The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time

English: Retrieved from LOC 3a44011. Aerial vi...
Aerial view of atomic bomb test on Bikini Atoll, 1946; showing “mushroom” beginning. Part of Operation Crossroads; alternate angle of Baker explosion (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.

 

image

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.

image

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.

image

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
519 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bart
July 3, 2013 2:53 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 3, 2013 at 1:49 pm
“Thus in such cases, the main change in the atmosphere is from the changes in upwelling and/or concentration, not from temperature.”
Yes, and no. It is a temperature dependent flow. If the current temperature were the equilibrium temperature, it would cease pumping into the atmosphere.
Anyway, sorry to have to break off, but as you may or may not know, it is a holiday weekend here in the US, and my family is pushing me to get out the door. Until next time…

July 3, 2013 2:55 pm

Thanls for the replies, Ferdi.
“On which I reacted that to stop the up-welling of CO2 from the deep ocean waters you need a drop of 22 K. ”
Because of the large difference of SST where they come up. OK.
So we are all agreed that the out-gassing will continue as long a the water continues to rise. I think that was the point Bart was making.
F: ” 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.”
The close correlation between MLO CO2 and AO suggests this region dominates. As I already commented tropics tend be more stable. As shown PMEL link says, the cold end also varies further from the mean.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
F:”If you want to rely on the work of the late Jaworowski, that is up to you. ”
I did not even mention him. But the comment about not being able to get funding for something because the result may be “immoral” would be laughable if it was not so true.
“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?”
Why “completely flat ” ? Salby goes into some detail about diffusion and suggests older records are maybe under-estimating by as much x15, more recent ones x2.. I want to see figures and detailed working before I go along with that. But attempting to reduce the whole issue to black or white and then dismiss the discussion because it’s not black, is rediculous.
F: ” 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. ”
Again, where do you get 1-3 years from? Is that the time for the whole of Earth’s atmosphere to re-equilibrate ?
You keep throwing these numbers in without any explanation.

Sgeve Fitzpatrick
July 3, 2013 3:58 pm

Bart,
“No, you gave up listening, if you ever started.”
Actually no, I gave up listening to the kind of rubbish nonsense you profess. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Ferdinand is far more patient than I am; I am truly amazed he keeps trying. I am even more amazed that a smart guy like Anthony allows this kind of nonsensical guest post. There are lots of very credible skeptical arguments; that ocean warming has caused 120 PPM of increase in CO2 this is not one of them. IMO, Anthony would do well to listen to Willis and not post such things.

July 3, 2013 9:10 pm

Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:40 am
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
“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.

So not content with not believing in mass conservation you don’t believe in the continuity equation either!

July 3, 2013 10:30 pm

Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 8:18 am
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.

It certainly hasn’t been, you’re just incapable of understanding that ‘mass balance’ is a requirement. It applies just as much to feedback systems and has nothing to do with ‘static analysis’.

July 3, 2013 11:31 pm

Ferdinand.
When previously referring to non temperature dependent processes I should have referred to non water temperature dependent processes.
Sunlight warms organic particles in the top 200 metres or so directly without having to warm the body of water first. That accelerates the decomposition process and causes the release of more organic CO2.
That is a separate process to the application of Henry’s Law on water temperature.
That separate process would be at least part of the reason why the rate of CO2 increase is an integral of temperature and not a direct linear consequence of temperature.
Your assumptions would produce a direct linear response wouldn’t they?
AS regards MWP, LIA and current CO2 levels it looks clear that the ice cores do not record the full scale of short term atmospheric CO2 variations so you cannot reliably assert any specific numbers.
Phil:
The mass balance argument has been applied in a way that assumes that mass balance is always kept in equilibrium. All Bart is saying is that the mass balance is actually always out of equilibrium but always constantly working back towards equilibrium – just like global temperatures in fact.
Therefore it is the way the mass balance argument is applied that he (and I) take issue with rather than the obvious fact of mass balance in principle.
I note a number of posts becoming abusive towards Bart without any ‘meat’ in support. I take that as a sign that he is right.

July 4, 2013 1:20 am

Bart says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:53 pm
Yes, and no. It is a temperature dependent flow. If the current temperature were the equilibrium temperature, it would cease pumping into the atmosphere.
Yes, but that is at 22 K below current temperatures. The point is that the main release of CO2 from the warm oceans and main sink into the oceans is (differential) pressure related and hardly influenced by temperature changes. That also is the case for the trend: the fast response is near entirely temperature (and precipitation) related, the trend is pressure related… Therefore the “temperature says it all” formula is wrong.
Have a good holiday…

Laws of Nature
July 4, 2013 1:38 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
[..]An increase of 1 K in temperature at the upwelling places will increase the CO2 flux from ocean to the atmosphere with less than 5%, all other variables remaining the same.
[..]The main point is that temperature only has a minor role in the total fluxes involved [..]
Just a quick thought:
Would you agree, that the viscosity of water changes roughly 3%/K?
This alone should change all dynamics by about 3% as well, right?
3% faster upwelling and 3% faster down welling..
It seems to me that temperature is a big factor in this game.

July 4, 2013 1:47 am

Greg Goodman says:
July 3, 2013 at 2:55 pm
The close correlation between MLO CO2 and AO suggests this region dominates. As I already commented tropics tend be more stable.
Maybe, but variations like ENSO (which are variations in upwelling)in the tropics tend to have a huge effect too. But it is entirely possible that changes in polar area (more ice melt) and/or position of that area (at the ice edge) are responsible for the recent increase in sink rate.
But the comment about not being able to get funding for something because the result may be “immoral” would be laughable if it was not so true
There are more extreme viewpoints at both sides of the fence. It may be right that he didn’t get funding for his research on that specific topic, but the migration of CO2 is not comparable to the migration of metal ions in (or around) the ice matrix. Anyway, after some personal correspondence with Jaworowski and some of his allegations, I take anything what was said by him with a lot of salt…
Why “completely flat ” ? Salby goes into some detail about diffusion and suggests older records are maybe under-estimating by as much x15, more recent ones x2.. I want to see figures and detailed working before I go along with that.
Completely flat indeed is charged black and white… But anyway, if there was substantial migration, for each 100 kyr period back in time, the CO2/temperature ratio for a glacial-interglacial transition would decrease. That is not the case at all. Thus there is no substantial migration.
Further, what Salby has done is a theoretical calculation of what the migration must be to fit his theory. The calculated migration is not seen in any ice core. Ice cores are low pass filters for CO2, depending of the resolution, but they filter, they don’t change the average over the resolution period. If the real variability was 15 times higher in the far past, that not only is true for the high levels, but as good for the low levels, which is impossible. See further my comment on Salby at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/
comments starting at June 25, 2013 at 5:35 am
More later, have to leave now…

July 4, 2013 1:48 am

Funny, I’m sure Ferdinand has always impliedly linked the differential pressures to temperature changes. Isn’t that how he came up with his numbers for MWP and LIA or Did I miss something?
The fact is that pressure differentials can arise for reasons other than temperature changes which he now admits.
Sunlight penetrating water and directly affecting organic material would be one such method. The oceans are replete with organic material, much of it dead and decaying.
And those non temperature related pressure differentials can go both ways in different amounts in different places at different times both in phase and out of phase so don’t see how Ferdinand could sort out the net effect at any given moment. with simplistic assumptions.
The evidence is clear that the highest levels of CO2 are found over and down wind of sun warmed ocean surfaces.
If ocean biology is the culprit then that is just the power of Gaia if one believes in such things.

July 4, 2013 3:10 am

Ferdi: “Yes, but that is at 22 K below current temperatures. The point is that the main release of CO2 from the warm oceans and main sink into the oceans is (differential) pressure related and hardly influenced by temperature changes. That also is the case for the trend: the fast response is near entirely temperature (and precipitation) related, the trend is pressure related… Therefore the “temperature says it all” formula is wrong.”
Thanks, ” the fast response is near entirely temperature” , at least one thing we can agree on.
“and main sink into the oceans is (differential) pressure related “.
But that “pressure” differential is calculated from the temperature !
It’s unclear what you mean by “the trend”. This term can mean a lot of different things and is much abused. It would be helpful if you expressed what you were referring to more precisely, eg “inter-decadal variation” or whatever.
This may go some way to explaining the difference between inter-annual and inter-decadal ratio that I found:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
If the longer term change is a large dT modulated by the variation in SST and the short term is more directly to related by d/dt(CO2) being driven by dT that would account for the diminished ratio.

Gene Selkov
July 4, 2013 4:53 am

@Lance Wallace and others:
Here’s an updated graph and the data:comment image
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1725690/bomb-Nordkap.tab
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1725690/bomb-Jungfraujoch.tab
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1725690/bomb-Krak%C3%B3w.tab
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1725690/bomb-Prague-Bulovka.tab
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1725690/bomb-Ko%C5%A1etice.tab
I figure, the Nordkap data were plotted with plus signs on the original graph; many overlapped and were pixel-aliased into huge blobs. I wouldn’t attempt any statistical inference based on the crowdiness of these points. My digitising strategy was to tile the blobs with imaginary 5×5-pixel plus signs, just so you had an equivalent visualisation in the log-space. That’s all it is. I could have as well transformed the image.

July 4, 2013 5:13 am

Willis :” Residence time” measures how long an individual CO2 molecule remains in the air. This can be estimated in a variety of ways. It is generally agreed that this value is on the order of five to eight years.
Where is the study of “individual CO2 molecule” coming from. These data are from bulk measurements mainly in NZ and Norway. Absolutely NO ONE is studying this at the molecular level.
What is being measured is bulk ratio of C14 to C12 . Once could say that the bombcurve represents absorption of only one isotope of carbon and preferential absorption / retention may give a result that is not representative of C12. That is dealt with on page 7 of the first paper.
If anyone wants to question the way that is dealt with, they should do so directly. This “individual CO2 molecule” argument is fallacious since NONE of this is data about individual molecules. It is quite simply a false statement.
Frank white points to Bruce A. Buchholz, Carbon-14 Bomb Pulse Dating, Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, 2007 URL: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/356050.pdf. The paper includes several references.
The result of 16 is not far from 14y presented here in paper 1. Pettersson accounts for dilution by emissions and uses longer data so I’d tend to go with her result. The two results are more in corroboration than in disagreement.
The major result is total failure of Bern model to follow this particular “tracer”. I see no arguments presented so far to explain this, other than that the Bern model is fundamentally in error.

July 4, 2013 7:10 am

“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.”
Ferdinand, for some reason there is a good correlation between CO2 annual (and longer) change and temperature level. Roughly, dC = C*T. So, after integrating, the change in atmospheric CO2 and the area under the temperature curve are proportional. There is a CO2 annual change ‘hiatus’ just like the global temperature anomaly one.

July 4, 2013 7:34 am

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dco2.jpg
No trend for at least ~15 years. It’s flat Jim.

July 4, 2013 7:49 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 4, 2013 at 1:48 am
Funny, I’m sure Ferdinand has always impliedly linked the differential pressures to temperature changes. Isn’t that how he came up with his numbers for MWP and LIA or Did I miss something?
The fact is that pressure differentials can arise for reasons other than temperature changes which he now admits.

Temperature is only one of the factors that influence the pCO2. Another important factor is DIC: total dissolved inorganic carbon. While DIC is highest in near polar waters, it is lowest in equatorial waters. That gives about a factor 4 difference in pCO2. The opposite happens with temperature, from near -2°C to 30°C. The net result still is that the highest pCO2 is near the upwelling places and the lowest near the poles. But that also implies that the effect of an extra 1°C up or down has little effect on the pCO2 or the resulting fluxes.
See Feely e.a. at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
Sunlight warms organic particles in the top 200 metres or so directly without having to warm the body of water first. That accelerates the decomposition process and causes the release of more organic CO2.
If the composition ends as organic carbon, it doesn’t count, if it ends in CO2 is counted as inorganic carbon. Anyway all organic carbon is sequestered inorganic CO2 from the surrounding seawater, which partly drops out of the surface layer, together with inorganic shells, reason why DIC in the tropics is lower than around the poles. Thus the decomposition of organics may add to DIC, but that was first removed from DIC (by sunlight…) and thus plays no role.
That is a separate process to the application of Henry’s Law on water temperature.
That separate process would be at least part of the reason why the rate of CO2 increase is an integral of temperature

Now you are mixing three variables: sunlight, temperature and decomposition of organics. Sunlight and temperature may accellerate decomposition but sunlight anyway accellerates the growth of organics and probably more than it and temperature increase does accellerate decomposition. Temperature may be ambigous on growth. I don’t see a net increase in emissions only from more sunlight, to the contrary.
In all cases, Henry’s Law still holds for any temperature – DIC combination (plus pH, salt content, etc…).
Your assumptions would produce a direct linear response wouldn’t they?
Yes they do, but the short-term response is directly related to temperature and the integral is directly related to pressure. The assumption Bart, you and others make is that there is one process that is responsible for the short to medium term response, while there are at least two…

July 4, 2013 8:10 am

An extra note…
AS regards MWP, LIA and current CO2 levels it looks clear that the ice cores do not record the full scale of short term atmospheric CO2 variations so you cannot reliably assert any specific numbers.
The Law Dome DSS ice core has a resolution of 20 years and an accuracy and repeatability of the CO2 measurements of 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma). Than means that any one-sided one-year peak of 40 ppmv or a sustained increase or decrease of 2 ppmv over 20 years would be detected. There was a drop of ~6 ppmv between MWP and LIA, with a lag of ~50 years after the temperature drop of ~0.8°C. Oscillations of shorter than 20 years will not be seen. But as the MWP and LIA lasted a few centuries, that is not a real problem…

July 4, 2013 8:20 am

Stephen Wilde says:
July 3, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Phil:
The mass balance argument has been applied in a way that assumes that mass balance is always kept in equilibrium. All Bart is saying is that the mass balance is actually always out of equilibrium but always constantly working back towards equilibrium – just like global temperatures in fact.

Not true, explain how the mass balance can be out of equilibrium.
The rate of change is always equal to the difference between sources and sinks!
Therefore it is the way the mass balance argument is applied that he (and I) take issue with rather than the obvious fact of mass balance in principle.
Then clearly you are both mistaken
I note a number of posts becoming abusive towards Bart without any ‘meat’ in support. I take that as a sign that he is right.
Really? Perhaps it’s a sign that posters are becoming fed up of his abusive antics and failure to pay attention to other posters’ positions.

July 4, 2013 8:42 am

Edim says:
July 4, 2013 at 7:10 am
“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.”
Ferdinand, for some reason there is a good correlation between CO2 annual (and longer) change and temperature level. Roughly, dC = C*T.

Not according to Bart, his plot shows:
dCO2/dt= C*T+ C1
So, after integrating, the change in atmospheric CO2 and the area under the temperature curve are proportional.
So when you integrate that equation you don’t get proportionality with the temperature dependent term.

Richard M
July 4, 2013 9:05 am

Just curious. One of the major disagreements appears to be the validity of ice core measurements. So ….
Has anyone studied biological activity in ice? Is it possible that some “life process” eats away the CO2 in ice cores over time? When the CO2 reaches a low threshold the biological activity would stop (just like it would stop outside of ice cores at around 150 ppm).
If something like this existed it would explain why there is little variation of CO2 in ice cores. We know bacteria exist at a wide range of temperatures including recently discovered bacteria high in the atmosphere. Any thoughts or links?

Gene Selkov
Reply to  Richard M
July 4, 2013 10:55 am

Richard M asks: “Has anyone studied biological activity in ice?”
There is no active life in ice. Life relies on liquid water both inside and outside for structure maintenance and for the transport of materials. Under freezing conditions, chemical degradation is the only change. You can find spores and pollen in ice and even much larger organisms like fish and reptiles, some of which can thaw without damage, but there is no active life. No transport, no synthesis; only slow decay.

Richard M
July 4, 2013 9:19 am

I did a little research on my own:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacterialh.html
“Bacteria are so widespread that it is possible only to make the most general statements about their life history and ecology. They may be found on the tops of mountains, the bottom of the deepest oceans, in the guts of animals, and even in the frozen rocks and ice of Antarctica. One feature that has enabled them to spread so far, and last so long is their ability to go dormant for an extended period. ”
So, the question is whether this potential source of CO2 elimination has been taken into account in ice core research?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bacterial%20life%20processes%20in%20ice%20cores&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fq-bio%2F0507004&ei=55_VUaqwAqT7ygG-rYG4BA&usg=AFQjCNHQOVNXw57YF4QIDHbnIfO73GHOkg
“No one has yet carried out a thorough study of the depth-dependence of the types of microbes or of the fractions that were viable and metabolizing, that were viable but not culturable, that were dormant, and that were dead. In fact, the definition of “death” may require revision as techniques for cultivating microbes found in ice improve. “

July 4, 2013 10:36 am

More for Greg:
Again, where do you get 1-3 years from? Is that the time for the whole of Earth’s atmosphere to re-equilibrate ?
You keep throwing these numbers in without any explanation.

Sorry, my fault. The 1-3 years decay time for CO2 levels is the exchange rate between the ocean surface and the atmosphere, not for the deep oceans. Both are in close contact and follow each other quite closely, where changes in the ocean surface follow the CO2 changes in the atmosphere with about 10% in inorganic carbon content (DIC).
The IPCC thinks of exchange decay times of less than a year, so that even some handle the atmosphere and the oceans “mixed layer” as one reservoir. But we have some figures too. As humans induce a lot of low-13C carbon, that would reflect as well as in the atmosphere as in the oceans upper layer. That can be followed in corraline sponges, but I don’t find the graphs back from the Böhm e.a. report…
With some search, I did find an interesting calculation that shows the estimated tau of the atmosphere-ocean exchange rate at ~5 years. That leads to an equilibrium in influxes and outfluxes after 2 years:
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_16/SCOPE_16_1.5.06_Sundquist_259-269.pdf
(page 262)

July 4, 2013 10:47 am

Richard M says:
July 4, 2013 at 9:19 am
So, the question is whether this potential source of CO2 elimination has been taken into account in ice core research?
Yes, it is unimportant. Some types of bacteria are found in the Vostok ice core and may survive for hundred thousands of years. But their activity is restricted to DNA repair, for which they use CO2 as a building block and the oxydation of NH3 to N2O as energy source. If we may account all N2O as used for DNA repair, the resulting use of CO2 is less than 0.1 ppmv CO2.
See further:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/13/4631.full.pdf
section K describes bacteria in the Vostok ice core

July 4, 2013 11:22 am

Greg Goodman says:
July 4, 2013 at 3:10 am
“and main sink into the oceans is (differential) pressure related “.
But that “pressure” differential is calculated from the temperature !

No, the bulk of the partial CO2 pressure in the oceans is concentration (DIC) and temperature dependent, changing in opposite direction between poles and equator. Temperature changes at any region (source or sink) or global will change the regional pCO2 difference and hence the regional/global CO2 fluxes and thus the carbon balance of the atmosphere. But a change of 1 K only gives a small change in fluxes, and as the CO2 level increases, the fluxes are restored.
It’s unclear what you mean by “the trend”. This term can mean a lot of different things and is much abused. It would be helpful if you expressed what you were referring to more precisely, eg “inter-decadal variation” or whatever.
OK, let us call it the interdecadal variation, that makes it clear.
If the longer term change is a large dT modulated by the variation in SST and the short term is more directly to related by d/dt(CO2) being driven by dT that would account for the diminished ratio.
The short term variation is an interesting idea, as it doesn’t make much difference if you use T or dT if the response time is short (as is the case for the ocean surface and leaves/stems growth in vegetation). But the interdecadal term is a problem. You have already a source for that term that has nothing to do with temperature: human emissions. At a rate twice as high as the increase in the atmosphere. Thus with two terms, one reflecting the direct action of dT (not T) and the direct action of d(emissions) on d(CO2), you can explain both the short term and the long term variations. The only difference then is that dT explains the short term variability in sink rate, not in source rate…

July 4, 2013 11:33 am

Perhaps one needs to have had experiments gone awry when water is left even a few minutes exposed to ambient air to appreciate how unphysical a sustained average 7 microatm pCO2 differential between the water and air is…
“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.”
Why would this be true? How is 14C discriminated in the mass? If anything its mass proportion should be increased by biological rejection.
Anyway, the Bern model is wrong. Trying to model anything you don’t understand will at best help you see WHERE you are wrong. We are grossly underestimating the biological activity in the oceans.

1 10 11 12 13 14 21