Studies of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere emitted by nuclear tests indicate that the Bern model used by the IPCC is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results.
Guest essay by Gösta Pettersson
The Keeling curve establishes that the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has shown a steady long-term increase since 1958. Proponents of the antropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis have attributed the increasing carbon dioxide level to human activities such as combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes. Opponents of the AGW hypothesis have argued that this would require that the turnover time for atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 100 years, which is inconsistent with a multitude of experimental studies indicating that the turnover time is of the order of 10 years.
Since its constitution in 1988, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has disregarded the empirically determined turnover times, claiming that they lack bearing on the rate at which anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the atmosphere. Instead, the fourth IPCC assessment report argues that the removal of carbon dioxide emissions is adequately described by the ‘Bern model‘, a carbon cycle model designed by prominent climatologists at the Bern University. The Bern model is based on the presumption that the increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide derive exclusively from anthropogenic emissions. Tuned to fit the Keeling curve, the model prescribes that the relaxation of an emission pulse of carbon dioxide is multiphasic with slow components reflecting slow transfer of carbon dioxide from the oceanic surface to the deep-sea regions. The problem is that empirical observations tell us an entirely different story.
The nuclear weapon tests in the early 1960s have initiated a scientifically ideal tracer experiment describing the kinetics of removal of an excess of airborne carbon dioxide. When the atmospheric bomb tests ceased in 1963, they had raised the air level of C14-carbon dioxide to almost twice its original background value. The relaxation of this pulse of excess C14-carbon dioxide has now been monitored for fifty years. Representative results providing direct experimental records of more than 95% of the relaxation process are shown in Fig.1.
Figure 1. Relaxation of the excess of airborne C14-carbon dioxide produced by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons before the tests ceased in 1963
The IPCC has disregarded the bombtest data in Fig. 1 (which refer to the C14/C12 ratio), arguing that “an atmospheric perturbation in the isotopic ratio disappears much faster than the perturbation in the number of C14 atoms”. That argument cannot be followed and certainly is incorrect. Fig. 2 shows the data in Fig. 1 after rescaling and correction for the minor dilution effects caused by the increased atmospheric concentration of C12-carbon dioxide during the examined period of time.
Figure 2. The bombtest curve. Experimentally observed relaxation of C14-carbon dioxide (black) compared with model descriptions of the process.
The resulting series of experimental points (black data i Fig. 2) describes the disappearance of “the perturbation in the number of C14 atoms”, is almost indistinguishable from the data in Fig. 1, and will be referred to as the ‘bombtest curve’.
To draw attention to the bombtest curve and its important implications, I have made public a trilogy of strict reaction kinetic analyses addressing the controversial views expressed on the interpretation of the Keeling curve by proponents and opponents of the AGW hypothesis.
(Note: links to all three papers are below also)
Paper 1 in the trilogy clarifies that
a. The bombtest curve provides an empirical record of more than 95% of the relaxation of airborne C14-carbon dioxide. Since kinetic carbon isotope effects are small, the bombtest curve can be taken to be representative for the relaxation of emission pulses of carbon dioxide in general.
b. The relaxation process conforms to a monoexponential relationship (red curve in Fig. 2) and hence can be described in terms of a single relaxation time (turnover time). There is no kinetically valid reason to disregard reported experimental estimates (5–14 years) of this relaxation time.
c. The exponential character of the relaxation implies that the rate of removal of C14 has been proportional to the amount of C14. This means that the observed 95% of the relaxation process have been governed by the atmospheric concentration of C14-carbon dioxide according to the law of mass action, without any detectable contributions from slow oceanic events.
d. The Bern model prescriptions (blue curve in Fig. 2) are inconsistent with the observations that have been made, and gravely underestimate both the rate and the extent of removal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. On basis of the Bern model predictions, the IPCC states that it takes a few hundreds of years before the first 80% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the air. The bombtest curve shows that it takes less than 25 years.
Paper 2 in the trilogy uses the kinetic relationships derived from the bombtest curve to calculate how much the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has been affected by emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide since 1850. The results show that only half of the Keeling curve’s longterm trend towards increased carbon dioxide levels originates from anthropogenic emissions.
The Bern model and other carbon cycle models tuned to fit the Keeling curve are routinely used by climate modellers to obtain input estimates of future carbon dioxide levels for postulated emissions scenarios. Paper 2 shows that estimates thus obtained exaggerate man-made contributions to future carbon dioxide levels (and consequent global temperatures) by factors of 3–14 for representative emission scenarios and time periods extending to year 2100 or longer. For empirically supported parameter values, the climate model projections actually provide evidence that global warming due to emissions of fossil carbon dioxide will remain within acceptable limits.
Paper 3 in the trilogy draws attention to the fact that hot water holds less dissolved carbon dioxide than cold water. This means that global warming during the 2000th century by necessity has led to a thermal out-gassing of carbon dioxide from the hydrosphere. Using a kinetic air-ocean model, the strength of this thermal effect can be estimated by analysis of the temperature dependence of the multiannual fluctuations of the Keeling curve and be described in terms of the activation energy for the out-gassing process.
For the empirically estimated parameter values obtained according to Paper 1 and Paper 3, the model shows that thermal out-gassing and anthropogenic emissions have provided approximately equal contributions to the increasing carbon dioxide levels over the examined period 1850–2010. During the last two decades, contributions from thermal out-gassing have been almost 40% larger than those from anthropogenic emissions. This is illustrated by the model data in Fig. 3, which also indicate that the Keeling curve can be quantitatively accounted for in terms of the combined effects of thermal out-gassing and anthropogenic emissions.
Figure 3. Variation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide level, as indicated by empirical data (green) and by the model described in Paper 3 (red). Blue and black curves show the contributions provided by thermal out-gassing and emissions, respectively.
The results in Fig. 3 call for a drastic revision of the carbon cycle budget presented by the IPCC. In particular, the extensively discussed ‘missing sink’ (called ‘residual terrestrial sink´ in the fourth IPCC report) can be identified as the hydrosphere; the amount of emissions taken up by the oceans has been gravely underestimated by the IPCC due to neglect of thermal out-gassing. Furthermore, the strength of the thermal out-gassing effect places climate modellers in the delicate situation that they have to know what the future temperatures will be before they can predict them by consideration of the greenhouse effect caused by future carbon dioxide levels.
By supporting the Bern model and similar carbon cycle models, the IPCC and climate modellers have taken the stand that the Keeling curve can be presumed to reflect only anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The results in Paper 1–3 show that this presumption is inconsistent with virtually all reported experimental results that have a direct bearing on the relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As long as climate modellers continue to disregard the available empirical information on thermal out-gassing and on the relaxation kinetics of airborne carbon dioxide, their model predictions will remain too biased to provide any inferences of significant scientific or political interest.
References:
Climate Change 2007: IPCC Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis section 10.4 – Changes Associated with Biogeochemical Feedbacks and Ocean Acidification
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-4.html
Climate Change 2007: IPCC Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis section 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 15, NO. 4, PAGES 891–907, DECEMBER 2001 Joos et al. Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emission scenarios
ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/users/Giorgio.Guariso/papers/joos01gbc[1]-1.pdf
Click below for a free download of the three papers referenced in the essay as PDF files.
Paper 1 Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide
Paper 2 Anthropogenic contributions to the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide during the industrial era
Paper 3 Temperature effects on the atmospheric carbon dioxide level
================================================================
Gösta Pettersson is a retired professor in biochemistry at the University of Lund (Sweden) and a previous editor of the European Journal of Biochemistry as an expert on reaction kinetics and mathematical modelling. My scientific reasearch has focused on the fixation of carbon dioxide by plants, which has made me familiar with the carbon cycle research carried out by climatologists and others.
Edim says:
July 3, 2013 at 6:45 am
The alleged temperature connection is not about temperature change but temperature level. The correlation is between CO2 change and temperature (not change). Constant (annualy averaged) temperatures cause change in atmospheric CO2.
No, that is physically impossible. A fixed increase in temperature above a zero line will give a constant inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is what Bart and Salby say.
But such a continuous inflow will increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the increase in the atmosphere will decrease the inflow of CO2 from the oceans at the equator and increase the outflow of CO2 into the cold Arctic waters (and in alveoles of leaves). Thus it simply is impossible that the inflow of CO2 remains constant for a constant temperature difference…
Ferdi says: “But such a continuous inflow will increase the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the increase in the atmosphere will decrease the inflow of CO2 from the oceans at the equator and increase the outflow of CO2 into the cold Arctic waters (and in alveoles of leaves). Thus it simply is impossible that the inflow of CO2 remains constant for a constant temperature difference…”
Which means that the process needs to be modelled by at least a first order differential equation. This is exactly what Gösta Pettersson has done and has calibrated against known good quality data.
Glad to see you are a finally getting the message. (Even if you haven’t realised yet)
“No, the partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans in average is 7 microatm less than in the atmosphere, see:”
This is also because plankton actively pump it out of the water and into the atmosphere.
Gene Selkov says:
July 3, 2013 at 7:12 am
Do we know what the balance was between aerobic / anaerobic / photosynthetic life forms 1000 years ago?
Indeed we have not much knowledge of ocean chemistry and biology, execept from deposits on the ocean floor and corals etc…
But we have quite good knowledge of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere as result of all the CO2 fluxes together: an increase or decrease of about 8 ppmv/K over the past millenium with a resolution of ~20 years, up to 800 kyears with a resolution of 560 years.
That shows very little variation over the past 1000 years, far from the over 100 ppmv/K we see over the past 50 years.
Thus whatever the cause of the increase, we may say with confidence that the current increase is unique over the past 800 kyears and not caused by any known natural source, including the oceans.
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
I admire your tenacity; after seeing several similar (erroneous) attribution arguments over the past few years, I completely gave up on trying to explain the physics to those who insist 1C warming of the ocean surface can raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 120 PPM. I have never once seen a person persuaded by the overwhelming evidence and the correct physical explanations if they start by saying that ocean warming caused increases in CO2 (not fossil fuel burning). Looks like Willis has given up as well… a prudent choice I think.
A discussion about the accuracy of the Bern model would be more interesting. I suspect that the Bern model is far from correct because it seems to ignore (or greatly discount) important physical processes involved in CO2 absorption (solubility pump, biological pump). These processes ought to guide the model’s structure. A multiple pool model with adjustable lag constants can for sure be made to fit the data, but may not make good predictions.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 7:28 am
This is exactly what Gösta Pettersson has done and has calibrated against known good quality data.
Glad to see you are a finally getting the message. (Even if you haven’t realised yet)
Except that Gösta has used the 14C bomb spike, which is representative for the exchange rate, not the real decay rate for an extra addition of CO2 mass (14 C is negligible in mass). Different decay times. That for extra CO2 is ~55 years, that of 14C is ~14 years. See:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
The difference is that the increase in the atmosphere is 50/50 human/natural with bomb spike decay rates and 100% human with mass decay rates.
I see issues with the claims of a monoexponential shape of the bombtest curve, and of thermal outgassing.
As for the shape of the bombtest curve: It appears to me as about to pass below zero rather than continue an exponential decay shape. Also, it appears to me that the last shown datapoint is 43 years after atmospheric nuclear explosions ended, which is 2006.
As for thermal outgassing: I see a missing factor here. Solubility of a gas in a liquid not only varies inversely with temperature, but also directly with increase of the partial pressure of the gas.
That would explain plausibility of the following link’s showing that in recent decades, oceans have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding it:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
One thing about the rate of nature *removing* CO2 despite the heat is that atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is probably less than the long times claimed by advocates of existence of AGW. I seem to think that with nature removing on average about 40% of human-added CO2 in any short time period in the past few decades, atmospheric lifetime would be about (60/40) or 1.5 times the roughly 28 year time constant in the roughly exponential growth of atmospheric CO2.
Nick Stokes says:
July 2, 2013 at 10:50 pm
“As emissions have risen, it works out that about half of each increment appears to go into the ocean, half stays in the air.”
Nick, you are chanting cant and narrative. The narrative is failing. Tiime to do some independent thinking on your own.
“…wha[t] would happen if the rise slowed hasn’t really been tested.”
But, what would happen if it accelerates has. The apparent “airborne fraction” is decreasing. If you were not wedded to the narrative, you would see that it is in a crisis.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 3:18 am
“Filtering clips peaks and drops alike.Thus IF there were huge peaks at all, there were huge drops alike.”
Ouch! Ferdinand, your logic is truly twisted. Just because drops would have been filtered if they were there does not mean they were there.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 5:41 am
“Of course, that is only halve the story, as at the other side of the world, the sinks react in opposite ways on temperature changes.”
But, in the same direction with regard to maintaining CO2 in the atmosphere. Sources expand, sinks contract. Result: greater atmospheric concentration.
“The main point is that temperature only has a minor role in the total fluxes involved.”
That may or may not be the case. But, so what? It is the temperature modulated pumping of CO2 rich waters into the system which is the main driver.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 6:29 am
“Bart, Salby and now Pettersson all discuss the influence of temperature as cause of the current increase of CO2.”
You have misinterpreted. It is temperature modulated, caused by the offset of surface temperature from the level which would be required for equilibrium. But, the equlibrium temperature is set by the input flux from upwelling waters.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 7:10 am
“The first graph is partly right (the short term variability), partly curve fitting by choosing an arbitrary zero line which matches the trend.”
The curve fit matches the trend in the rate of CO2, as well as the variablity. The rate of emissions also has a trend. But, the trend in the rate of CO2 is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Hence, there is no room for significant influence of emissions.
You would have a point af the rate of emissions had been constant. Then, the choice of baseline for the temperature relationship would be ambiguous with the emissions. But, since the emissions also have a trend, and the trend in measurements is already explained by the temperature relationship, we can rule out significant forcing from the emissions.
“The second graph is a typical example of “how to mislead with graphs by choosing the scales”.”
There is an unambiguous divergence between the rate at which emissions are being generated and the rate at which measured CO2 is increasing. It’s only going to get worse for you as time goes on, because temperatures are going down, and measured CO2 is tracking that decrease, while emissions continue accelerating.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:05 am
“That would explain plausibility of the following link’s showing that in recent decades, oceans have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of adding it:”
This “mass balance” argument has been discredited. This is a feedback system. Static analysis does not apply.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
July 3, 2013 at 7:50 am
“I completely gave up on trying to explain the physics to those who insist 1C warming of the ocean surface can raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 120 PPM.”
No, you gave up listening, if you ever started. Your argument is a strawman. See above.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
July 3, 2013 at 7:50 am
Thanks for your kind words. I am afraid that Willis has given up, maybe his blood pressure got too high…
I suspect that the Bern model is far from correct because it seems to ignore (or greatly discount) important physical processes involved in CO2 absorption (solubility pump, biological pump). These processes ought to guide the model’s structure.
I fully agree. As far as remember, the Bern model was based on the burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuels: all oil and gas and lots of coal. The initial amounts were calculated for 3000 and 5000 GtC. We are currently at 370 GtC…
At 3000 GtC, some of the terms make sense, not at lower emissions. The constant term is only applicable if all other sinks are balanced or saturated at that higher level. That will never be for e.g. more permanent storage in vegetation, as the coal deposits prove. If the human emissions would stop today and all until now emitted CO2 sinks in the oceans (at a decay rate of ~55 years), after a few centuries the levels in the atmosphere would be near equilibrium and what returns from the oceans gives less than a few ppmv increase in the atmosphere.
This moment there is not the slightest sign that any of the main sinks (oceans and vegetation) are saturating, to the contrary. Thus indeed, the Bern model is wrong…
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
” The pCO2 in surface seawater is known to vary geographically and seasonally over a range between about 150 µatm and 750 µatm, or about 60% below and 100% above the current atmospheric pCO2 level of about 370 µatm. ”
So that give the other end of the scale Ferdinand does not want to talk about. So let’s have a look at some intermediate values based on his 16ppmv/K (where ever that comes from)
Xi = X/(750-400)*(766-400) = 1.046 X
Xi = X/(450-400)*(466-400) = 1.320 X
Xi = X/(420-400)*(436-400) = 1.800 X
Xi = X/(350-400)*(366-400) = 0.680 X
Xi = X/(150-400)*(166-400) = 0.936 X
So his much quoted 750 µatm implying 4.6% increase from the warmest waters is hardly representative and that calculation will go infinite as it crosses 400ppmv since it is a proportional change. In fact the colder, acting in the same sense, are more important than the warm waters as I already suggested. This may go someway to explaining the correlation with Arctic Oscillation that I found.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=231
So back to the supposed 16ppmv/K. Unless I missed it Ferdi has still explained where he got it but let me guess. 100ppmv / 6 K for last deglaciation = … fine.
So this is a classic case of warmist circular logic. We’ll assume that a huge swing between different pseudo-stable climate states with CO2 generally regarded as being a significant +ve feedback is representative . Glaciation has half the world under ice the rest subdued by much lower temp and lower CO2 BUT let’s not worry, assume that is the same as current climate with Arctic ice a ” death spiral” . Let’s also assume that there is 0.00000000% diffusion and that these ice records were and still are an accurate reflection of climate at that time. After all it would be “immoral” to question the reliability of ice cores (thanks Gail ).
where was I? Oh yes, so we’ll assume all that and then go on to prove the temperature cannot cause more than a few 10s of ppmv of change in CO2. Which “proves” we were right in our assumptions !
QED.
Like the nearly the whole of climate science for the last 30 years, you start by assuming your result , then set out to prove it.
Ferdi: says “I fully agree. As far as remember, the Bern model was based on the burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuels: all oil and gas and lots of coal. The initial amounts were calculated for 3000 and 5000 GtC. We are currently at 370 GtC…
This moment there is not the slightest sign that any of the main sinks (oceans and vegetation) are saturating, to the contrary. Thus indeed, the Bern model is wrong…”
So we need a new one. Like the one proposed here perhaps. Based on real data , not on trying to recreate prejudiced assumption about the future.
Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:14 am
Ouch! Ferdinand, your logic is truly twisted. Just because drops would have been filtered if they were there does not mean they were there.
If there were peaks, then there were drops. Ice cores filter, but don’t change the average over the resolution period. Maybe if the peaks were short and the drops were long, but that is quite unlikely.
Anyway the current increase of 100 ppmv over 160 years would have been detected in every ice core back to 800 kyears ago.
That may or may not be the case. But, so what? It is the temperature modulated pumping of CO2 rich waters into the system which is the main driver.
I don’t know of any temperature process that increases the upwelling of deep ocean waters. The opposite happens: wind drives the upwelling and causes temperature changes. That is what ENSO does, including the extra upwelling of CO2. Nothing to do with a permanent increase in upwelling from a permanent increase in temperature.
Further, if there is more upwelling, there is more downwelling too. All what happens is more circulation. Any unbalance would be countered by a small change in the atmosphere with a short decay rate.
In no way such an increase would be continuous.
That is the main point where it goes wrong:
No matter the effect of temperature on the oceans: increased temperature, increased upwelling or increases in concentration (from the far past), its effect on influxes and outfluxes would be countered by a small change of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The curve fit matches the trend in the rate of CO2, as well as the variablity. The rate of emissions also has a trend. But, the trend in the rate of CO2 is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.
The short term variability is accounted for, but the trend fit is completely ambiguous: that can come near 100% from the emissions to near 100% from temperature.
There is an unambiguous divergence between the rate at which emissions are being generated and the rate at which measured CO2 is increasing.
So what? Some of the sinks may increase thanks to stalled temperatures, the melting of the Arctic ice may help by an increasing cold area,… That simply is natural variability.
I have digitised the data:
If the process is not monoexponential, the data are not good enough to show that.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
Thanks. I never bothered looking into Ferdinand’s calculation because A) it is moot B) I suspected he was using circular logic as you describe.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:08 am
“If there were peaks, then there were drops.”
Nonsense. Drops from the peaks, yes. Drops below some nominal level, no.
“I don’t know of any temperature process that increases the upwelling of deep ocean waters.”
The concentration of the upwelling waters is determined by both temperatures at the time the waters originally downwelled and any other additions or subtractions which took place during its long trek through the depths.
“Further, if there is more upwelling, there is more downwelling too.”
Not until atmospheric concentration has increased. A temperature increase futher constricts downwelling. With constant upwelling of CO2 rich waters, you get a constant pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Open your eyes, Ferdinand. This is all evident in the data.
“No matter the effect of temperature on the oceans: increased temperature, increased upwelling or increases in concentration (from the far past), its effect on influxes and outfluxes would be countered by a small change of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”
Sorry, no, that is just not so.
“…but the trend fit is completely ambiguous: that can come near 100% from the emissions to near 100% from temperature.”
No. It cannot. You cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which parts you want to keep, and which you want to dismiss. You either accept it all, or none. Nature does not have any mechanisms to juggle things as you prescribe, and the odds that it would even if it could are vanishingly small.
“That simply is natural variability.”
Funny how nature only varies in a way to confirm your bias.
Ferdi says: “The equilibrium pressure of seawater CO2 at the upwelling places is about 750 microatm. Of the atmosphere it is ~400 microatm. To stop the outgassing, you need to bring the 750 microatm in the ocean surface down to 400 microatm. The temperature effect on the pCO2 of the oceans is about 16 microatm/K, thus you need a drop of 22 K to stop the equatorial outgassing…”
And the world have NEVER been 22K colder that it currently is, so you value of 16 microatm/K or 16 ppmv/K is erroneous.
I realise it’s a bit busy in here, but that assumption is the cornerstone of your position, you need to deal with it.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
Sorry Greg, but I have some problems to understand what you mean.
Maybe some background may help:
The main inflow of CO2 in the atmosphere from the oceans is near the equator and especially around the upwelling places.
The main outflow of CO2 into the oceans is in the NE Atlantic where the main sink place of cold water takes place.
The mid-latitudes may be sinks or sources, depending of (seasonal) temperature.
So that give the other end of the scale Ferdinand does not want to talk about.
As you are quite new here, I have discussed that several times, but didn’t want to repeat that every time again. The effect of an increase in temperature in polar waters is that less CO2 is going into the oceans, as you have calculated. That is a 7% decrease in outflux.
These two are what is important, as they reflect the continuous exchange between the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The intermediate waters have no direct access to the deep oceans, they are in direct exchange with the atmosphere, but the uptake/release is limited in capacity to 10% of the change in the atmosphere. That is the result of the buffer factor in the oceans, the so-called “Revelle factor”. The 30% increase in the atmosphere over the past 160 years resulted in a 3% increase of carbon in the ocean surface layer or 30 GtC increase for the 1000 GtC in the “mixed layer”.
What happens if suddenly all oceans increase 1 K in temperature?
Immediately the equilibrium pressure of all ocean waters will increase with 16 microatm everywhere.
Quite fast (6-months lag) the levels in the atmosphere will increase in CO2 content. Partly by more releases, partly by less sinks. Once the increase in the atmosphere reaches 16 ppmv (1-3 years decay time), all the previous (seasonal and continuous) fluxes are restored in their previous state and no increase in atmospheric CO2 will continue due to the temperature increase.
So back to the supposed 16 ppmv/K
The 16 ppmv/K simply is the measured change in atmospheric CO2 partial pressure (~level) when seawater is brought into equilibrium with a small amount of air. That is a rough figure and is higher at higher levels and lower at lower CO2 levels. Currently they seem to calculate the change as a fixed % of the pCO2 level, see:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/Palmer_methods.pdf
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:44 am
After all it would be “immoral” to question the reliability of ice cores (thanks Gail ).
I had several discussions with Gail and others, so I don’t react every time again, but as you probably haven’t seen them…
If you want to rely on the work of the late Jaworowski, that is up to you. But please, first have a look at my comment:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Jaworowski’s knowledge of ice cores ended in 1992. Most of his objections were already refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome, with three drilling techniques (wet and dry). The result:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
Besides insisting that the average age of the gas in the bubbles is the same as in the surrounding ice, he closed the door for me by insisting that CO2 migrates in ice from low levels to high levels. As far as I know, there is no reverse osmoses at work between ice at 2000m and 1999 meter depth.
But think one moment about what would happen to the nice temperature-CO2 ratio for each glacial-interglacial transition back in time, if there was substantial migration: would the CO2 levels not gone completely flat after 800 kyears when 90% of the time the temperatures and CO2 levels are much lower?
Further about migration in (relative “warm”) ice cores:
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250
The estimated diffusion (calculated from remelt layers) means a broadening of the resolution from 20 to 22 years at medium depth and from 20 to 40 years at full depth…
Gene Selkov says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:29 am
Can you make the data available as well as the graph? What about the other data (Jungfraujoch, Krakow, etc.)?
Lance Wallace says:
> Can you make the data available as well as the graph? What about the other data (Jungfraujoch, Krakow, etc.)?
Sorry, I’ve just departed from work and left the table on a machine that I can’t access. I’ll post it first thing in the morning. I’ll add the other data too.
Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm
And the world have NEVER been 22K colder that it currently is
Greg, that was a reaction on Bart, July 2, 2013 at 4:45 pm:
When upwelling waters are CO2 enriched beyond the level of surface waters, that CO2 will be pumped into the atmosphere when the waters surface, regardless of the prevailing temperature. Increasing surface temperatures merely speeds up the process or, if they decrease enough, bring it to a halt. Right now, bringing it to a halt would require a drop in global temperatures of about 0.25 degC.
On which I reacted that to stop the upwelling of CO2 from the deep ocean waters you need a drop of 22 K. A drop of 1 K would only reduce the release of CO2 from the deep oceans with 6%. A drop of 0.25 K hardly with 2%…
It fully shows the result of relying on a small change in temperature as cause of a huge continuous increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And again, a small decrease or increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would restore the previous fluxes after a temperature change.
Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:40 am
Thanks. I never bothered looking into Ferdinand’s calculation because A) it is moot B) I suspected he was using circular logic as you describe.
No problem with that. Only one question:
– If the CO2 levels increase due to an increase in temperature (direct or indirect), does that have an effect on the fluxes between the oceans and the atmosphere or not?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 12:46 pm
“A drop of 0.25 K hardly with 2%…”
I estimated 0.25 degC from here. That is roughly the amount of change in global temperature average needed to achieve the equilibrium temperature.
You are thinking about this incorrectly, and therefore making incorrect conclusions. The oceanic CO2 pump relies on a lot more than just current surface temperatures. I depends on the history of the entire circulation over the last millennium.
It depends… my fingers seem lazy today.
Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 1:12 pm
You are thinking about this incorrectly, and therefore making incorrect conclusions. The oceanic CO2 pump relies on a lot more than just current surface temperatures. I depends on the history of the entire circulation over the last millennium.
Bart, you are mixing different variables, which confuse the discussion. The whole discussion is about the continuous extra inflow of CO2 due to an increase in temperature.
If there was a change in total deep ocean inflow or concentration of the inflow, these do influence the CO2 influx, regardless of the temperature. The temperature increase only gives a small extra percentage of CO2 influx (and a small percentage less in CO2 outflux).
Thus in such cases, the main change in the atmosphere is from the changes in upwelling and/or concentration, not from temperature.
Rest my question about the impact of any change in CO2 level of the atmosphere on the fluxes…