to your post at September 6, 2012 at 11:17 pm because I, too, regret we have fallen out on another thread. I only interrupted this conversation (with my post at September 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm) to make one point, and I had not intended to return to this discussion. I am only replying to your post in hope that it may assist our ‘making up’.
You ask me
Bart and I had a strong disagreement about this on a previous thread. In essence, our disagreement is as follows.
Bart assesses all the fluctuations in the Mauna Loa CO2 time series and the fluctuations in the mean global temperature time series. He assesses how these time series correlate and he notes how they cohere.
But I point out that Bart does not consider measurement error and assesses fluctuations which are within the measurement uncertainties reported by the providers of the Mauna Loa data set. Hence, his finding that “there is no room left for a major proportion of non-temperature related co2 source” could be an artefact of the CO2 measurement method.
Bart asserts that my argument amounts to my claiming the rapid fluctuations in CO2 measurements are “random”, but that is exactly the opposite of my point. For example, the fluctuations may result from variations of the measurement method because these variations alter the indicated CO2 within the measurement error. As illustration of this possibility, I give an hypothetical example of such a case.
1.
A device measures temperature and is calibrated to +/- 1K.
2.
Temperature indications provided by the device vary with air pressure
3.
The variation to indications provided by changes in air pressure is within a range +/-0.5K.
4.
This effect of air pressure on the temperature indications provided by the device does not matter because it is within the calibration range of the device and, therefore, the effects of air pressure are ignored.
5.
But the device does indicate variations of temperature when temperature remains constant but pressure varies.
6.
Simply, the device provides indications of temperature variation of less than 1K but these indications may be a result of change to air pressure.
7.
Therefore, an analysis of the indications of temperature change provided by the device have no validity – and may be very misleading – if the analysed indications are less than +/-1K (i.e. the calibrated accuracy of the device).
Bart is assessing fluctuations in the CO2 time series to temperature, but they may result from the measurement procedure. In reality, we cannot know the cause of fluctuations which are within the calibration error.
Bart replies that the calibration error is “huge” so should be ignored. I say the calibration error is what it is and cannot be ignored.
And Bart says the coincidence of the fluctuations in the time series is an indication of a relationship between them. But that cannot be known. For example, it may be that the scientists measuring the CO2 use their coffee maker more often in warm weather, and switching on the coffee maker in the lab. affects the measurement method within the calibration error. And an infinite number of other possibilities exists.
A result which could be an artefact of the measurement method has no validity.
This is not to say that Bart’s conclusion is wrong: it may be right. But his method is incapable of showing whether it is right or wrong.
(Incidentally, and purely for side-interest, this is exactly what Wegman found about the MBH ‘hockey stick’: i.e. the conclusion of the analysis may be right but the method does not show if it is right or wrong.)
Therefore, it cannot be known whether or not “there is no room left for a major proportion of non-temperature related co2 source”
And you say
There is no need for any “coincidence”.
The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is close to linear with time and only exists since 1958. Therefore, within the measurement errors, almost any curve can be fitted to the data. We fitted six different relationships to the data: 3 assumed a natural cause of the CO2 rise, and 3 assumed the anthropogenic emission is the cause of the CO2 rise.
In each case the data were a perfect fit (within the measurement errors) for each annual datum.
These perfect fits were achieved by assuming the system of the carbon cycle is adjusting towards an altered equilibrium. And 3 of our models each postulated that the rise in global temperature had induced the changed equilibrium in a different way, while 3 of our models each postulated that the anthropogenic emission had induced the changed equilibrium in those different ways.
The annual rise is the residual of the shorter term fluctuations over a year.
Our analyses assessed the annual rises. Bart’s analysis does not assess the annual rise alone, and also assesses the shorter term fluctuations. However, excepting the seasonal variation those shorter term variations could be artefacts of measurement method (as I explain above in this post).
I hope these answers are clear.
Richard
Richard, thankyou for your detailed and clearly written response, which makes sense to me. Perhaps if co2 continues to rise while temperature levels off we will get a clearer idea of what is happening. Though analysis of the Mauna Loa data shows that it seems to be ‘on autopilot’ in recent years. More on that soon on my blog.
Bart says:
September 6, 2012 at 4:23 pm
But, the sources are not equally small, and the dominant input will be what creates the dominant output.
Depends of the original equilibrium: if the sources and sinks both are huge, but in equilibrium, then there is no change in CO2 level of a reservoir. Even a small extra input will create an increase.
What you do not seem to understand is that the sink rate increases in response to the anthropogenic input.
What you don’t seem to understand is that the sink rate increases in response to the total extra level above the equilibrium, no matter if that is caused by the anthro input or a natural input or a mix of both. If there was an extra injection from volcanoes or the deep oceans, that would give the same response of the sinks as to the anthro input, as long as the level is above the dynamic equilibrium. Only the difference of the CO2 level with the equilibrium level is important.
If it is powerful enough, it will take the increase right back out again with only a small percentage rise.
If it is powerful enough, there wouldn’t be an increase at all from anthro or volcanoes or deep ocean upwelling, except from the temperature increase since the LIA at 16 ppmv/°C, far too small to explain the 100+ increase in CO2 levels (70+ since 1960).
If you take the anthropogenic input away, the natural input will stay the same, but the natural sink rate will shrink. At that point, you would see the input rate from natural sources exceeding the output rate from natural sinks.
If you take the anthro input away today and the natural input stays the same, the natural output will shrink, but not immediately back to zero. The current CO2 levels are 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium, that is removed at a slow rate with an e-fold time of ~53 years.
You must compare only the natural sink rate in the absence of anthropogenic input to natural source input to determine if nature alone is a net source or a net sink.
Again, the sink rate is not influenced by the yearly emissions, it is only influenced by the total CO2 level (caused by anthro as well as natural inputs) above equilibrium. That shows that at the current disequilibrium the sink rate is about halve the anthro emissions. That proves beyond doubt that in the current natural cycle is a net sink for CO2…
richardscourtney says:
September 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm
For example, the mass balance argument must now be wrong if it were right before the new information on volcanoes cited by tallbloke.
Richard, may I respectfully disagree?
The mass balance must be always obeyed, no matter which carbon flows are involved or how they changed over the years.
The beauty of the mass balance argument is that the natural flows in and out of the atmosphere don’t matter at all: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than the human emissions, we know with certainty that the natural sinks were larger than the natural sources and thus that the natural cycle over a year didn’t add one gram of CO2 to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, it circulated a lot of CO2 through the atmosphere, but the net balance only removed CO2 out of the atmosphere.
We don’t need to know any of the many CO2 flows in/out the atmosphere, we only need the difference at the end of a full seasonal cycle. And that is exactly what we know.
If it is proven that e.g. volcanoes are emitting 100 time more CO2 than first estimated, no problem, that only proves that the sinks must have absorbed that extra amount somewhere else in an unknown place (call it the “missing sink”). In all cases, the difference between natural sources and sinks over the past 50 years was:
natural sources = natural sinks -2 to -4 +/- 2 GtC/year.
Where the +/- 2 GtC/year is the remarkably small natural variability in sink rate (not in source rate!).
If you take the anthro input away today and the natural input stays the same, the natural output will shrink, but not immediately back to zero.
Written too fast: of course the natural output would shrink, but not to zero, only back into equilibrium with the total inputflow…
tallbloke says:
September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Careful Ferdi, you need to differentiate between volcanic co2 emitted in eruptions, and volcanic co2 degassed from lava and the lava decomposed into soils. The rate of emission from the latter will be temperature dependent.
I have read somewhere that CO2 emissions around vocanoes increase before an eruption, show a huge peak during an eruption and then rapidely fall back to some “bakground” continuous release from volcanic vents. But it is really not that important.
What I don’t see is that the lava itself will release important quantities of CO2 at “normal” temperatures: lava is discharged at enormous high temperatures, thus any CO2 dissolved into it gets into the atmosphere when reaching the normal pressure at the surface. What stays dissolved is probably too small to have any impact. With or without extra sunlight. As far as I know, all CO2 (and sulfur) from volcanic vents/fields comes out of the deep.
All of your mass balance and isotope balance arguments are moot with the new discovery by Cardellini et al. You are going to have to rethink your argument structure in the light of the new empirical evidence.
The mass balance argument is not influenced by the new paper by Cardellini et al. All that proves is that some of the sinks are larger than expected and need new estimates… The 13C/12C ratio argument still stands strong: as far as I remember, the Sicilian outgassing has a near zero per mil d13C level (comparable to carbonate sediments, which are decomposed by subduction volcanoes), while the atmosphere is at -8 per mil. No force on earth or heaven can get a decrease in 13C/12C ratio by mixing in huge quantities of CO2 with a higher ratio…
richardscourtney says:
September 7, 2012 at 3:56 am
“In reality, we cannot know the cause of fluctuations which are within the calibration error.”
Filtering a time series can reveal information below the level of “calibration error”. I showed this in the reconstruction of a heavily quantized signal here.
Richard argues a bridge too far – that independent measurements which match incredibly well in every detail are affected by a time varying error which happens to appear in precisely equal measure in both.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 7, 2012 at 8:35 am
“Depends of the original equilibrium: if the sources and sinks both are huge, but in equilibrium, then there is no change in CO2 level of a reservoir. Even a small extra input will create an increase.”
No. That is quite simply not how a feedback system works. It is dynamic. It does not reach an equilibrium and then just stop. The equilibrium is established because the forces are continually pushing against each other.
“If it is powerful enough, there wouldn’t be an increase at all from anthro or volcanoes or deep ocean upwelling, except from the temperature increase since the LIA at 16 ppmv/°C, far too small to explain the 100+ increase in CO2 levels (70+ since 1960).”
You cannot say that without knowing the relative sizes of those inputs. The level of increase from each will be in proportion to the forcing.
“If you take the anthro input away today and the natural input stays the same, the natural output will shrink, but not immediately back to zero.”
That is precisely a function of how powerful the sink feedback is. You don’t know how powerful it is, and are asserting an a priori assumption that it is weak.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 7, 2012 at 9:03 am
“Written too fast: of course the natural output would shrink, but not to zero, only back into equilibrium with the total inputflow…”
You. Do. Not. Know. That. You have no information available to tell you.
Let me give an example. Suppose you have one of those old fashioned sinks with separate hot and cold running faucets. Someone has turned the faucets on at a constant rate and water has collected in the sink and is rising. There is a drain in the sink which is taking out part of what is in the sink in proportion to the pressure at the drain.
You measure the rate H of hot water flowing in, and you measure the rate in the level L of the water, finding that L = 0.5 * H. Can you say what the relative proportion of rate of cold water C entering is?
Answer: only if you know how the efficiency of the drain.
The drain rate is D = a * (H + C), where a is a constant of proportionality between zero and unity. This is because the pressure at the drain is proportional to the height of the water column above the drain, and that is proportional to the rate at which water is flowing in.
The level rate L is L = (1-a) * (H + C).
L = 0.5 * H = (1-a) * (H + C)
Thus, H = (2* (1 – a) / (2*a – 1) ) * C
The minimum value for “a” such that L = 0.5 * H is a = 0.5. At this point, C = 0, and there is no cold water flowing in at all. At the other extreme (powerful drain feedback), a = 1, the hot water input is zero, and the drain is immediately removing everything. Plot the function (2* (1 – a) / (2*a – 1) ). You will see the ratio of cold to hot can be anything. If you know the temperatures of the hot and cold water, Th and Tc, you can use the function to calculate the temperature of the water in the sink, and it can range anywhere between Tc and Th, depending on the feedback factor.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 10:23 am
No. That is quite simply not how a feedback system works. It is dynamic. It does not reach an equilibrium and then just stop. The equilibrium is established because the forces are continually pushing against each other.
Of course that is how a feedback system works in reaction to a disturbance, depending of the kind of disturbance: one-shot, continuous, exponential… If the disturbance is one-shot, the equilibrium goes assymptotical back down to the old level of equal inputs and outputs. If the disturbance is continuous, a new equilibrium will be approached when the outputs reach the sum of the inputs + the disturbance, thus at a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere. With an about exponential increase as we have today, no new equilibrium will be established ever.
It doesn’t matter for the equilibrium how it is disturbed: an increase of one of the inputs, a decrease of one of the outputs or by an external input to the system.
And I was talking about a dynamic equilibrium, where temperature is the driving factor for a change in setpoint. If the temperature changes, some of the inputs and outputs will change accordingly, others are independent of temperature changes. If the CO2 level in the atmosphere changes for whatever reason, some sinks will increase rapidely, others will increase more slowly and a few will hardly increase at all.
You cannot say that without knowing the relative sizes of those inputs. The level of increase from each will be in proportion to the forcing.
You are still confused between the influence of a temperature change and a change in influx. The influence of temperature on seawater is a matter of pressure (differences), not of quantities. No matter if you look at the static or dynamic properties: the influence of an increase with 1°C in seawater surface temperature over the whole globe will give not more than 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, no matter the inflows or outflows of the (deep) oceans. Any temperature related change in influx or outflux is fully compensated by a change in CO2 level in the atmosphere at a ratio of 16 ppmv/°C. Nothing more.
That is precisely a function of how powerful the sink feedback is. You don’t know how powerful it is, and are asserting an a priori assumption that it is weak.
We know exactly how powerful the sink feedback is: 4 GtC/year for a CO2 level today at 210 GtC above temperature dictated dynamic equilibrium. That translates into a e-fold time of ~53 years. You can discuss the 210 GtC above equilibrium, because that is based on 800 kyr of ice cores (and a few less reliable proxies), but that is a lost case…
You. Do. Not. Know. That. You have no information available to tell you.
We have 800 kyr of information from ice cores which show a quite linear 8 ppmv/°C ratio between CO2 and temperature (proxy). We have Henry’s Law which restricts the ocean – atmosphere temperature influence to 16 ppmv/°C, whatever the input or output fluxes.
You measure the rate H of hot water flowing in, and you measure the rate in the level L of the water, finding that L = 0.5 * H. Can you say what the relative proportion of rate of cold water C entering is?
Answer: only if you know how the efficiency of the drain.
Wrong question. The real question is what is responsible for the increase in the old sink.
Answer: even without knowing anything about C or drain D, as long as L is smaller than H, only H is responsible.
If you close H, the level will fall down to a new equilibrium, with negative L, proportional to the ratio between C and D.
I think this is a matter of flow rates constantly varying in different locations so that there are effectively two separate carbon cycles in action namely the local / regional and the global.Or more likely a single global carbon cycle but multiple local carbon cycles each contributing only a minute fraction to the overal global carbon cycle.
If the global natural sinks are steadily becoming more effective whilst global natural sources are also becoming more effective (but faster) for example as a result of warming then couldn’t you get a net increase smaller than the amount of human emissions but the cause is nonetheless the change in relative efficiencies between sources and sinks ?
I have in mind that the human contribution is so small relative to the natural fluxes that everything that humans produce gets quickly absorbed locally or regionally by the surrounding biosphere.
Meanwhile there is a bigger picture involving the global biosphere and global oceans that is large enough to go its own way and it may well be that at any given moment the net increase in the global picture could be less than the human emissions
For example:
i) Human CO2 emissions get quickly sequestrated nearby and the local biosphere is energised more than the global biosphere for a negligible offset or supplement to the behaviour of the global biosphere depending on what it is doing globally at the time.
ii) Meanwhile the bigger picture is that the sinks are globally losing ground to the sources as a result of more naturally caused warmth. More natural warmth increases the vigour of the biosphere so sinks get more effective but more warmth also causes the oceans to release more CO2 than they absorb and the latter effect on the ocreans is bigger than the biosphere response until warming stops and / or the biosphere catches up.
The entire system is speeding up (both sources and sinks) as a result of more warmth but sources (oceans) are steadily outstripping sinks (biosphere) whilst the human contribution is just along for the ride and only affects local carbon cycles of negligible impact in global terms.
That would explain the observations discussed here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
where the big picture is that the densest plumes of CO2 are downwind of oceans presumably because the human emissions are stripped out locally for a negligible effect on the global carbon cycle as evidenced by the absence of CO2 plumes downwind of human population centres.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 7, 2012 at 11:56 am
“Answer: even without knowing anything about C or drain D, as long as L is smaller than H, only H is responsible.”
Completely wrong. If you turn the hot water off, you will settle to a new rate of increase
L = (1-a) * C = (a – 0.5) * H(old)
where H(old) was the rate at which the hot water was formerly coming in. If a is greater than 0.5, then the level is going to continue increasing.
Before signing off, I do want to say for anyone watching that this model is for demonstration purposes only, is valid only for a snapshot of time, and is not entirely analogous to the situation with the real world CO2 system where we do not have a step change in the anthropogenic (hot water) input. The point was merely to show how first impressions can be deceiving, and everything depends on the strength of feedbacks.
Ferdinand, thank you for your civility, but you are making things up as you go along, and my patience is exhausted. Until we meet again…
Stephen Wilde:
In your post at September 7, 2012 at 12:01 pm you say
Yes! As I have repeatedly explained e.g. in this thread, the dynamics of local sequestration show that the local sequestration processes can easily sequester all the emissions (both natural and anthropogenic). However, the observed rise in global atmospheric CO2 shows they don’t, and the only important question is why they don’t.
You suggest that global warming may be changing the carbon cycle. I could have said the same myself: in fact,I have said the same in this thread and many other places.
And your explanation is only one of several possibilities. The possibility I find most interesting is variation of sulphur (S) emissions from undersea vulcanism. The sulphate ions would be carried by the thermohaline circulation for decades or centuries. And then they would rise to lower the pH of the ocean surface layer. The resulting change to ocean surface layer pH need only be an indiscernible 0.1 for it to cause the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. And this is an effect of volcanic S which has nothing to do with change to inputs of CO2 to the carbon cycle.
Then there is the possibility that …
Simply, WE DO NOT KNOW.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Human CO2 emissions get quickly sequestrated nearby and the local biosphere is energised more than the global biosphere for a negligible offset or supplement to the behaviour of the global biosphere depending on what it is doing globally at the time.
Even if human CO2 emissions get quickly sequestrated into the next nearby trees within minutes after release, that doesn’t change its impact on the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The uptake of CO2 by trees (or oceans) is limited thus any human CO2 absorbed is at the cost of a natural CO2 that is not absorbed, thus still resides in the atmosphere. The net result is that the same increased amount of CO2 resides in the atmosphere.
Indeed the total increase is a matter of local to regional releases and sinks, but based on the oxygen balance, the biosphere is a net sink for CO2 and based on a lot of measurements, the oceans are a net sink for CO2. Thus in all cases the sinks are outstripping the sources, even if the oceans are warming. The latter is a matter of what is more important: the increase in temperature since the LIA is good for maximum 16 ppmv increase in CO2, according to Henry’s Law. But the human emissions since the start of the industrial revolution were good for a ~200 ppmv increase, but we see only a 100+ ppmv increase, the rest is absorbed by oceans and vegetation.
That would explain the observations discussed here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
The AIRS data are from the mid-troposphere, not of the surface and is already mixed in over the whole round earth, but still mainly within latitude bands. Further it is from one month, July. If you look at the 2002-2009 time series:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/
you will see that the same places of huge sources in summer become huge sinks in winter and vv.
The main movements of CO2 are natural, but these mostly go back and forth, with a net sink as result if one looks over a full cycle after a year. The human input is one-way additional…
I think I’m with Richard here. We don’t know. But what we do now know is that if Cardellini et al have done their work accurately, the human proportion of the cycle is considerably smaller than previously thought, and that makes a difference to the debate.
The consulting Geologist Tim Casey also observes that the isotope ratio is not the same for all volcanogenic emissions.
“A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.”
For now, I’m filing this under case unsolved, with a note to say that the primary suspect is to be treated with kid gloves.
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Completely wrong. If you turn the hot water off, you will settle to a new rate of increase
L = (1-a) * C = (a – 0.5) * H(old)
Completely wrong: if L was 0.5 * H then the drain was
D = -0.5 * H – C
If you turn off H, D doesn’t change immediately and your increase falls back to a decrease of -0.5 H
As long as the increase was less than H, the increase will fall back to a decrease:
L = 0.99 * H
D = -0.01 * H – C
For H = 0 at time zero:
D = -0.01 * H – C
L = C – 0.01 * H – C = – 0.01 * H
Ferdinand said:
i) “and based on a lot of measurements, the oceans are a net sink for CO2.”
With all those plumes downwind of warm ocean surfaces that is looking unlikely at present though it may well be so at other times. I suspect a solar induced cyclicity and not a stable setup either way.More sunshine into the oceans beneath the widening subtropical high pressure cells of recent years appears to be creating those plumes or making them more intense than they would be when there is less sunshine entering the oceans.
ii) “Even if human CO2 emissions get quickly sequestrated into the next nearby trees within minutes after release, that doesn’t change its impact on the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The uptake of CO2 by trees (or oceans) is limited thus any human CO2 absorbed is at the cost of a natural CO2 that is not absorbed, thus still resides in the atmosphere. The net result is that the same increased amount of CO2 resides in the atmosphere”
Incorrect because the uptake by trees and other elements of the biosphere is increasing in a warmer and / or a more CO2 rich world so even after sequestration of the human output the total CO2 uptake still increases but the ocean release increases even faster.
In fact I suspect that the human emissions of CO2 cause growth and uptake that would not have occurred without it so the net effect of human emissions on the net balance of global CO2 is zero or pretty near it. You completely ignore the flexibility of the biosphere response to any extra CO2 from any source.
If human CO2 emissions simply provoke biosphere activity that would not have occurred without it then it will have zero effect on the natural global CO2 balance.
Good evidence of that actually happening is the observed faster growth of vegetation over the past 50 years and the absence of any left over CO2 plumes downwind of human centres of population.
iii) “the increase in temperature since the LIA is good for maximum 16 ppmv increase in CO2, according to Henry’s Law”
You appear to be ignoring varying biosphere activity, wind movement of the air and ocean circulations plus precipitation which continually adjust the vapour pressure in any given location over time so that, in an atmosphere with vegetation, oceanic overturning, varying windiness and precipitation, changes in the rate of release from the oceans can be maintained over time to give a much larger cumulative effect and still comply with Henry’s Law.
“The AIRS data are from the mid-troposphere, not of the surface and is already mixed in over the whole round earth, but still mainly within latitude bands.”
But you see those plumes downwind of warmed ocean surfaces primarily under the subtropical high pressure bands where the sun is most persistent on the ocean surfaces .If one proposes a widening and contracting of the subtropics over multidecadal timescales (as observed) then the rate of release will change along with total sunshine hours onto the changing width of the latitude bands.
We know that cloudiness reduced up to at least 2000 with widening tropics so there must have been stronger plumes during that period than at other times when there were more clouds and narrower tropics
” Further it is from one month, July. If you look at the 2002-2009 time series:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/
you will see that the same places of huge sources in summer become huge sinks in winter and vv.”
That is smply seasonal shifting of the climate zones latitudinally.Throughout the year the regions of maximum CO2 are beneath or downwind of the subtropical high pressure cells over water so we must assume that the primary influence on the oceanic contribution to the CO2 balance is sunlight on water in those regions.
As for the isotope balance issue it seems likely that the CO2 release from the oceans contains more of the fossil fuel type isotope (was it C12 or C13 ?) than previously thought. Probably due to biosphere activity within the oceans.
Anyway, I have given you a scenario where the mass balance approach becomes irrelevant with evidence in support (no extra CO2 downwind of human activity). Essentially, human emissions provoke an additional biosphere response locally that would not otherwise occur and so the human emissions are negated locally with little or no influence on the global carbon cycle.
Richard Coutney said:
“The resulting change to ocean surface layer pH need only be an indiscernible 0.1 for it to cause the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. And this is an effect of volcanic S which has nothing to do with change to inputs of CO2 to the carbon cycle.”
That is an intriguing possibility but then we would see plumes of CO2 downwind of areas producing volcanic sulphur.
Instead we see plumes downwind of sun warmed water beneath the subtropical high pressure belts.
Would any of the other possibilities you mention produce such a pattern ?