UPDATED – see below
Monckton provides these slides for discussion along with commentary related to his recent post on CO2 residence time – Anthony
There is about one molecule of 13C in every 100 molecules of CO2, the great majority being 12C. As CO2 concentration increases, the fraction of 13C in the atmosphere decreases – the alleged smoking gun, fingerprint or signature of anthropogenic emission: for the CO2 added by anthropogenic emissions is leaner in 13C than the atmosphere.
However, anthropogenic CO2 emissions of order 5 Gte yr–1 are two orders of magnitude smaller than natural sources and sinks of order 150 5 Gte yr–1. If some of the natural sources are also leaner in CO2 than the atmosphere, as many are, all bets are off. The decline in atmospheric CO2 may not be of anthropogenic origin after all. In truth, only one component in the CO2 budget is known with any certainty: human emission.
If the natural sources and sinks that represent 96% of the annual CO2 budget change, we do not have the observational capacity to know. However, we do not care, because what is relevant is net emission from all sources and sinks, natural as well as anthropogenic. Net emission is the sum of all sources of CO2 over a given period minus the sum of all CO2 sinks over that period, and is proportional to the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 over the period. The net emission rate controls how quickly global CO2 concentration increases.
CO2 is emitted and absorbed at the surface. In the atmosphere it is inert. It is thus well mixed, but recent observations have shown small variations in concentration, greatest in the unindustrial tropics. Since the variations in CO2 concentration are small, a record from any station will be a good guide to global CO2 concentration. The longest record is from Mauna Loa, dating back to March 1958.
The annual net emission or CO2 increment, a small residual between emissions and absorptions from all sources which averages 1.5 µatm, varies with emission and absorption, sometimes rising >100% against the mean trend, sometimes falling close to zero. Variation in human emission, at only 1 or 2% a year, is thus uncorrelated with changes in net emission, which are independent of it.
Though anthropogenic emissions increase monotonically, natural variations caused by Pinatubo (cooling) and the great el Niño (warming) are visibly stochastic. Annual changes in net CO2 emission (green, above) track surface conditions (blue: temperature and soil moisture together) with a correlation of 0.93 (0.8 for temperature alone), but surface conditions are anti-correlated with δ13C (red: below).
The circulation-dependent naturally-caused component in atmospheric CO2 concentration (blue above), derived solely from temperature and soil moisture changes, coincides with the total CO2 concentration (green). Also, the naturally-caused component in δ13C coincides with observed δ13C (below).
==============================================================
ADDED (the original MS-Word document sent by Monckton was truncated)
==============================================================
The naturally-caused component in CO2 (above: satellite temperature record in blue, CRU surface record in gray), here dependent solely on temperature, tracks not only measured but also ice-proxy concentration, though there is a ~10 µatm discrepancy in the ice-proxy era. In the models, projected temperature change (below: blue) responds near-linearly to CO2 concentration change (green).
In the real world, however, there is a poor correlation between stochastically-varying temperature change (above: blue) and monotonically-increasing CO2 concentration change (green). However, the CO2 concentration response to the time-integral of temperature (below: blue dotted line) very closely tracks the measured changes in CO2 concentration, suggesting the possibility that the former may cause the latter.
Summary
Man’s CO2 emissions are two orders of magnitude less than the natural sources and sinks of CO2. Our emissions are not the main driver of temperature change. It is the other way about.
Professor Salby’s opponents say net annual CO2 growth now at ~2 μatm yr–1 is about half of manmade emissions that should have added 4 μatm yr–1 to the air, so that natural sinks must be outweighing natural sources at present, albeit only by 2 μatm yr–1, or little more than 1% of the 150 μatm yr–1 natural CO2 exchanges in the system.
However, Fourier analysis over all sufficiently data-resolved timescales ≥2 years shows that the large variability in the annual net CO2 emission from all sources is heavily dependent upon the time-integral of absolute global mean surface temperature. CO2 concentration change is largely a consequence, not a cause, of natural temperature change.
The sharp Pinatubo-driven cooling of 1991-2 and the sharp Great-el-Nino-driven warming of 1997-8, just six years later, demonstrate the large temperature-dependence of the highly-variable annual increments in CO2 concentration. This stochastic variability is uncorrelated with the near-monotonic increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation.
Though correlation between anthropogenic emissions and annual variability in net emissions from all sources is poor, there is a close and inferentially causative correlation between variable surface conditions (chiefly temperature, with a small contribution from soil moisture) and variability in net annual CO2 emission.
Given the substantial variability of net emission and of surface temperature, the small fraction of total annual CO2 exchanges represented by that net emission, and the demonstration that on all relevant timescales the time-integral of temperature change determines CO2 concentration change to a high correlation, a continuing stasis or even a naturally-occurring fall in global mean surface temperature may yet cause net emission to be replaced by net uptake, so that CO2 concentration could cease to increase and might even decline notwithstanding our continuing emissions.
Natural temperature change and variability in soil moisture, not anthropogenic emission, is the chief driver of changes in CO2 concentration. These changes may act as a feedback contributing some warming but are not its principal cause.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Whitman says:
November 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm
I suggest in any update that you differentiate your position from the IPCC’s AR5 assessement of science on the carbon cycle. Skeptics have assessed there is systematic institutional bias wrt IPCC processes, so clarity wrt your position would be helpful.
I think that skeptics need to make a differentiation between scientists sampling the best data available and “scientists” interpretating the same data.
I have not the slightest reason to doubt most of the data which are collected by many scientists all over the world, of course within the error margins of each of these data. Some data are quite accurate, like the CO2 measurements over the past 50 years, thanks to rigorous quality control procedures. Others have (too) large errors, due to lack of quality control like is known for temperature measurements. In that way, the satellite measurements are a lot more accurate.
Thus the data which were and are produced for the estimates of the carbon cycle still are far from complete and one discovers new surprises near every day. Which doesn’t say that the main fluxes aren’t known (again within large margins of error). There are no signs of an increase in turnover, which is necessary for Bart’s
What is known sometimes is disputed by several skeptics, mostly based on “they fit the AGW theory, thus they must be wrong”, without any deeper look at the data. That is the case for the historical CO2 measurements collected by the late Ernst Beck and the ice core data collected by the late Jaworowski. Although I am sure that both have done a lot of rigorous work in their own field of interest, their conclusions were wrong and now completely outdated. But still their work is used by skeptics to doubt the historical CO2 levels in ice cores… Which makes that the credibility of skeptics on these points is seriously undermined.
But even in the current discussion: there is no measurable migration of CO2 in ice cores (there is an unimportant small theoretical migration in “warm” ice cores), but Dr. Salby calculates a theoretical huge migration necessary to fit his theory, which makes that I doubt all of his theory, no matter how nice that may fit the CO2 curve…
About the IPCC: I don’t believe one word of them anymore, except when verified in the original literature. The IPCC is a political organisation, which spread false information and suppresses any opposition (IPCC Vice President Van Ypersele pressed the Brussels University to forbid an open discussion with Fred Singer and Claes Johnsson).
Thus I don’t accept the Bern model for CO2, because the real world doesn’t show any sign of saturation of the deep oceans or the biosphere, to the contrary.
Bart says:
November 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm
A sustained rise in the rate of incoming CO2 will continuously increase the pCO2 of the surface waters, until such a time as the pCO2 of the incoming waters matches the pCO2 of the surface waters, i.e., until the entire surface ocean is essentially replaced. That will continuously increase the pCO2 of the atmosphere.
The release of CO2 from the deep oceans is only in a small part of the oceans mostly near the equator, the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/images/fig06.jpg
A sustained rise at the upwelling places will give a sustained increased flux to the atmosphere, but that is leveled off by the increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere, which increases the CO2 uptake near the poles and decreases the CO2 release at the upwelling places.
The only way to obtain a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 from upwelling is from a linear increase in upwelling combined with a linear increase in temperature…
Bart says:
November 25, 2013 at 3:37 pm
How representative is Bermuda? I would think the Pacific Ocean off of South America would be the ideal location to perform measurements.
Bermuda is representative for the NH Atlantic gyre only, but we also have Hawaii for the North Pacific and a few other places. Besides that, there are regular ships measurements:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/publication/abstracts/Gruber_etal_99_gbc_abstr.htm
The upwelling places have the highest 13C/12C ratio, thanks to biolife…
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen You wrote: “A temperature increase of 1 K causes a CO2 increase of ~16 ppmv in seawater, the 100+ ppmv increase caused by human emissions by far exceeds that”.
I have no idea where you got that figure from? Wikipedia? It seems wrong to me in any case. As far as I can infer it would only take very minor changes in ocean temperature – not just ocean surface temperature – to increase atmospheric CO2 by 100ppmv. The calculations involved are rather straightforward and Wikipedia provides a van’t Hoff temperature-equation from which one can do the calculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law On a side-note Wikipedia’s claim that the “Partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase in equilibrium with seawater doubles with every 16°K increase in temperature” is an egregious misrepresentation of Takahashi et al 2002. A change of 1C would be enough to change CO2’s solubility by around 3%, which would be sufficient to increase the CO2 concentration by 530.4ppmv, assuming the entire ocean warmed, which contains 37,000 gigatonnes of carbon. Also, your claim that Henry’s law is redundant because CO2(aq) only equilibrates with CO2(g) is not true since all DIC exists in chemical equilibrium. There is 50 times as much CO2 as DIC in the oceans than the atmosphere, as required by Henry’s law. The same as there is in a carbonated drink at the same temperature.
Stephen Wilde says:
November 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Doesn’t Ferdinand’s comment confirm that oceanic emissions are leaner in C13 than the emissions from the land based biosphere so increasing oceanic emissions on their own would dilute 13C in the atmosphere would it not ?
Stephen, the 13C/12C ratio is expressed in per mil δ13C, compared to a standard (Pee Dee Belemnite, PDB) mineral in the early days, nowadays a standard established during a conference in Vienna (V-PDB):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9413C
13C indeed is slightly over 1% of all CO2, that is in oceans, air, vegetation and fossil fuels.
The difference is in the 0.1 %’s of the 13C content, thus very small.
The proportion of atmospheric C13 would be reduced whenever ocean emissions increased relative to the land based biosphere emissions and would be increased whenever ocean emissions decreased relative to the land based biosphere emissions.
No, the δ13C level of the oceans, including the partitioning at the water-air border is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial release (or increase in circulation) from the oceans wil increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere.
For the biosphere: that depends of when it is a net absorber or a net emitter: in the first case the δ13C level of the atmosphere will rise, in the second case the δ13C level will decrease. As the oxygen balance shows, the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2, thus increasing the δ13C level of the atmosphere.
But we see a continuous decline of the δ13C level in the atmosphere, which completely parallels human emissions…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 3:01 am
“… the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:”
Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.
“…but that is leveled off by the increase of CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere…”
Over a very, very long period of time. It only stops when the pCO2 of upwelling matches the pCO2 of all surface waters.
“The only way to obtain a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 from upwelling is from a linear increase in upwelling combined with a linear increase in temperature…”
Either way, you have effectively conceded that your comment here is false in general.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 3:28 am
“The upwelling places have the highest 13C/12C ratio, thanks to biolife…”
Do they? It appears, at least from this link, that the areas of upwelling are not really certain.
Must go on an extended trip. Failure to respond to any further discussion is not indicative of acquiescence. The data are very clear that humans are not driving atmospheric CO2 concentration, and that fact will only become more apparent as we slide into an extended downturn in global temperatures. And, that is my last word on this thread.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 4:32 am
OK, next to last word. This popped up when I posted.
“But we see a continuous decline of the δ13C level in the atmosphere, which completely parallels human emissions…”
Even if so, this is likely only coincidence. There are many possible explanations which do not involve human emissions. And, even if it is from human emissions, it does not follow that atmospheric CO2 is driven most significantly by humans. I made the analogy earlier to a well which is polluted via diffusion from a small stream of impurities dribbling in, but the impure stream does not drive the level of water in the well.
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 1:43 am
You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Really?
Here the graph of the increase in the atmosphere vs. total human emissions and temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
That gives for human emissions vs. atmospheric CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
and for temperature vs. atmospheric CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Human emissions do fit the increase in the atmosphere almost perfectly without using integration against an arbitrary baseline and without any physical basis…
As anthropogenic emissions are increasing and ocean temperature in the last 17 has not increased that means a large percentage of the anthropogenic CO2 must be absorbed in the biosphere
The uptake by the biosphere slightly increased over the past decades, bit still is low at ~1 GtC/yr. ~0.5 GtC is absorbed by the ocean surface and ~3 GtC by the deep oceans. Colder oceans (if they got colder at the sink places) absorb more CO2…
The Bern model has three relaxation times: 1.2, 19, and 173 years; to model the three CO2 sinks; land, surface ocean, and deep ocean.
If you have read some of my comments here, you would have noticed that I do reject the Bern model on the basis that there is no saturation of the deep oceans and vegetation in sight. My own estimate is an amount of ~40 GtC/yr which is cycling through the deep oceans and the atmosphere. That is based on the dilution of the δ13C “fingerprint” caused by human emissions.
That is also the reason why the 14C/12C dropped faster than what can be expected from an excess amount of 12CO2 (or total CO2) in the atmosphere: because what returns out of the deep oceans is the much lower 14C/12C ratio of ~1000 years ago, but what goes into the deep oceans is the current composition. Thus the 14C decay is too fast and not representative for the decay of extra 12CO2 in the atmosphere…
Bart says:
November 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm
You keep ignoring the trend in dCO2/dt, which is matched by the trend in temperatures when you match the variability.
Sorry Bart, that is not true: for any of the temperature trends you can match the timing of the variability, but you can’t match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).
The problem is that the full variability is matched by the integral of dT/dt, as that doesn’t change the amplitude, but because you need a factor to match the difference in slopes between T and dCO2/dt, you influence the amplitude of the variability. The smaller the dCO2/dt slope vs. the T slope, the smaller the amplitude gets. Thus there is something fundamentally wrong by combining variability and slope.
Ferdinand said:
“the δ13C level of the oceans, including the partitioning at the water-air border is higher than that of the atmosphere. Thus any substantial release (or increase in circulation) from the oceans wil increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere.”
The total C13 content for the atmosphere as a whole is not the correct comparator because it is a moving target dependent on the sum of all C13 from al the different sources of C13.
You are conflating total atmospheric C13 content with the relative proportions of C12 and C13.
The main sources of C13 being oceanic emission and vegetation emission.
The oceans can add to total C13 yet still cause a change in the proportions of C12 and C13.
You can have an increase in total C13 (as observed) whilst the proportion of C13 compared to C12 declines (as observed).
To have that effect the oceans only need to provide less C13 as a proportion of ocean emissions than would vegetation as a proportion of its emissions.
Do the oceans do that ?
If they do, then an increased release of emissions from sun warmed oceans, having a lower proportion of C13 than vegetation emissions would dilute C13 as a proportion of the total whilst still leading to an overall increase in C13.
Which is what we actually see isn’t it ?
stephen wilde says:
November 26, 2013 at 6:00 am
Stephen, δ13C is a measure of the ratio between 13C and 12C in the atmosphere, not of absolute 13C levels.
If some CO2 from the oceans is released, its 13C/12C ratio is higher than the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, thanks to little to abundant biolife. Higher with more biolife. No way that it will give a lowering of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.
You can have an increase in total C13 (as observed) whilst the proportion of C13 compared to C12 declines (as observed).
That can be if the increase of 12C is larger than the increase in 13C, as is the case for human emissions, compared to the atmospere. That can’t ever be from the oceans. It can be from vegetation, if and only if there is more vegetation decay than growth. But the current calculations show that vegetation is growing faster than decaying
Bart says:
November 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm
“- a finite increase in upwelling (either amount or concentration) gives a finite increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
If by that, you mean a finite pulse in upwelling, then I agree. But, a sustained increase in upwelling concentration above that of current surface waters will gradually diffuse throughout the surface oceans, and continuously increase their concentration, which thereby continuously outgases to the atmosphere.
But as I’ve told you before you’ve ignored the continuity equation of fluid mechanics, which says that for every m^3 of upwelling ocean water there is an equal m^3 of downwelling ocean water, typically near the poles carrying high concentration of CO2 down to the deep ocean to return to the surface ~1,000 years later. It is also an assumption on your part that the upwelling water is in fact super-saturated with CO2, any direct evidence to back that up?
“But there is not the slightest sign that the upwelling (infact the througput) increased over time, to the contrary…”
In fact, we do not have direct measurements of the rate of inflow of CO2 to the surface waters, so no way of dismissing the hypothesis.
We do know that if upwelling increases then so does downwelling.
This is, in fact, precisely what the observed temperature dependency of the rate of change of CO2 indicates to be likely. And, I only qualify it as “likely” because there could be other temperature dependent sources than the oceans. But, the oceans appear to be the most probable source.
The temperature dependence is more likely to indicate the temperature dependence of the net sink terms since the overall flow is from the atmosphere to the ocean.
Bart says:
November 26, 2013 at 4:36 am
Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.
Also confirmed by the increase in DIC (total inorganic carbon), pH and pCO2 measurements at a lot of places. Maybe your interpretation of the data is wrong?
Either way, you have effectively conceded that your comment here is false in general.
I don’t see any problem with what I said.
Do they? It appears, at least from this link, that the areas of upwelling are not really certain.
But a link from that link shows that the upwelling places, which comprise some 5% of the oceans, are the places with the most abundant biolife:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upwelling
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 5:45 am
Not proof read:
but you can’t match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).
but you can match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence).
Bart: “I am not arguing on the basis of the linear trend in total CO2. I am arguing on the basis of the variability, and the quadratic factor in total CO2, i.e., the variability and trend in the rate of change of CO2. They match the trend in temperature with incredibly high fidelity.”
Bart, I’m very interested in evaluating this relationship but I don’t think over-stating the case like you do here or calling it almost “perfect” like you did on Hockeyschtick is very helpful at all.
It is easy to match integrals and frankly there are significant deviations in the plots you have done. That is not to say there is not a relationship but please try to be honest and realistic about quality of the fit. As per the comment I left on HS, if you plot the derivative of your two integrals it will look less impressive. This is, I think why Salby introduced the “ground conditions” argument, for which I eagerly await real numbers (not pics) and falsifiable claims.
This may well relate to the land variations that Ferdi has linked information on.
Ferdi:
but you can match the amplitude or you can match the slope, but not both (or just by coincidence
If I understand what you are referring to, it think it is shown here. In this graph I have attempted to match the long term variability not the inter-annual detail.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
This is exactly the kind of effect produced by the low-pass filter action of the relaxation response. I explained this in rigorous detail in my article the in-phase and orthogonal responses that I’m getting tired of repeatedly linking.
Both the direct and derivative response have a frequency dependant coefficient which looks like k/(1+(omega*tau)^2)
So you will see a higher magnitude variation in fast changes than in to longer ones. More over the long term changes will be dominated by in-phase terms and the short-term by orthogonal (derivative) terms.
This general description fits what we see and what you point to.
Now I do not regard that as even weak proof that this is what is happening but it does show that that kind of model would fit. Our old climate science favourite : it is “consistent with”.
So this scaling issue you point out tends to support rather than refute the presence of a temperature dependent effect. Though I would not state it more strongly than that at this stage.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 5:19 am
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 1:43 am
You are ignoring the fact as pointed out by Salby that the recent CO2 changes in the atmosphere correlate with the integral of ocean temperature rather than change in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Really?
Here the graph of the increase in the atmosphere vs. total human emissions and temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
That gives for human emissions vs. atmospheric CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
and for temperature vs. atmospheric CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Human emissions do fit the increase in the atmosphere almost perfectly without using integration against an arbitrary baseline and without any physical basis…
William:
Salby is a senior scientist who has written two textbooks. Salby has found an unexplained paradox. There is a paradox. Salby is not a crank. If the climate wars were not being fought Salby’s paradox would be addressed and solved rather than being ignored/hidden.
Your comments, conclusion, and graph are not correct. I not sure if you are: disingenuous/crafty, ignorant, and/or that you lack scientific imagination/curiosity (Crafty, as a smart troll who makes up sciency looking things to confusion readers. Advanced smart trolls can get their work published which is the basis for climate gate.). I must admit that your incorrect categorical statement that there is no paradox concerns me when a back of the envelop calculation shows there is a paradox. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 58% from the 1990’s while atmospheric CO2 has only increased 25%.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are interested in understanding this subject from a scientific standpoint and simply lack scientific imagination which is the ability to compare competing hypotheses to solve problems. Scientific curiosity is also required (Indication of scientific curiosity would be that you had read Nobel prize winner Thomas Gold’s book on the origin of: 1) hydrocarbons, 2) the origin and evolution of our planet’s atmosphere, and 3) the origin and evolution of oceans on the surface of the planet which is most definitely involved to explain Salby’s paradox).
Could you please provide a link to the source data CO2 rise and source data anthropogenic CO2 emission by year.
As the anthropogenic CO2 has increased particularly in the last 17 years a smaller and small percentage remains in the atmosphere. That is a fact, an observation, not a theory. That does not make physical sense in terms of the physical assumptions of the IPCC model and does not agree with the IPCC carbon sources and sink models. The IPCC assumes as the planet warms and the ocean ph increases the biosphere’s ability to absorb CO2 reduces not increases.
Richard says:
November 26, 2013 at 4:15 am
@ferdinand meeus Engelbeen You wrote: “A temperature increase of 1 K causes a CO2 increase of ~16 ppmv in seawater, the 100+ ppmv increase caused by human emissions by far exceeds that”.
I have no idea where you got that figure from? Wikipedia? It seems wrong to me in any case. As far as I can infer it would only take very minor changes in ocean temperature – not just ocean surface temperature – to increase atmospheric CO2 by 100ppmv. The calculations involved are rather straightforward and Wikipedia provides a van’t Hoff temperature-equation from which one can do the calculation:
I think that you must have done the calculations incorrectly then, because Ferdinand’s value is consistent with all the values I’ve seen published. Try using this on-line calculator, you’ll see much lower sensitivity than you’re suggesting:
http://www.microcosmofscience.com/CO2%20and%20TIC%20calculator.html#pco2uatm
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 8:36 am
William, I am not impressed by someone’s titles, if what he/she say isn’t based on observable data. The graphs I provided are based on observed data.
If the fact that about halve the human emissions are going into known or unknown (“missing”) sinks doesn’t change the fact that human emissions are probably the caues and more than sufficient to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So does the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. So does every known observation. The solution Salby promotes doesn’t fit several observations. So, in my informed opinion, Salby is wrong.
The CO2 data of different stations can be found at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
human emissions are here:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
The percentage remaining CO2 from human emissions hardly changed over the years, within the huge variability caused by temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
Once again the low-pass filtering effect can be seen in both in-phase and orthog:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=399
Greg Goodman says:
November 26, 2013 at 8:23 am
So you will see a higher magnitude variation in fast changes than in to longer ones. More over the long term changes will be dominated by in-phase terms and the short-term by orthogonal (derivative) terms.
I don’t think that is the problem. The problem is that Bart (and Salby) combine the short term variability with the long term trend which are (near) completely independent of each other. The short term variability is near entirely caused by temperature, while the trend is near entirely caused by another (not or less temperature dependent) process.
Here a simulated example of a sinusoid + trend of temperature causing a 70 ppmv trend in CO2 (with a small sinusoid, 90 deg shifted in phase):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_co2_temp_00.jpg
and here the derivatives:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sim_dco2_dT_Tanom_00.jpg
I did give the Tanomaly a small factor to show the still perfect timing, but in fact the amplitude should be zero because there is no trend in the derivative of CO2 while there is a trend in T.
Even if there is a small non-linear component in the CO2 increase, there is no reason that the slope in dCO2/dt should match the slope of T which is necessary to match the amplitude of the variability.
On the other side, the zeroed variability of dT/dt always matches the variability of dCO2/dt after integrating, no matter the slope of dCO2/dt.
Which points to different, (near) independent processes at work…
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 10:39 am
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 8:36 am
William, I am not impressed by someone’s titles, if what he/she say isn’t based on observable data. The graphs I provided are based on observed data.
If the fact that about halve the human emissions are going into known or unknown (“missing”) sinks doesn’t change the fact that human emissions are probably the caues and more than sufficient to explain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So does the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. So does every known observation. The solution Salby promotes doesn’t fit several observations. So, in my informed opinion, Salby is wrong.
William:
You need a better pair of spectacles (the anomaly is visually obvious from the graph) and/or need some training in mathematical analysis and some need some understanding of the physical problem (there is a change in slope, really quite basic).
Graph the data in piecewise segments comparing 1970 to 1990 and 1990 to present. Anthropogenic CO2 has increased 58% while atmospheric CO2 has only increased 25%. The ‘missing’ carbon sink is absorbing more anthropogenic CO2 in terms of percentage 1990 to present, as compared to 1970 to 1990.
Salby has not promoted a ‘solution’ Salby has pointed out an observational fact which is a paradox, something that is not explained by the Bern model, something that indicates the Bern model is incorrect.
Your comments concerning the bombtest data were not correct. The Bern model has three terms in it as there are three different large carbon sinks/reservoirs: land, surface ocean, and deep ocean. As I have noted three times above – you ignore my comments – if the Bern model was correct, atmospheric C14 would have decline to a plateau as it reaches equilibrium with the smaller carbon reservoirs (land and surface ocean). That is not what is observed. The C14 drops to very low levels as it is mixing with the deep ocean reservoir.
http://www.false-alarm.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/paper1.pdf
As the carbon reservoir in the deep ocean is more than 50 times greater than the carbon in the atmosphere if there is significant mixing of the deep ocean with surface ocean water then this no plateau in C14 as the atmospheric C14 is mixing with the massive deep ocean reservoir.
The warmists of course have noted that heat is hiding the deep ocean. The only way heat can hide in the deep ocean if for there to be mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean. The warmists need to get together if they want to avoid embarrassing propaganda paradoxes.
Ferdinand said: So does every known observation.
William: List every known observation which you believe contradicts Salby’s observation. Salby has discovered a paradox. Observations do remove a paradox. Scientists look for additional paradoxes as they can provide a clue to the ‘solution’.
I see you ignore the fact that detailed phase analysis of CO2 changes vs temperature changes supports Salby’s observation. Temperature changes first and then CO2 rises 7 out of 8 times. As the paper notes the rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with changes in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The detailed mathematical phase analysis agrees (finds another paradox, effect occurs before cause) with Salby’s observation. http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
need some training in mathematical analysis and some need some understanding of the physical problem (there is a change in slope, really quite basic).
If you take a better look: in the period 1975-1995 there was no increase in rate of change of CO2 either.
Further, so what? Does a change in sink rate prove that humans are not the cause of the increase? As long as it is a sink rate in whatever sinks still humans are the prime suspect of the increase in the atmosphere and if you don’t have hard proof in observations like turnover, isotope ratio’s, etc… it is the only suspect. A model, any model is not proof until proven…
Salby has not promoted a ‘solution’ Salby has pointed out an observational fact which is a paradox, something that is not explained by the Bern model, something that indicates the Bern model is incorrect.
I do completely agree with Salby that the Bern model is wrong, but I completely disagree with Salby that the integral of temperature is the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And the 14C decay of the bomb tests is not comparable with the decay of an injection of extra CO2. Thus while that is not proof of a failing Bern model, the fact that there is no sign of slow down of the sink rate is proof that the Bern model is wrong.
List every known observation which you believe contradicts Salby’s observation.
– a slight increase in residence time over the most recent estimates. If Alaby is right, there must be an increase in outgassing/turnover from the oceans (vegetation is a proven sink), thus a reduction in residence time over time. But we see a slight increase. What means a rather constant turnover in a growing reservoir.
– a firm decrease in δ13C over time in ratio with human emissions in atmosphere and ocean surface waters. Any release from the oceans would increase the δ13C ratio and as the biosphere is a proven sink, that is also a source of extra 13C.
– no change in the decay rate of the bomb test 14C spike. If the oceans would increase emissions/turnover then the decay rate would increase over time.
2 out of 3 are observations the residence times are estimates based on observations. One observation is sufficient to reject a theory…
As the paper notes the rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with changes in the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The rise in CO2 correlates for 99.93% with the rise in human emissions, temperature for 80.61%.
The high correlation with temperature is in the derivatives for the short term variability, but that says next to nothing about the cause of the trend.
The Humlum e.a. paper contains serious flaws:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm
William Astley says:
November 26, 2013 at 1:47 pm
The Humlum e.a. paper contains serious flaws:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
It appears you have not read the Humlum paper. The Humlum paper uses phase analysis which is an examination of the timing of different events that occur cyclically to determine cause and effect. The phase analysis supports the conclusion of the Humlum paper.
The paper you quote (a pathetic warmist paper) ignores the Humlum phase analysis (i.e. the counter paper does not criticize the phase analysis or offer new phase analysis) and instead claims the conclusion of the Humlum paper must be incorrect due to mass balance. The counter paper applies the Bern model to arrive at their conclusion that Humlum’s phase analysis must be incorrect.
The Humlum paper’s result and the bombtest analysis, shows the Bern model is incorrect.
The flaw of the Humlum paper is it unequivocally supports Salby’s finding that the majority of the CO2 increase (more than 50%) was due to the increase in temperature of the ocean rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Please do not go away, if Humlum and Salbys’ conclusion is correct atmospheric CO2 will drop as the planet cools. I am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss the complete failure of the warmist theory with a true believer.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
“Thus, summing up for the analysis of the NCDC data, changes in atmospheric CO2 is lagging 9.5-12 months behind changes in surface air temperatures calculated for the two main types of planetary surface, land and ocean, respectively. The strongest correlation (0.45) between atmospheric CO2 and NCDC temperature is found in relation to ocean surface air temperatures, suggesting a rather strong coupling from changes in ocean temperature to changes in atmospheric CO2.”
“The correlation coefficient is considerably higher (0.56) for the Southern Hemisphere than for the Northern Hemisphere (0.26), indicating the association between changes in hemispherical temperature and changes in global atmospheric CO2 to be especially strong for the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, both analyses suggest a mainly Southern Hemisphere origin of observed DIFF12 changes for atmospheric CO2.”
“Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyzes suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”
William:
The physical implications of the sets of observations and anomalies (the C12/C13 change in the atmosphere requires an explanation, Thomas Gold has a entire book listing anomalies and the start of a physical theory to resolve the anomalies) are 1) there is significant mixing of the deep ocean waters with surface ocean waters particularly in the Southern hemisphere (point 1 an interchange of deep ocean water with surface ocean water causes there to be large change in atmosphere CO2 when there is change in ocean surface water temperature) 2) there is a significant source of low C13, CO2 in the deep ocean – it appears based on other analysis that the source of the CO2 is primordial CH4 which is very low in C13 that is then converted to CO2 by micro bacterial action. The CH4 is released at the spreading of the ocean floor that occurs throughout the ocean. In some cases a portion of the primordial CH4 is carried by the spreading ocean floor under the continents where it causes mountain bands to form at the edges of continents. This explains why there is a band of mountains at some but not all thrust faults as the ocean floor moves beneath the continents.
Bart (November 26, 2013 at 4:36 am) Ferdinand said “… the rest of the ocean surface is a net neutral source/sink to continuous sink:” Bart gave the same link as above showing small fluctuations of CO2 somewhat correlated with temperature. Bart “Narrative. No actual direct confirmation possible. But, the data show it is wrong.”
Bart we can all agree your small fluctuations of CO2 are caused by temperature changes with possible lags and noise due to the temperature being a global atmospheric temperature index and not the SST in the warmer regions that outgas CO2.
But what Ferdinand and I are saying is that those fluctuations represent small changes in the net absorption of CO2 by the oceans. The oceans absorb CO2 continuously, there is never net outgassing. But the total absorption is modulated a bit by temperature.
There are many ways to demonstrate this from evidence presented in this thread. One of the best ways uses your WFT chart which shows that the time constant for the small, somewhat-correlated fluctuations is very short even with rather large temperature fluctuations. If the oceans were performing net outgassing then the time constant would be long to meet your requirement you stated to me above, namely:
“It is cumulative. Once you have a temperature offset, the accumulation of CO2 continues, whether the temperature changes again or not.”
If oceans were net outgassing and accumulation slowly continues, then there would be no rapid following of CO2 (albeit small) to rather large fluctuations in temperature (e.g. the 1997/8 El Nino). What makes more sense in that case is that there is net in-gassing mostly independent of short term temperature changes but very slightly modulated by the temperature.
Ferdi: “The percentage remaining CO2 from human emissions hardly changed over the years, within the huge variability caused by temperature:”
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
Thanks , that graph is interesting. it shows that the deviation does indeed seem related to temperature. Could you explain exactly what your “emm-f(dpCO2)” means?
This sort of think could be explained by a number of factors (increase of energy going into air-con installations, changes in out-gassing, greater deviation of atm CO2 from equilibrium ) but it’s interesting to look at.