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.
Ferdi says: “Please reread my former comment: the back and forth release of CO2 from the oceans drops the d13C level with about 8 per mil. That is sufficient to maintain the difference between the ocean surface d13C at +1 to +5 per mil and the pre-industrial d13C level in the atmosphere of -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil. But in no way that can explain the drop of 1.6 per mil since 1850, in lockstep with human emissions…”
Where’s the “lockstep”? I already pointed out that your sponge plot shows dC13 changing well before notable human emissions in both directions and in a manner “in locksetp” with temperature. There is no apparent change in behaviour I can see in that graph.
Unless I missed it you did not reply to that observation.
I’ve pointed out the plateaux in dCO2, temperature and AO since 1995 , none of which are “in lockstep” with human emissions. You ignored that problem too.
Clive Best says: July 2, 2013 at 10:41 am
“Man made emissions of fossil fuels are currently running at 5.5 Gtons per year,”
I think that’s way too low. I think it’s over 30 Gtons CO2/year. CDIAC says 32 Gtons in 2008.
Nick Stokes says: “I think that’s way too low. I think it’s over 30 Gtons CO2/year.”
Sorry – Looks like you are right. So my numbers need increasing by a factor 6 ! So now – In the worst possible case with tau=200 years and ( impossibly) humans continued to emit 30 G-tons of CO2 every year for the next million years CO2 levels would still stabilize at 5000 ppm – a figure reached in the past.
But more importantly – can you find an error in my maths for how final CO2 levels would eventually stabilize ?
jkanders says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm
The formula is:
P(t) = 0.217 + 0.259*e(-t/172.9) + 0.338*e(-t/18.51) + 0.186*e(-t/1.186)
Where t is in years, and P(t) is the pulse.
This formula is not very uncommon or exotic in any way. This is a perfectly normal way of modeling a system with several different sink rates.
In words it says that if you add one unit of CO2 to the atmosphere then:
21,7 % of it will remain there indefinitely
Does the IPCC make any attempt to justify this dubious parameterisation?
Re: jkanders
Nick,
According to International Energy Statistics you’re correct. The 5.5 Gt figure was in the ballpark of being correct for North America; a bit low. What’s a Gton more or less.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
Mods, could you fix the blockquote in my comment above?
Thanks
TerryS says:uly 2, 2013 at 1:27 pm
“You can use the formula with a bucket that is separated into 4 partitions with water that never mixes between the partitions.”
You can. But it’s your construct, not theirs. All they are doing is representing the response function as a sum of exponentials, which as jk says is a perfectly normal thing to do. It amounts to replacing the inverse Laplace transform by a sampled version. Nothing about mixing.
Greg Goodman says:
July 2, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Where’s the “lockstep”? I already pointed out that your sponge plot shows dC13 changing well before notable human emissions in both directions and in a manner “in locksetp” with temperature.
During the whole Holocene up to about 1850, the natural variability in atmospheric d13C was not more than +/- 0.2 per mil d13C, probably temperature related. Since 1850 there is a drop of 1.6 per mil, 30 times larger than the natural variability which is human emissions related.
One can show that in another way, assuming relative constant exchanges (turnover) with the deep oceans:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The zero GtC exchange line shows the drop in d13C caused by human emissions, if there was no exchange at all with the deep oceans. The 40 GtC/year exchange matches the observed drop, but the early years mismatch may be caused by an unbalance of vegetation CO2 release/uptake.
What happens if most of the increase in the atmosphere was from the oceans? If that increasingly occured since 1960 that would give the following change in d13C:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
I’ve pointed out the plateaux in dCO2, temperature and AO since 1995 , none of which are “in lockstep” with human emissions. You ignored that problem too.
Human emissions are about double the increase in the atmosphere, something that is conveniently ignored in the article and by you. Thus the variability in the increase rate of CO2 in fact is a variability in sink rate, not in source rate. If the e.g. the larger open, but still cold area of the Arctic Ocean removes 0.5 GtC (o.25 ppmv) more CO2 per year into the deep oceans, that would explain the leveling of the increase rate to a near constant (as a result of an increasing sink rate). That is part of the natural variability, which in the past 50 years was within +/- 1 ppmv with as largest influences the 1992 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
ThinkingScientist says: @ur momisugly July 2, 2013 at 8:01 am
…. 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CO2 depletion
Englebeen admitting CO2 is not uniform and plants are a big factor….
What is really really interesting is Barrow 1947-1948 data at 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) It is noted that the Keeling samples (1972 to 2004) are transported from Barrow Alaska to California before they are analysed. http://www.biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden6e.htm
As another commenter said the take home is the science is in its infancy and making far reaching political decisions that will cripple a country based on ClimAstologists pronouncements is asinine. But I am sure Russia and China will be happy.
Thanks Greg Goodman for many good posts.
The fundamental mistake Ferdinand and others make is treating the problem as outgassing from the oceans as a static pond.
CO2 rich waters are rising all the time. If you have a temperature rise, then the upper layers outgas. So, you reach a new atmospheric equilibrium. So far, so good, and Ferdinand et al. have no problem with this.
But now, those waters, whose CO2 has been depleted, downwell, and new CO2 rich waters surface. These then outgas, too. And the process repeats.
This produces a pumping action into the atmosphere. The rate of change of CO2 into the atmosphere is thus a continuous rate, which is temperature dependent, and can at least be approximated as an affine function of temperature
dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
That is what we see. It really couldn’t be more obvious.
This is a pumping action. It is relentless, and requires extraordinary sink action to oppose. Thus, a complete accounting of anthropogenic inputs and temperature dependent pumping works out analogously to the model
dCO2_pumped/dt = k*(T – Teq)
dCO2_total/dt = ( dCO2_pumped – CO2_total)/tau + H
where CO2_pumped is being pumped in by ocean dynamics, CO2_total is the total we observe in the atmosphere, tau is a time constant, and H is anthropogenic inputs.
If tau, the e-folding time, is short, then H has no appreciable effect, and CO2_total tracks CO2_pumped. That is what is happening. It is beyond any reasonable doubt. Only a dogmatist can deny it.
Hockey Schtick says:
July 1, 2013 at 9:59 pm
Nice plot! As everyone can see, the anthropogenic input is diverging from the measured atmospheric concentration. This will be the nail in the coffin as the divergence accelerates in the years ahead with the incipient cooling cycle.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm
“Thus the variability in the increase rate of CO2 in fact is a variability in sink rate, not in source rate.”
Again with the discredited mass balance argument. Stop it.
“The formula is:
P(t) = 0.217 + 0.259*e(-t/172.9) + 0.338*e(-t/18.51) + 0.186*e(-t/1.186)
Where t is in years, and P(t) is the pulse.
This formula is not very uncommon or exotic in any way.”
Not exotic?
172.69 is the combined synodic period of Uranus and Neptune; 18.6 is the lunar nodal cycle ; 1.186y=433 days is the Chandler Nutation.
It’s pure alchemy I tell you.
Bart said:
“This is a pumping action. It is relentless, and requires extraordinary sink action to oppose”
Thanks Bart. You know I agree with you from previous posts.
Now consider our puny emissions. Easily absorbed locally and regionally by the local biosphere whilst the oceanic pump overwhelms all the sinks.
I previously posted the evidence from recent data and here it is again:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508&linkbox=true&position=8
Ferdinand really should give up on the mass balance argument because the contortions required to sustain it are becoming so convoluted as to be laughable.
Should we go with Ferdinand or with Murry Salby?
The cold upwelling water from the thermohaline circulation is comparatively rich in CO2 and must release it when warmed by sunlight and if the sunlight is greater in quantity as it was during the late 20th century when the sun was more active, the jets more zonal, the globe less cloudy then of course there will be a net outgassing. It’s all in reverse now though (since about 2000) but we need to wait some time before the data goes into reverse too.
No, as I see it, it is not the mixing that is the concern; the concern is that each of the sinks is saturated in different times. The CO2 level will of course at any given point in time be more or less the same all over the globe. The level will not decrease faster in some areas as you wrote in your previous post.
But I think the mixing discussion is a sidestep anyway, and I want to go back to the original question. This formula represent the level of the excess amount of CO2 after a pulse is depleted, it does not show the residence time of CO2 molecules which the author of the posting discussed.
The residence time of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is not a very interesting parameter in modeling the CO2 level since it has no connection to the depletion rate of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
To elaborate further on that we can use your previous formula for residence time
P(t) = e(-t/r) where r= 2173/771 = 2.81 years
For 5 years this gives P(5) = 17% remaining of the CO2 molecules from the pulse
The Bern formula for 5 years gives P(5)= 73% remaining of the excess CO2 level from the pulse
Both of these can be perfectly right since they measure different things
Bart says “CO2 rich waters are rising all the time. If you have a temperature rise, then the upper layers outgas. So, you reach a new atmospheric equilibrium. So far, so good, and Ferdinand et al. have no problem with this. But now, those waters, whose CO2 has been depleted, downwell, and new CO2 rich waters surface. These then outgas, too. And the process repeats. This produces a pumping action into the atmosphere.”
This has been documented by careful observations in at least 3 published papers demonstrating the oceans act as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/new-paper-finds-ocean-along-n.html
Bart says “Again with the discredited mass balance argument. Stop it.”
Bart explains here why the mass balance argument proves nothing because it involves a single equation with two unknowns, insufficient to determine a unique solution:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html?showComment=1370978113222#c1094879382476014584
A refinement to the concept occurs to me.
CO2 rich water is coming to the surface from the thermohaline circulation all the time and that circulation takes 1000 to 1500 years.
On that basis the current CO2 level of richness would have been generated in the Dark Ages some 1000 to 1500 years ago rather than in the LIA which only recently ended (around the late 1800s).
So what we have here is a 1000 to 1500 year cycle in the thermohaline circulation affecting the CO2 content of upwelling waters from the thermohaline circulation encountering sunlight variations from a 1000 year solar cycle (think Roman Warm Period to Dark Ages to Mediaeval Warm Period to Little Ice Age to date).
Those solar and oceanic cycles are of different lengths and so out of phase.
What we have currently is likely an unusual scale of variability in atmospheric CO2 due to the CO2 rich waters from the thermohaline circulation (originating in the colder Dark Ages) encountering a high level of sunlight during the recent period of high solar activity.
The higher level of sunlight being due to the solar mechanism I described here and elsewhere previously.
Speculation?
Maybe, but speculation that fits observations should be given attention..
The ice records are too coarse to record any of the shorter term CO2 variations as confirmed by Murry Salby.
I was about to link to the Hockey Schtick article but he beat me to it 🙂
Hockey Schtick says:
July 2, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Sorry for the strong language in your comments. I am very annoyed by the “mass balance” argument, because it seems I never get through, and it is so wrong on such an elementary level.
I’m finding it much easier to keep my cool these days, though, now that the winds are blowing in my direction, and other thoughtful people are coming to the same conclusions. Especially with someone as distinguished as Dr. Salby weighing in, the scales have decidedly begun to tip.
The AR4 report refer to it as Bern2.5CC in ftp://ftp.elet.polimi.it/users/Giorgio.Guariso/papers/joos01gbc%5B1%5D-1.pdf
clivebest says: July 2, 2013 at 2:02 pm
“But more importantly – can you find an error in my maths for how final CO2 levels would eventually stabilize ?”
No, I think the maths is OK. It’s not too bad to just multiply the emission rate by the residence time.
It’s really a multi-scale issue, though, as the Bern formula shows. A more relevant limit is just the total carbon we could burn.
The problem is, that’s still a lot of CO2, and not too far off. We’ve seen effects already, but there’s much more to come.
Nick Stokes says:
July 2, 2013 at 3:03 pm
“A more relevant limit is just the total carbon we could burn.”
It is almost completely irrelevant.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 2, 2013 at 7:13 am
…..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.….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but opposite by (lack of) precipitation which may be a result of the temperature increase.….
HUH?
An increase in temperature leads to an increase in the water cycle. Graphic map: US precipitation trends 1900 to present
From the EPA:
EPA graphs on change in precipitation in the USA and in the worldwide link shows an increase in precipitation.
So with a warmer world with more CO2 and a faster water cycle you have more plant growth. All three (Co2, Temp and precipitation) are increasing at the same time and the plants love it!
This occurred naturally as the earth warmed out of the last Ice Age. See: NORTH AMERICA DURING THE LAST 150,000 YEARS for a description of what conditions were like in North America during glaciation.
LLNL ran a program in 2005 to see what the effect would be of “business as usual” until all fossil fuels were used up. Some of their assumptions were questionable at best, but they came up with “alarming” climatic consequences (no surprise) from nearly two doublings of CO2 to 1423 ppm from 380 ppm.
http://www.universetoday.com/11066/what-if-we-burn-everything/
The authors guess an eight degree C increase in global temperature, which they consider conservative. Since climate sensitivity is now known to be closer to one degree per doubling than four degrees, this value is clearly too high, even setting aside the logarithmic issue. Two degrees might be more like it, if that.
It’s also doubtful that carbon sinks would in fact behave as weakly in scavenging CO2 as LLNL projected then.
Nick Stokes says:
“The problem is, that’s still a lot of CO2, and not too far off. We’ve seen effects already, but there’s much more to come.”
Nick Stokes is wrong once again. There is not “a lot of CO2”; it is measured in parts per million. There are 209,000 ppm of Oxygen, and 780,000 ppm of Nitrogen. But there are only a few hundred ppm of CO2, with a few ppm added annually. And almost all of the additional CO2 is emitted naturally from the warming oceans [Beer’s Law].
Furthermore, there are NO confirmed, testable, verifiable global effects attributable to human-emitted CO2. Nick Stokes may believe that “there’s much more to come” of his fictitious CO2 ‘effects’, but that is simply a baseless Nick Stokes conjecture. It is his opinion; his unscientific belief, nothing more. And his belief is not corroborated by any testable, verifiable scientific observations.
Nick Stokes is often wrong, folks. But he will never acknowledge that he could ever be mistaken. That is the difference between a scientist, and a religious True Believer.
PS: They estimate about 300 years to burn up all the buried hydrocarbons, but the worst effects would occur in the 22nd century. In the long run, all climate modellers are dead.