
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.
There are two contradictory notions expressed above. Notion 1 is that the observed atmospheric increase in CO2 is partly natural. Notion 2 is the rate at which CO2 is absorbed by nature is very rapid. Notion 1 is that nature is a source. Notion 2 is that nature is a sink. Notion 1 is that there is no equilibrium in nature, that if, in the absence of mankind, nature would be increasing atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per year or thereabouts. Notion 2 is that in the absence of mankind, nature would quickly absorb lots of CO2.
Ian W says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:37 am
Plants can consume carbon dioxide at rates far faster than humankind can produce it and as they receive more carbon dioxide the number of plants increases at an unknown rate.
====
Thanks Ian, you are 100% correct
an example of this comes to mind…..People with fresh water planted aquariums..in the house…where CO2 levels can be ~1000 ppm in a closed house in the winter…..and they still have to inject CO2 in the aquariums
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Dang … another person who conflates residence time (the average time that an individual CO2 molecule remains in the atmosphere) and pulse half-life (the time it takes for a pulse of excess gas injected into the atmosphere to decay to half its original value)…..
I hate to do this when the author has obviously spent so much time and effort on his post, but it’s just plain wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that is why it is good to post something like this on WUWT so the diverse group here can vet it and make sure the author got everything correct.
Thanks Willis and thanks Gösta Pettersson.
Re: Nick
Presumably the Bern model’s justification is empirical. It’s really just a fit to a (claimed) observed response function.
No, it isn’t empirical. It is the models output, not an observed response function.
But you are using a mass balance argument to say that the decay is exp(-t/r).
According to the IPCC everything from Methane to Trifluoroiodomethane except CO2 has this decay.
it’s the claim that the time constant is r. The argument for that is wrong.
That isn’t even part of my argument. Here is what I said in the original comment (bold extra):
I say that r is dependant on other factors and can change.
My claim is that the Bern model is incorrect because it does not have CO2 as a well mixed gas.
Eschenbach points out that this article is confusing residence time with replacement time.
From a table in “Introduction to Geochemistry”, by Krauskopf, there’s a table listing relative portions of Carbon, exprssed in units of 10^20 g CO2. The book was published in 1967, so atmosphere, and probably plant, portions have increased since then
atmosphere 0.023
living organisms and undecayed organic matter 0.145
oceans and fresh water 1.30
coal, oil, ,etc 0.27
carbonate rocks 670
organic carbon in sedimentary rocks 250
Note that the organic/atmosphere ratio of 0.145/0.023 = 6.3 is close to the estimated residence time of 5 to 8 years.
For an oceans and fresh water/ atmosphere-living organisms/balance-
1.3/0.168 = 7.73, is coincidentally also in that 5 to 8 year range. I suspect that there are chemical reaction rates that cause these ratios and measured residence time to closely match, but I don’t see that relative balances should influence the replacement time- perhaps a chemist or geochemist could answer how to get a theoretical figure for replacement time.
William Astley says:
July 2, 2013 at 4:47 am
What is the explanation for the missing carbon sinks’ evolution with anthropogenic CO2 emission?
What are your thoughts on ‘Temperature’ effects on the atmospheric carbon dioxide level?
Because it was a missing sink (not a missing source!), that is not a real problem. In general, where and how large the sinks and sources are is only roughly known. All we know with reasonable accuracy is human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere. The difference is going somewhere in sinks.
One of the sinks is more or less known: the biosphere. That is a net sink for about 1 GtC/year, based on the oxygen balance:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
The rest is supposed to go into the (deep) oceans, as many other sinks are quite slow in reaction speed.
What are your thoughts on ‘Temperature’ effects on the atmospheric carbon dioxide level?
Over the seasons to a few years, the change in CO2 vs. temperature is 4-5 ppmv/°C, on very long term (decades to multi-millennia) the change in CO2 vs. temperature is ~8 ppmv/°C. If the oceans where the only source/sink for CO2, the levels would change by about 16 ppmv/°C, but as vegetation reacts the other way out for temperature changes, the average change over long term is ~8 ppmv/°C, as seen in ice cores for the MWP-LIA transition and over the glacial-interglacial transitions and back.
The deep earth CH4 that is released disassociates high in the atmosphere and forms CO2 and H20.
No matter the source of CH4, if solar/temperature is the cause of some extra release, why does the CH4 levels in the previous interglacial only reach 700 ppbv with temperatures 2°C higher than today and why are we now at 1900 ppbv? Including a hockeystick shaped curve seen in ice cores like is the case for CO2, in lockstep with human use of coal and gas? See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_ch4.jpg
There is no explanation for the reduction in CO2 during the glacial phase.
Not everything is known from the past. All what is known is the quite nice ratio between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperature proxies in the ice cores over the past 800 kyears, with a lag of CO2. But even the worst resolution ice cores back in time are good enough to detect a similar increase as the current 100 ppmv over a period 0f 160 years, but there are no such increases detected…
I did a similar study of the decay of atmospheric bombtest C14 a few years ago and found an e-folding time of between 5 and 7 years.
The author uses the classic Mauna Loa (MLO) data but Scripps Institute maintain several such records. Someone recently suggested I use the data from American Samoa which is in the indo-pacific warm pool, a zone showing little annual variation since in the tropics.
It is interesting that CO2 from that station follows global SST more closely than the regional SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=397
The relationship between SST and rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is clear on both inter-annual and inter-decadal scales.
The basic physical laws tell us that the rate of outgassing is proportional to temperature. This is clearly what is happening.
Ferdi says: “Over the seasons to a few years, the change in CO2 vs. temperature is 4-5 ppmv/°C, on very long term (decades to multi-millennia) the change in CO2 vs. temperature is ~8 ppmv/°C. ”
Curious, I found those figures to be the opposite way around. BTW I think you units applicable are ppm/year/kelvin , not ppm/degree since it is an induced rate of change.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233
After this old layman has read the above comments;
1 / Not many are completely convinced they know where the increase in CO2 is coming from
2 / Not many are completely sure where the CO2 goes to or finishes up
3 / Not many are completely sure how long a molecule of CO2 lasts in the atmosphere
4 / Not many are completely sure what role the oceans play in atmospheric CO2 levels.
5 / Not many are completely sure what role biology plays in atmospheric CO2 levels
6 / Not many are completely sure how fast CO2 is turned over in the atmosphere
7 / Not many are completely sure what are effects of CO2 on the range of global temperatures
8 / Not many are completely sure what were historical and prehistory levels of CO2.
9 / Not many are completely sure how much CO2 varies on a day by day, season by season and location by location basis around the planet.
9 / Not many are completely sure what happens next after Nature, as usual, decides not to follow any of the rules as laid down by the climate alarmists.
Sighh!
It was all so simple just a couple of years ago when we taxpayers and the increasingly reluctant funders of climate alarmist science were categorically assured by those scientific experts standing way up in all their glory on their highest scientific podiums where they loudly and frequently proclaimed to all those ignorant masses way down below them in status, that the “Science was settled”. and they were all going to go to hell in a red hot basket unless they followed those scientific prophet’s exact instructions because if they didn’t stop doing what they were enjoying and “do something”, they would all go blind.
Or something like that!
Regarding the criticism of the notion of “time constant” and exponential decay expressed by many of us here, just plotting the data on a log scale vs. linear time could settle the issue. If it looks like a straight line, the overall process can be described by a single time constant, whether or not there are variable sinks.
It is hard to believe how a combination of two different exponential functions can look like a single exponent on a raw data plot, but it is easy to see them for what they are on a semi-log plot.
eric1skeptic says:
July 2, 2013 at 5:46 am
There are two contradictory notions expressed above.
Agreed. The only solution to the source & sink contradition is that the turnover of all inputs and outputs together increased in lockstep with the increase of human emissions.
That means a more than doubling of all fluxes together over the past 50 years and thus a halving of the residence time. But that isn’t seen in any observation.
If you look at the estimates for the residence time 1960-1985 and 1985-current, it seems that the residence time somewhat increased, certainly not halved.
Further, any extra natural release from the oceans or vegetation would show up in the 13C/12C ratio’s of the atmosphere. The biosphere is a net sink of CO2, preferably of 12CO2, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. The oceans have way higher 13C/12C ratio’s than the atmosphere, thus should increase the ratio in the atmosphere. But we see a firm decline…
Willis, Nick and others.
I have one problem with the residence vs mass position. Where exactly is the C14 released by the bomb tests now? This shouldn’t be hard to figure out. Is it in tree rings, in the surface or lower waters, or is it in quickly decay-able plant or animal products? Assuming this info is readily available, it should be straightforward to find out where anthropic CO2 goes to. It’s unlikely to be in quickly decay-able material, or the C14 wouldn’t have decreased so much in 50 years. That part which is in longer-lasting material, however, would not necessarily be replaced. And the part in surface waters depends on where this CO2 goes next. If it sinks quickly or gradually, it will also not be replaced, at least not in the time frame we’re dealing with. If it comes back out, and it’s just a dilution effect which has reduced the C14, then we need to question whether the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is from increased temperature or vice versa.
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 6:36 am
Curious, I found those figures to be the opposite way around. BTW I think you units applicable are ppm/year/kelvin , not ppm/degree since it is an induced rate of change.
That is the fundamental difference in opinion between the above article, Bart and Salby at one side and those involved in carbon cycle research and some skeptics like Willis, Mosher and me on the other side.
The primary change is directly proportional to the change in temperature, but that is rapidely countered by the change of CO2 in the atmosphere, at least for the oceans. Once the temperature is at a new level, CO2 levels follow to a new level too, and that reestablishes the previous oceanic fluxes. No further increase happens.
The reaction of the biosphere is largely an increase of uptake both by an increase in temperature as by the increase in CO2 of the atmosphere, but opposite by (lack of) precipitation which may be a result of the temperature increase.
Thus anyway a sustained increase in temperature compared to a baseline (as Bart and Salby assume) doesn’t lead to a continuous sustained stream of CO2.
Simply compare the time frames: the current increase would mean over 70 ppmv/50 years or average 1.2 ppmv/year for some 0.5°C temperatur increase, but over a glacial-interglacial transition that would mean 0.002 ppmv/year, for a 100 ppmv and 10°C increase over 5000 years.
Ferdi says: “Further, any extra natural release from the oceans or vegetation would show up in the 13C/12C ratio’s of the atmosphere. The biosphere is a net sink of CO2, preferably of 12CO2, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. The oceans have way higher 13C/12C ratio’s than the atmosphere, thus should increase the ratio in the atmosphere. But we see a firm decline…”
Then some of our trivial assumptions about the carbon cycle are wrong. “Way higher ” is how much higher? IIRC it’s not that much numerically. Maybe the lighter C12 also outgasses preferencially. It is afterall the water air interface in plants and plankton membranes that determines the preferential uptake. Why not preferentail release.
Like most science these days it seems it is enough to grab some hypothesis out of the air and spin it as a fundamental law. As long as your results ‘prove’ AGW you get money for next year and social adoration.
Our state of knowledge and data for the carbon cycle are abismal, yet known physical relationships like the temperature dependancy of outgassing a wantonly ignored. Hand waving arguments and assumptions take the fore.
“The primary change is directly proportional to the change in temperature”
The rate of outgassing is proportional the deviation from the temperature at which the current concentration would be in equilbrium. d/dt(CO2) proportional to delta T NOT dT/dt.
So as long as the temperature remains elevated and (at the very least) the mixed layer of the world oceans has not re-equilibriated, the outgassing will continue.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
That means that at least part of the outgassing of 2ppmv/annum during the current “plateau” is due to the elevated temperature.
Mosher and Fuller both have a God-complex, they believe they have been charged with deciding the ways and means of energy generation for future children. In short, they know what’s best for our grandkids and our grandkids’ grandkids.The problem with this megalomania is were it successful and they somehow locked up fossil fuels it would result in the destruction of the environment when all trees and animals are killed for warmth and fuel, and most importantly additional humans, kids and elderly would die freezing to death. I’m not sure if they are members of the population control cult, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
BTW, does anyone have a link to their segment on that WUWT live webcast?
Steve, that begs so many questions, I’ll ask anyway even though you already hit and run …
* How much of it is “extra” CO2?
* What “should” the current CO2 ppm be?
* How do you know all that “extra” CO2 is ours?
* How do you know that the extra CO2 isn’t just now being added from a ~800 years lag since the Medieval Warm Period?
“So as long as the temperature remains elevated and (at the very least) the mixed layer of the world oceans has not re-equilibriated, the outgassing will continue. ”
That is why any comparison to the change during the last deglaciation is to fundamentally misunderstand the physics. Yet another attempt to think that a linear model means you can regress the system response against the input forcing.
That is sadly too typical of the level of understanding that is required for climate “science”. Climatology is a social science that pretends to be hard science.
I’ve written on this as a result of discussion at Lucia’s blackboard recently. Much of it applies to CO2(T,t ) as well as T(forcing,t)
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
Willis and Phil,
Surely you will agree that a “pulse” is actually comprised of individual molecules? To observe that a pulse injected into a system (which incidentally operates very FAST with over 200gt cycled annually) will behave differently than the same molecules injected evenly over time is likely true. But before you begin writing all sorts of equations, you might well consider the possibility that the poorly defined term “pulse” is a can of worms. What is it? A sustained release at geological scales of magnitude and time which if human emissions are not yet will surely someday be? A volcano? When I put the pedal to the metal?
I’ve used a different approach in estimating the fraction of anthropogenic contribution in the atmosphere. I come to similar conclusions. Click on my name for details.
Ferdi says: “Simply compare the time frames: the current increase would mean over 70 ppmv/50 years or average 1.2 ppmv/year for some 0.5°C temperature increase, but over a glacial-interglacial transition that would mean 0.002 ppmv/year, for a 100 ppmv and 10°C increase over 5000 years.”
You implicitly assume that there is not re-equilibration in 800 years. You often post on the CO2 and seem quite well read on it so I assume the subject is not new to you. You have clearly had time to think it all through.
Perhaps you can explain the assumptions:
1) that if we see , for example, 8ppmv/year/K in the recent good quality data, it should be assumed that either this continues unchanged for thousands of years and can be directly refuted by the last de-glaciation
2) if #1 does not work we can abandon d/dt(CO2) temperature relationship and assume almost instantaneous equilibration
3) that the swing between two very different quasi-stable states of the climate : glacial and interglacial is, without further justification, applicable to steady change over a century or so without a change in climate state.
This whole treatment of d/dt(CO2) is simplistic to the point of being farcical.
Freeman Dyson:
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
“To reach reasonable solutions of the problems [of global warming], all opinions must be heard and all participants must be treated with respect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming
Ferdi says: “The primary change is directly proportional to the change in temperature, but that is rapidely countered by the change of CO2 in the atmosphere, at least for the oceans. Once the temperature is at a new level, CO2 levels follow to a new level too, and that reestablishes the previous oceanic fluxes. No further increase happens.”
The corollary of that is that any increase in atmospheric CO2 not due to temperature will be rapidly absorbed to maintain the current equilibrium state. Until either the sinks or the transfer mechanisms saturate that will be the case. In view of the massive swing both in terms of ppmv and tonnage of ” carbon” , saturation hardly describes the current state the climate.
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:24 am
The rate of outgassing is proportional the deviation from the temperature at which the current concentration would be in equilbrium. d/dt(CO2) proportional to delta T NOT dT/dt.
The rate of outgassing only depends on two factors: the partial pressure difference water-air and the mixing speed of water and air, mainly influenced by wind speed. Assuming the latter relative constant, only the partial pressure difference is of interest. Temperature influences the partial pressure of CO2 in seawater, thus there is a direct effect.
The partial pressure of the atmosphere is currently around 400 microatm (~400 ppmv), while the partial pressure of the oceans at the highest temperature is about 750 microatm at equilibrium with the atmosphere. That gives a permanent flux ocean-atmosphere of X GtC/year.
Now the overall temperature of the oceans suddenly increases with 1°C. That makes that the partial pressure in seawater at equilibrium increases with ~16 microatm. That means that X increases:
Xi = X/(750-400)*(766-400) = 1.046 X
The opposite happens at the sink places, where the pressure difference is reduced by increased temperature. As net result, the CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere.
After some time, usually 1-3 years, the CO2 level increased to 416 ppmv. That gives:
Xi = X/(750-400)*(766-416) = 1.000 X
Thus after 1-3 years, the incoming flux (as good as the outgoing flux) is back to what it was before the increased temperature, only the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased as result of the higher ocean temperature, without further increase due to a permanent temperature increase.
According to the IPCC FAR (2007) the (approximately in equilibrium) fluxes of carbon in Gt/yr are:
Biosphere Atmosphere 120 Gt/yr +/- 24 Gt/yr
Ocean Atmosphere 91 Gt/yr +/- 18 Gt/yr
Total atmosphere flux is then 211 Gt/yr +/- 42 Gt/yr
Fossil Fuel Emissions 6.4 Gt/yr
Two points to make:
1. The uncertainties on these fluxes are more than 8 times larger than the anthropogenic contribution, but apparently that flux from anthropogenic sources inexorably changes the CO2 content of the atmosphere, even though its only about 3% of the total exchange each year
2. Does anybody think that the biosphere Atmosphere flux, which is the largest of all the stated fluxes, might be temperature dependent in some way? Or that the biosphere, with a huge flux of 120 Gt/yr +/- 24 Gt/yr cannot act as a temperature dependent sink or source, with a relatively quick response time?
Murray Salby anybody?
PS Human respiration is estimated at approximately 1 – 2 Gt/yr!