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.
“it is always possible that isotope ratio outliers in the volcagenic fraction actually dominate”
Or indeed any non organic fraction.
richardscourtney says:
September 11, 2012 at 1:15 am
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.
It is you who suggested – with some confidence – that there is a “30 year delay”. You provided ‘evidence’ which showed that when cooling takes place atmospheric CO2 levels don’t rise as fast as when it is warming – though it does keep rising . I, therefore, asked the quite reasonable question as to when (and under what conditions) would levels actually fall. You don’t have an answer for this which suggests you haven’t thought things through properly – or at all .
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.
We do know why it is changing. We (humans) have introduced an additional source of atmospheric CO2 via fossil fuel burning. While the biosphere has increased it’s CO2 uptake to partly offset the man-made emissions there is an excess each year following the annual carbon cycle.
That, Richard, is why atmospheric CO2 levels have increased through both warming AND cooling periods.
Please read the thread before jumping in with silly questions near the end of two weeks of continuous debate. </i.
I have read the thread and the only 'silliness' I've noted comes from those who are desperate to show that the increase in CO2 levels over the past 100 years or so is not influenced by human activity. I've read your ill-thought out nonsense about a 30 year delay which supposedly explains the 'noise' at a decadal level while the actual trend is apparently explained by some unknown, never before seen, phenomenon which, coincidentally, just happens to have kicked in at the same time and at the same pace as human industrialisation. I've also read Stephen Wilde's laughable attempts to show that Henry's Law supports a 100ppm/1deg increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Look – I don't have a problem with it – but we stick around 8GtC into the atmosphere every year which is equivalent to a ~4ppm rise. If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow then 8GtC (~4 ppm) less would end up in the atmosphere and CO2 levels would start to fall.
Richard
I don’t think there is a lag as regards the commencement of a change in CO2 emission rates from the equatorial oceanic sources because as soon as sunlight increases then so does the emission rate.
However, there would be a lag in terms of the time it takes to reverse any pre existing trend thus it might take 15 years to change a net gain to a net loss and another 15 years to consolidate the new trend until it starts to reverse again.
So what I think we have is an underlying background trend of increasing ocean emissions since the LIA and overlain on that is variations in the rate of change imposed by ENSO on an interannual timescale and PDO (or Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation as preferred by Bob Tisdale) on an approximate 60 year timescale.
I think that fits the mean growth rate trend reasonably well.
There is also a possibility that returning MWP water from the Thermohaline Circulation could be influencing water temperatures and the CO2 vapour pressure some 800 to 1000 years later but the primary influence would be current levels of insolation.
tallbloke says:
September 11, 2012 at 12:18 am
Form the Cardellini reference:
…highlights the presence of two large CO2 degassing structures… …that, for the magnitude and for the geochemical-isotopic features, were related to a regional process of mantle degassing.
Thus the degassing of CO2 in Italy comes from the mantle, several km deep, not from lavafields and completely unaffected by sunlight. The carbon isotopes ratio says something about the origin of the CO2: if it was from subduction of carbonate sediments, the 13C/12C ratio would be around zero per mil, deep mantle CO2 has a lower 13C/12C ratio, but in general still above the ratio in the atmosphere. See:
http://univ-lyon1.academia.edu/NicolasColtice/Papers/115851/Carbon_isotope_cycle_and_mantle_structure
The Italian earth degassing seems to be from carbonate subduction, as the d13C level is quite high (at +0.5 per mil):
http://reading.academia.edu/AntonioCosta/Papers/568893/Non-volcanic_CO2_Earth_degassing_Case_of_Mefite_dAnsanto_southern_Apennines_Italy
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.
First, you underestimate the influence of fossil fuel burning on the isotope ratios. Even since ~1870 the carbon dating needed correction tables to correct for the use of zero 14C fossil fuels. The point is that we see a firm DEcrease in 13C/12C ratio, while the extra growth of the biosphere causes an INcrease in 13C/12C ratio, thus the biosphere can’t be the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Neither are the oceans or volcanic eruptions or deep earth CO2 releases, as these have a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere…
In fact, it is possible to estimate the deep ocean circulation through the atmosphere, as what goes down in the deep oceans near the poles is the current isotopic composition (minus the fractionation at the air-water border) and what is released in the tropics is the historical composition (plus any underway changes and the fractionation at the water-air border). Without such a “thinning” of the human signal, the d13C level would have dropped from pre-industrial -6.4 per mil to -11 per mil. The observed drop is to -8 per mil, which means that about 2/3rd of all human induced CO2 was exchanged by natural CO2 from the deep oceans. No exchanges with the oceans surface and vegetation wer taken into account, that gives a (rather small) deviation with reality. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
richardscourtney says: September 10, 2012 at 11:35 am
Friends:
Several here suggest that the delay of atmospheric CO2 behind global temperature is 15 years. I think the delay is ~30 years.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm
The delay is 90 degrees of phase, reflecting the integral relationship.
I am not into the CO2 radiative physics, but what I found in the N. Atlantic’s oscillation may be of some interest.
Solar input may vary a bit but it is the Earth core oscillations that compromise integrity of the thermo-haline layers, allowing the greater or lesser absorption of the incoming energy.
Atmospheric pressure in the far N. Atlantic (home of the AMO) reacts more or less simultaneously, while temperature peak follows about 15 years later.
See the screen copy of an article I wrote while ago and it is available on line since few days ago
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO-AMO.htm
This appears to be confirmed by the oscillating exchange of energy between ocean surface and the cumulative atmospheric pressure
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm
with phase difference (pi)/2 =15-16 years for the potential difference, and (pi)=32 years for the energy.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm
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.
What is this supposed to mean?? The mean growth rate since 2000 is ~2ppm per year which is the highest rate for any decade since ML measurements began. The graph in your link shows us that each decade has seen an increase in growth rate since the 1960s. The only exception being the 1990s when growth rates fell relative to the 1980s, but, as ferdie has pointed out, this was due to the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.
You appear to be confused. The growth rate, i.e. the trend, since 2000 is 2ppm/year. However this is just an average. There is some variation (or noise) which is the result of (mainly) ENSO conditions.
The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2000 was 369.52ppm
The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2011 was 391.57ppm
That’s 22ppm in 11 years. The so-called ‘levelling off’ you seem to imagine is happening is because annual global CO2 (fossil fuel) emissions, though increasing, have been broadly similar over the decade and any increase in growth rate is being obscured by the noise.
John Finn says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:32 am
you haven’t thought things through properly – or at all
Stephen Wilde’s laughable attempts
those who are desperate
Yawn.
John Finn said:
“I’ve also read Stephen Wilde’s laughable attempts to show that Henry’s Law supports a 100ppm/1deg increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. ”
If it is laughable (or just plain wrong) I’d be the first to appreciate knowing why that is so in order that I can henceforth ignore the idea.
When solar energy excites a water molecule at 200 metres depth what do you think then happens to the CO2 concentration at that depth ?
To give a 1C surface temperature rise at the surface the total amount of energy required to achieve that rise needs to take into account the enthalpy of vaporisation doesn’t it ?
If not, why not ?
John Finn,
Can you move beyond the obvious? CO2 is rising. Some of the increase is due to human emissions, and some to ocean outgassing. But the only measurements show that CO2 follows temperature. However, rising CO2 does not seem to affect global temperature. Thus, your arm-waving is misplaced.
Based on empirical evidence, the putative causation between rising CO2 and subsequent rising temperature is falsified. The fact is that CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa.
The CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified. Back to the drawing board.
John Finn said
“The mean growth rate since 2000 is ~2ppm per year which is the highest rate for any decade since ML measurements began. The graph in your link shows us that each decade has seen an increase in growth rate since the 1960s.”
Solar input to the oceans due to poleward shifting climate zones with expanding tropics and reducing cloudiness increased each decade from the 60s.That is the more likely explanation.
During the past decade, although at a high level, the rate of increase appears to have stopped accelerating in correlation with now increasing cloudiness.That is despite still accelerating CO2 emissions on a decadal timescale.
Whether it is mere noise can be determned by observing what happens next provided the sun stays quiet and global cloudiness remains higher than it was in the late 20th century.
If I turn out wrong then so be it but weighing the various bits of evidence against one another I remain moderately confident.
Bart says:
September 10, 2012 at 5:43 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.
Bart, all you are staring at is one graph which by coincidence shows the same factor for the fast responses and the slower response. Every other single piece of evidence shows that the slower response can’t be caused by temperature, but that doesn’t change your mind.
OK, that is your opinion, I have mine…
BTW, the mass balance still is alive and kicking, as it shows that your argument of fast sinks simply gives more throughput without any net input of the natural flows and humans still fully responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 11, 2012 at 6:40 am
When solar energy excites a water molecule at 200 metres depth what do you think then happens to the CO2 concentration at that depth ?
Nothing, the CO2 concentration can’t change, because it can’t escape at that depth… What happens is that the pCO2 (the tention to escape) increases, as the excitation (temperature) of the water molecules is spread over all molecules at that depth. But as long as the CO2 molecules aren’t moved to the surface, nothing will happen.
To give a 1C surface temperature rise at the surface the total amount of energy required to achieve that rise needs to take into account the enthalpy of vaporisation doesn’t it ?
Yes it does, but that has nothing to do with what CO2 needs to escape: only a temperature change causes a change in pCO2, the amount of energy needed to get the temperature change is not of importance for CO2.
i) “But as long as the CO2 molecules aren’t moved to the surface, nothing will happen.”
Previously you conceded that they would move upward via convection within the water and of course the more solar energy penetrating the water the more upward convection there would be.
ii) “but that has nothing to do with what CO2 needs to escape: only a temperature change causes a change in pCO2, the amount of energy needed to get the temperature change is not of importance for CO2.”
In order to escape from the water faster there needs to be more CO2 vapour pressure in the water. If CO2 is moving up from below then the vapour pressure at the surface will rise and more will be released.
The amount of energy involved is important because it is that energy which causes the rise upward from depth and because of the enthalpy of evaporation the surface temperature of water is not an accurate reflection of the amount of energy actually involved.
So saying that 1C gives 16ppm release is not good enough because the water surface temperature is misleadingly low as a result of evaporation. Instead one must look to the amount of energy driving the process which is 5.39 times as much as one would expect from a surface temperature rise of 1C.
John Finn:
At September 11, 2012 at 2:32 am you say to me:
OK. Do me a favour and prove it. I have tried to prove it and failed. Indeed, the more I have tried the more evidence I have found that it is not possible to determine the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I want to know the cause of that rise.
You say you know the cause.
So, convince me with solid argument supported by clear evidence which explains the problems with your assertion; e.g. why is the rise happening although the dynamics of sequestration indicate that all emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) are easily sequestered by the sequestration processes?
Don’t assert it. Prove it.
Richard
“your argument of fast sinks simply gives more throughput without any net input of the natural flows and humans still fully responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.”
Fast sinks locally that are only energised when human CO2 reaches them give more total throughput but need have no effect on the natural net throughput that still occurs as before with no necessary effect on the natural net balance from the human contribution.
The natural global net balance is as it would have been anyway and the human emissions are absorbed locally by a response provoked by those emissions for a zero net effect overall.
As per your earlier business analogy. More turnover (emissions) less more expenses (local absorption) comes to zero and the natural underlying balance remains unaffected.
richardscourtney says:
September 11, 2012 at 1:40 am
“Please note that Bart has responded that the lag must be 15 years (for reasons which I fail to understand).”
The lag for a 60 year cycle in temperature has to be 15 years, and there happens to be a strong ~60 year component in the temperature record. For other components of the driving temperature input, it is different, in inverse proportion to the frequency. For other inputs which cause transient events, it is not so constrained.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:33 am
“I don’t think there is a lag as regards the commencement of a change in CO2 emission rates from the equatorial oceanic sources because as soon as sunlight increases then so does the emission rate.”
Indeed, the dominant CO2 rate is coincident with the temperature. The level itself therefore lags 90 degrees in phase.
John Finn says:
September 11, 2012 at 2:32 am
“I have read the thread and the only ‘silliness’ I’ve noted comes from those who are desperate to show that the increase in CO2 levels over the past 100 years or so is not influenced by human activity.”
And, the Earth is obviously flat, and disease is caused by evil spirits, and volcanoes erupt because not enough virgins have been sacrificed. Simple folk demand simple answers. This brings to mind that scene in “A FIsh Called Wanda” when Otto asks, “Do monkeys read Nietzsche?”, and Wanda replies, “Yes! But they don’t understand it!”
No, John. The rise is entirely due to temperatures. That is compelled by affine relationship between temperature and CO2 rate of change.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 11, 2012 at 7:05 am
“BTW, the mass balance still is alive and kicking, as it shows that your argument of fast sinks simply gives more throughput without any net input of the natural flows and humans still fully responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.”
The argument is dead. It has been shown that it does not constrain humans to have been the source of the rise.
[ richardscourtney says:September 11, 2012 at 1:40 am
“Please note that Bart has responded that the lag must be 15 years (for reasons which I fail to understand).” ]
……………….
Richard
It is a common property for the energy exchange within oscillating events.
Example:
Take a long swing which takes 3 seconds to go forth and 3 seconds to come back, its period is 6 seconds. It takes ½ of 3 seconds to ‘fall’ from the highest point (where potential energy is at maximum and kinetic energy =0) to the lowest point (where potential energy =0 and the kinetic energy is at maximum), i.e. ¼ of 6 seconds or ¼ of its period.
If analogy is applied to the North Atlantic SST oscillation with period of 60 years (actually it is closer like 64) then 15 years is ¼ of its 60 year period.
Now if the CO2 had a 60 year cycle than analogy would be complete, it does not as far as I know, but I am not into CO2 radiative physics..
The full analogy is found between cumulative atmospheric pressure and the SST in the north Atlantic as it is demonstrated here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm
During these oscillations ocean may be out-gassing CO2.
I hope I got that right.
Bart says:
September 11, 2012 at 8:57 am
No, John. The rise is entirely due to temperatures. That is compelled by affine relationship between temperature and CO2 rate of change.
Why do you keep comparing temperature with the CO2 rate of change. All your link does is illustrate the well known fact that CO2 increases more in warm SST (e.g. El Nino) years than it does in ‘cool’ (e.g La Nina) years.
To put it another way the rate of change/temperature plot explains the ‘noise’ – it does not explain the trend
Re: John Finn says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:09 am
Regarding my earlier post.
Bart, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Richard Courtney, i.e.
At what point and under what conditions would you expect atmospheric CO2 levels to actually fall?
John Finn,
The trend in CO2 follows the trend in temperature. Look at this graph, and you will see that is a fact. That cause and effect relationship occurs on all time scales, out to at least 400,000 years.
There is no measurable evidence showing that changes in CO2 cause changes in temperature. None. Therefore, your entire belief system is falsified. Quit wasting everyone’s time with your pseudoscience.
“To put it another way the rate of change/temperature plot explains the ‘noise’ – it does not explain the trend”
The background trend is supplied by the increasing solar insolation in the equatorial regions since the LIA during which period the increasing level of solar activity has been making the equatorial air masses wider with more zonal / poleward jets allowing more sunlight into the oceans.
Throughout the period since the LIA the strength of El Ninos has been gaining over the strength of La Ninas.
Once solar activity really starts dropping and for long enough (cycles 24 and 25 might just be a low blip for all I know as yet) the process will go into reverse for the subsequent 400 to 500 years and atmospheric CO2 should then show a long term falling trend in the background.
vukcevic:
re your post addressed to me at September 11, 2012 at 9:57 am
Thankyou.
Richard
vukcevic says:
September 11, 2012 at 9:57 am
Yes you got it right.
As I said above:
“However, there would be a lag in terms of the time it takes to reverse any pre existing trend thus it might take 15 years to change a net gain to a net loss and another 15 years to consolidate the new trend until it starts to reverse again.”
John Finn says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:09 am
” it does not explain the trend “
Sure it does. That’s the integral of the offset. There has to be an offset. After all, the temperatures themselves are anomalies, and relative to an arbitrary baseline, so why shouldn’t there be an offset?
More importantly, it explains the curvature. And, that is what rules out significant human attribution.
John Finn says:
September 11, 2012 at 10:19 am
“At what point and under what conditions would you expect atmospheric CO2 levels to actually fall?”
Either when temperatures fall enough, or there is a regime change in the state of the sources which brings the equilibrium temperature higher, or both. With current conditions, I would not expect CO2 levels to fall until temperatures had decreased a sizable fraction of a degree, e.g., the correlation here suggests it would not actually reverse course until lower troposhperic temperatures fell 0.6 deg. However, those conditions could change.
Stephen Wilde says:
September 11, 2012 at 7:59 am
Stephen, again, energy and temperature are related, but are completely different things.
Previously you conceded that they would move upward via convection within the water and of course the more solar energy penetrating the water the more upward convection there would be.
Maybe, maybe not, depends of where most of the sunlight is absorbed (which is just under the surface, not at 200 m depth) but that is completely besides the question you asked: what happens to the CO2 concentration at 200 m depth. The only straightforward answer is “nothing”.
In order to escape from the water faster there needs to be more CO2 vapour pressure in the water. If CO2 is moving up from below then the vapour pressure at the surface will rise and more will be released.
Depends where the highest temperature is. If water is rising by wind/waves and the temperature at the surface is higher than from the depth, then the surface will cool and less CO2 is released… That is in general the case:
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~gronell/cookbook/csiro.htm
Or you can have the opposite that the deeper water warms up by mixing with the warmer surface water and releases more CO2…
But that all has little to do with sunlight, except for its influence on temperature.
So saying that 1C gives 16ppm release is not good enough
Stephen, you may not like it, but the energy content of the water has nothing to do with how much CO2 is released. The latter is only dependent of the temperature (and salt content of the seawater). The 16 ppmv is what is measured by shaking seawater and air at different temperatures until in equilibrium (which is within minutes). Further the 16 ppmv is not release, but pressure. Release depends of pressure differences with the atmosphere…