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.
It isn’t just rainwater – fog and condensation are highly acidic and are a commercial problem.
http://www.taylortechnologies.com/ChemistryTopicsCM.ASP?ContentID=82
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca4204p6-68791.pdf
This absorbtion of CO2 also true for sea spray, the shimmering rainbow filled mist from waterfalls, wind swept fetches of lake water, and anywhere natural forces cause mixing between water and CO2.
So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table. Since the science isn’t settled – what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now? Climate sensitivity estimates from a doubling of C02 are all over the place, even within the IPCC AR5, from .3 degrees C to Hansen’s 6 degrees. Anyone want to make a guess as to what it really is? If the greenhouse effect of Co2 is Logarithmic http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
then when are we done warming from China burning as much coal as they want? I am not a troll or being sarcastic. Thanks
Jimmy
“It is thus well mixed, but recent observations have shown small variations in concentration, greatest in the unindustrial tropics.”
I guess I’ve been a bit repetitious on this topic, but I have offered an hypothesis that the ozone, AND CO2, N and noble gases “hole” at the poles (less because of much greater atmospheric circulation at the north polar area) should have a corresponding ridge in the equatorial zone because of the fact that only O2 is strongly paramagnetic and is attracted to the stronger polar mag fields and the other gases are diamagnetic and are repulsed by the stronger field. I have predicted that the diamagnetic gases would be more abundant in the equatorial zone. It was my explanation for why we will not see the “ozone hole” close- it will vary over time with mag field strength. Where is Vucevic, he’s never on when I present this thesis? I have noted that the ozone doesn’t just thicken gradually as you go away from south pole, it forms a collar of concentrated Ozone around it, like a rolled down turtleneck sweater. Can anyone supply concentrations of oxygen and the other atmos. gases at the poles and the equatorial/temperate zones? This article convinces me even more strongly.
James V: “what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now? ”
When did you stop beating your wife? Problem is precisely that there’s a disagreement on it. But for man-made CO2, the average person is stated to exhale 850g per day. For the world popluation as estimated at 7.126B then the annual CO2 output from respiration is on the order of 2.2 Gigatonnes. If she’s truly concerned you can add in flatulence, which is given as somehere on the order of 0.8 Gt for a grand total of 3.0 Gt. So for just humans breathing and farting, they’re 60% of the way to their fossil fuel emissions. Best thing here is to tell your sister to save the planet by shutting her pie hole.
I am struggling to understand this. From my naïve POV, a key question is how the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere affects the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2. If there were no impact, then ISTM that any amount of extra anthropogenic CO2 would remain in the atmosphere and add to its CO2 concentration.
However, I think we know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does affect the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2. We’re told that the oceans are acidifying (really,becoming less alkaline), because the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere means that the oceans absorb more CO2. To the degree that higher atmospheric CO2 leads to more plant growth, plants will also take more CO2 out of the atmosphere, as its CO2 concentration increases.
In short, it seems to me that in order to make use of the speed of CO2 absorbtion, we need to know how changes in atmospheric CO2 affect the rate at which the sinks absorb CO2.
Rate of absorption of CO2 is proportional to difference of partial pressure of CO2 in atm from p.p. in ocean. The latter depends upon SST, which of course varies widely as does the level of absorbed CO2 itself. No simple answer, but that roughs it out.
UAH Tropics v Mauna Loa:
http://postimg.org/image/orvcqgsyx/full
S. Wilde: “The AO appears to have an effect on global cloudiness via changes in jet stream behaviour.”
Yes, I had a look at the UK station data Euan and Clive Best were looking at. Just on one station there is a clear correlation.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=644
More detail in that in various links I posted on Euan’s site:
http://euanmearns.com/uk-temperatures-since-1956-physical-models-and-interpretation-of-temperature-change/#comment-262
3.5 years must indicate some physical lag I would have thought. That is interesting because the pattern does not seem to be getting spread as I would expect if it was direct causation traversing half the globe and taking 3.5years. The detail of the pattern seems to match remarkably closely.
common cause, part of an integrated climate oscillation ?
There is a different lag and less correlation during warming, when temperature seems to be more a dominating factor. There are strong clues in all that, they just need unravelling.
The last three crucial slides and the summary of the argument seem to be missing. I’ve alerted Anthony and I’m sure he’ll correct this when he gets a moment.
I have not understood what is the idea behind Mr. Monckton’s first graph, and, by the way, we are in 2013, so, what does it actually proves (disproves?)
The excerpts (provided by CM) of a Salby presentation forced me to get a complete and technically validated context; namely the excerpts forced me to review in detail the whole context provided by the video presentation of Murry Salby in Hamburg in April.
Salby deserves a complete context.
I strongly support concerns that biased IPCC centric gate keeping at journals is still something Salby must overcome to get his current research (profoundly critical of the IPCC) published.
John
In reply to:
James V says:
November 23, 2013 at 8:18 am
So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table.
William:
Howdy,
The following are a couple of key observations and analysis points to support the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cyclic changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. I would suggest you print off some graphs and a page or two of the papers, a picture is worth a 1000 words.
1. The pattern of warming in the last 70 years does not match the predicted pattern of warming if CO2 was the forcing mechanism. As shown in Bob Tisdale’s, temperature anomaly, land and ocean, average 2007 to December, 2012 by latitude, the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was in high latitude regions rather than in the tropics. That observation contradicts what the IPCC model predicted. The IPCC models predicted that the majority of the warming should be in the tropics where the most amount of long wave (infrared radiation is emitted to space).
The molecule CO2 only absorbs a narrow frequency band of long wave radiation (infrared radiation) which explains why theoretically the increase in CO2 has less and less theoretical affect on warming (theoretical reason for logarithmic equation; the logarithmic equation is based on a simplified test that does not simulate actual atmosphere conditions, actual observations indicate that the CO2 mechanism(s) saturates which indicates there is a fundamental error in atmospheric modeling at altitudes above 5 km) The warming due to the increase in CO2 should also be proportional to the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-72.png
As CO2 is more or less eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 warming is the same for all latitudes. The actual warming due to CO2 is linearly dependent on the amount of long wave radiation at the latitude in question before the increase in CO2. As the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space is in the tropics the most amount of warming due to the CO2 increase should have occurred in the tropics. That is not what is observed. The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the above assertions.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
“These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)”
“These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
2. The IPCC models predicted that there should be a hot spot (highest amount of warming) in the atmosphere in the tropics at about 8 km above the surface of the planet. There is no observed hot spot which indicates there is something fundamentally incorrect with IPCC models Vs actual atmosphere processes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
The following is a peer reviewed paper that supports the assertions concerning the lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
3. There is the fact that planetary temperature has not increased for 17 years which does not make sense as CO2 is increasing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/
4. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the past where the same pattern of warming that was observed in the last 70 years (high latitude warming and cooling). The past cycles of warming and cooling correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes, which support the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the pattern of warming and cooling. The cooling occurs when the sun enters into Maunder minimum. The solar magnetic cycle changes cause the planet to warm and cool by modulating the amount of low and high level cloud cover at high latitudes. The solar magnetic cycle changes also change the optical properties of clouds in the tropics which cause El Niño and La Niña.
5. In the last 70 years, the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest and longest period of high activity in the last 6000 years.
6. The solar magnetic cycle was abruptly slowed down with the fastest reduction in 8000 years of data.
7. Due to the above observations and analysis, the planet should significantly cool due to the abrupt slowdown in the solar magnetic cycle. Observations to support that assertion are record sea ice in the Antarctic and a rapid recovery of sea ice in the Arctic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
James V says:
November 23, 2013 at 8:18 am
So someone please help a layman out here because my sister wants to out me as a denier at the thanksgiving table. Since the science isn’t settled – what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If Salby is correct, then the answer is we don’t know.
But for the purposes of a thanksgiving day dinner, pre-industrial concentrations are generally accepted to be 280 ppm and current concentrations are close to 400 ppm. If you understand the logarithmic nature of CO2, that fact alone puts the alarmists in a bind. If sensitivity was high, then we would have seen a measurable change in temperature over the last couple of decades. We have not. If sensitivity is low, we have nothing to worry about.
Thus all the twisting and turning to explain the “pause” in temperature increases over the last two decades, blaming it on heat being sequestered in the deep oceans (where we cannot measure it) or in the arctic (where we cannot measure it). I find this even more amusing, because even if these new explanations turn out to be correct (which I doubt) they still represent assertions by the alarmist scientists that the science is not in fact settled and an admission that they really don’t know what’s going on at all.
Well, this seemes to be a repeat of the previous debate(s) about Salby’s lecture. What I want to see is a direct response from Salby on the objections I have put forward on his speech in London (where I was present) and on this blog. Until now the response was rather evasive or completely absent.
To begin with, the fate of the 13C/12C ratio.
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.
Near all inorganic carbon has a high 13C/12C ratio around zero per mil δ13C compared to the standard. That is the case for:
Oceans (surface +1 to +5 per mil, deep oceans 0 to +1 per mil), chalk deposits around zero per mil, volcanic vents -7 to +3 per mil (subduction volcanoes higher than deep magma volcanoes).
Near all organic carbon is low to extremely low in 13C/12C ratio: from -15 per mil (C4 plants) to -80 per mil for some sorts of CH4 (methane). The average from plant decay and of fossil fuel burning is around -25 per mil, thus hardly distinguishable.
The atmosphere is in between at -6.4 per mil δ13C (pre-industrial) down to below -8 per mil δ13C today.
But there are two possibilities to differentiate between fossil fuel emissions and plant decay:
– the 14C content of fossil fuel is zero: too old for 14C, which is below detection limit after ~60,000 years, while recent organics have recent levels of 14C incorporated.
– the oxygen balance. the amount of oxygen used to burn fossil fuels can be calculated from type of fuel, sales and burning efficiency. That gives that there is a small deficit in oxygen use. That means that the whole biosphere (land and seaplants, microbes, insects, animals,…) is a net absorber for CO2. As photosynthesis by preference uses 12CO2, that means that relative more 13CO2 is left in the atmosphere and thus the whole biosphere is not the cause of the 13C/12C decline in the atmosphere. See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Thus the whole biosphere is a net absorber of ~1 GtC/yr of CO2.
That means that only humans are responsible for the δ13C decline, as the biosphere is not the cause and all other known sources are (too) high in δ13C. That includes the oceans: any substantial increase from the oceans will INcrease the 13C/12C ratio, while we see a substantial DEcrease, including in the ocean surface.
Moreover, the δ13C decline starts around 1850 and completely parallels the increase of fossil fuel burning:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Jquip,
The reason for the sigma 13C is that the biosphere is Carbon limited AND temperature limited. We live in an ice age. We live in a biological depression. When temperature increases, biological activity increases, preferentially cycling 12C through the system and diluting the rejected 13C. And the opposite.
C4 plants also prefer 12C, they just need a bit less of it.
Upon November 23, 2013 at 6:43 am
Greg Goodman says: we need to see (Salby’s) numbers as well as his pics.
The Salby presentation has been circulating some while. The
numbers are overdue. (Not the first time such a dichotomy
arose in Climate Research…)
Is there any indication that the publication of the research
is being delayed via peer-nitpickery, as Jeff Id’s rebuttal on Stieg’s
Antarctic work has been documented to have been delayed?
Or is it likely that Salby’s numbers don’t hold up, and a
valid peer-review is preventing publication?
How would an outsider and layman tell the difference?
Jquip and William Astley Thanks
James V says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:25 am
Jquip and William Astley Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jquip’s answer is in regard to CO2 created by humans breathing which has pretty much nothing to do with the debate since it is so small. The debate is in regard to CO2 from anthropogenic sources. My more detailed explanation is upthread, inadvertently in moderation due to my copy/paste of your use of the “d” word. In any event, the numbers you are looking for are 280 ppm for pre-industrial and 400 ppm current.
Part 2 about the trends:
Variation in human emission, at only 1 or 2% a year, is thus uncorrelated with changes in net emission, which are independent of it.
The graphs are rather misleading, by displaying the emissions and the increase in the atmosphere in different graphs. If one combines them, that gives a quite different impression:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Thus while the changes in the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are not correlated with the emissions, these changes are changes in sink capacity, not in source capacity…
Human emissions are twice the amount of the average increase in the atmosphere, thus about halve the human emissions (in mass, not individual molecules) disappear in oceans and vegetation. In warm years somewhat less, in cold years somewhat more. But in all years of the past 50 years, nature was a net sink for CO2…
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).
The first graph is simply curve fitting, which isn’t even that good if you compare the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere with the accumulated emissions over the past 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg
The second graph is completely wrong, as there is none natural source of low δ13C at work. Only humans emit low δ13C CO2…
Greg Goodman said:
“common cause, part of an integrated climate oscillation ?”
Yes I think so, hence my attempt at a new climate model listing the observed phenomena in sequence as they were seen to occur.
Clearly the phase of increased sunlight onto the subtropical ocean surfaces at a time of active sun should result in more CO2 outgassing a result of reduced ocean absorption.
As Christopher points out, we only need to find some natural sources that are lean in C13 to dispose of the isotope issue and the mass balance issue has been disposed of in a previous thread here in my opinion.
I have suggested that the biosphere in the oceans might be producing emissions lean in C13 but have no information on that as yet.
Anyway, the best guess seems to be that human emissions are reabsorbed locally and regionally by the land biosphere whilst the changes in oceanic absorption capability are in control overall with the ice cores producing far too coarse a record to reflect a large natural variability in atmospheric CO2.
I think I’m on stronger ground with these issues than with one of my suggestions as regards the radiative energy budget which went somewhat awry on a previous thread where I posted without sufficient thought.
I too would like Murry Salby to firm up his proposals with actual numbers but the general principles that he is setting out look convincing to me.
Being aware of Ferdinand’s views I would very much like to see a firm resolution of the isotope issue.
“Or is it likely that Salby’s numbers don’t hold up, and a
valid peer-review is preventing publication?”
that is also a possibility that would prevent him wanting to publish outside peer-review.
About time he put his cards on the table.
Greg Goodman says:
November 23, 2013 at 6:11 am
The world saving itself is the worst thing they could imagine happening, because no one will ever listen to them again.
Nah, they’ll just move on to some other form of alarm, like they always do.
@gymnosperm: “C4 plants also prefer 12C, they just need a bit less of it.”
Right, so if we’re attempting to shoehorn the argument for normative bio-activity, then a preference for C4 plants as a food source will fixate the 13C elsewhere over time. Remember: The assumption underneath the argument presented is that natural processes dwarf anthropogenic considerations. And that’s certainly true during the summer photosynthetic condition no matter where you stand in the debate. But given the preconditions here, then the winter season returns similar or less 13C then was present during the previous cycle. So: Where does it fixate? That needs a good argument. Maybe there is one, I’ve only got the graphs; so consider it thinking out loud.
@davidmhoffer: “Jquip’s answer is in regard to CO2 created by humans breathing”
Is entirely the point of attack, not defense. eg. Which would you give up? Breathing or smart phone? Which do you discard? An entire nuclear family or a single refrigerator. Don’t let them put you on the defensive about ‘belief’ statements when facts have error bars wider than the Atlantic. Put them on the defensive for what they think we should do about ‘their’ belief. It’s their religion, let them spell out the Levitical diet to stave off the Lake of Fire.
William Astley says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:03 am
That is a good summary.
The only aspect I would query is the attribution to solar magnetic changes rather than solar effects on ozone quantities at different levels.
More data is needed but it does seem to be an active area of research.
Seems kind of harsh to expect Salby to publish in his current circumstances; however, he has said enough to allow others to reconstruct his work. There’s a brief report at The Hokey Schtick with links to a fuller article. This may provide the documentation that some have been looking for.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html