Guest Post by David Middleton
The World Meteorological Organization (Why do I always think of Team America: World Police whenever “World” and “Organization” appear in the same title?) recently announced that atmospheric greenhouse gases had once again set a new record.
Records are made to be broken
I wonder if the folks at the WMO are aware of the following three facts:
1) The first “record high” CO2 level was set in 1809, at a time when cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions had yet to exceed the equivalent of 0.2 ppmv CO2?
- Figure 1. The Original CO2 “Hockey Stick.” CO2 emissions data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). The emissions (GtC) were divided by 2.13 to obtain ppmv CO2.
2) From 1750 to 1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten times the rate of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions…
- Figure 2. Where, oh where, did that CO2 come from?
3) Cumulative anthropogenic emissions didn’t “catch up” to the rise in atmospheric CO2 until 1960…
- Figure 3. It took humans over 100 years to “catch up” to nature.
The emissions were only able to “catch up” because atmospheric CO2 levels stalled at ~312 ppmv from 1940-1955.
The mid-20th century decline in atmospheric CO2
The highest resolution Antarctic ice cores I am aware of come from Law Dome (Etheridge et al., 1998), particularly the DE08 core. Over the past decade, the Law Dome ice core resolution has been improved through denser sampling and the application of frequency enhancing signal processing techniques (Trudinger et el., 2002 and MacFarling Meure et al., 2006). Not surprisingly, the higher resolution data are indicating more variability in preindustrial CO2 levels.
Plant stomata reconstructions (Kouwenberg et al., 2005, Finsinger and Wagner-Cremer, 2009) and contemporary chemical analyses (Beck, 2007) indicate that CO2 levels in the 1930′s to early 1940′s were in the 340 to 400 ppmv range and then declined sharply in the 1950’s. These findings have been rejected by the so-called scientific consensus because this fluctuation is not resolved in Antarctic ice cores. However, MacFarling Meure et al., 2006 found possible evidence of a mid-20th Century CO2 decline in the DE08 ice core…
The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.
[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.
From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere.
If oceanic uptake of CO2 caused ocean acidification, shouldn’t we see some evidence of it? Shouldn’t “a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1” (or more) from ~1940–1955 have left a mark somewhere in the oceans? Maybe dissolved some snails or a reef?
Had atmospheric CO2 simply followed the preindustrial trajectory, it very likely would have reached 315-345 ppmv by 2010…
Oddly enough, plant stomata-derived CO2 reconstructions indicate that CO2 levels of 315-345 ppmv have not been uncommon throughout the Holocene…
So, what on Earth could have driven all of that CO2 variability before humans started burning fossil fuels? Could it possibly have been temperature changes?
CO2 as feedback
When I plot a NH temperature reconstruction (Moberg et al., 2005) along with the Law Dome CO2 record, it sure looks to me as if the CO2 started rising about 100 years after the temperature started rising…
The rise in CO2 from 1842-1945 looks a heck of a lot like the rise in temperature from 1750-1852…
The correlation is very strong. A calculated CO2 chronology yields a good match to the DE08 ice core and stomata-derived CO2 since 1850. However, it indicates that atmospheric CO2 would have reached ~430 ppmv in the mid-12th century AD.
The mid-12th century peak in CO2 is not supported by either the ice cores or the plant stomata. The correlation breaks down before the 1830’s. However, the same break down also happens when CO2 is treated as forcing rather than feedback.
CO2 as forcing
If I directly cross plot CO2 vs. temperature with no lag time, I get a fair correlation with the post DE08 core (>1833) data and no correlation at all with pre-DE08 core (<1833) data…
If I extrapolate out to about 840 ppmv CO2, I get about 3 °C of warming relative to 275 ppmv. So, I get the same amount of warming for a tripling of preindustrial CO2 that the IPCC says we’ll get with a doubling.
Based on this correlation, the equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of preindustrial CO2 is ~1.5 to 2.0 °C. But, the total lack of a correlation in the ice cores older than DE08 is very puzzling.
Ice core resolution and the lack a CO2-temperature coupling before 1833
Could the lack of variability in the older (and deeper) cores have something to do with resolution? The DE08 core is of far higher resolution than pretty well all of the other Antarctic ice cores, including the deeper and older DSS core from Law Dome.
The amplitude of the CO2 “signal” also appears to be well-correlated with the snow accumulation rate (resolution) of the ice cores…
Could it be that snow accumulation rates significantly lower than 1 m/yr simply can’t resolve century-scale and higher frequency CO2 shifts? Could it also be that the frequency degradation is also attenuating the amplitude of the CO2 “signal”?
If the vast majority of the ice cores older and deeper than DE08 can’t resolve century-scale and higher frequency CO2 shifts, doesn’t it make sense that ice core-derived CO2 and temperature would appear to be poorly coupled over most of the Holocene?
Why is it that the evidence always seems to indicate that the IPCC’s best case scenario is the worst that can happen in the real world?
Brad Plummer’s recent piece in the Washington Post featured a graph that caught my eye…
It appears that a “business as usual” (A1FI) will turn Earth into Venus by 2100 AD.
But, what happens if I use real data?
Let’s assume that the atmospheric CO2 level will rise along an exponential trend line until 2100.
I get a CO2 level of 560 ppmv, comparable to the IPCC SRES B2 emissions scenario…
So, business as usual will likely lead to the same CO2 level as an IPCC greentopian scenario. Why am I not surprised?
Assuming all of the warming since 1833 was caused by CO2 (it wasn’t), 560 ppmv will lead to about 1°C of additional warming by the year 2100.
Projected Temp. Anom. = 2.6142 * ln(CO2) – 15.141
How does this compare with the IPCC’s mythical scenarios? About as expected. The worst case scenario based on actual observations is comparable to the IPCC’s best case, greentopian scenario…
Conclusions
- Atmospheric CO2 concentration records were being broken long before anthropogenic emissions became significant.
- Atmospheric CO2 levels were rising much faster than anthropogenic emissions from 1750-1875.
- Anthropogenic emissions did not “catch up” to atmospheric CO2 until 1960.
- The natural carbon flux is much more variable than the so-called scientific consensus thinks it is.
- The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) cannot be more than 2°C and is probably closer to 1°C.
- The worst-case scenario based on the evidence is comparable to the IPCC’s most greentopian, best-case scenario.
- Ice cores with accumulation rates less than 1m/yr are not useful for ECS estimations.
The ECS derived from the Law Dome DE08 ice core and Moberg’s NH temperature reconstruction assumes that all of the warming since 1833 was due to CO2. We know for a fact that at least half of the warming was due to solar influences and natural climatic oscillations. So the derived 2°C is more likely to be 1°C. Since it is clear that about half of the rise from 275 to 400 ppmv was natural, the anthropogenic component of that 1°C ECS is probably less than 0.7°C.
The lack of a correlation between temperature and CO2 from the start of the Holocene up until 1833 and the fact that the modern CO2 rise outpaced the anthropogenic emissions for about 200 years leads this amateur climate researcher to concluded that CO2 must have been a lot more variable over the last 10,000 years than the Antarctic ice core indicate.
Appendix I: Another Way to Look at the CO2 growth rate
In Figure 15 I used the Excel-calculated exponential trend line to extrapolate the MLO CO2 time series to the end of this century. If I extrapolate the emissions and assume 55% of emissions remain in atmosphere, I get ~702 ppmv by the end of the century, with an additional 0.6°C of warming. A total warming of 2.5°C above “preindustrial.” Even this worse than worst case scenario results in about 1°C less warming than the A1B reference scenario. It falls about mid-way between A1B and the top of the greentopian range.
Appendix II: CO2 Records, the Early Years
Whenever CO2 records are mentioned or breathtaking pronouncements like, “Carbon dioxide at highest level in 800,000 years” are made, I always like to take a look at those “records” in a geological context. The following graphs were generated from Bill Illis’ excellent collection of paleo-climate data.
In the following bar chart I grouped CO2 by geologic period. The Cambrian through Cretaceous are drawn from Berner and Kothavala, 2001 (GEOCARB), the Tertiary is from Pagani, et al. 2006 (deep sea sediment cores), the Pleistocene is from Lüthi, et al. 2008 (EPICA C Antarctic ice core), the “Anthropocene” is from NOAA-ESRL (Mauna Loa Observatory) and the CO2 starvation is from Ward et al., 2005.
[SARC ON] I thought about including Venus on the bar chart; but I would have had to use a logarithmic scale. [SARC OFF]
Appendix III: Plant Stomata-Derived CO2
The catalogue of peer-reviewed papers demonstrating higher and more variable preindustrial CO2 levels is quite impressive and growing. Here are a few highlights:
Wagner et al., 1999. Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration. Science 18 June 1999: Vol. 284 no. 5422 pp. 1971-1973…
In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.
[…]
Most of the Holocene ice core records from Antarctica do not have adequate temporal resolution.
[…]
Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were .300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception.
The ice cores cannot resolve CO2 shifts that occur over periods of time shorter than twice the bubble enclosure period. This is basic signal theory. The assertion of a stable pre-industrial 270-280 ppmv is flat-out wrong.
McElwain et al., 2001. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179…
It is possible that a number of the short-term fluctuations recorded using the stomatal methods cannot be detected in ice cores, such as Dome Concordia, with low ice accumulation rates. According to Neftel et al. (1988), CO2 fluctuation with a duration of less than twice the bubble enclosure time (equivalent to approximately 134 calendar yr in the case of Byrd ice and up to 550 calendar yr in Dome Concordia) cannot be detected in the ice or reconstructed by deconvolution.
Not even the highest resolution ice cores, like Law Dome, have adequate resolution to correctly image the MLO instrumental record.
Kouwenberg et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 33–36…
The discrepancies between the ice-core and stomatal reconstructions may partially be explained by varying age distributions of the air in the bubbles because of the enclosure time in the firn-ice transition zone. This effect creates a site-specific smoothing of the signal (decades for Dome Summit South [DSS], Law Dome, even more for ice cores at low accumulation sites), as well as a difference in age between the air and surrounding ice, hampering the construction of well-constrained time scales (Trudinger et al., 2003).
Stomatal reconstructions are reproducible over at least the Northern Hemisphere, throughout the Holocene and consistently demonstrate that the pre-industrial natural carbon flux was far more variable than indicated by the ice cores.
Wagner et al., 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quaternary Science Reviews. 23 (2004) 1947–1954…
The majority of the stomatal frequency-based estimates of CO 2 for the Holocene do not support the widely accepted concept of comparably stable CO2 concentrations throughout the past 11,500 years. To address the critique that these stomatal frequency variations result from local environmental change or methodological insufficiencies, multiple stomatal frequency records were compared for three climatic key periods during the Holocene, namely the Preboreal oscillation, the 8.2 kyr cooling event and the Little Ice Age. The highly comparable fluctuations in the paleo-atmospheric CO2 records, which were obtained from different continents and plant species (deciduous angiosperms as well as conifers) using varying calibration approaches, provide strong evidence for the integrity of leaf-based CO2 quantification.
The Antarctic ice cores lack adequate resolution because the firn densification process acts like a low-pass filter.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4…
Atmospheric CO2 reconstructions are currently available from direct measurements of air enclosures in Antarctic ice and, alternatively, from stomatal frequency analysis performed on fossil leaves. A period where both methods consistently provide evidence for natural CO2 changes is during the 13th century AD. The results of the two independent methods differ significantly in the amplitude of the estimated CO2 changes (10 ppmv ice versus 34 ppmv stomatal frequency). Here, we compare the stomatal frequency and ice core results by using a firn diffusion model in order to assess the potential influence of smoothing during enclosure on the temporal resolution as well as the amplitude of the CO2 changes. The seemingly large discrepancies between the amplitudes estimated by the contrasting methods diminish when the raw stomatal data are smoothed in an analogous way to the natural smoothing which occurs in the firn.
The derivation of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to atmospheric CO2 is largely based on Antarctic ice cores. The problem is that the temperature estimates are based on oxygen isotope ratios in the ice itself; while the CO2 estimates are based on gas bubbles trapped in the ice.
The temperature data are of very high resolution. The oxygen isotope ratios are functions of the temperature at the time of snow deposition. The CO2 data are of very low and variable resolution because it takes decades to centuries for the gas bubbles to form. The CO2 values from the ice cores represent average values over many decades to centuries. The temperature values have annual to decadal resolution.
The highest resolution Antarctic ice core is the DE08 core from Law Dome.
The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus assume that it can resolve annual changes in CO2. But it can’t. Each CO2 value represents a roughly 30-yr average and not an annual value.
If you smooth the Mauna Loa instrumental record (red curve) and plant stomata-derived pre-instrumental CO2 (green curve) with a 30-yr filter, they tie into the Law Dome DE08 ice core (light blue curve) quite nicely…
The deeper DSS core (dark blue curve) has a much lower temporal resolution due to its much lower accumulation rate and compaction effects. It is totally useless in resolving century scale shifts, much less decadal shifts.
The IPCC and so-called scientific consensus correctly assume that resolution is dictated by the bubble enclosure period. However, they are incorrect in limiting the bubble enclosure period to the sealing zone. In the case of the core DE08 they assume that they are looking at a signal with a 1 cycle/1 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years. The actual signal has a 1 cycle/30-40 yr frequency, sampled once every 8-10 years.
30-40 ppmv shifts in CO2 over periods less than ~60 years cannot be accurately resolved in the DE08 core. That’s dictated by basic signal theory. Wagner et al., 1999 drew a very hostile response from the so-called scientific consensus. All Dr. Wagner-Cremer did to them was to falsify one little hypothesis…
In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.
[…]
Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception (23).
The plant stomata pretty well prove that Holocene CO2 levels have frequently been in the 300-350 ppmv range and occasionally above 400 ppmv over the last 10,000 years.
The incorrect estimation of a 3°C ECS to CO2 is almost entirely driven the assumption that preindustrial CO2 levels were in the 270-280 ppmv range, as indicated by the Antarctic ice cores.
The plant stomata data clearly show that preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher and far more variable than indicated by Antarctic ice cores. Which means that the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800’s is not particularly anomalous and at least half of it is due to oceanic and biosphere responses to the warm-up from the Little Ice Age.
As the Earth’s climate continues to not cooperate with their models, the so-called consensus will eventually recognize and acknowledge their fundamental error. Hopefully we won’t have allowed decarbonization zealotry to bankrupt us beforehand.
Until the paradigm shifts, all estimates of the pre-industrial relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores will be wrong, because the ice core temperature and CO2 time series are of vastly different resolutions. And until the “so-called consensus” gets the signal processing right, they will continue to get it wrong.
References
Anklin, M., J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, J. Tschumi, A. Fuchs, J.M. Barnola, and D. Raynaud. 1997. CO2 record between 40 and 8kyr B.P. from the Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26539-26545.
Barnola et al. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2.
Nature, 329, 408-414.
Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.
Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2012. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2012
Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan. 1998. Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
Finsinger, W. and F. Wagner-Cremer. Stomatal-based inference models for reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration: a method assessment using a calibration and validation approach. The Holocene 19,5 (2009) pp. 757–764
Fischer, H. A Short Primer on Ice Core Science. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern.
Garcıa-Amorena, I., F. Wagner-Cremer, F. Gomez Manzaneque, T. B. van Hoof, S. Garcıa Alvarez, and H. Visscher. 2008. CO2 radiative forcing during the Holocene Thermal Maximum revealed by stomatal frequency of Iberian oak leaves. Biogeosciences Discussions 5, 3945–3964, 2008.
Illis, B. 2009. Searching the PaleoClimate Record for Estimated Correlations: Temperature, CO2 and Sea Level. Watts Up With That?
Indermühle A., T.F. Stocker, F. Joos, H. Fischer, H.J. Smith, M. Wahlen, B. Deck, D. Mastroianni, J. Tschumi, T. Blunier, R. Meyer, B. Stauffer, 1999, Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398, 121-126.
Jessen, C. A., Rundgren, M., Bjorck, S. and Hammarlund, D. 2005. Abrupt climatic changes and an unstable transition into a late Holocene Thermal Decline: a multiproxy lacustrine record from southern Sweden. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 20 pp. 349–362. ISSN 0267-8179.
Kouwenberg, LLR. 2004. Application of conifer needles in the reconstruction of Holocene CO2 levels. PhD Thesis. Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, University of Utrecht.
Kouwenberg, LLR, Wagner F, Kurschner WM, Visscher H (2005) Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology 33:33–36
Ljungqvist, F.C.2009. Temperature proxy records covering the last two millennia: a tabular and visual overview. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 91A, pp. 11-29.
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x
Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J.-M. Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000-800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949
MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006), Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.
McElwain et al., 2001. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 17 pp. 21–29. ISSN 0267-8179
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Morice, C.P., J.J. Kennedy, N.A. Rayner, P.D. Jones (2011), Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 dataset, Journal of Geophysical Research, accepted.
Pagani, M., J.C. Zachos, K.H. Freeman, B. Tipple, and S. Bohaty. 2005. Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene. Science, Vol. 309, pp. 600-603, 22 July 2005.
Rundgren et al., 2005. Last interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes from stomatal index data and their relation to climate variations. Global and Planetary Change 49 (2005) 47–62.
Smith, H. J., Fischer, H., Mastroianni, D., Deck, B. and Wahlen, M., 1999, Dual modes of the carbon cycle since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 400, 248-250.
Trudinger, C. M., I. G. Enting, P. J. Rayner, and R. J. Francey (2002), Kalman filter analysis of ice core data 2. Double deconvolution of CO2 and δ13C measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 107(D20), 4423, doi:10.1029/2001JD001112.
Van Hoof et al., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 during the 13th century AD: reconciliation of data from ice core measurements and stomatal frequency analysis. Tellus 57B (2005), 4
Wagner F, et al., 1999. Century-scale shifts in Early Holocene CO2 concentration. Science 284:1971–1973.
Wagner F, Aaby B, Visscher H, 2002. Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8200-years-B.P. cooling event. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:12011–12014.
Wagner F, Kouwenberg LLR, van Hoof TB, Visscher H, 2004. Reproducibility of Holocene atmospheric CO2 records based on stomatal frequency. Quat Sci Rev 23:1947–1954
Ward, J.K., Harris, J.M., Cerling, T.E., Wiedenhoeft, A., Lott, M.J., Dearing, M.-D., Coltrain, J.B. and Ehleringer, J.R. 2005. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102: 690-694.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“If you look at the trend in CO2 levels, there is no sign of reduction in upspeed, to the contrary, the levels still increase in increase rate.”
The rate of change, in fact, tracks the temperature. Both indices show the same 16 year flatline. When temperatures plunge in the next several years, the rate of change of CO2 will follow. Perhaps, at that time, you will recognize the obvious.
Bart says:
December 9, 2012 at 11:34 am
Bart, we have been there many times, but for those who don’t know the background, here some explanation.
Bart is much superior in the theoretical background of physical processes. Much of which I have forgotten in my more practical oriented life.
Bart’s persistent point is the (really) near perfect match between temperature fluctuations and the underlying trend with the CO2 increase fluctuations and trend over the past period of accurate measurements at Mauna Loa.
Where we agree (and even all warmistas do), is that indeed there is a very good match for the short term (1-3 years) fluctuations. Where we disagree is that the match in trends, in my opinion, is completely artificial, based on an arbitrary shift of the temperature data to match the CO2 trend with the same factor as for the short term fluctuations. This makes that simply extending the period to before Mauna Loa already shows completely deviating trends.
Further, Bart ignores about all available evidence that is contrary to his opinion:
– ice cores CO2 trends
– d13C/12C ratio trends (which makes it impossible that the oceans are the cause of the increase)
– Henry’s Law
– the mass balance
– …
Bart’s latest theory for the non-human increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it comes from the change of CO2 levels and/or temperature in the atmosphere from 800 years ago. Which is impossible for several reasons:
– 800 years ago the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about 285 ppmv. The transport of CO2 via the deep oceans is via the THC, which absorbs CO2 in the cold polar waters and redistributes that some 800-1200 years later at the upwelling places (mostly the equatorial Pacific Ocean). Any disturbance of 800-1200 years ago may come back now, but is met by a halve increase/decrease in the atmosphere (thanks to Henry’s Law). The current increase of 70 ppmv since Mauna Loa should have been caused by A 140 ppmv increase 800-1200 years ago. Which isn’t seen in any proxy or ice core…
– The oceans anyway have a too high 13C/12C ratio to be the cause: any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we see a firm decrease in both the atmosphere and ocean surface waters in ratio with the 13C depleted emissions from fossil fuels…
Last, but not least, the mass balance:
Theoretically it still is possible that a huge change in natural CO2 input together with a huge sequestering rate is the cause. But besides the forementioned points, that has two challenges:
– the natural source should increase in supply at an astonishing fixed ratio with the human input, as that is a near perfect match with the increase in the atmosphere for the trend.
– the increase of the natural source over time must be much larger than the human component over the same time frame, leading to an enormous increase in turnover, or decrease in residence time (1/3rd over the period 1960-2006) of CO2 in the atmosphere, which isn’t seen at all. See:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3118.html#pid3118
If there is any trend at all, it seems more an increase in residence time estimates than a decrease…
Thus in my opinion, supported by all available evidence, nature is responsible for a short term response to temperature variations of 4-5 ppmv/°C up to 8 ppmv/°C on very long term. Humans are responsible for the rest of the 100+ ppmv rise since the start of the industrial revolution…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm
“Where we disagree is that the match in trends, in my opinion, is completely artificial, based on an arbitrary shift of the temperature data to match the CO2 trend with the same factor as for the short term fluctuations.”
The matching of the quadratic factor, the curvature in the integrated temperature versus that in the CO2 concentration, is intrinsic, and does not depend on any constants of integration. That fact confirms the model matches in the low frequency regime, and the matching variation confirms that it matches in the high frequency regime, as well.
Of course, the linear trend requires solving for the appropriate baseline of the temperature. But, that is hardly surprising, as the temperature anomaly itself is measured with respect to an arbitrary baseline. Finding the appropriate baseline is part of the model fitting process.
“This makes that simply extending the period to before Mauna Loa already shows completely deviating trends.”
A) Based on proxy measurements which are suspect.
B) Not if you update the parameters in the model to reflect different operating conditions for different timelines. It is a linearized model, which holds reasonably well in the time interval 1950-present. It is standard in analysis to linearize a nonlinear model about a specific operating condition, and the results will hold within a specific neighborhood of the state about which the equations are linearized. When there is a significant change in the state, you have to relinearize about the new operating condition to carry on the approximation. This is textbook, i.e., very basic in nonlinear systems theory.
Thus, the proxy data may just be plain wrong. If they are not, a simple update of the model parameters for the change in state suffices to maintain its applicability.
“Bart’s latest theory for the non-human increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is that it comes from the change of CO2 levels and/or temperature in the atmosphere from 800 years ago. Which is impossible for several reasons:”
I don’t have a theory. I have an observation. I have demonstrated one potential theoretical model for how that observation may come about which has to do with ocean circulation, which can have timelines of as long as 800 years. It is not necessarily the only way the observation can come about, though it does help elucidate how a system with constant inflows and outflows can arise such that the CO2 level would have a rate of change essentially proportional to temperature anomaly. But, regardless of the mechanism, the observation remains, and it flatly is not consistent with human attribution for the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2.
“- 800 years ago the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were about 285 ppmv. “
How do we really know that? What means have we of verifying it? None.
“Which isn’t seen in any proxy or ice core…”
Which calls into question the proxies, not the direct measurements in the modern era. It frankly astounds me that anyone would prefer the former over the latter.
“…would increase the 13C/12C ratio…”
Hypothetically. But, an hypothesis is not proof, and there is no avenue of verification. Others who have written extensively on the 13C/12C ratio have proffered alternative mechanisms to explain it.
“…the natural source should increase in supply at an astonishing fixed ratio with the human input…”
The integral of temperature also is “at an astonishing fixed ratio with the human input”. Both the integral of temperature and the accumulated emissions are affinely similar to the CO2 concentration. How do you choose which correlation is spurious, and which is not? By looking at the variations and choosing the quantity which matches the variations of CO2 as well. The winner of that comparison is, hands down, the temperature integral.
“If there is any trend at all, it seems more an increase in residence time estimates than a decrease…”
This is confusing, as your link appears to show that the IPCC significantly overestimates (by 10X) the residence time relative to a number of peer reviewed studies.
Bottom Line:
The integrated temperature, scaled and properly baselined, matches the CO2 concentration across the entire frequency spread to a high degree of fidelity. The scaled and baselined accumulated human CO2 emissions match at low frequencies, but not at high ones. There is no plausible physical process which can produce a dispersionless high pass filtering of the temperature data for it to match so cleanly across the spectrum, with human emissions perfectly blending in to produce the low frequency behavior. William of Ockham would pronounce the solution obvious: CO2 is essentially controlled by temperature, and human inputs have little effect.
Moreover, atmospheric CO2 accumulation is decelerating at precisely the time the temperature integral is decelerating, with the same proportionality factor as has held steady for the past 54 years, even as CO2 emissions continue increasing in rate so that CO2 concentration should be accelerating, were they the cause. There are smoking guns lying all over the place, here. CO2 is essentially controlled by temperature, and human inputs have little effect.
Henry@bart& ferdinand
I have studied some data from Japan, here
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/ghg/kanshi/ghgp/co2_e.html
and South Africa
and I find that in general over the past 16 years while there was theoretically no “global warming” we find CO2 going up at a fairly constant and average rate of around 2 ppm per annum.
Assuming equal means during these last 16 years, as claimed, I must conclude that this 2 ppm/annum increase is due to human activities.
In the next 8 years or so I expect means to fall by at least -0.3 degrees C. This would mean that CO2 would fall by about 2-3 ppm, but since we are still adding 2 ppm’s per annum, at best what we will see by 2020 is
16 (human) – 3 = 13 ppm/8
1.5 ppm per annum.
,so the rate of increase will drop from 2 ppm to about 1.5 ppm
As far as I am concerned, I think CO2 is like plant food in the sky, more of it is better.
Contrary to what is taught in popular “climate science”, CO2 is not a poison. Even if they varied the air to contain 80% CO2 and 20% O2, the lab. animals would not die. The MAK value of CO2 is 9000 mg/m3 but that has more to do with human comfort. Either way: 9000/1200000×100 = 0.75% . We are currently at 400 ppm or ca. 0.04% and we are going up by 2 ppm or 0.0002 % per annum.
So at current rates we would reach 0.06% in 100 years.
To reach 0.75% would take us 3500 years.
So what is the argument?
remember I do not regard it as proven that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011
Sorry, for the South African study, I forgot to give you this link
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/Orals/2009-WMO%20meeting/10_Thursday/1100-1115%20E-G.%20Brunke,%20C.%20Labuschagne,%20B.%20Parker%20and%20H-E.%20Scheel,%20Recent%20results%20from%20measurements%20of%20CO2,%20CH4,%20CO%20and%20N2O%20at%20the%20GAW%20station%20Cape%20Point/Brunke-Experts_M_CPT_oral_v7.pdf
HenryP says:
December 9, 2012 at 6:06 am
…..Before 1927 the global temp. record is murky as I have yet to see a calibration certificate of a thermometer from before 1925. They did not calibrate after manufacture….
_______________________________
I will agree with you there. They still don’t calibrate unless requested and run of the mill thermometers are usually off. At least the ones I sent for calibration were.
Given how the temperature record has been mucked up in recent years, I think plants are a better method of determining climate such as the Koppen Climate Classification.
See Graph: Koppen climate boundaries individual decades for the 20th century.
Continuing the “plants don’t lie like Climastrologists do” theme.
So C4 plants have an advantage when CO2 levels are low and C3 plants are not as drought resistant.
That brings up the question of what happened in the Pliocene that forced the evolution of C4 plants.
Why the heck everyone ignores geology when talking of the climate I do not know. Cooling of the oceans means a vast uptake of CO2 and less rain fall thus favoring C4 over C3 photosynthesis. The Milancovitch Cycle coupled with the uplifting of mountains as well as the change in the location of the continents had a heck of a lot more effect on the climate than a trace amount of gas in the atmosphere. (I wonder what the volcanic activity and atmospheric dust load was like back then?)
Here is a Paper that should scare the day lights out of anyone with any sense. Forget the interpretation and just look at the evidence.
In other words as we go back into glacial conditions the CO2 gets sucked out of the air via ‘increased glacial CO2 storage and in the oceanic abyss’ dropping the CO2 levels back to plant CO2 starvation levels.
Bart, Ferdinand, Henry P, et al.:
I am writing to ‘put my oar’ into your discussion. Please note that I do this for the benefit of onlookers and I am still ‘on the fence’ so I am not entering the debate: I am merely explaining a point that seems to be overlooked so others can see it.
Ferdinand and Henry P basically support the ‘mass balance argument’; i.e.
the anthropogenic emission exceeds the increase of atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, it is deduced that if the anthropogenic emission were absent then the increase would not exist.
Bart basically argues that (as he said at December 9, 2012 at 4:57 pm)
“CO2 is essentially controlled by temperature, and human inputs have little effect.”
1.
I tend to agree with Bart but I could be wrong.
2.
The anthropogenic emission may be entirely responsible for the rise, but I am certain the ‘mass balance argument’ is wrong.
I (yet again) explain my points numbered 1 and 2 as follows.
The annual anthropogenic emission of CO2 should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is causal of the other according to a simple mass balance, but these two parameters do not correlate unless 5-year smoothing is applied to the data.
(There are reasons why smoothing of the data of up to 3 years can be justified, but e.g. the IPCC uses 5-year smoothing to obtain agreement between the emissions and the rise because less smoothing fails to obtain it.)
Importantly, the dynamics of the system indicate that ALL the anthropogenic emission can easily be sequestered by the system.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural sequestration processes can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2, but the data in this paragraph indicates this is not possible.
This failure of correlation denies the ‘mass balance’ argument. And, on face value, it seems to deny an anthropogenic cause of the rise, but it does not. An explanation of this is provided by the failure of the sequestration process to sequester all the annual emission both (natural and anthropogenic) when its dynamics indicate it could be expected to sequester them all.
Clearly, the system of the carbon cycle is constantly seeking an equilibrium which it never achieves . Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium. And the observed rise is probably that adjustment. Thus, the dynamics not sequestering all the emissions is an indication of the adjustment towards an altered equilibrium.
(a)
The temperature rise since the LIA must induce some of the rise and could be the cause of all of it by creation of a new equilibrium state.
(b)
But the anthropogenic emission could be the cause of such a new equilibrium state and so be responsible for almost all the rise.
In either case, the correlations observed by Bart are indicative of the changed rate constants with fluctuating temperatures during adjustment to the new equilibrium state. And the ‘mass balance argument’ is irrelevant because it assumes the system is not changing its state.
One of our 2005 papers assessed these possibilities.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
The paper reports attribution studies we conducted which used three different models to emulate the causes of the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century. These numerical exercises are a caution to estimates of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The three models used in these exercises each emulate different physical processes and each agrees with the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The models each demonstrate that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of, for example, desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it. Furthermore, extrapolation using these models gives very different predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentration whatever the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Each of the models in the paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(i)
the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(ii)
there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Richard
On Engelbeen and CO2. I suggest reading link for a rebuttal. Also THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE and ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
As a chemist who worked in production I have laughed at the ‘CO2 is well mixed conjecture’ since I first heard it. Only someone who has not had to deal with the headache of trying to get uniform mixing could believe that statement. The sawtooth pattern in the Mauna Loa data should be a really big clue that CO2 is NOT well mixed. The ‘well mixed conjecture’ however is absolutely critical to the entire CAGW edifice. Once it is disproved Beck’s historic CO2 measurements and the Plant stomata data show there is nothing significant happening.
From the last paper:
henry@richard
I suppose I was being a bit too pragmatic and did not explain my reasoning;
namely I propose that
CO2 sinking in the oceans :
cold + CO2 (g) + 2H2O => HCO3- + H3O+
and
CO2 outgassing from the oceans;
heat + HCO3- => CO2 (g) + OH-
must cancel each other out if it can be proven that temps. remained more or less constant over a certain period of time…..
I know that things changed at the top of the atmosphere around 1995 (from warming to cooling)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
but earth energy output did not react to this cooling until at least 7 years later:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2012/trend
So, we do have a fairly long period of about 14-16 years to evaluate where essentially temps. on earth are “in balance” or simply: “unchanged”. The change in temperature on earth in this period was on average : zero, or at least close to zero.
However, most data sets on CO2 still see CO2 rising in this period, at a rate of almost 2 ppm per annum. Assuming this is true, and not manipulated, we must not forget all the reports that show that greenery is on the increase since about 1950 and that the biosphere is booming, both at sea and inland. The oceans are greener, there are more crops, more trees and more green lawns…. In fact places like Johannesburg and Las Vegas that used to be deserts have changed to a complete green color from above because of water being pumped in from far away places.
So a lot of the CO2 produced by man is simply used by the increase in greenery:
\
UV + CO2 + heat => photo synthesis i.e. more greenery, more trees + more food
So the net effect of the ca. 2 ppm CO2 rise per annum over the past 16 years is due to human activity but you cannot try to relate this amount to the total actual carbon consumption by man.
You have to consider the increase in greenery.
HenryP:
Thankyou for your reply to me at December 10, 2012 at 10:03 am .
Please note that I said I intend to ‘stay on the fence’ and not intending to engage in your useful debate, but I was adding information which was being overlooked in your debate. My reason is simple: Ferdinand and I have disputed these matters repeatedly for many years and ‘go round in circles’ because the available data can be interpreted in many ways (some of the “circles” were on WUWT so you can find all the arguments in the WUWT archives).
I do not dispute anything you say in your post to me. Indeed, if you care to think about it it supports what I said except that you conclude
That conclusion is a non sequitur because your claim of altered “greenery” (which I accept) is agreement of adjustment to an altered equilibrium state and nobody knows what that altered state actually is or what caused it.
So, I remain on my fence.
Richard
Bart says:
December 9, 2012 at 4:57 pm
Based on proxy measurements which are suspect.
Bart, you simply reject anything that contradicts your idea… Ice core measurments are not proxies, they are direct measurements of ancient air, be it smoothed over several to many years. So are 13C/12C measurements in ice, firn, and currently in oceans and atmosphere. So are direct measurements of trends in ocean carbon content, etc…
This is confusing, as your link appears to show that the IPCC significantly overestimates (by 10X) the residence time relative to a number of peer reviewed studies.
The IPCC does overestimate many things but they accept a residence time of ~5 years for any molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. The confusion is by the author of the graph: the IPCC shows, besides the 5 years residence time an “excess decay” time of hundreds of years, in fact a composition of several decay times for different reservoirs. The author of the graph confuses these quite different half life times (even if the IPCC decay time indeed is largely overestimated).
But the point of interest here is that whatever caused the increase in the atmosphere, a fast response of natural sinks to a natural increase which dwarfes the human input (as you prefer) means a firm increase in turnover of CO2 in the atmosphere, thus a firm decrease of the residence time over the past 50+ years. Which is not observed…
There is no plausible physical process which can produce a dispersionless high pass filtering of the temperature data for it to match so cleanly across the spectrum, with human emissions perfectly blending in to produce the low frequency behavior.
Yes, there is: if not one process is involved, but several: at one side processes which react fast on temperature changes, but have a limited capacity, as is the case for the ocean’s surface waters (a 10% change for a 100% change in the atmosphere in 1-3 years) and on the other side slow(er) processes which show a limited reaction on temperature, but have a practical unlimited capacity, like the deep ocean exchanges and the long term storage of carbon in plants (~40 years half life time for excess CO2). With that mix of processes, the high frequencies are caused by temperature fluctuations, while the trend is caused by human emissions…
———————
No further discussion possible for me the next days/weeks, need to do a lot of practical work at my youngest daughter just bought (built 1820, “renewed” 1938) house…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm
“Bart, you simply reject anything that contradicts your idea…”
No, I simply find attaching greater weight to indirect measurements, through which a long chain of surmise must be attached to derive physically meaningful quantities, versus direct measurements of far more recent vintage, to be an act of desperation. The well-known quote from Feynmann is particularly appropriate here: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
“Yes, there is: if not one process is involved, but several: at one side processes which react fast on temperature changes, but…”
Such processing would necessarily leave its mark in dispersion of the phases amongst frequency components, but there is no dispersion observable – the temperature data fits the CO2 rate of change with high fidelity across all signal components. It would take very special processing, indeed, to arrive at such a fine balance to preserve your narrative.
Requiring such perfectly balanced multi-processing, versus simply integrating the temperature anomaly as we find it, is akin to sketching physically meaningless epicycles for the orbits of planets about the Sun, versus simply assuming a central inverse square law force acting between the bodies. If any system is a more compelling illustration of the utility of Occam’s razor, it is not by much.
I’m sure it is a beautiful house, and hope you find the work invigorating. Cheers.
Bart says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/#comment-1171025
Henry says
I inherited a small sculpture from my grandmother of a boy with the name “Bartje” in-graved.
Do you know that he was some kind of young hero in Drente, where my grandparents lived?
I am not sure what your argument is here and how it differs from mine
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/#comment-1169531
HenryP says:
December 12, 2012 at 8:52 am
May argument is as stated in previous comments above and on dozens of other threads. As I show here, using data obtained from the WoodForTrees site (which, curiously, seems to be inaccessible right now), the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is very highly correlated in an affine relationship with temperature. To a high level of fidelity, the atmospheric CO2 concentration at any time in the last 54 years can be obtained by integrating the relationship
dCO2/dt = k*(T – To)
where “k” is a coupling parameter, and To is an equilibrium temperature, both of which may be time varying but which can be approximated as constants within the modern timeline. The direction of causation is clearly from temperature to CO2, as it would be absurd to argue that temperatures have only to do with the rate of change of CO2, and not the absolute level. A more technical argument would note that the relationship above implies that a change in CO2 must lag a change in temperature.
Choosing “k” such that the variations in T and dCO2/dt match also matches the slopes, and that slope integrates into a matching quadratic factor. As the rate of human emissions has risen approximately linearly, and the total accumulation of human inputs would add an additional approximately quadratic term for which there is no room, it follows that human inputs cannot be significantly contributing to the total. CO2 levels are governed by temperature, and human inputs are necessarily being rapidly sequestered.
Henry@Bart, Richard
well, despite of both your arguments,
I leave my position unchanged,
i.e.
1) essentially temps. stayed unchanged since 1996, therefore the natural change in CO2 due to its dissolving or out-gassing should also be close to zero over this period. However, despite this CO2 has continued to rise at a rate of between 1.6- 2 ppm per annum.
2) The conclusion is that this net rise is due to human emissions minus the CO2 consumed by the extra photosynthesis noted over the past 4 decades. Our biosphere has been found booming over this period but as far as I know there are no comparative figures available on this.
(A report from 1974 states that 8x 10power18 J/day were consumed by photosynthesis but I don’t know of any other more recent figures.)
This is of course assuming that volcanic activity (where CO2 is also a natural by-product) was constant over 1996-2012.
HenryP:
Please note that I remain on my fence. I am writing to request a clarification of your post at December 13, 2012 at 2:36 am.
In my post (at December 10, 2012 at 6:43 am) I wrote
Your reply merely restates the ‘mass balance argument’.
I would be grateful if you were to explain why you do not accept my argument and explanation which I have iterated here.
Richard
henry@richard
What you are asking is if CO2 is or could be dragged over from previous warmer ages.
In my opinion, the 2 chemical reactions that influence the out-gassing and sincing of CO2 are heavily temp. dependent but they are straight forward and I would expect the (earth CO2) system to react to a new temperature over decades rather than centuries.
The elephant in the room is that increased CO2 can also be caused by increased volcanic action, which is where the stuff came from in the first place, of course. A lot of volcanic action takes place in the oceans and I doubt if we know for sure exactly what happens where and how much CO2 is being emitted there…..never mind the volcanic action that we can see happening like the recent one in Iceland. That was also giga tons of CO2 that went up in the air there….There were a few other places, like Hawaii , where I did notice a temp. trend that could be due to increased volcanic activity.
Bicarbonate measurements over time of samples of ocean water might give us some clues on that.
Some theoretical experiments with bicarbonates in a controlled climatic chamber (closed system) where you play around with “sea and temperature” might also give us some valuable information.
You could perhaps argue that you expect to see more erratic results if (more) volcanic action is suspected. But if you study this report then there are some erratic results and the rate of change over time is not exactly constant, even during the past 16 years.
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/IAEA-WMO2009/Orals/2009-WMO%20meeting/10_Thursday/1100-1115%20E-G.%20Brunke,%20C.%20Labuschagne,%20B.%20Parker%20and%20H-E.%20Scheel,%20Recent%20results%20from%20measurements%20of%20CO2,%20CH4,%20CO%20and%20N2O%20at%20the%20GAW%20station%20Cape%20Point/Brunke-Experts_M_CPT_oral_v7.pdf
So perhaps I do have to re-formulate:
The conclusion is that this net rise is or could be due to increased volcanic activity + human emissions minus the CO2 consumed by the extra photosynthesis noted over the past 4 decades.
HenryP:
At December 13, 2012 at 5:27 am you say to me
NO!
I have no idea where you got such an idea because I have not questioned and not mentioned any such thing.
CO2 is in various compartments of the carbon cycle system, and it is exchanged between them. Almost all of the CO2 is in the deep oceans. Much is in the upper ocean surface layer. Much is in the biosphere. Some is in the atmosphere. etc..
The equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system defines the stable distribution of CO2 among the compartments of the system. And at any moment the system is adjusting towards that stable distribution. But the equilibrium state is not a constant: it varies at all time scales.
Any change to the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system induces a change to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, this is seen as the ‘seasonal variation’ in the Mauna Loa data. However, some of the mechanisms for exchange between the compartments have rate constants of years and decades. Hence, it takes decades for the system to adjust to an altered equilibrium state.
The observed increase of atmospheric CO2 over recent decades could be an effect of such a change to the equilibrium state. If so, then the cause of the change is not known.
Indeed, if – as you suggest – the cause of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase is volcanism then the most likely alteration is NOT volcanic emission of CO2: it is volcanic emission of sulphur ions below the sea decades or centuries ago.
The thermohaline circulation carries ocean water through the deeps for centuries before those waters return to ocean surface. The water acquires sulphur ions as it passes undersea volcanoes and it carries that sulphur with it to the ocean surface layer decades or centuries later. The resulting change to sulphur in the ocean surface layer alters the pH of the layer.
An alteration of ocean surface layer pH alters the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric CO2.
A reduction to surface layer pH of only 0.1 (which is much too small to be detectable) would induce more than all the change to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 290 ppmv to ~400 ppmv which has happened since before the industrial revolution.
I don’t know if this volcanic effect has happened, and I doubt that it has. But it demonstrates how changed equilibrium conditions could have had the observed effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic CO2 emission existed.
Richard
richardscourtney says
An alteration of ocean surface layer pH alters the equilibrium concentration of atmospheric CO2.
A reduction to surface layer pH of only 0.1 (which is much too small to be detectable) would induce more than all the change to atmospheric CO2 concentration of 290 ppmv to ~400 ppmv which has happened since before the industrial revolution.
I don’t know if this volcanic effect has happened, and I doubt that it has.
henry says
This is intriguing me. You are right of course. The reaction producing the CO2 from the bicarbonate in the sea water is also pH dependent. I had not considered this yet. Thanks for pointing that out to me. The lower the pH, the more CO2 gasses out. There have been reports that this (small) pH change has indeed occurred and that man is or could be (partly) responsible.
I have worked most of my life as a chemist in industries involved with PC board manufacturing and surface treatment of metals and desalination processes and my main concern in almost all the factories where I worked, was to try and keep the effluent always above 6, as specified by the city councils. Never mind the fact that the water that came in was usually close to 7.5-7.8……
The thought has crossed my mind that the net effect of all the gadgets and cars and stuff that humans want, is a slight lowering of the pH of the waste water flowing into the rivers, which ultimately end up in the oceans.
All those factories and 7 billion people and their habits could have some effect on the pH of the oceans.
Either way, even if it is man responsible for a slightly lower pH of their discharge water, then earth is reacting the same way as if there were more sulphur in the oceans due to increased volcanic action.. (most of the human acid waste is sulfurous anyway)
We now have at least a handful of factors that could influence the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere
I don’t know anymore how to formulate this.
Let us just say that more carbon dioxide is better. Better for crops and better for the biosphere.
Henry P:
You say to me
That makes two of us (and there are others).
I hope you can now understand why I sit so resolutely on the fence.
Richard
HenryP says:
December 13, 2012 at 2:36 am
I presume that means you do not believe the global average of the temperature data truly represents a global temperature. There is a sound argument for that, as temperature is an intensive variable, and different regions do not generally share the same heat capacities.
However, it is clear that something which is being measured in the global temperature metric (GTM) is highly correlated with the rate of change of CO2. Perhaps the regions which dominate the changes in the GTM are where CO2 is being released at an elevated rate or absorbed at a slower clip compared to the pre-20th century. Either way, the data lead to the same conclusion, that natural processes dominate, and humans are not significant contributors to the rise observed since then.
henry@bart, richard
we have too many many factors now but we can do a brainstorming session to identify those that we know could play a roll:
Increasing CO2 could be due to
a) Increasing temps natural causes (not happening now)
b) decreasing pH (could be happening now) due to increased human acidic waste,
c) decreasing pH (could be happening now) due to increased volcanic activity releasing sulphur into the oceans
d) increased volcanic activity releasing CO2 directly into the atmosphere (could be happening now e.g. Iceland, Hawaii )
e) burning of fossil fuels (e.g. for transport, for warmth, for cooling)
Decreasing CO2 could be due to
a) decreasing temps natural causes (happening now)
b) booming biosphere (happening now)
Please add if you know of more factors for us to keep for future reverence….
for example, does the increase in life in the oceans (the oceans have become greener) perhaps also affect the pH balance there?
HenryP:
At December 14, 2012 at 6:32 am you ask
The pH balance is not known (and may be unknowable).
In one of our 2005 papers we listed the following processes as being significant additions and subtractions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
(Ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
Short-term processes
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
Longer-term processes
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
Natural processes that add CO2 to the system
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations.
Richard
Bart says:
December 12, 2012 at 12:47 am
Requiring such perfectly balanced multi-processing, versus simply integrating the temperature anomaly as we find it, is akin to sketching physically meaningless epicycles for the orbits of planets about the Sun, versus simply assuming a central inverse square law force acting between the bodies.
You have this backwards, the epicycles were a mathematical description of the the motion of celestial bodies with respect to the Earth, which they did very well, rather like Fourier transforms. They did not supply a mechanism, that came later.
Your simple mathematical description is the equivalent of the epicycles, the actual mechanism involves Henry’s Law and Mass balance which gives explanatory power which your formula does not. As Ferdinand and I have repeatedly tried to tell your concept that all the anthropogenic CO2 rapidly is absorbed and then more CO2 emerges due to an increase in ocean temperature does not agree with observations, the temperature does not increase enough to produce that much CO2 due to Henry’s Law (it wouldn’t be absorbed in that quantity in any case), as Ferdinand has very patiently shown you. The dependence on T arises because of the Henry’s Law dependence of absorption of superfluous CO2 added directly to the atmosphere on T, not on the mystical absorption of all that CO2 then replacing it from elsewhere. The rate of growth of CO2 depends on the imbalance of fluxes in and out of the atmosphere which have a temperature dependence.
If any system is a more compelling illustration of the utility of Occam’s razor, it is not by much.
You missed the part about not simplifying beyond necessity
Phil. says:
December 14, 2012 at 7:42 am
“…your concept that all the anthropogenic CO2 rapidly is absorbed and then more CO2 emerges due to an increase in ocean temperature does not agree with observations…”
But, it does. It is not my concept. It is specifically an observation. I am sorry you do not understand it.