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.
Richard says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:31 am
I think Tom Segalstad may already have defused this possible riposte with his erudite discussion of the IPCC’s ‘Revelle factor’ which enshrines this principle. As I have argued on my blog too it doesn’t really make sense. In any case the Revelle Factor is a measure of the oceans capacity to absorb anthropogenic CO2 due to various dissociation constants changing the ratio of DIC as pH decreases and has nothing to do with CO2’s solubility as a direct result of a given temperature increase as my calculation covers. My calculation is just a measure of the decrease in CO2’s solubility due to a temperature change. That is all. Therefore the Revelle Factor, be it even correct, is irrelevant here. Also, pH doesn’t change CO2’s solubility in water either, it just alters the ratio of DIC. It may decrease H2CO3 relative to HCO3 and CO32, but it won’t change the actual amount of total DIC dissolved in water.
Wrong again, I suggest you actually read the material I’ve referenced rather than reposting your incorrect statements!
The Revelle Factor is the result of the correct application of the law of mass action in reaction kinetics, not ‘ideologically defined’, I’ve given you a link to the kinetics, explain where it’s wrong.
Segalstad’s discussion gets it wrong because he treats the ocean as freshwater, a mistake you appear to perpetuate.
chipstero7 says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:36 am
Thanks for your input Ferdinand, always nice to discuss AGW with someone as level-headed and polite as you. That said, I’m not sure what relevance ‘reversed pressure’ has to do with a straightforward change in CO2’s solubility due to temperature.
Should have been more clear:
If the temperature at the upwelling places increases, the partial pressure increasese for the same concentration in seawater and therefore the pressure difference with the atmosphere increases. The amount of CO2 released is directly proportional to the partial pressure difference water-air.
Thus a temperature increase increases the outflux for the same upwelling concentration.
The concentration loss of the upwelling itself is not that important, because it is continuously replaced by the upwelling waters from the deep.
The increased influx (and the decreased outflux) gives an increase of CO2 concentration and thus partial pressure in the atmosphere. That reverses the initial increased partial pressure difference water-air until that is back to the original difference, and thus the original fluxes, be it at a higher CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Or in short: for a temperature induced decrease in solubility, an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere will fully compensate for the decrease if the increase in pCO2(atm) matches the increase of pCO2(aq) caused by the temperature increase.
Greg Goodman says:
November 26, 2013 at 8:23 am
“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 as “perfect” as you ever get with real world data. There are a variety of reasons, several of which I have described in detail, that you cannot expect to get a 1:1 relationship. But, it is far, far better than the match between the derivative of atmospheric CO2 and the rate of emissions of which, there is indeed none.
When you see a signal this prominent, this far above the noise, pushing to the fore, you know you have something very significant.It is like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 26, 2013 at 11:08 am
“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 problem is that the dependence Ferdinand describes above is magical. He completely dismisses the effectively perfect fit between the slope of dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly without having any natural mechanism in mind which can actually perform such a feat.
Physical systems do not work like this.
“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.”
Doesn’t. They are out of phase 90 deg. No match at all.
eric1skeptic says:
November 26, 2013 at 6:04 pm
You are handwaving, and trying to convince yourself with words. None of them contradict the fact that the model
dCO2/dt = k*(T – Teq)
is effectively a perfect fit.
stephen wilde says:
November 27, 2013 at 1:40 am
“Could such returning C12 rich water be affecting the atmospheric isotope ratio ?”
Obviously, it could. The dC13 argument is merely narrative, not proof of anything.
Bart says:
November 30, 2013 at 7:15 am
Hi Bart, missed you a few days…
The problem is that the dependence Ferdinand describes above is magical. He completely dismisses the effectively perfect fit between the slope of dCO2/dt and the temperature anomaly without having any natural mechanism in mind which can actually perform such a feat.
Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C… The trend is caused by human emissions, not by temperature. The match between the two can be performed between any two straight lines with the right factor.
Doesn’t. They are out of phase 90 deg. No match at all.
Wait a minute, first you say that the match between the short term dCO2/dt variability and the dT/dt variability proves that dT/dt must be integrated to match the phases. Now that doesn’t count anymore?
Calculated from Henry’s law, the increase of 0.6°C is good for an increase of 10 ppmv or 0.2 ppmv/yr over the past 50 years. That is all. Thus the integrated dT/dt variability gives the complete dCO2/dt variability with the right amplitude (whatever the slope of dCO2/dt), with a complete flat trend and an offset of 0.2 ppmv/yr.
The slope of dCO2/dt is entirely caused by the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The sum of these two independent processes is what you see in the atmosphere.
Obviously, it could. The dC13 argument is merely narrative, not proof of anything.
No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…
Ocean waters are rich in 13C, poor in 12C compared to the atmosphere. Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm decrease in ratio with human emissions.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 30, 2013 at 8:29 am
“Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C…”
Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.
“…first you say that the match between the short term dCO2/dt variability and the dT/dt…”
There is no match between dCO2/dt and dT/dt, only between dCO2/dt and T.
“Thus the integrated dT/dt variability gives the complete dCO2/dt variability with the right amplitude …”
It doesn’t. There is frequency dependence of the amplitude due to the integration. A sinusoid A*cos(w*t) when integrated becomes (A/w)*sin(w*t).
“The slope of dCO2/dt is entirely caused by the slightly quadratic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
That is a tautology, not a cause, and the slope of dCO2/dt matches the slope of the temperature essentially perfectly, when the temperature is scaled to match the variability.
“No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…”
Evidence, yes. Narrative, no.
“Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.”
We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.
Bart says:
December 1, 2013 at 8:45 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 30, 2013 at 8:29 am
“Indeed there is no natural mechanism that performs the trend of 70 ppmv from a sustained small increase of 0.6°C…”
Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.
No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!
“No theory can be disproven if one rejects all evidence of the contrary…”
Evidence, yes. Narrative, no.
“Any substantial release (or increase in circulation) of CO2 from the (deep) oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.”
We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.
We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured. ‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations
MARIO LENTO!!!!!
Am I glad to see you. HOW ARE YOU??
I have been praying my head off ever since I saw your post (re: getting a medical for racing — lol, I knew that’s what it was (or some kind of machine operation).
+++++++++++
Hi Janice… I’m sorry you’ve been so attacked. It’s part of what we expect –attack the messenger syndrome of course.
I passed the stress test. I’v not exercised in over 8 months, yet completed the stress test through the end, which the doctor said he doesn’t usually ever see. I sustained over 180 beats per minute (I’m just shy of 49 years old). They did show that I have a prolapsed mitro valve – which is a defect I’ve had since birth. Nothing I need to do. He said generally the condition gets better when people gain wait (what???). He recommended that I have an equivalent of 12 ounces of wine per day for general heart health — So I took that note with me to Jamaica and made sure I stayed inebriated for most of each day. That took an average of 12 alcoholic beverages per day.
Just got back from my vacation last night!
Mario
Phil. says:
December 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!”
I do not acknowledge it because it is trivially wrong. There is no such constraint. Upwelling and downwelling occur at completely different locations, and the fluxes depend on local conditions.
“We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured.”
The ratio is an observation. The interpretation of that observation is a narrative.
“‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”
True enough. But, I have never claimed it is the mechanism by which the observation that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature arises. I have simply stated that it is a mechanism by which it could. That observation regarding the rate of change of CO2 disqualifies human attribution all on its own.
“‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”
Moreover, it is not “contrary” to observations being, as it is, based on the observations.
Bart says:
December 2, 2013 at 9:20 am
Phil. says:
December 1, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“No it wouldn’t, because there is an equal volume of CO2 rich downwelling water, a fact which you refuse to acknowledge or address!”
I do not acknowledge it because it is trivially wrong. There is no such constraint. Upwelling and downwelling occur at completely different locations, and the fluxes depend on local conditions.
There is such a constraint it’s the law of continuity in fluid mechanics. The Ocean is connected in three dimensions, by your approach ocean water would be piling up at the equator and getting lower and lower at the poles! An equal volume of upwelling balances the downwelling, we know both occur, you prefer to ignore downwelling completely because it suits your belief system.
“We do, since the 13C/12C ratios have been measured.”
The ratio is an observation. The interpretation of that observation is a narrative.
The ratios in both reservoirs are known and different, exchange between those reservoirs necessarily requires a predictable change in those reservoirs.
“‘Narrative’ is your assumption of outgassing due to temperature change contrary to observations”
True enough. But, I have never claimed it is the mechanism by which the observation that the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperature arises. I have simply stated that it is a mechanism by which it could. That observation regarding the rate of change of CO2 disqualifies human attribution all on its own.
As pointed out before the relationship is consistent with continuous growth due to the anthropogenic source modulated by the temperature dependent ocean sink, therefore the observationh does admit a role for human sources.
Bart says:
December 1, 2013 at 8:45 am
Upwelling of CO2 rich waters would.
There is no increase of upwelling CO2 observed. Not in the estimates of the residence time, not in the 13C/12C or 14C/12C ratio’s.
There is no match between dCO2/dt and dT/dt, only between dCO2/dt and T.
It doesn’t. There is frequency dependence of the amplitude due to the integration. A sinusoid A*cos(w*t) when integrated becomes (A/w)*sin(w*t).
Yes, but there is also an amplitude dependency of CO2 vs. T, which may compensate for the change in amplitude.
The problem with your matching of the slopes is far more fundamental: your amplitudes only match if the slopes of T and dCO2/dt are equal, while there is no reason at all that the slopes should be equal.
We don’t really know this. It is speculation. It is narrative.
Bart, that the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans is a lot higher than that of the atmosphere is proven all over the world for all oceans at upwelling and downwelling places near the poles and at the equator. You can’t decrease a ratio by adding a substance with a higher ratio. That is rock solid.
Phil. says:
December 2, 2013 at 1:36 pm
“There is such a constraint it’s the law of continuity in fluid mechanics.”
You’re arguing conservation of the flow of water is constraining the CO2 carried by it. That is very poorly thought out.
“…exchange between those reservoirs necessarily requires a predictable change in those reservoirs. “
It is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one.
“As pointed out before the relationship is consistent with continuous growth due to the anthropogenic source modulated by the temperature dependent ocean sink, therefore the observationh does admit a role for human sources.”
Wow, you’re almost there. The role admitted for human sources is, however, necessarily insignificant, for human sources are not temperature dependent.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 2, 2013 at 2:48 pm
“There is no increase of upwelling CO2 observed.”
And, there was no path of the Earth about the Sun observed in Galileo’s time. Most of the data indicated that the Sun went around the Earth. Lack of observation is not observation of a lack.
“…while there is no reason at all that the slopes should be equal.”
Exactly! Unless it is the temperature driving the rate of change of CO2. That is precisely how we can deduce the relationship – observations tell us the slope and the variations are effectively equal.
“That is rock solid.”
I wouldn’t build my house on it, if I were you. This is still not evidence. It is the formal logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam, encapsulated in the phrase “we don’t know any other way it could be this way.” Your not knowing any other way is not proof that your chosen explanation is the only one.
Guys, there is a reason we have these structures for logic and catalogs of logical fallacies, all the “argumentum ad somethings” and the distinctions between necessary and sufficient conditions. Humanity has very often been led astray by jumping to conclusions without regard to the fact that actual proof is utterly lacking, only to find time and time again that nature is complex, and the seemingly obvious is very often a mirage. You need to come to grips with logical rigor. You, yourselves, need to work at falsifying your own pet hypotheses, and realize when an observation truly compels your conclusion, and when your conclusion is merely consistent with your chosen observations.
Bart says:
December 3, 2013 at 9:25 am
Lack of observation is not observation of a lack.
In this case there are several observations of a lack of extra O2 upwelling that should be there:
– a shortening of the residence time
– an increase in the 13C/12C raio instead of a decrease
– a decrease of the decay time of the 14CO2 bomb spike over time.
Exactly! Unless it is the temperature driving the rate of change of CO2. That is precisely how we can deduce the relationship – observations tell us the slope and the variations are effectively equal.
Bart, the slopes are not equal. You need a factor to match the slopes of T and dCO2/dt. That factor has nothing in common with the factor needed to match the CO2 variability with the T variability. If the same factor matches both, that is pure coincidence.
This is still not evidence
Nothing can prove that adding some CO2 with a higher ratio in isotopes can’t lower the ratio in a mixture that is already lower. But if you have proof that it does, you will have turned the base of physics and chemistry on its head…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 3, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“In this case there are several observations of a lack of extra O2 upwelling that should be there:”
Let me rephrase that for you into what I think you intended: “In this case there are several observations of a lack that should be there if extra O2 upwelling is occurring.”
That is only IF you have thought of everything. IF the measurements were performed over a representative volume which can be extrapolated globally throughout the atmosphere. IF the measurements are good quality, and the manner in which they were collected sufficiently uniform that they can be combined on an apples to apples basis. IF there has been no book-cooking in their collection and dissemination. IF we understand sufficiently all of the sources, and the diffusion processes involved.
Those are a lot of IFs. One or more of them, or of others not listed, is not fulfilled.
“Bart, the slopes are not equal.”
When you match the variability by scaling, they are, to a very high degree of fidelity. Given the measurement errors, and the bulk quantities involved, the agreement is astounding.
“That factor has nothing in common with the factor needed to match the CO2 variability with the T variability.”
It does. They are very close. Given the above circumstances, astoundingly close.
“If the same factor matches both, that is pure coincidence.”
It’s always a coincidence when it disagrees with what you want to be true, but an amazing correlation when it agrees. I say the factor of 1/2 which matches emissions to concentration is a complete coincidence. The fact that this relationship is currently diverging weighs rather heavily against you. But, the rate of change remains highly correlated with the temperature. That weighs rather heavily in my favor.
“But if you have proof that it does, you will have turned the base of physics and chemistry on its head…”
That is hardly required. We just need a mechanism. I bet that, if you were as certain as I am that the isotope ratio does not implicate humankind as the source of the rise in atmospheric concentration, you could reason out an explanation for it.
Bart says:
December 3, 2013 at 3:27 pm
When you match the variability by scaling, they are, to a very high degree of fidelity. Given the measurement errors, and the bulk quantities involved, the agreement is astounding.
The agreement is not that good, but even if it was good, it is pure coincidence:
The slope of T is caused by only T.
The slope of dCO2/dt is caused by the curvature the CO2 increase, which is caused by T*X
where X is the unkown upwelling. Thus while T is the common factor, T*X can be small, medium or large, depending of X.
Any factor needed to match the slopes influences the amplitude of the variability in different ways for the difference in slopes.
In all cases the variability of T causes the variability of CO2 around the trend, thus of the variability of dCO2/dt around its trend, without an influence of the slope (/deep ocean upwelling) on the variability…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 5, 2013 at 8:40 am
It matches very well, given the quality of the data, and that would be an astounding coincidence. The variability of T integrates into the variability of CO2. If T must be integrated to match the variability, then you must integrate the slope in T as well to get the complete influence on CO2.
Moreover, my hypothesis is consistent with how feedback systems typically behave, while the idea that CO2 levels maintained a steady level for centuries before humans came along, with such weak feedback as your favored hypothesis demands, is very atypical.
Bart says:
December 5, 2013 at 9:34 am
The variability of T integrates into the variability of CO2. If T must be integrated to match the variability, then you must integrate the slope in T as well to get the complete influence on CO2.
Not if the slope and the variability are from different processes, which they are anyway, regardless if the trend is caused by extra upwelling or extra human emissions.
CO2 levels maintained a steady level for centuries before humans came along, with such weak feedback as your favored hypothesis demands, is very atypical.
The e-fold time as observed today is ~50 years, slow enough to give a buildup of an extra mass of CO2 by the human emissions, and more than fast enough to maintain a strong T-CO2 relationship over centuries to multi-millennia from the small changes in temperature over thousands of years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm
“Not if the slope and the variability are from different processes…”
If that were the case, phase delays would be evident in the data. They are not. it is a “perfect” fit across the entire band of frequencies.
“The e-fold time as observed today is…”
…not anywhere close to 50 years, which would not, in any case, be fast enough to maintain CO2 at steady levels on a timeline of decades, as is claimed they were pre-industrialization.
Bart says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:50 pm
If that were the case, phase delays would be evident in the data. They are not. it is a “perfect” fit across the entire band of frequencies.
Not if the phases are widely different: the short time variability has its frequency peak around 3 years, the long term change has a not even a measurable frequency and in any case, if natural, is longer than 600 years.
…not anywhere close to 50 years, which would not, in any case, be fast enough to maintain CO2 at steady levels on a timeline of decades, as is claimed they were pre-industrialization.
An e-fold decay of 50 years is by far fast enough to maintain a ratio of 6 ppmv/0.8 K over a period of 50 years. Or a ratio of 8 ppmv/K over a period of 5,000 years as is observed in ice cores. Real observations, be it smoothed with a resolution of 20 years (for the 50 years ) to 600 years (for the 5,000 years).
Sorry, no.