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.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Nope.
Stephen Wilde:
I tried to resist, but I have given in to the temptation to give a brief reply to part of your post addressed to me at September 7, 2012 at 2:45 pm. Before saying what I am writing to say, I state that nothing I write here can be implied to be a change to my position; i.e.
I want it to be clearly understood that I refuse to ‘get off the fence’ on this subject.
As this thread illustrates, there are strong views on either side of the ‘fence’: on one side there are people certain that the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 emission is caused by the anthropogenic CO2 emission, and on the other side there are people equally certain that it is not.
I do not know if the anthropogenic emission is or is not the cause of the rise in part or in whole because the available data is not capable of resolving the matter. And that makes me unpopular with both ‘sides’.
The sulphur hypothesis cannot be resolved from the available data. Is it contributory – in part or in whole – for the debated recent rise in atmospheric CO2? Possibly. The matter does not require “plumes of sulphur” or “plumes of CO2 downwind of areas producing volcanic sulphur” . On the contrary, it requires a small change to the dissolved sulphate ions in the ocean surface layer. And it only requires the sulphur to transfer across the interface between deep ocean and ocean surface layer. Also, where that transfer between layers will occur cannot be known with the existing very limited understandings of both deep ocean currents and the exchange mechanisms between ocean layers. Please note that not all deep ocean currents will interact with volcanism and not all undersea volcanoes are known. Hence, the patterns of oceanic CO2 emission cannot resolve whether the sulphur hypothesis has importance or is irrelevant.
Similarly, other possibilities cannot be resolved from available data. I introduced the sulphur hypothesis to demonstrate the degree of our ignorance. It may be fun to throw every possibility into the thread but – in my opinion – that would cause even more confusion to the thread’s discussion than already exists.
Richard
Thanks Richard, that is perfectly clear.
The AIRS data is very new and does show interesting patterns. I’ll go with Occams Razor until someone has a better idea.
Sunshine on water under the subtropical high pressure cells is well worth a punt.
I’m a glutton for punishment, so I’m going to give this one more try. It is so obvious and straightforward, I just do not know how anyone can fail to understand it, even with heavy blinders on.
I would really appreciate it if someone out there could tell me they understand what I have been trying to explain to Ferdinand and that you agree. Maybe if he realizes he is in a minority, he will reexamine his premise (or, I will find I am in the minority, in which case I will weep for humanity).
It is this simple:
1) if the sinks are powerful enough, they will take out almost everything, leaving only a small fraction of the combined inputs, natural and anthropogenic, as a lingering residual in the atmosphere
2) If they are powerful enough that they can take out more than half of the anthropogenic inputs, then there is a deficit that has to be made up somewhere, because we observe a rise which, purely by chance, happens to be about 1/2 the level of the accumulated anthropogenic inputs
3) That deficit has to be made up by a natural input powerful enough that even the small fraction remaining after the action of the sinks is enough to provide a lingering residual equal to half the anthropogenic input – if the sinks are very powerful, then that natural input has to be enough to leave almost the full 1/2 as a residual
It all depends on how powerful the sinks are. Surely, somebody out there gets this.
Bart,
I think that agrees with the scenario I posited namely:
The sinks of the biosphere are powerful enough to mop up all the CO2 that humans produce by absorbing it in enhanced local or regional biosphere activity that would not have occurred naturally.
Despite the power of those sinks the natural source in the oceans can nonetheless trump their power when extra sunlight penetrates the ocean surfaces at a time of lowered global albedo.
I agree with Richard that on present data we cannot yet prove that that scenario is the right one but the mere fact that one can propose it means that the mass balance approach is not valid.
I would suggest that another important factor in this is that reduced fish stocks might indicate a lack of food. Photosynthesising surface biota are reduced when the surface warms and there is less nutrient upwelling. Less photosynthesis means less co2 absorption.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm
i) The oceans are a net sink for CO2. That is measured. The (sub) tropical oceans are a net source for CO2 and the mid-latitudes are sources or sinks, depending of the season. The poles are net sinks for CO2. The exact place of sources and sinks shifts with the seasons. That is what AIRS shows. The resolution of AIRS (+/- 10 ppmv) is not high enough to know the exact CO2 balance, but the ocean pCO2 measurements are, even so within large margins of error: the driving force, the pCO2 difference is quite accurate, but the flux depends of the mixing speed by wind, where the average wind speed and area are involved, but have quite substantial error margins.
See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
ii) The average increase in uptake by the biosphere doesn’t double with 2xCO2, in average increases with 50% in the best circumstances. Thus a small increase in the atmosphere, isn’t immediately absorbed by plants, as a lot of other constraints (fertilizers, minerals, water, sunlight) all may cause real limits to growth. The current extra growth of the full biosphere (land + oceans, calculated from the extra O2 production by plants) is 1.2 GtC/yr for an increase of 210 GtC above the “old” equilibrium CO2 level. Far from taking away every single CO2 molecule above equilibrium.
iii) Every change in (deep) ocean circulation, volcanic emissions, cloud and rain patterns, biosphere growth,… will have its impact on CO2 levels. But independently of this impact, an increase of 1°C in ocean surface temperature will give at maximum 16 ppmv extra in CO2 increase of the atmosphere, nothing more.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 7, 2012 at 2:36 pm
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.
It is the opposite: more biological activity increases the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans surface, as preferentially more 12C is build in, leaving more 13C in the surface waters. Part of the organics drop out of the surface layer and reduce the 13C/12C ratio of the deep oceans, or get into organic sediments. The deep oceans are at zero to +1 per mil, the ocean surface waters at +1 to +5 per mil and the atmosphere currently is at -8 per mil and declining. Even including the ocean-air fractionation of the isotopes (both ways), any substantial extra emissions from the (deep) oceans will lead to an INcrease of the d13C level in the atmosphere, but we see a DEcrease in exact ratio to fossil fuel use…
Bart says:
September 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Bart, your own water sink example shows that you are wrong. But you still fail to see it. Here the next attempt to show where you are wrong:
1) if the sinks are powerful enough, they will take out almost everything, leaving only a small fraction of the combined inputs, natural and anthropogenic, as a lingering residual in the atmosphere
With that we can theoretically agree, but there is no proof whatever that shows that all the sinks are powerful (the fast response to ocean surface temperature variations is limited in capacity, maximum 10% of any long term change). The observed sink rate is – by coincidence – only half the mass of the human input, not all of it.
2) If they are powerful enough that they can take out more than half of the anthropogenic inputs, then there is a deficit that has to be made up somewhere, because we observe a rise which, purely by chance, happens to be about 1/2 the level of the accumulated anthropogenic inputs
Here we strongly disagree. There is no deficit in the inputs, there is a deficit in the natural balance (inputs minus outputs), as halve the human emissions (as mass, not as original molecules) still show up as an increase in the atmosphere. Even if 99% of the human emissions would show up in the atmosphere, that only shows that the natural carbon balance is near in equilibrium.
3) That deficit has to be made up by a natural input powerful enough that even the small fraction remaining after the action of the sinks is enough to provide a lingering residual equal to half the anthropogenic input – if the sinks are very powerful, then that natural input has to be enough to leave almost the full 1/2 as a residual
The deficit is from an unbalance, not necessary from an input change. Any combination of natural and anthro inputs minus total outputs must give the observed increase. For any situation (even at a 99% airborne fraction) where the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than the anthro input alone, the equation is:
increase in the atmosphere = anthro inputs + natural inputs – natural outputs
where
increase in the atmosphere = f * anthro inputs and f between 0 and 1 thus
f * anthro inputs = anthro inputs + natural inputs – natural outputs
or
natural outputs = natural inputs + (1 – f) * anthro inputs.
where 1-f is between zero and 1.
It doesn’t matter at all how huge the carbon sources and sinks are, or how fast the response times of the sinks are. The total natural sinks flux in all cases is larger than the total natural sources flux and thus there is no net contribution of the natural carbon cycle to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
In summary:
– Only 10% of any natural or anthro extra contribution of CO2 will be sequestered by fast ocean surface (and vegetation) processes, the rest by much slower processes.
– The increase in the atmosphere is not caused by a natural process, as the natural sink fluxes were continuously higher than the natural source fluxes over the past 50 years.
– The three main reservoirs of CO2 (vegetation, ocean surface and deep oceans) with relative fast and huge exchange rates with the atmosphere are proven net sinks for CO2.
– The 13C/12C trend shows that the (deep and surface) oceans can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
– The oxygen balance shows that vegetation is a net sink for CO2.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
As you know, I want much more quantitative data concerning activity in the carbon cycle.
Measured? Globally? How? With what confidence limits?
I would be grateful if you were to state answers to these questions.
Anyway, so what?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
September 8, 2012 at 6:47 am
Measured? Globally? How? With what confidence limits?
According to near a million of samples of seawater pCO2 over the past decades (since then millions by commercial seaships and buoys): “An annual oceanic uptake flux for CO2 of 2.2 +/- 0.4 GtC/yr”
See “Uptake and Storage of Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean: The Global CO2 Survey”:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
for the calculation methods and limits and the next page at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
for the average uptake, regionally and globally.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 8, 2012 at 5:01 am
“Here we strongly disagree.”
You and your pseudo-math. The thing I loved about math in my studies was that there was no subjectivity, no grey area. You cannot agree or disagree. There is no room for compromise or negotiation. You are either right, or you are wrong.
You are wrong, Ferdinand. But, you have worn me down. I give up. For now.
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your replies to my questions in your post at September 8, 2012 at 8:04 am which says
Please note that I did not ‘jump in’ making assertions about the data but, instead, asked you to cite the information of your choice. However, I admit that I suspected you would cite Freely et al., and you did.
The first issue is sampling. Figure 3 in one of your links says this as part of its figure caption
So, over 42 years there were 940,000 measurements. Or to put that another way less than 32 measurements per day.
And daily measurements are needed because the effects vary throughout the year.
Indeed, the effects differ between day and night (e,g. because of photosysnthesis in the ocean surface layer) so night-time and day-time measurements need to be obtained. Assuming half the measurements were by day and half by night then that is that is two sub-sets of 16 measurements per day and 16 measurements per night.
And these 16 measurements per day were predominantly obtained from shipping lanes which cover a trivial proportion of ocean surface.
Of course, if effects did not vary across the oceans then 16 measurements per day from a non-random distribution may be adequate. But effects differ greatly from place-to-place and with the weather from day-to-day. However, one of your links says
(emphasis added: RSC)
And the analyses make assumptions to compensate for these effects.
And, as you say, they report their findings to be “An annual oceanic uptake flux for CO2 of 2.2 GtC/yr” to an accuracy of “+/- 0.4 GtC/yr”.
A determination of 2.2 GtC/yr to an accuracy of “+/- 0.4 GtC/yr estimated from 16 measurements per day obtained from a small and non-representative sample of the oceans when for half the year the oceans enmit and for the other half of the year they sequester!
This is a clear demonstration of my statements saying we lack adequate data.
Richard
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 10:23 am
You cannot agree or disagree. There is no room for compromise or negotiation. You are either right, or you are wrong.
Agreed, this time I specially appreciated the
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 you simply forgot that there also was a drain, which turned the new rate of “increase” into a decrease… Or you may have studied another kind of math than me…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 8, 2012 at 11:25 am
“a” is the drain, H(old) = (2* (1 – a) / (2*a – 1) ) * C, in accordance with the formula prior to the hot water being turned off, and you are not comprehending the example.
The idea that the oceans are always a net sink is a proposition that I find inherently implausible.
We know that the biosphere is a net sink because it locks CO2 away long term to form fossil fuel deposits under land and limestone under water.
If the oceans AND the biosphere were always net sinks the air would be devoid of CO2 apart from occasional outgassing from volcanos.
So, if the biosphere is always a net sink, yet atmospheric CO2 remain higher than volcanic emissions can account for, the only place that the atmospheric CO2 can come from is the oceans.
Clearly the oceans release CO2 from warmer waters and absorb it into cooler waters but those waters change temperature over time both in absolute terms and relative to one another. Furthermore windiness varies greatly both globally and regionally over time and Ferdinand’s links clearly acknowledge windiness as a factor relevant to rates of CO2 absorption and release.
What we must have here is variability in the ratio between the effectiveness of the oceanic absorbing and oceanic releasing regions which swing the net oceanic contribution between net release and net absorption over time.
I think the controlling factor then is the amount of solar energy entering the equatorial oceans which varies over time as the climate zones shift in response to top down solar influences on the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere.
An active sun allows more solar energy into the top 200 metres or so of the ocean surfaces either side of the equator and the rate of CO2 release increases.
The speed of the air circulation also changes as a result so that the increased rate of CO2 flow from the oceans is removed to other regions quickly allowing more to be released from the source region.That gets around the constraints of Henry’s Law.
The increased flow of CO2 from the equatorial oceans outstrips the absorption into the polar oceans and atmospheric CO2 increases. Meanwhile the entire biosphere is energised to take advantage but doesn’t catch up until the rate of release from the oceans slows down again.
Meanwhile the human contribution is absorbed locally by its own nearby bubble of energised local biosphere which works faster than it would have done in the absence of the human contribution. Thus the human portion has no effect on the mass balance of the global carbon cycle because the additional CO2 from human CO2 is cancelled by faster local biosphere activity.
Over a period of time such as the period from the end of the LIA to date the cumulative effect appears to be surprisingly large in proportion to the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere at the beginning of the proces during the earlier cooler period.
When the sun becomes less active for long enough , allowing for a currently unknown lag time, the process goes into reverse and atmospheric CO2 declines once more.
It must be the case that the ice core records are too coarse to reveal those large, natural proportionate swings in atmospheric CO2 on the timescale shown from MWP to LIA to date.
Note that the CO2 changes will vary by way of rising for 500 years or so then falling for 500 years or so in pace with the changes in solar activity which accounts for the background trend at Mauna Loa during the late 20th century which was a period of relatively high solar activity.
Stephen Wilde:
I your argument at September 9, 2012 at 4:18 am you say
Yes, I have repeatedly said (e.g. above) that Henry’s Law is not applicable.
We need data – not assumptions – to constrain our hypotheses. And if this thread helps people to understand that we lack adequate data then it will have been valuable.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says:
September 9, 2012 at 4:18 am
While I agree with this sentiment contained in your statement, “that the oceans are always a net sink (of carbon dioxide) is inherently implausible”, can you please acknowledge the following geological fact? Namely that 50% of all the limestone in the earth’s sedimentary strata are inorganic precipitates and not primarily derived from organic processes. The inorganic carbonate precipitates in question include oolitic grainstones formed in the swash zone of tropical coastal beaches and exposed marine carbonate sand banks. These rounded (egg shaped) sand grains of inorganic carbonate precipitate form in the warmest & shallowest sea water and have an onion ring structure. In morphology they can be considered as the limestone lithic equivalent to atmospheric water ice hailstones.
Oolites accrete inorganically around a core seed crystal of aragonite, now while the aragonite crystals are often a bioclastic excretion, resulting from the coral feeding activities of parrot fish, this does not make the resulting grainstone an organic deposit. The precipitation of insoluble calcium carbonate from calcium bicarbonate dissolved in marine water necessarily releases carbon dioxide gas. Within the biological processes of coral polyps this released carbon dioxide becomes available to the algae living within the body of the polyp and forms one of the key benefits for the alga of the symbiotic relationship. However under the process of inorganic precipitation of oolitic grains at the beach swash zone, there is no biological component to the process and the released carbon dioxide is free to escape directly into the atmosphere from the warmed waters of the swash.
With regard to the sequestration of reduced carbon, whether on land in the formation of peat (& ultimately coal), or in marine sediments as sapropel these processes too are controlled by geochemistry. The key component for preserving organically produced reduced (hydrogenated) carbon is the lack of oxygen which produces reducing (oxygen lacking) conditions, either in water logged soils on land and in lake margin fens or as deep marine colloidal muds in isolated ocean basins and enclosed seas (for example the Black Sea).
The point I wish to make is that it is the geosphere and not the biosphere that is the ultimate control on the sequestration of carbon, in both oxidized and reduced states, into the rocks of the earth’s lithosphere.
Bart says:
September 8, 2012 at 2:09 pm
OK, back to basics…
Your original drain was:
D = a * (H + C)
but a in this case a is not between zero and unity, as the observed increase in L is less than H alone, thus in reality:
L = (1-a) * (H + C) where L is less than H,
thus at minimum:
L = 0 and a = 1 and D = H + C
at maximum:
L = H and a = C / (H + C) and D = C
(thus a is not zero)
In all cases between minimum and maximum, the latter not included, if you close H, L will get negative for any value of C.
The essential point is that you didn’t include the constraint that the observed increase is less than the known input.
A similar reasoning follows for the human input: if the human CO2 input stops, in all cases, whatever the natural cycle, the CO2 levels will drop.
Ferdinand, in order for human CO2 input to halt, you would have to stop population increase. We create CO2 from oxygen and carbon intake, which is a closed neutral cycle as long as each component does not increase. This would not be a closed neutral cycle if we continue to increase in number. You would also have to stop all other animal life forms from increasing their population as well. How is this represented in the calculations?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 9, 2012 at 4:18 am
If the oceans AND the biosphere were always net sinks the air would be devoid of CO2 apart from occasional outgassing from volcanos.
Wait a minute, I never said that the oceans and the biosphere were always sinks. Only that both are currently sinks, because we are a lot above the “normal” equilibrium.
The equilibrium over decades to multi-millennia is temperature dictated and at the current temperature, the CO2 level in the atmosphere should be around 290 ppmv, but we are already near 400 ppmv. It is that difference that drives extra CO2 into the oceans and plant alveoles.
If humans would stop the emissions, the CO2 levels would slowly drop down to 290 ppmv, at a half life time rate of ~40 years.
If we may assume that some of the previous interglacials (the Eemian, 2°C, forests growing up to the Arctic Ocean, half Greenland ice melted) were warmer than today, that the Holocene Optimum (6000-7000 years ago), the Roman Warm period and probably the MWP were warmer than today, then there is no reason to expect CO2 levels today that exceed 8 ppmv/°C, which is what is seen over 800 kyear of data…
The decrease of less than 1°C from the MWP to the LIA caused a drop of 6 ppmv in the medium resolution (21 years) ice core of Law Dome a similar increase in temperature since the LIA is at maximum good for 8 ppmv increase, not 100+ ppmv.
Further, whatever the changes in wind or sunlight, Henry’s Law always holds. If the temperature increases at the equator, or the wind speed increases, that will give an unbalance in CO2 fluxes, increasing its level in the atmosphere. But as that increases, the pCO2 difference between ocean surface and atmosphere decreases at the equator and increases at the poles, thus the fluxes are brought back into equilibrium, at a rate of 16 ppmv/°C, according to Henry’s Law. But currently we are at CO2 levels far beyond what temperature, sunlight or wind speed can provide…
Last but not least, the CO2 uptake by the biosphere can be calculated from the deficit in oxygen use from fossil fuel burning. That shows that until ~1990, the whole biosphere (sea + land plants, bacteria, animals, humans, forest fores,…) was near neutral, but since 1990 a slowly growing sink for CO2. Currently a quantity equal to some 20% of the human emissions are extra absorbed. 10% go rapidely in the ocean surface and 20% in the deep oceans. Thus even if all extra absorbed CO2 is only molecules from human origin (which is not the case), that is only 1/5th of the total release.
richardscourtney says:
September 8, 2012 at 11:25 am
I do agree that there is undersampling of the oceans to give firm conclusions, but the indication of the samples is that the oceans are a net sink for CO2. Further:
So, over 42 years there were 940,000 measurements. Or to put that another way less than 32 measurements per day.
Most of the measurements were done over the same area with an interval of several years. That gives a good indication of the evolution over the years, better than a few measurements per year. The measurements intensified over the past decade from near a million to over three million. See:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/climatological-mean-decadal-change-surface-ocean-pco2-net-sea-air-co2-flux-global-oceans-2/
And these 16 measurements per day were predominantly obtained from shipping lanes which cover a trivial proportion of ocean surface.
No, most were from specific routes by research ships, only recently fully automated seawater pCO2 (pH, DIC, temperature,…) equipment is build into commercial ships, preferentially in “wild” routed ships, so not always following the most intensively used routes.
See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/background.shtml
Besides that, fixed stations at a few (but increasing number of) places is measuring the pCO2 at a semi-continuous rate, including Hawaii and Bermuda. The latter measures most of the Atlantic Gyre and shows an increase in DIC (total inorganic carbon) and a decreasing pH:
http://www.bios.edu/Labs/co2lab/research/IntDecVar_OCC.html
This also contradicts the lower pH by volcanic sulfur releases theory: if the reduction of pH was from a strong(er) acid, then that would release CO2 to the atmosphere and thus reduce total CO2 (DIC) in seawater, but if CO2 gets into seawater from the atmosphere, DIC will increase while the pH reduces.
Another point, as mentioned before, is that the d13C level of the oceans is too high to have caused the increase in the atmosphere. Everywhere in the oceans (except near estuaria) compared to everywhere in the atmosphere (except near ground over land near huge sinks).
Thus all available evidence points to the oceans as a net sink, not a source…
Pamela Gray says:
September 9, 2012 at 8:13 am
Ferdinand, in order for human CO2 input to halt, you would have to stop population increase. We create CO2 from oxygen and carbon intake, which is a closed neutral cycle as long as each component does not increase. This would not be a closed neutral cycle if we continue to increase in number. You would also have to stop all other animal life forms from increasing their population as well. How is this represented in the calculations?
You need to make a differentiation between “recent” CO2 and “fossil” CO2.
What human, animals and bacteria use and exhale is CO2 that was captured a few months to a few decades before by vegetation directly out of the atmosphere. That kind of CO2 recycling doesn’t substantially affect the total CO2 level in the atmosphere. But the use of fossil fuels, captured many millions of years ago, at much higher CO2 levels of that time, does affect the current CO2 levels…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:48 am
“thus in reality:
L = (1-a) * (H + C) where L is less than H,
thus at minimum:
L = 0 and a = 1 and D = H + C
at maximum:
L = H and a = C / (H + C) and D = C
(thus a is not zero)”
L is always 1/2 of H. That is the observational constraint.
For minimum C, a = 1/2 and C = 0. For maximum C, take a = 1 – epsilon, where epsilon is a small number. Then
L = epsilon*H + epsilon*C = 0.5*H
which means
C = (0.5/epsilon – 1) * H
As epsilon approaches zero, C approaches infinity.
In order to satisfy the constraint, a must be in the interval [1/2,1). Mathematicians use a square bracket to indicate a closed interval, and a parenthesis to indicate open meaning 1 is a limit point which is never quite attained (else, the level would be zero, which violates the constraint. If a = 1/2, the drain is taking away 1/2 of the input, 1/2 is left, hence the cold water is off.
If a is arbitrarily close to unity, the sinks are taking out almost everything but a small residual, and the cold water has to be coming in extremely rapidly in order to maintain the level at 1/2 of the hot water input. If the hot water is shut off, it makes hardly any difference to the overall flux. The water keeps on rising.
Philip Mulholland says:
September 9, 2012 at 7:08 am
Duly acknowledged Philip. Interesting material.
I contend that increased sunlight primarily in the tropics when the sun is more active causes the necessary change in the oceanic absorption / release balance for CO2 so it doesn’t matter to me whether the system response to the increased sunlight is organic or inorganic.