Those that want to make today’s weather seem like the “worst ever” often make ludicrous claims trying to link weather to high CO2 levels. For example, that extra CO2 gives the weather “personality“, or even more extreme linkage, like this:
Climate change means increased severe weather and asthma attacks. See what it means for your state: http://t.co/Pe9mOTVAro
— US EPA Research (@EPAresearch) July 1, 2013
and this
Climate Depot has a headline from Goddard that touts all the weather (not climate) issues of 2013 in the context of the highest ever reported CO2 concentration in modern times. Unfortunately, the link contained no proof, only claims. I decided to provide the proof.
First, about that 400PPM of CO2:
Unfortunately, they backed down from the claim later saying:
‘Carbon dioxide measurements in the Earth’s atmosphere did not break the symbolic milestone of 400 parts per million at a Hawaiian observatory last week, according to a revised reading from the nation’s climate observers.
The current level as of this writing is at: 395.50ppm and has actually gone down since the announcement of breaking the 400 ppm mark:
![co2_weekly_mlo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/co2_weekly_mlo1-e1376168771698.png?quality=75)
Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Next: let’s take each of the claims below and provide the context for proof:
- Coldest summer on record at the North Pole
- Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006
- Record high August Antarctic ice extent
- No major hurricane strikes for eight years
- Slowest tornado season on record
- No global warming for 17 years
- Second slowest fire season on record
- Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008
Coldest summer on record at the North Pole:
Easy to prove, as we’ve covered this issue recently here. The DMI plot of Arctic temperature for 2013 (at the end pause of this animation) hasn’t gone above the climatic normals since this dataset began in 1958:
Highest August Arctic ice extent since 2006:
Plausible, but is debatable, depending on what data you look at, for example, this plot from DMI:
![icecover_current_new[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/icecover_current_new1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
Others on the WUWT sea ice page suggest it could go either way. What isn’t debatable though is that there has been a dramatic slowing of loss of Arctic ice extent in the past couple of weeks, as shown below, and that the current extent is well within the +/- 2 standard deviation.
Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Record high August Antarctic ice extent:
That’s easy to show, at the end of July starting into August, as Paul Homewood demonstrates:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/
Since then, Sunshine Hours puts it in context with other years:
After taking a small jog sideways and downwards, Antarctic Sea Extent is back to moving up.
Day 221 is in 2nd place. 2010 holds the daily record. Can 2013 catch the 2010 record pace again? Wait and see.
No major hurricane strikes for eight years:
As we pointed out at the beginning of the hurricane season on June 1st, Hurricane season begins with a new record hurricane drought for the USA
The graph above provides an update to data on the remarkable ongoing US “intense hurricane drought.” When the Atlantic hurricane season starts next June 1, it will have been 2,777 days since the last time an intense (that is a Category 3, 4 or 5) hurricane made landfall along the US coast (Wilma in 2005). Such a prolonged period without an intense hurricane landfall has not been observed since 1900. – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr
It is now at 2847 days since Hurricane Wilma (the last Cat3 hurricane to strike the USA) on Oct 24th, 2005 as of August 10th, 2013.
Slowest tornado season on record:
Easy to prove, just look at NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center Data, which shows we are near a record low for tornado activity in the USA:
![torngraph-big[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/torngraph-big1.png?quality=75)
![torgraph-big[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/torgraph-big1.png?quality=75)
Source: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/#data
No global warming for 17 years:
This statement gets a number of people riled up, but it is clear that global warming has slowed to a crawl. Even the New York Times has at last been constrained to admit this.
Last year we had this:
Now a year later:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
and
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend
Slight cooling in the troposphere, slight warming at the surface, both virtually flat.
Of course after the latest HadCRUT4 “adjustments” are added in, some can claim it is actually warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend
Second slowest fire season on record:
Actually, just for this record set. The National Fire Information Center says:
2013 is actually lowest in the last decade for the number of fires, and second lowest for acreage.
Four of the five snowiest northern hemisphere winters have occurred since 2008:
Rutgers snow lab shows this clearly.
![nhland_season1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/nhland_season11.gif)
1978 was tops, followed by 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2008.
Source: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
We live in interesting times of nearly 400ppm of Co2 concentration in our atmosphere.
It’s still not too late to get t-shirts:
Order yours here on your favorite garment, mug, or bag here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There was an interview on CBC radio this morning with a ‘glacier expert’ who appears to be nothing less than a real and famous one. He was asked about the melting of a particular glacier in the Himalayas. He noted that there are green plants emerging from under the glacier, revealed by the pull-back, that are 6000 years old! They were carbon dated.
This was used in the interview (by the interviewer) to demonstrate that things have change so quickly and so rapidly that surely this is a man-made catastrophe. He did not actually support this, he just remained quiet and allowed the interviewer to blather on using the evidence for her purpose.
There were two interesting things: one said, one not said. The one said was that the dating of the plants was to several thousand years ago. The one not said was that obviously it means a few thousand years ago the glaciers were in retreat above the place being uncovered today.
When pressed to express that we should ‘do something about’ this [repeating] state of affairs, he was very reticent. He obviously knows how to get interviewed and have his work used by Al Gore (even) in AIT. He simply said that he was providing information and it was up to the political set to decide what policies should be created and implemented. Brilliant! He was placing right under her nose evidence that the glaciers have been melted back much more than they are today only a few thousand years ago when, according to him, the CO2 level was much lower and stable. He then neatly sidestepped questions aimed at getting him to jump on an anti-CO2 crusade.
We should expect more of this from real scientists who are in need of a living, who do not want to become lightning rods (not everyone does) but who do want to smuggle the real evidence to the public, via the uber-alarmist CBC no less. It was professional meets alarmist. No contest.
“””””……Smoking Frog says:
August 11, 2013 at 2:35 am
george e. smith says:
August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Well the first two graphs of CO2 at Mauna Loa, demonstrate the falsity of a common claim of the CO2 warming alarmists; that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 200 years. The second detailed data plot, shows that the annual CO2 “cycle” amplitude (at ML) has an amplitude of 9 ppm p-p. It takes 8 months for that 9 ppm increase to occur, but all that excess CO2 is removed in just 3 1/2 months. If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down. That is 34.3 months, which would be the time constant of a simple exponential decay process, which fits many physical processes. so if all sources were shut down, 99% of the CO2 excess, would be removed in five time constants, or 14.3 years.
I don’t think that argument works. It assumes that there would not be a similar fluctuation on the way down. But there would be, because NH plant growth does not continue all year, at least not at the same level. The mechanism of decline independent of the annual cycle would be something other than plant growth……….””””””
“”””””……..
Eric1skeptic says:
August 11, 2013 at 7:04 am
george e. smith (August 10, 2013 at 8:11 pm) “If we place the total excess CO2 at 120 ppm (400-280) over the supposed “equilibrium” level of 280 ppm, then all of that would be removed in 120 / 3.5 months , if the CO2 contributory mechanisms, were all shut down.”
Smoking Frog (August 11, 2013 at 2:35 am) is correct. The george e. smith scenario assumes that we would have permanent summer in the NH and if that happens, that trees in the NH could just keep growing indefinitely (require no seasonal cycle for continued growth). The other problem is that the equilibrium is going to be higher than 280 thanks to manmade CO2. Maybe not a lot more, but 300 or more seems reasonable. The correct calculation is to look at the annual rise and the percentage of CO2 above equilibrium that gets removed each year. Then assume an exponential decay with that delta. It means that in less than 40 years we would be half way back to equilibrium…….””””””
There’s a lot of “assuming”, about what I was assuming, in my back of the envelope calculation.
No need; I specifically stated my assumptions; which were:- (1) All processes contributing CO2 to the atmosphere were shut down; that’s ALL such processes. (2) The CO2 decay followed a simple exponential decay.
Smoking Frog says THAT assumes (I didn’t) continued tree growth. Eric1skeptic didn’t like the 280 ppm number; says 300 is better because of human CO2 additions. The 280 is not MY number, it’s the AGW crowd’s number. And I would swear that I said I assumed ALL CO2 contributory processes were shut down; so nyet on man made increases.
I did assume that the conditions that cause the decline, continued, by stating that a simpe exponential decline occurred. If that is permanent summer, and tree growth, so be it. It is also permanent arctic ocean ice melt.
The annual Arctic CO2 cycle in the atmosphere is three times the amplitude of the ML amplitude, suggesting that increased absorption of CO2 in the ocean (more open water) is the primary CO2 reduction mechanism; not plant growth. In contrast, the south polar CO2 cycle is about -1 ppm (out of phase with NH), and the south pole has neither a plant growth cycle, nor an open water area cycle; it’s likely due to the Antarctica sea ice cycle, which occurs far from the south pole (and is bigger than -1ppm in amplitude).
It’s easy to show that the open ocean continually pumps CO2 into the oceanic depths.
Henry’s Law prescribes how much CO2 can dissolve in the ocean surface waters. The Temperature drops with depth, so CO2 is more soluble in the deeper colder water, so the surface water CO2 moves to where the capacity for CO2 is higher, in the colder deeper waters.
So the surface does not sit there at the Henry’s law concentration of dissolved CO2; it continually pumps CO2 out of the atmosphere into the ocean depths.
When the surface Temperature increases, the Henry’s law concentration will increase, but because of the depletion by the colder deeper water, there isn’t excess CO2 in the surface waters to outgas CO2. In fact seasonal warming of the surface water, increases the Temperature gradient, and enhances the CO2 pumping efficiency.
But smoking Frog, and Eric1skeptic are both correct. In the real world, those processes that add and subtract CO2 in the atmosphere don’t ALL operate continually.
As for the 1-1.5 ppm per year ML increase; there’s no proof that is man made. We are after all just 800 years past the mediaeval warm period, which is the typical climate period delay, between increases in mean global Temperature, and subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2; as is enshrined in the long ice core records.
Typo in there; I should have previewed.
Surface Temperature increase LOWERS the CO2 equilibrium value, NOT increases; but as I said, the surface CO2 concentration is already depleted, by the pumping, so there isn’t excess CO2 to outgas.
I am a former alarmist turned skeptic. Especially after having seen data showing that CO2 was nearly 5 times higher during the Jurassic than it is now… it seems the dinosaurs did just fine with elevated atmospheric CO2.
The sun and volcanic activity actually have a much bigger influence on the climate than anything that humans do. Watch the rest of solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25. If solar activity continues to remain low during this time, there are going to be many alarmists eating crow. Look for temperatures to stabilize the next couple of years and then begin to drop over the course of the next couple of decades, we might even see New York harbor and the Thames river freeze over in some of the coming winters.
There is something to be concerned about though, if by chance we have a VE6 or greater volcanic eruption during this time, it could trigger a year or two of especially frigid temperatures like the ones we saw back during the Middle Ages and Colonial American times.
Gaill Combs said
“I would opt for Willi Munzenberg”
—————————————-
The name of Willi M sounded familiar and I foun lots in Arhur Koestler book The Invisible Writing,vol.2 of his auto biography Koestler worked under Willi from 1933 to 1940 when Willi was found murdered in a bush near the concentration camp where he and Koestler were .Will was a,member of the communist comintern “was the grey eminence and invisible organiser,…a unique feat in the history of propaganda”
The choice of Ms Combs was the best.
When discussing CO2 variability in the atmosphere, it is well to keep in mind the following facts. CO2 is more than 25 times more soluble in water than oxygen and more that 50 times more soluble than nitrogen. The oceans overall are loaded with CO2, much of it provided by undersea volcanic activity. Conversely CO2 is a very small component of the atmosphere. It has been estimated that the oceans contain 50 to 70 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. As the oceans warm and cool they release and reabsorb CO2, thereby affecting the atmospheric percentages. This is why the CO2 component of the atmosphere follows the temperature fluctuations of the ice ages. The Hockey Schtick blog has referenced some recent papers studying this matter over both the longer and shorter terms.
richardscourtney (August 11, 2013 at 7:22 am), thanks for the tip on your paper. I downloaded and I am reading it now. I will comment or ask questions tomorrow.
Here’s the world at 400ppm:
Hans Rosling’s 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes – The Joy of Stats – BBC Four – YouTube
george e. smith (August 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm) “Surface Temperature increase LOWERS the CO2 equilibrium value, NOT increases; but as I said, the surface CO2 concentration is already depleted, by the pumping, so there isn’t excess CO2 to outgas.”
My question is why CO2 is lowest in July when global average temperature is the highest. Part of the answer may be that the ocean temperature does not follow quite the same curve at the global temperature which relies on northern hemisphere land warming in summer.
My understanding is that both sequestering and outgassing of CO2 takes place all the time in various locations on earth that depend on ocean currents to sink or raise cold water. Warm water sinking or rising doesn’t matter too much.
No major hurricane strikes for eight years:
William: This is good news. I do not want to jinx’s us with a comment on the lack of tropical storms in the Atlantic (2013) particularly as my brother lives in the Houston area (Lake Jackson on the coast.)
Coldest summer on record at the North Pole:
William: It appears the Arctic sea ice is going to make a rapid recovery. I cannot imagine how the warmists could explain record Arctic sea ice, record cold temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet and record winters in the Northern hemisphere.
William Astley:
You conclude your post at August 12, 2013 at 12:53 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1387398
saying
Oh, I don’t need to “imagine”.
I merely assume they will continue to do what they do now; i.e.
they ignore all evidence and iterate their falsehoods.
For a recent example of this behaviour by a warmunist who admits to having been trained at an Al Gore ‘boot camp’, see the behaviour of James B in the WUWT thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/notes-from-a-mole-in-al-gores-climate-leadership-training/
Richard
RIchard, at the beginning of your paper you make this claim: ” Obviously, the net result would be an increase of CO2 production by desorption from the oceans. This is a relatively slow process, because the mass transfer coefficient between the sea water and its surface is relatively low (the rates of both absorption and desorption in the oceans have time constants that are probably of the order of decades). This would mean that a disruption by a temperature rise would result in a relatively slow increase of CO2 production.”
I did not see quantitative support for that claim.. Towards the end you acknowledge: “Convincing, quantitative proof for the existence of an increasing natural flux through the CO2 cycle can not be produced. But there is also no proof that the recent rise of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere must be attributed solely to anthropogenic emission. The latter is suggested by the evidence presented in Figure 1 in ref.1: that is, the concurrent rise of human emission and rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it is contradicted by the evidence presented in Figure 3: that is, the observed annual variance observed and the absence of a direct coincidence between annual human emission of CO2 and the annual pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere. This suggests that other influences are of importance.”
Your first claim is all the support you need for figure 3. But in fact the annual cycle reaches its low in July, the same time that the global average temperature reaches its peak, over 2C above the trough. That is direct contradictory evidence against temperature dependence of CO2. It is likely of course that the biosphere overwhelms temperature on an annual basis. But it cannot be used as evidence that a long term natural temperature rise is responsible for the long term CO2 rise. It suggests the long term factors are not temperature dependent, just like the short term.
eric1skeptic:
Thankyou very much for the interest you express in one of our papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )August 12, 2013 at 2:14 am)
In your post at August 12, 2013 at 2:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1387438
You make two points; viz.
1.
In our paper we state but do not justify that
As you say, this is near the start of our paper. It is an introductory point and we considered it to be understood so it did not warrant a reference (e.g. Newton’s ‘Principia’ is not usually referenced when considering effects of gravitational force).
However, there are many papers which support the contention; e.g.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/5b4.pdf
2.
Near the end of our paper we say
You comment on that saying
I am not sure what you are saying in your comment.
It may be that
(a) you dispute our saying “the absence of a direct coincidence between annual human emission of CO2 and the annual pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere … suggests that other influences are of importance”
or
(b) you dispute that temperature may be one of those “other influences”.
Please note that we did NOT use the coincidence of temperature and CO2 having both risen since 1958 as “evidence” of a causal relationship between them: we stated the temperature rise to be one possible “other influence” on the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Another possible “other influence” is change to recent surface layer pH as a result of the recent arrival in the surface layer of dissolved sulphur following transport by the thermohaline circulation from undersea volcanism which happened centuries ago. A rise of 0.1 in surface layer average pH would be much too small for it to be discerned but would induce a rise in atmospheric CO2 larger than that observed at Mauna Loa since 1958.
However, the possibility of the long-term temperature effect does exist. This is because the short-term ocean/air exchange is limited by the CO2 in the ocean surface layer but the long-term ocean/air exchange is limited by the transfer rate from the surface layer to deep ocean. Hence, the short-term influence of temperature is not indicative of the long-term influence of temperature. (Incidentally, Bart does not accept this and may want to comment on it here).
I point you to an observation in our paper concerning the ‘seasonal’ variation in atmospheric CO2 which says
In other words,
A.
The dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle can easily absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year
but
B.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958 indicates the natural sequestration processes of the carbon cycle do not absorb all the emissions of CO2 in each year.
The important question is;
Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all.
Our paper explains that this question can be answered by assuming the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle has altered.
And our paper explains that using this assumption enables almost any postulated cause of the rise to match the available data. But our paper does NOT determine the cause of the alteration to the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle.
Please note that – as I said above in my post at August 11, 2013 at 7:22 am –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1386929
the anthropogenic emission may be – but probably is not – the cause of some, most or all of the postulated alteration to the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle which explains the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I again thank you for your interest in the paper and I hope this response is a clear and sufficient answer to your questions.
Richard
Mods:
I have posted a reply to the post of eric1skeptic August 12, 2013 at 2:14 am but that reply has vanished.
I write to ask you to find it and also to place on record when I attempted to post it.
I will post it again if it cannot be found.
Richard
Mods:
It has appeared. Thankyou.
Richard
I posted this comment yesterday re the adjustments between Hadcrut 3 and 4 which seems to be quite significant. I looked at several of the peaks and valleys and found all were adjusted upward.
Did the question just get buried in the numerous discussions or is the basis for the adjustment not clearly known? Appreciate comments.
“I did some comparisons on the highs and lows before and after the adjustments for hadcrut and notice significant differences. Did they change the basis? Are they all tenths of a degree above or below 14C. It is noted that the warmest year was changed from 1997 to 2007.
Some noticeable differences both high and low below:
1997 Low -3 = 0.15 after adjustment -4=0.2
2002 high -3=0.6 after adjustment -4=0.67
2008 low -3=0.5 after adjustment -4=1.5
2012 high -3=0.57 after adjustment -4=0.65
2012 low -3=0.18 after adjustment -4=0.25
I am just a novice at this. Can someone explain the significant adjustments upward?”
Catcracking says:
August 12, 2013 at 6:21 am
I am just a novice at this. Can someone explain the significant adjustments upward?”
===========
The Hadcrut 3 temperatures were deviating from climate model predictions. The Hadcrut 4 temperatures better fit the climate model predictions and are therefore more scientifically acceptable.
ferd berple says: @ur momisugly August 12, 2013 at 7:19 am
The Hadcrut 3 temperatures were deviating from climate model predictions. The Hadcrut 4 temperatures better fit the climate model predictions and are therefore more scientifically acceptable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn it Ferd, now I have tea all over my screen. ROTFLMAO
Ferd,
Thanks for the explanation. I forgot about the post normal science methodology which is widely practiced by the warming advocates. Being an old engineer it never dawned on me that correcting actual data to match computer models would provide a more accurate representation of the actual science. We should apply that methodology and watch things like bridges collapse instead of sticking to actual material strength test data.
Gail , good thing I have ample reserves in my strategic energy storage system to ROTFLMAO
“””””……eric1skeptic says:
August 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm
george e. smith (August 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm) “Surface Temperature increase LOWERS the CO2 equilibrium value, NOT increases; but as I said, the surface CO2 concentration is already depleted, by the pumping, so there isn’t excess CO2 to outgas.”
My question is why CO2 is lowest in July when global average temperature is the highest. Part of the answer may be that the ocean temperature does not follow quite the same curve at the global temperature which relies on northern hemisphere land warming in summer……..””””””
Eric, I thought I had already explained that. In the summer time, the additional open water in the Arctic ocean is another 8-12 million square km, of very cold water, which has been highly depleted of dissolved CO2, by being blocked off from the atmosphere for much of the year. During that time, that ocean ice has blocked CO2 from the water, the Temperature gradient in the water, has pumped CO2 into the deeper waters.
So when the summer melt occurs, you have all that CO2 starved water exposed to the atmosphere. The NOAA plot, (which they have now hidden) shows that the arctic ocean CO2 drops by something like 18-20 ppm during that time; several times the Mauna Loa value, which is in much warmer water.
I have the global 3-D plot of CO2 from pole to pole, for over ten years; but as I said, that graph no longer shows up at that location.
There simply is not a lot of growth cycling, going on in the Arctic ocean, when it is covered with ice, but once ice free, oceanic food blooms, which is why the whales go there in the summertime. I’m sure that aids the depletion of dissolved CO2, which simply accelerated the Henry’s law exchange with the atmosphere.
Yes you do have roiling of the surface waters during storms, but the penetration of storm effects into the depths is minimal. The ocean turnover due to currents, is much slower than the ice melt/regrow cycle.
g.e. smith;
Not to forget that CO2 is a couple of dozen times more soluble in water than (e.g.) O2! It really likes all that open ice-water surface.
Is that an exact quote? The number of negatives is wrong. It should say:
“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will not believe it.”
It’s kind of bollixed either way; it would better have been phrased, “Any absurdity will be believed if repeated often enough.”
richardscourtney (August 12, 2013 at 3:43 am) “Why do the natural sequestration processes NOT absorb all – both natural and anthropogenic – emissions of CO2 in each year when the dynamics of the carbon cycle indicate that the processes can easily sequester them all.”
Richard, thanks for the reply and sorry for my delay in responding. The dynamics have two parts in my understanding. Leafing out of trees of trees consumes a lot of CO2 but I personally can’t quantify it. I have read the CO2 used is double or triple the amount sequestered in the wood but that the leaf mass far exceeds that. The second part is the release of CO2 in the fall, and I am really not sure how that can be so quick (as leaves turn from green to brown and shrivel up). Because of these uncertainties (and gaps in my knowledge) I would not want to speculate on whether the carbon cycle can sequester manmade emissions past the annual cycle.
Suffice to say that the annual cycle cannot be used as evidence either for or against long term natural sequestration of manmade CO2. I hope we can at least agree that there is a sufficient measurement of manmade CO2 to allow fairly accurate estimates of its contribution to atmospheric CO2 and that it represents about double the current observed rise. And from that we can speculate that nature is a sink.
george e. smith (August 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm) “Eric, I thought I had already explained that. In the summer time, the additional open water in the Arctic ocean is another 8-12 million square km, of very cold water, which has been highly depleted of dissolved CO2, by being blocked off from the atmosphere for much of the year. During that time, that ocean ice has blocked CO2 from the water, the Temperature gradient in the water, has pumped CO2 into the deeper waters.”
George, that’s not a bad theory except the timing is a little off. CO2 reaches its trough in July and the open water reaches a peak in September. Furthermore we would expect a lag from the absorption of CO2 in that open water to the measured trough, so we would expect the trough after September.
Eric1skeptic:
I am answering your reply to me which you post at August 13, 2013 at 2:50 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1388320
You say
But you have and have read the paper I co-authored and which we are discussing
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )August 12, 2013 at 2:14 am)
It lists all the sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2 and the Short Term Processes are listed there as
That is somewhat more than “Leafing out of trees” and “leaves turn from green to brown and shrivel up”.
You seem to be confusing the processes of the carbon cycle with the dynamics of the carbon cycle.
The dynamics are indicated by the rates of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
As I explained with quotation in my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/what-the-year-of-living-dangerously-at-nearly-400-ppm-of-co2-in-earths-atmosphere-looks-like/#comment-1387480
that you are replying
And you say
Well, yes, that is what our paper says and what I first wrote to point out in this thread.
However, if we understood the dynamics of the annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 then we would have definitive evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is natural or anthropogenic in part or in whole. This is because, as our paper says
You conclude saying
Well, yes, but so what?
Would nature be a “net sink” or a net source in the absence of the anthropogenic emission?
Nobody knows and nobody can know because the system of the carbon cycle is not understood.
As I explained in my post that you are replying.
If such an alteration to the equilbrium of the carbon cycle has occurred then available data cannot resolve if it was induced by the anthropogenic emission or some other and natural effect.
Richard
PS I will now be off-line for several hours so will be unable to make any required reply quickly.