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.
Jquip;
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you think providing them with an uninformative answer that in the context of the debate is actually misinformation, you are entitled to you opinion. But if James V encounters at his thanksgiving dinner a single detractor who has a firm grasp of the facts, your answer serves no purpose but to make James V look foolish and to damage the skeptic side of the debate in general.
I wonder why A-th-y gives the sneeringly dismissive label “Salby’s Slide Show” to Dr. Murry Salby’s excellent lecture given in Hamburg on April 18, 2013… . And why doesn’t Mr. Goodman (and others) watch that entire lecture (and read Dr. Salby’s book) and comment on THAT instead of the truncated-almost-to-the-point-of-distortion version of Dr. Salby’s work above?
In case anyone is interested (from the comments, it appears few have ever [done] this) in listening to Dr. Salby’s entire lecture…
Here is Dr. Murry Salby to speak for himself:
Is the reason so few of you watch this because the introduction is made in Deutsch? Dr. Salby speaks in English. The lecture is in English.
Is it the fact that I, someone you detest and or whose opinions you do not respect, is the one posting Salby’s lecture?
PLEASE DO NOT LET THE MESSENGER (me) DISTRACT FROM THE MESSAGE (Salby’s lecture).
“… few have ever done this…”
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:39 am
“But in all years of the past 50 years, nature was a net sink for CO2…”
There you go again. Meaningless “mass balance” argument. It says nothing on its own regarding whether it would have been a net sink without anthropogenic forcing.
I find two thrusts of Salby’s presentation in Hamburg in April:
1. On all time scales, changes in atmospheric CO2 lag changes in surface conditions. The lags are seen indirectly in proxies and directly in observations.
2. The integral of surface condition observed data (to present) is coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite. Whereas the surface condition observed data is not coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite.
Those two findings force the invalidity of the hypothesis that 13C dilution is exclusively or even primarily caused by burning fossil fuels. In other words something is wrong with the estimates of the net emission of C13 bearing CO2; wrong in knowing all the sources and/or wrong in the time dependence and amounts from each source. Therefore I strongly recommend large amounts of public research funds are diverted to carbon cycle research and away from the observation contradicting GCM modeling.
I hope we get to see Salby’s research if it is finally published.
John
The first graph is missing C13 data points between ~ 1953 and 1979 and the time scale is truncated at 1980 + ( by eye) where is the up to date data.
I think someone published Salby’s paper after the lecture in Germany.
gopal panicker says:
November 23, 2013 at 6:40 am
CO2 is absorbed and emitted at the surface’…what about rain ?…
Fresh water may absorb some CO2, but with 0.0004 bar in the atmosphere the quantities are very low. I calculated it some time ago: if the rain absorbs CO2 to saturation at the (cold) place of formation, drops to the ground and evaporates again, 1 mm of rain (1 l/m2) will give an increase of 1 ppmv in the first meter (1 m3) of air. That is all. Simply negligible…
Bart says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:19 am
There you go again. Meaningless “mass balance” argument. It says nothing on its own regarding whether it would have been a net sink without anthropogenic forcing.
It would be meaningless if there were no other indications. But your (and Salby’s) theory of a huge increase of natural emissions + sinks is completely dismissed by all known observations.
And since we are some 110 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium, it is quite certain that if we stop all emissions today, the CO2 level will drop with a decay rate of ~50 years or somewhat less than 40 years half life time…
A much fuller set of Salby’s slides and words of wit and wisdom are available at;
http://scottishsceptic.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/report-lecture-by-prof-salby-7th-nov-2013/
However, if Greg wants the mathematics then he will need to watch the video linked by Janice Moore above.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says, November 23, 2013 at 10:39 am
And we know this how, exactly? What proportion of the annual incremental change of CO2 concentration is due to human emmissions and how much of the remainder has been adequately characterised in this manner? Would 4% and a big fat zero sound about right?
@davidmhoffer: “If you think providing them with an uninformative answer that in the context of the debate”
What debate? We’re talking about a morality play at a family dinner. That’s the context of the post presented. And if you think such moral shaming in a social context qualifies as ‘debate about the issues’ then you’re as bad as the sister in question.
Jquip;
What debate? We’re talking about a morality play at a family dinner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. We’re talking about someone asking what portion of CO2 in the atmosphere is “man made” in the context of CO2 being logarithmic. I’ve provided the numbers relative to that question. You’ve provided numbers that have nothing to do with the question.
John Whitman says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am
1. On all time scales, changes in atmospheric CO2 lag changes in surface conditions. The lags are seen indirectly in proxies and directly in observations.
CO2 lags on all time scales, except over the past 160 years, where it leads T…
2. The integral of surface condition observed data (to present) is coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite. Whereas the surface condition observed data is not coherent with observed CO2 from ML and satellite.
If the data don’t fit the theory, the data must be wrong? The integral of surface condition matches the observed data, because Salby uses an arbitrary baseline. That is curve fitting, not based on any physical process.
Another point: the ice core data don’t fit his theory either (in the Hamburg lecture), thus the data must be wrong (again). Therefore he calculates a theoretical migration in ice cores which doesn’t exist in reality. To fit his theory, the ~100 ppmv peak value seen in ice cores (280-300 ppmv) during interglacials should be 1000 ppmv, according to Salby.
But that means that during glacials the ice cores must have been much lower, low enough to kill near all life on earth. Even negative CO2 values over 200,000 years…
AJB: “And we know this how, exactly? ”
This one is actually easy. Fossil fuels are low 13C and so it’s humans. Fossil fuels are low 13C because they’re made of plants, essentially. And, of course, modern plants are low 13C, so future fossil fuels made of current plants will be low 13C.
Point of fact, the question isn’t really what things are low 13C, it’s how 13C ever got high in the first place. The standard notion is that photosynthetic life preferentially grabs the 12C, depletes it from the atmosphere, and there you have it. And so by returning the 12C by burning fossil fuels we are — in essence — returning to a prehistoric atmosphere. Which is where Salby’s theory runs into issues in dealing with the 13C ratio. The rest is all pleasant.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:39 am
“It would be meaningless if there were no other indications.”
No, it is still meaningless. Those other indications are what may have meaning, if there is any.
“But your (and Salby’s) theory of a huge increase of natural emissions + sinks is completely dismissed by all known observations.”
No, by your interpretation of observations. By narratives.
Your belief, on the other hand, is contradicted by hard evidence.
“And since we are some 110 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium…”
Temperature influenced, not controlled, and we are very close to it. That is the point, that CO2 levels seek their naturally constrained dynamic equilibrium level, and those equilibrium forces are much more powerful than human forcing. If “dynamic equilibrium” sounds like an oxymoron, it is intended to mean “that level which the system seeks due to boundary conditions which may be changing slowly with time”, as due, e.g., to upwelling of CO2 rich waters to the ocean surface.
AJB says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:45 am
And we know this how, exactly? What proportion of the annual incremental change of CO2 concentration is due to human emmissions and how much of the remainder has been adequately characterised in this manner? Would 4% and a big fat zero sound about right?
AJB, as said before: there are two main sources of low δ13C at work: (human) CO2 from fossil organics and (natural) CO2 from recent organics. Recent organics are a proven sink for CO2 as deduced from the oxygen balance. Thus not the cause of the recent decline in δ13C. Rests human CO2.
But if you have knowledge of any substantial source of low δ13C that strictly follows the same decline as seen in the atmosphere and the ocean surface, I stand corrected.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:51 am
“The integral of surface condition matches the observed data, because Salby uses an arbitrary baseline.”
The data already have an arbitrary baseline, in that they are temperature anomalies with respect to a selected baseline. And, the baseline does not affect anything but a linear trend in CO2 concentration, but the integral matches all components, including higher frequency variability and, crucially, the curvature.
“Another point: the ice core data don’t fit his theory either (in the Hamburg lecture), thus the data must be wrong (again). Therefore he calculates a theoretical migration in ice cores which doesn’t exist in reality.”
So, they do fit his theory assuming migration such as he shows fits well with the data.
Bart says:
November 23, 2013 at 11:58 am
Bart, we have been there before. Your take on anything that doesn’t fit your theory is that the data must be wrong. Or the interpretation of the data must be wrong. Just like Salby does for ice core data.
You dismiss the fact that the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2.
You dismiss the fact that any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the d13C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease.
These two points are proven facts, not interpretations. If you have some information that these facts are wrong, I like to see some proof of that…
Temperature influenced, not controlled, and we are very close to it.
800 kyr of ice cores show a CO2 level for the current temperature of ~290 ppmv, not 400 ppmv. Over that period, there was a very strict, near-linear ratio between CO2 and T at about 8 ppmv/K. That even holds over the MWP-LIA transition in the medium-resolution (20 years) Law Dome ice core.
According to your theory, the current equilibrium must be over 400 ppmv for the current temperature, because CO2 levels still increase in the atmosphere from natural emissions…
But of course, the ice cores must be wrong, because they don’t fit the theory?
Jquip said:
“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.”
I’m thinking out loud too so forgive me if I’ve missed something.
There is a lot less land based biosphere activity globally in the northern hemisphere winter since most land is in the northern hemisphere.
Suppose oceanic CO2 emissions are not relatively high in C!3 as Ferdinand suggests due to biological processes in the oceans preferentially releasing C12 (Ferdinand accepts that biological processes favour C!2 and there is a lot of plankton in the oceans and they do use photosynthesis which prefers C12) then the northern hemisphere biosphere could absorb C12 preferentially in the summer and allow an increase the amount of C13 in the atmosphere during the northern summer months but in winter would be unable to keep up so that there would be a decrease in the proportion of C13 due to the continuing release of C!2 from the oceans when the northern hemisphere biosphere shuts down and just maybe the latter effect is greater than the former effect on an annual basis during a natural warming spell.
So during a natural global warming spell the C12 proportion would increase incrementally each year from natural causes ?
The opposite during a natural global cooling spell.
As it happens the 1850 start point used by Ferdinand correlates not only with the industrial revolution but also a recovery phase from the LIA though there was another dip around 1900.
More oceanic biological activity involving photosynthesis and plankton when the climate system warms could be a better candidate than human emissions for the decline in C13 relative to C12.
Both mechanisms are organic in a sense but plankton would be bigger than us 🙂
Is there any evidence to the contrary ?
Bart says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:04 pm
So, they do fit his theory assuming migration such as he shows fits well with the data.
His calculated migration is physically impossible, as that implies and ever increasing peak back in time for every interglacial and an ever decreasing CO2 level in the glacial periods in between. The latter simply destroys all life on earth if sustained over even one period of 90,000 years.
Thus his theoretical huge migration doesn’t exist and his match is not based on any existing physical process. Thus hereby his theory completely failed.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:17 pm
“Your take on anything that doesn’t fit your theory is that the data must be wrong.”
No, my take is that any speculative narrative which contradicts the hard evidence must be wrong.
“You dismiss the fact that the whole biosphere is a net sink for CO2.”
No, I simply point out, correctly, that this is meaningless.
“You dismiss the fact that any substantial emission from the oceans would increase the d13C ratio in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease.”
I dismiss the narrative which says that the change in the ratio must be due to human input. Moreover, I dismiss the contention that, even if the d13C ratio is from human emissions, it necessarily follows that overall concentration is driven by humans. Due to slow diffusion processes, it is quite possible that you can have one without the other. Even a small source of impurities can pollute a well, without being responsible for the level of water in it.
“These two points are proven facts, not interpretations.”
No! There are underlying facts, but your narrative is an interpretation of those facts.
“…because CO2 levels still increase in the atmosphere from natural emissions…”
Not if they are rapidly removed by the sinks.
“But of course, the ice cores must be wrong, because they don’t fit the theory?”
The interpretations of the ice core data are probably wrong or, at least, incomplete. We have no means of closed loop testing and validation.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 23, 2013 at 12:24 pm
These are mere assertions on your part. I do not care enough to look into it myself, because modern data is already enough to confirm that CO2 concentration in recent history is driven by natural conditions. But, I trust that an eminent climatologist like Dr. Salby, with a reputation for painstakingly scrupulous work, has carefully evaluated his model and has not made any elementary mistakes such as you allege.
I must attend to other matters. Will pick up again tomorrow.
davidmhoffer says:
November 23, 2013 at 10:36 am
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.
——————————————————————————————————
The question was:
“what % of total atmospheric C02 is man made right now?”
You have indicated the overall increase in CO2.
The answer surely is the human CO2 say 7 Gt/yr divided by natural CO2 150 Gt/yr as a percentage: 4.6 %
i.e still “peanuts”
Dear James the Fifth (re: 8:18am),
Your majesty, (;)) using the “Search” box at the top right of the WUWT home page (and doing a brief search using Bing), I found some posts which may be helpful to you:
1. Overall Discussion and Good General Background Info. to Refute AGW
{Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/}
2. “5. The current spike in atmospheric CO2 is largely natural (~98%). i.e. Of the 100ppm increase we have seen recently (going from 280 to 380ppm), the move from 280 to 378ppm is natural while the last bit from 378 to 380ppm is rightfully anthropogenic.”
{That is: 2ppm/100ppm = 2%)
{Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/14/an-engineers-take-on-climate-change-2/}
3. “Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). *** Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.”
“Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).”
{Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html}
*************************************
Also See the many good links within the above three sources.
*************************************************************************
A bit of advice (from the cheap seats):
1. Don’t talk about politics, AGW, or religion at the table if you want to enjoy your meal (wait until during your stroll between dinner and dessert).
2. Don’t play defence. YOU and not your sister have the facts on your side. Ask HER (for instance):
(1) Your Q: What evidence do you have that CO2 (much less the small amount that is human MUCH LESS the tiny % that is from U.S. sources; btw China emits much more) causes ANY changes in the climate of the earth?
(Note: don’t accept junk IPCC model projections — see many posts on WUWT for analysis proving the models are, indeed, Failed (as Bob Tisdale — buy his book! says in his e book).
Honest, Informed, Answer: I have none. All I have is conjecture.
(2) YQ: Global atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased for more than the past 20 years, now. For the past 17 years, global temperature has NOT. How do you explain this? No, it is not MY burden to prove YOUR assertion; the burden of proof is on YOU to back up your assertion about CO2, i.e., to disprove the null hypothesis that, so far, is firmly proven by the real world data.
HIA: Apparently, CO2 does not drive temperature. And the IPCC’s models are so far wrong that they are worse than rolling a die to see what might happen.
********************************************************************
Okay. “Enough, already,” I can hear you say, heh. Don’t get distracted by red herring issues such as: that the fact that the human % of atmospheric CO2 is tiny is not, per se, proof it couldn’t have a huge impact (like ricin or what-EVER she uses as her red herring analogy). Steven Mosher likes to toss that stinker out here every so often (he’s quite the comedian — be sure to read his posts). The key is not the % of human CO2. The key is that CO2, both natural and human, DOES NOTHING (no evidence, yet) to affect the climate (or weather, lol) of the earth to any significant degree. (Be ready for the Precautionary Principle Fallacy — just whack her back with something about not bankrupting your business to buy fire insurance for it.)
Hoping that my efforts are helpful to you,
Janice
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
#(:))