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.
“during glacials, there was far less evaporation and precipitation everywhere, thus far less clouds. That led to far more dust settling down in Antarctic ice cores, including the deep inland cores. But far less clouds means far more sunlight all over the globe. That should have lead to increased CO2 releases, if we may believe your theory”
In that situation the sources would be very small compared to now and the the sinks very large compared to now because of the ice caps encroaching towards the equator and causing a substantial narrowing of the equatorial (source) climate zones whilst the more equatorward polar (sink) zones covered a larger geographical area than today. Thus despite the greater sunshine amounts the carbon cycle would have been much reduced and the power of the sources much less compared to the sinks.
Bart:
You say to me
The links are working for me but I copy them here in hope that will help.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
I repeat, if you compare
(a) the decadal averages of CO2 in the first link shifted back in time ~30 years
to
(b) the HadCRUT global temperature time series in the first link
then that implies the CO2 follows the temperature by ~30 years.
What the delay “should” be is not relevant to what it is observed to be (assuming the delay exists).
And you say
30 years is 1/2 of the ~60 year oscillation in temperature. But so what? I don’t see why those data need to relate in any way.
Richard
Stephen Wilde:
I offer a hint. You cannot assume 5.39 all the way down because the energy absorbtion varies with wavelength: the most energetic wavelengths are absorbed all the way down to ~200m but less energetic wavelengths are totally absorbed in lesser depths.
Richard
“You cannot assume 5.39 all the way down”
I agree but can you multiply the 16ppm released at the surface by 5.39 as a result of temperature increases lower down reducing CO2 concentration at each level and thereby pushing CO2 towards the surface ?
Does CO2 migrate through water in a temperature dependent fashion or not ?
Stephen Wilde says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm
There is no cork on an ocean so I’m not sure that the bottle analogy is helpful.
Indeed most of the oceans surface is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere, because there is no cork on it to let the water and atmosphere get into equilibrium. But the CO2 release or uptake is in direct proportion to the pCO2 difference between water and atmosphere, thus the pCO2 (directly related to the CO2 concentration and temperature) at the surface determines how much CO2 is exchanged with the atmosphere, not the total quantity that resides below the surface.
If solar energy hits water at say 200 metres depth will it raise the temperature and reduce the concentration of CO2 at that depth or not ?
It surely will increase the temperature at that depth and increase the local CO2 pressure, but there is no way that CO2 can escape to the atmosphere, except by mixing by wind and temperature induced convection. Only when reaching the atmosphere, the temperature and the CO2 concentration at the surface will give a release or uptake in ratio with the pCO2 difference between water and atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:52 pm
The point I’m trying to resolve is whether or not it is reasonable to multiply the 16ppm per 1C warming of the surface by 5.39 in order to arrive at the true potential for solar input to a depth of 200 metres to release CO2 to the surface.
The factor 5.39 is for the phase transition of water to vapour. For CO2 there is no phase transition at all. The 16 ppmv/°C is the real, measured, equilibrium CO2 level change for seawater in the air above it. Thus no, there is no factor in play.
John Finn:
re. your comment to me at September 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm.
Either I was insufficiently clear in what I wrote or you are misleading the graph at
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
You say to me
No, “stopped” and “negative” would not be expected. The long time delay could be expected to smooth the CO2 emission rate and – because the overall trend is positive – that would result in a period of much reduced emission.
In the histogram the decadal average centred on 1995 is lower than the decadal averages before and after it.
i.e. the growth rate is shown to reduce in the decadal average of the NOAA data.
Indeed, the growth rate progressively reduces from 2.3 ppmv/y in 1987 to 0.4 ppmv/y in 1993 and it then progressively recovers until 1997 (or arguably 2002).
Displaced 30 years forward and the ‘low’ decadal period centres to 1965 which is during the temperature decline after ~1940. That is reasonable agreement (assuming the delay exists).
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Flailing…
richardscourtney says:
September 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm
“But so what? I don’t see why those data need to relate in any way.”
15 years is 1/4 wavelength. That is the expected delay time for a cyclic input at 60 years^-1. The delay is what it should be. It is tautological with the observed integral relationship.
Integration of a Fourier basis function results in a 1/4 wavelength delay. It does not matter if you accept the relationship as being cause and effect or not – the data show that the CO2 output is equivalent to that of an integration of the scaled and offset temperature. You will necessarily get a 1/4 wavelength delay. The delay is not uniform across frequency – it is inversely proportional to frequency in the Fourier decomposition of the input function.
Stephen Wilde:
re your questions to me at September 10, 2012 at 1:28 pm.
I am worried that you may be ‘pulling me off the fence’ which I am determined to stay on.
A couple of years ago I did some ‘back of an envelope’ calcs. similar to yours. I assumed that Henry’s Law applied at each level. If that assumption is made, then all the CO2 ‘driven off’ by the radiation escapes the surface. But I do not know if the assumption is valid although it is reasonable. And, as Ferdinand says, he rejects it.
Data, empirical data, my kingdom for empirical data! (with apologies to W. Shakespeare)
Richard
Ok,
i) ” temperature induced convection”
So the CO2 down to 200 metres can migrate upwards as a result of heating at that level and also at all intermediate levels.
ii) Meanwhile at the surface the CO2 already at the surface is released to the air at the rate of 16 ppm per 1C of warming.
iii) But that other CO2 is coming up, in addition, to add to the vapour pressure of CO2 in the water at the surface so the combination must be more than 16ppm.But how much more ?
iv) When the surface temperature rises by 1C that is the net rise after taking the cooling effect of the phase change of increased evaporation of the water surface into account so the extra energy being supplied by the sun to support the phase change for the water must be equivalent to warming of the water surface of 5.39C in the absence of more evaporation.
v) So although the surface only warms by 1C the actual amount of energy being supplied by the sun to that 200 metres of depth is equivalent to 5.39C if no extra evaporation were occurring.
vi) The rate of migration upwards of CO2 from below would then be that which would be expected from a warming of 5.39C and the amount of outgassing would be that much more than 16ppm
Or would it ?
“Data, empirical data, my kingdom for empirical data! ”
Thanks Richard but don’t get off the fence just for me.
That said I think we do have some empirical data now:
i) The AIRS chart showing CO2 coming out of the sunny oceanic regions but no sign of any coming out of the largest human conurbations.
ii) The fact that we have seen a rise of about 100ppm which isn’t far off the figure to be expected from multiplying 16ppm by 5.39. The shortfall may be due to error margins or impurities in the seawater.The low sea surface temperature rise is a consequence of increased evaporation and not representative of any shortage of solar energy required to achieve the observed outcome.
As for Ferdinand’s other objections I remain of the view that one or more of his underlying assumptions are wrong or incomplete in relation to each objection.
richardscourtney says:
September 10, 2012 at 1:45 pm
In the histogram the decadal average centred on 1995 is lower than the decadal averages before and after it.
Richard, the only reason that the CO2 rate of change in that decade is less than in the previous decade, is the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo. That caused a temperature drop which increased the CO2 uptake of that year and the following year.
Nothing to do with previous temperature changes…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:58 pm
The 160 GtC can’t come from the biosphere, as that is about 30% of all land vegetation (per year!). Or it should be source and sink, but that is already accounted for in the regular seasonal cycle.
They can come only from the deep oceans,
Or from additional degassing from volcagenic soil sources receiving extra sunshine due to diminished cloud post 1960. For which there is empirical evidence which is far more persuasive than the IPCC’s ‘preferred estimate’.
I can see why they, and you, prefer it though.
Stephen, if the Antarctic ice cores suffer all the problems of diffusion etc that Jaworowski flagged up, and the scaling is wrong, as the stomata data indicates, then the figure Ferdi gets via henry’s law of 16ppm is wrong anyway.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Stephen, I have the impression that you haven’t stolen your name: you make a lot of really wild assumptions…
i) ” temperature induced convection”
So the CO2 down to 200 metres can migrate upwards as a result of heating at that level and also at all intermediate levels.
And by wind and waves. Therefore it is called the “mixed layer”.
i) Meanwhile at the surface the CO2 already at the surface is released to the air at the rate of 16 ppm per 1C of warming.
No the CO2 is not released at a rate of 16 ppmv/°C. the CO2 is released in ratio with the pCO2 difference between water and atmosphere. Near the equator, there is a release, near the poles there is uptake. An increase of 1°C of the sea surface will increase the release at the equator somewhat and decrease the uptake at the poles somewhat, the net effect being that the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase until the new level indeed is increased with 16 ppmv/°C.
iii) But that other CO2 is coming up, in addition, to add to the vapour pressure of CO2 in the water at the surface so the combination must be more than 16ppm.But how much more ?
The upcoming CO2 doesn’t “add” to the vapour pressure. The vapour pressure of the surface water decreased because it released some CO2 to the atmosphere, that is replaced by new water of the deeper layers. That will reach the same pCO2 as before, if the concentration and temperature are the same.
vi) The rate of migration upwards of CO2 from below would then be that which would be expected from a warming of 5.39C and the amount of outgassing would be that much more than 16ppm
Even if the mixing of the surface waters was instantaneously, the total amount of CO2 mixing up is of little interest, only the CO2 pressure at the surface is of interest and that is only a matter of concentration and temperature. The temperature didn’t increase with a 5-fold. The CO2 pressure at the surface has nothing to do with any heating factor. Only the real temperature change is of interest for the CO2 pressure at the surface and thus for the CO2 releases.
tallbloke says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Or from additional degassing from volcagenic soil sources receiving extra sunshine due to diminished cloud post 1960. For which there is empirical evidence which is far more persuasive than the IPCC’s ‘preferred estimate’.
Roger, I don’t see that lavafields after cooling down from 1200°C will release any more CO2 when heated by sunlight from 10°C at night to 80°C or so during the day. A lot of CO2 comes from the deep magma, driven by the decomposition of subducted carbonate sediments.
But if we assume that the volcanoes are the real culprit. How do you explain that the CO2 and d13C levels in the atmosphere follow the human emissions with an extremely straight ratio over 160 years? And where are the extra sinks?
The increase in the atmosphere is 4 GtC/year. If volcanoes add 160 GtC and humans add 8 GtC/year, still some 164 GtC/year extra (besides the already working natural cycle) need to be dissolved somewhere.
And last but not least, all extra addition from volcanoes is mainly turnover: 160 GtC extra comes in from a natural source, 164 GtC goes out into a natural sink (wherever that may be) , thus 160 GtC of the natural cycle goes straightforward from source to sink and doesn’t add to the increase in the atmosphere. The difference is that 8 GtC extra leads to 4 GtC increase in the atmosphere. The 8 GtC all human…
BTW, have you seen the effect of the Pinatubo eruption: a net dip in the rate of change of CO2. For the largest eruption including its CO2 release in many decades…
richardscourtney says:
September 10, 2012 at 1:45 pm
At what point would you expect atmospheric CO2 levels to actually fall.
tallbloke says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Stephen, if the Antarctic ice cores suffer all the problems of diffusion etc that Jaworowski flagged up, and the scaling is wrong, as the stomata data indicates, then the figure Ferdi gets via henry’s law of 16ppm is wrong anyway.
Please Roger, let the late Jaworowski rest in his grave. It was told to me that he was a nice person, but that doesn’t change the fact that his knowledge ended in 1992 and that since then a lot more is known of the behaviour of ice cores and its content…
As you may know, stomata are parts of leaves, which by definition grow on land (sea plants have more than enough CO2), where CO2 levels largely vary over day and night, growing seasons, wind speed and direction, changes in landscape and land use over the centuries… All local/regional problems the Antarctic ice cores don’t need to take into account…
And the 16 ppmv/°C for seawater is simply measured, no matter if ice cores are wrong and stomata are right. The difference is that 16 ppmv/°C is for the oceans alone, while 8 ppmv/°C is what the ice cores give for all influences combined, thus including the opposite reaction of vegetation, (deep) ocean current changes, ice sheet formation and vegetation area changes…
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Flailing…
A little childish as reaction, don’t you think.
The main point is that regardless of the enormous increase in natural sources and sinks, the net contribution of the natural cycle to the increase in the atmosphere is negative: a net sink. Only the throughput/turnover increased enormously. Thus despite all your theoretical considerations, the natural cycle is not the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Thus the contribution of temperature to the increase is minimal and the same coefficient for fast changes and the trend is pure coincidence.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm
tallbloke says:
September 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Or from additional degassing from volcagenic soil sources receiving extra sunshine due to diminished cloud post 1960. For which there is empirical evidence which is far more persuasive than the IPCC’s ‘preferred estimate’.
Roger, I don’t see that lavafields after cooling down from 1200°C will release any more CO2 when heated by sunlight from 10°C at night to 80°C or so during the day. A lot of CO2 comes from the deep magma, driven by the decomposition of subducted carbonate sediments.
Cardellini and Casey know more about this than me, or I suspect, you.
But if we assume that the volcanoes are the real culprit. How do you explain that the CO2 and d13C levels in the atmosphere follow the human emissions with an extremely straight ratio over 160 years? And where are the extra sinks?
Don’t know, but wherever there are complex issues over isotopes, there is a way of making the data fit the theory.
The increase in the atmosphere is 4 GtC/year. If volcanoes add 160 GtC and humans add 8 GtC/year, still some 164 GtC/year extra (besides the already working natural cycle) need to be dissolved somewhere.
Yes. Big problem for theorists who thought they already knew the sinks sufficiently well to posit arguments and believe them conclusive. Not a problem for me.
And last but not least, all extra addition from volcanoes is mainly turnover: 160 GtC extra comes in from a natural source, 164 GtC goes out into a natural sink (wherever that may be) , thus 160 GtC of the natural cycle goes straightforward from source to sink and doesn’t add to the increase in the atmosphere. The difference is that 8 GtC extra leads to 4 GtC increase in the atmosphere. The 8 GtC all human…
You are thinking statically again. We are talking of an INCREASE in degassing over the last five decades due to the DECREASE IN CLOUD COVER AND MORE SUNSHINE HOURS.
BTW, have you seen the effect of the Pinatubo eruption: a net dip in the rate of change of CO2. For the largest eruption including its CO2 release in many decades…
Yes. I think this is partly where the IPC went wrong with their ‘preferred estimate’ of 0.26Gt/year globally as the volcanic contribution. They are thinking, like you, in terms of co2 from eruptions. But the really big volcagenic emissions are from vast soil areas not craters. And so the extra cloud cover caused by cloud seeding particulates from pinatubo and stratospheric sulphates perhaps, meant cooler surface conditions and less soil degassing for a couple of years. Your observation supports our hypothesis nicely, thanks. 😉
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Really, Ferdinand… give it up. You’ve got nothing to go on but gut feel. The “mass balance” argument is dead. Let it rest in peace.
Ferdinand, I can see the points you have got wrong in your interpretation of what I’ve said but I can see you won’t accept the principle whatever I say so I’ll leave it for now, give it more thought as to how I can better express it, and use it elsewhere in the future.
Richard gets the point , apparently it had occurred to him in the past, so lots of others will get it too.
In, essence (for those with open minds), the amount of CO2 driven upward and out from the surface by more solar energy entering the top 200 metres does not need to be proportionate to the temperature rise at the surface because of the confounding effect of evaporation from the surface.
Instead, it is proportionate to the amount of solar energy exciting the molecules within that 200 metres thereby driving the CO2 upwards and reducing concentration of CO2 throiughout that 200 metre depth.
That amount of solar energy, due to the enthalpy of vaporisation, is 5.39 times the amount of energy required to raise the surface temperature by the amount actually observed so it has to be factored in as regards the application of Henry’s Law from layer to layer throughout the depth affected by the incoming solar radiation.
Thus has the potential for outgassing as a result of changes in insolation from cloudiness changes been grossly underestimated.
Here is a chart of ocean heat content anomaly showing a step change in the rate of increase around 2002 by which time cloudiness had started to increase again:
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/
It goes to 700 metres instead of 200 metres and so not perfect for my point but good enough.
Here is a record of the annual mean growth rate for C02 in the atmosphere:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The mean growth rate has levelled off since around 2000.
Mere coincidence ? I think not.
There have been previous periods of levelling off or decline in the CO2 growth rate but in each case I suspect a link to ENSO conditions at the time and of course ENSO states would affect the temperature of the top 200 metres and so influence the rate of outgassing.
The 1997/8 super El Nino shows a nice peak in CO2 growth rate and the subsequent deep La Nina shows a nice deep trough in CO2 growth rate..
So we can see that already the recent change in trends has affected both ocean heat content accumulation rate and CO2 rate of increase in the atmosphere.
Now we just need to see what happens if the sun stays quiet, jets remain meridional and higher cloudiness continues to reduce solar energy getting into the oceans to fuel the system.
I’ve worked out the answer to the isotope argument.
If we are right about lots of extra co2 being naturally emitted from volcagenic solis and oceans due to reduced tropical cloud cover, then the airborne fraction would have increased even if there were no human emissions.
So the fact that the ratio of D13 to D12 isotope has changed because plants preferentially absorb one rather than another doesn’t necessarily indicate that it’s the human emission which is primarily responsible for the increase, given it’s small scale compared to the natural carbon cycle.
Ferdi claims the drop in the ratio is ‘just right’ to account for the human emission being responsible for all the increase. These ‘goldilocks’ calculations always arouse my suspicion that creative accounting brought about by confirmation bias is at work. The discovery that volcagenic emission is vastly greater than the IPCC ‘preferred estimate’ confirms it. Also, we must bear in mind Casey’s observation that given the woeful undersampling of volcagenic sources, it is always possible that isotope ratio outliers in the volcagenic fraction actually dominate.
John Finn:
At September 10, 2012 at 3:44 pm you ask me
Clearly, you have not been paying attention.
I do not “expect” anything. My point – from which I have refused to waiver – is that we lack sufficient data on the carbon cycle to determine the causality of the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The future trajectory of the CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be predicted when we do not know why the CO2 in the atmosphere is changing.
Please read the thread before jumping in with silly questions near the end of two weeks of continuous debate.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At September 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm you say to me
Richard, the only reason that the CO2 rate of change in that decade is less than in the previous decade, is the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo. That caused a temperature drop which increased the CO2 uptake of that year and the following year.
Nothing to do with previous temperature changes…
I tend to agree, and that is why whenever I mentioned it I included the caveat “(assuming the lag exists)”.
However, that was not my point. It had been repeatedly asserted that there is a delay and the lag is 15 years. My point was that the data indicates if the lag exists then it is 30 years (i.e. not 15).
Please note that Bart has responded that the lag must be 15 years (for reasons which I fail to understand).
Richard