
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ZP says:
July 14, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Rate constants are independent of concentrations by definition.
You need to take into account the huge lag of ~1000 years in the deep oceans between sink and source.
In this case the difference in concentration influences the relative quantities of 14CO2 vs. 12CO2 of what returns from the deep oceans.
What goes into the deep oceans has the composition of today’s atmosphere.
What comes out has the composition of the atmosphere of ~1000 years ago.
What comes out of the oceans contains 97.5% of the 12CO2 quantity compared to what was absorbed, in 1960 (96% in 2000).
What comes out of the oceans contains 97.5%*0.45 = 44% of the 14CO2 quantity compared to what was absorbed in 1960, the year of the 14CO2 bomb test peak (96%*0.75 = 72% in 2000).
Same process, largely different rate constants.
Ferdinand,
We do not observe relaxation times. For simple processes, we can infer the value directly from a concentration vs. time plot. For complex processes, we must calculate a relaxation time from the values of the rate constants.
The model you keep asserting predicts a biphasic decay profile. The model and associated arguments are simply mathematically untenable.
“It doesn’t matter. The predicted behavior is a direct consequence of the axioms of mathematics.”
Too funny, as if we knew what the applicable axioms of mathematics were. In order to adequately describe the system mathematically, you must be able to describe it in language. Language and mathematics are both metaphor, they are both models. We have been telling the climate “scientists” for years that we are working with a system with third and fourth and who knows how much higher order differentials.
You understand the system, THEN you apply the mathematics. Well, backing off a couple steps, you can test the system with mathematical models, but when they fail, you have to be willing to throw them out.
ZP says:
July 14, 2013 at 3:49 pm
We do not observe relaxation times. For simple processes, we can infer the value directly from a concentration vs. time plot. For complex processes, we must calculate a relaxation time from the values of the rate constants.
May I respectfully disagree? There are a lot of natural processes which can’t be described in mathematical terms (as Gymnosperm already said), like the relation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature. That is the result of hundreds of independent and interdependent processes, of which several are far from linear. Despite that, the overall dependence of CO2 on temperature is near linear, where much of the deviation is from different lag times for CO2, not from a change in ratio:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
Thus for all practical purposes, one can use the 8 ppmv/°C ratio.
The same for the 14CO2 bomb curve, which is the result of several decay rates: the redistribution of the extra CO2 injection in the atmosphere (as mass) into other reservoirs and the specific decay of 14CO2 due to thinning from the 14CO2-free human emissions and the specific decay of 14CO2 due to the long lag in the deep oceans.
For all practical purposes, the observed relaxation time of 14 year can be used, as that shows a quite simple linear behaviour…
For the bulk of CO2 (which is near 99% 12CO2), the observed relaxation time is over 50 years, only as result of the redistribution over the different reservoirs, again showing a quite simple linear behaviour.
In addition, the linearity of the increase in the atmosphere and the net sink rate shown here via the accumulated human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_2006.jpg
The sink rate is the difference between human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere, thus also linear, whatever other processes are involved…
I am only referring to the proposed compartment box model.
For small changes in x, all functions can be approximated as linear. However, this does not imply that the behavior is linear for all x. In the case of the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 in water, the observed behavior conforms to the van’t Hoff equation.
I suppose you are referring to the half-life of a first-order decay, where the half-life is a constant. Otherwise, you appear to now be suggesting that the decay rate should be of zero-order.
These claims are simply not tenable. Either the rate laws describing the changes in CO2 are dependent on concentration (or pressure) differences, or the rate laws are of of zero-order. The rate laws cannot be both. If the rate laws are of zero order, then the observed loss of 14C would be adequately described by a linear equation. Otherwise, your only option is to model the system using a compartment box model and properly formulated differential equations.
ZP says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:49 am
In the case of the temperature dependence of the solubility of CO2 in water, the observed behavior conforms to the van’t Hoff equation.
Indeed, non-linear. That makes it very remarkable that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is with a near fixed ratio to temperature over a large range (190-290 ppmv – 12 °C). And only halve of what can be expected from the solubility of CO2 in seawater (about 16 ppmv/°C at 15°C). Land vegetation is the main compensator, as that in general shows more uptake (and a larger area) with higher temperatures.
All cases described in my attempt to show the processes between the different boxes are bidirectional first order processes. For mass transfer mainly pressure difference dependent. For 14CO2, the sink concentration in the deep oceans decays with a constant half life, while the deep oceans as source shows a constant concentration.
But if all sink processes (for mass redistribution over the different reservoirs) all are common pressure dependent with different decay rates, why can’t they be represented with only one overall decay rate, based on empirical evidence? They all are parallel flows caused by the same continuous pressure increase…
Because… a monoexponential decay is not the solution for the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 given a compartment box model involving parallel bi-directional (i.e. competitive, reversible) first-order processes.
The empirical observations determine if the proposed compartment box model is plausible.