From a long line of missing things in climate models and the University of Texas at Austin:
Symbiotic fungi inhabiting plant roots have major impact on atmospheric carbon, scientists say
AUSTIN, Texas — Microscopic fungi that live in plants’ roots play a major role in the storage and release of carbon from the soil into the atmosphere, according to a University of Texas at Austin researcher and his colleagues at Boston University and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The role of these fungi is currently unaccounted for in global climate models.
Some types of symbiotic fungi can lead to 70 percent more carbon stored in the soil.
“Natural fluxes of carbon between the land and atmosphere are enormous and play a crucial role in regulating the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, in turn, Earth’s climate,” said Colin Averill, lead author on the study and graduate student in the College of Natural Sciences at UT Austin. “This analysis clearly establishes that the different types of symbiotic fungi that colonize plant roots exert major control on the global carbon cycle, which has not been fully appreciated or demonstrated until now.”
“This research is not only relevant to models and predictions of future concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but also challenges the core foundation in modern biogeochemistry that climate exerts major control over soil carbon pools,” added Adrien Finzi, co-investigator and professor of biology at Boston University.
Averill, Finzi and Benjamin Turner, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, published their research this week in Nature.
Soil contains more carbon than both the atmosphere and vegetation combined, so predictions about future climate depend on a solid understanding of how carbon cycles between the land and air.
Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis in the form of carbon dioxide. Eventually the plant dies, sheds leaves, or loses a branch or two, and that carbon is added to the soil. The carbon remains locked away in the soil until the remains of the plant decompose, when soil-dwelling microbes feast on the dead plant matter and other organic detritus. That releases carbon back into the air.
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE: This Eastern Hemlock stands at Harvard Forest.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
One of the limits that both the plants and the soil-dwelling microbes share is the availability of nitrogen, an essential nutrient for all life. Most plants have a symbiotic relationship with mycorrhizal fungi, which help extract nitrogen and nutrients from the soil and make that nitrogen available for the plants to use. Recent studies have suggested that plants and their fungi compete with the soil microbes for the nitrogen available in the soil and that this competition reduces decomposition in the soil.
There are two major types of the symbiotic fungi, ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. EEM fungi produce nitrogen-degrading enzymes, which allows them to extract more nitrogen from the soil than the AM fungi extract.
Examining data from across the globe, Averill and his colleagues found that where plants partner with EEM fungi, the soil contains 70 percent more carbon per unit of nitrogen than in locales where AM fungi are the norm.
The EEM fungi allow the plants to compete with the microbes for available nitrogen, thus reducing the amount of decomposition and lowering the amount of carbon released back into the atmosphere.
“This study is showing that trees and decomposers are really connected via these mycorrhizal fungi, and you can’t make accurate predictions about future carbon cycling without thinking about how the two groups interact. We need to think of these systems holistically,” said Averill.
The researchers found that this difference in carbon storage was independent of and had a much greater effect than other factors, including the amount of plant growth, temperature and rainfall.
Averill is a student in the ecology, evolution and behavior graduate program in the lab of Christine Hawkes, associate professor in the Department of Integrative Biology.
Additional contact: Lee Clippard, media relations, University of Texas at Austin, 512-232-0675, clippard@austin.utexas.edu
Bart says:
January 10, 2014 at 9:32 am
Immaterial. Atmospheric CO2 is not a direct function of temperature, but of its integral.
Over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was a direct function of temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C. It still is on all time scales, including the recent 1.5 century in the modulation of the variability around the increasing CO2 levels. But in no time frame CO2 levels were the result of the integral of temperature.
If that were right, the increase in temperature during a deglaciation over 5000 years would need the integral of an increase of 0.0024°C/year over a temperature span of 12°C, thus every year at the end of the 5000 years integral should give more and more CO2 addition, while the overall increase is only ~8 ppmv/°C, and the reality is a straight increase of CO2 after temperature, not an increasing increase when the temperature increases further away from the (glacial) baseline.
During a 10,000 years interglacial and during the 100,000 years glacials, there is near zero temperature integral in both, despite a difference of 12°C in baseline temperature.
But a difference of 0.6°C over the past 50 years should be responsible for an increase of 70 ppmv, or over 100 ppmv/°C?
But, this factor is precisely the same one needed to match the variability.
No it is not: if you match the slopes of T and dCO2, the factor involved is too small for the variability. The steeper the slope of T vs. dCO2, the smaller the variability of dCO2 gets…
No, it is not the cause of the variability. It is 90 deg out of phase. T is the cause of variability in dCO2.
T is the cause of the variability in CO2 with a 90 deg. lag. That is what the process tells us, based on Henry’s law.
Therefore T and dCO2 match in phase and dCO2 lags dT with 90 deg. Which doesn’t prove that T is the cause of dCO2. Neither does that disprove that dT is the cause of dCO2…
Results such as this article documents could indicate that the originating temperature modulated dominant source is biota of the land and/or seas.
Neither the oceans or biota: increased temperature in general increases uptake by biota mainly in the extra-tropics, but temporarely opposite in the tropical forests (which is the main cause of the 1-3 years variability). Oceans are too high in 13C/12C ratio…
Ferdinand;……
Soils contain more carbon than that in the atmosphere and three times more
than is stored in all the Earth’s vegetation. Many of the studies on increased plant growth focus on the harvested product not including the stover, which can be much greater than the harvested product (by dry weight). If CO2 increases plant growth, as we know it does (at least us plant physiologists), thus leaving more to decay, some of that carbon goes into humus.
Humus refers to any organic matter in the soil that has reached a point of stability, where it will break down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries, if not MILLENIA. Does that figure in your equation.
You need to be less intransigent.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 11:28 am
“All you need to know is that the human emissions are larger than the increase in the atmosphere.”
The dreaded “mass balance” argument once more enters the fray. It is trivially wrong.
“The source can’t be the biosphere: that is a proven sink for CO2, not a source, neither is there any indication of a huge increase in the seasonal cycle.”
You just used the “mass balance” argument to prove that the mass balance argument is correct. This is circular logic.
“If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, as Bart indicates, then the increase must parallel human emissions in exactly the same ratio and exactly the same time frame.”
No, it only has to be such as to induce a nearly linear increase in the rate of change. Affine functions are always affinely similar to one another, and the lowest order polynomial expansion which fits a given process is by-definition an affine function, so this is not at all an unlikely scenario. The fact that the slope is approximately the same as that of 1/2 the human emissions would be against a priori odds, but as an a posteriori observation, there is nothing improbable about this either.
“That would imply a threefold increase in circulation 1960-2011, for which is not the slightest indication in the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere…”
Nobody has a good handle on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates range from 5 to 5 thousand years.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 12:22 pm
“Over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was a direct function of temperature at about 8 ppmv/°C.”
With a time lag of many centuries. Salby has shown how this is consistent with the model of CO2 being related to the integral of temperature.
“But a difference of 0.6°C over the past 50 years should be responsible for an increase of 70 ppmv, or over 100 ppmv/°C?”
In the integral model, this is entirely consistent. You are trying to shoehorn the dynamic system into a simple, memoryless linear law. That is not what it is.
“No it is not: if you match the slopes of T and dCO2, the factor involved is too small for the variability.”
But, on the wrong side for you. Aside from that, you are simply demanding too much of the data here. As I explained: “The relationship of bulk, globally averaged variables is not precise. This is a limitation of the observations.”
“T is the cause of the variability in CO2 with a 90 deg. lag. That is what the process tells us, based on Henry’s law.”
Henry’s Law is a constant of proportionality. It has zero phase response.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:39 am
“There is no way that a small, sustained increase in temperature in itself can trigger a sustained, constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere as Salby and Bart insist. That violates Henry’s law.”
————–
It doesn’t violate Henry’s law if that “small, sustained increase in temperature” is the temperature of the ocean.
And even NASA says the ocean has been warming for the past 133 years, to wit:
“This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world’s oceans has changed since 1880. ….. Data source: NOAA, 2013 ”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
But in actuality it has been warming for more like 183 years, …. recovering from the effects of the LIA. Warming enough to cause the Mauna Loa measured “average yearly CO2 ppm” to increase during each of the past 55 years. Now the data shows a 1 to 2 ppm yearly increase but the actual ppm increase attributed to said “ocean warming” would have to be “teased” out of the Mona Loa data.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm
but you can prove me wrong by citing a reference to equivalent monthly Mona Loa CO2 data that is/was recorded at the same latitude/altitude in the SH.
At your service:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
and pick any station in the SH or NH, on land, sea or airborne…
Besides the South Pole, there are no stations in the SH at a similar height as Mauna Loa, but as air masses travel rather fast with height, there may be a lag of 1-2 months between near sealevel and at 3400 m altitude.
Have a look at Goabeb, Namibia, 456 masl, 23°S and ask for the seasonal cycle:
+1 -2 ppmv or a seasonal swing of 3 ppmv.
And compare that to Mauna Loa, Hawaii, USA, 3397 masl, 19°N
+3 -4 ppmv or a seasonal swing of 7 ppmv, double the SH swing at the same latitude.
According to the NOAA web site, the “background” CO2 levels at 20°N have an amplitude of ~8 ppmv. That is at sealevel.
Further of interest are the 13C/12C ratio’s at the same places. These show where the swings originate: biosphere or oceans. These can be plotted too.
which is a fer piece from any vegetation growth in the NH
You may have heard that CO2 is readily mixed in the atmosphere. Which doesn’t mean that at every moment at every place the same CO2 levels can be measured. But the seasonal changes are dispersed within weeks at the same latitudes and altitudes. Between altitudes and latitudes it takes 1-2 months and between the hemispheres it needs 6-months to 2 years…
Me thinks you are in dire need of a “crash course” in Botany 101.
I only looked at the δ13C changes over the seasons at different stations: that is what shows what happens in the biosphere: more uptake or more release. The largest seasonal variaiton is in the mid-to north latitudes: the seasonal swing (both CO2 and δ13C) is about the same at San Fransico (California) than at Barrow (Alaska). But if you have a more detailed insight of what happens where at what time of the year in this part of the carbon cycle, I am eager to learn…
And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall
Not of the previous years, but of the current year and it doesn’t stop in winter, even not in Alaska under a snow deck. But CO2 uptake stops in winter for all deciduous trees, which makes that more low-13C CO2 is released by the biosphere than is taken away.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/uoca-ncu090303.php
and
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1552607?uid=3737592&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103229534311
Only need an 8 ppm increase not a 17 ppm increase …. but you can multiply that 17 ppmv CO2 by 20% more ocean surface times the temperature change of the surface water in the SH to see how much CO2 is being ingassed and outgassed between summer and winter.
The 17 ppmv is at full quilibrium, which takes a lot more time than a season. The seasonal swing in the ocean surface – atmosphere system represents about 50 GtC in and out. But the seasonal swing of the biosphere – atmosphere system represents about 60 GtC out and in. Opposite of each other. It is the difference between these two which causes the resulting seasonal swing…
Gimme a break, the ingassing/outgassing of CO2 by liquid water is NOT isotope dependent. Besides, you really don’t know the actual source of the atmospheric CO2.
There surely is a isotopic differentiation at the water-air border, or where do you think that the temperature proxy in ice cores, stalagmites, sediments etc. is based on. But that is not the point. The point is that any important release of the oceans will INcrease the δ13C level of the atmosphere. Thus IF the increase in the atmosphere is caused mainly by ocean releases, that would give an increase, but we see a firm decrease of δ13C levels…
We don’t know all the sources of natural CO2 in the atmosphere, but we know that humans add low 13C CO2 and that about halve these added amounts (as mass, not original molecules) increase in the atmosphere, thus the other halve is somewhere absorbed and nature is no net contributor to the increase…
Tim Clark says:
January 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Humus refers to any organic matter in the soil that has reached a point of stability, where it will break down no further and might, if conditions do not change, remain as it is for centuries, if not MILLENIA. Does that figure in your equation.
The oxygen balance only shows the difference between uptake and decay, where the ~1 GtC more uptake than decay (and growing) is what is extra stored. If that is in more wood and/or a larger growth area, or in more permanent storage like humus, peat, etc… that is an open question…
Tim Clark says:
January 10, 2014 at 12:43 pm
“Soils contain more carbon than that in the atmosphere and three times more than is stored in all the Earth’s vegetation. ”
————–
Now don’t you all forget the 200+ years of carbon that is stored both above and below ground in man-made wood products such as houses, buildings, furniture, infrastructure, etc., etc.
PiperPaul says: (January 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm)
Re: Programming Languages.
In a conversation with P. J. Plauger one time he compared Pascal and C thusly:
I can attest to the absolute truth of that comparison.
Bart says:
January 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm
You just used the “mass balance” argument to prove that the mass balance argument is correct. This is circular logic.
That the biosphere is a net sink is based on the oxygen balance, which is independent of the mass balance, except for using fossile fuel sales / CO2 releases in the calculation. No influence of other natural carbon cycles. The oxygen balance is confirmed by the δ13C balance, which is mainly influenced by the same two sources.
Nobody has a good handle on the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Estimates range from 5 to 5 thousand years.
The latter can’t be the residence time as defined by mass in the atmosphere/throughput as that would mean hardly any exchange with other reservoirs at all.
But most empirical evidence for a RT is between 5-10 years. The only exception is the decay time for the 14C bomb spike at ~15 years, but that is strictly spoken not a RT, as part of the pre-bomb 14C is returning to the atmosphere, lengthening the adjustment time.
Salby has shown how this is consistent with the model of CO2 being related to the integral of temperature
Based on a theoretical extreme migration of CO2 in ice cores which doesn’t exist…
Henry’s Law is a constant of proportionality. It has zero phase response.
The phase response is an effect of Henry’s law. When the temperature increases, the proportionality is broken and more CO2 is released from the oceans until the proportionality is restored.
If the temperature changes as a sinusoid, that gives a 90 deg lag of the CO2 sinusoid.
If that happens at upwelling or downwelling places, the resultant CO2 fluxes (and thus the CO2 increase/decrease in the atmosphere) are modulated at 90 deg lag after temperature…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 2:43 pm
No, no, no…
“If the temperature changes as a sinusoid, that gives a 90 deg lag of the CO2 sinusoid.”
No. The 90 degree phase lag of such a system would only occur beyond the passband. Since the 90 deg phase lag is seen at all frequencies reflected in the record, the bandwidth must be low enough that, for all practical purposes, it is an integration over the observation time interval.
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm
It doesn’t violate Henry’s law if that “small, sustained increase in temperature” is the temperature of the ocean.
Welcome to the club of believers in a permanent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by a sustained small increase in temperature of the oceans.
Let’s see what Henry’s law says:
At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid
OK no problem with that.
Let us start with an ocean and an atmosphere in equilibrium.
In the case of the oceans, that is a dynamical equilibrium, as as much CO2 is released by the deep ocean upwelling at the equator, as is taken away by the cold sinks for water and CO2 near the poles.
The estimated amosphere – deep ocean – atmosphere cycle is ~40 GtC/year. The abolute heigth is not of interest here, but is based on the 14C bomb spike decay and the 13C decay from human emissions.
Now we increase the temperature of all ocean surfaces with 1°C.
Per solubility of CO2 in ocean waters, that increases the equilibrium pCO2 of seawater with ~17 microatm. That makes that the pCO2 difference between ocean surface at the upwelling places and the atmosphere increases and the incoming flux (into the atmosphere) increases.
The opposite happens at the downwelling places: the atmosphere – ocean pCO2 difference is reduced, leading to less uptake by the sinking waters.
The net result: an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far so good. But an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the pCO2 difference at the upwelling places and increases the uptake at the sinks. At an increase of 17 ppmv in the atmosphere, the original fluxes of before the temperature increase are restored and no further CO2 increase in the atmosphere happens:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
Thus there is no permanent release of CO2 from the oceans for a sustained increase in ocean temperature alone.
The 800,000 years temperature-CO2 ratio is about 8 ppmv/°C, as that includes the opposite reaction of the biosphere on increased temperatures…
Thus the maximum 1°C warming since the Little Ice Age is good for 17 ppmv increase (oceans only) or 8 ppmv increase (oceans + biosphere) of the observed 110 ppmv increase…
Bart says:
January 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm
No. The 90 degree phase lag of such a system would only occur beyond the passband. Since the 90 deg phase lag is seen at all frequencies reflected in the record, the bandwidth must be low enough that, for all practical purposes, it is an integration over the observation time interval.
If I remember well, PaulK calculated that the response of CO2 to T variations lags T with 90 deg for all short term frequencies which are a lot smaller than the lower frequency. As the trend – if that is a sinusoid at all – has a wavelength of at least 600 years and the short term frequencies are 1-3 years, I don’t see the problem.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 2:03 pm
“ [quoting Sam C]: “And “NO”, leaves and debris from previous years don’t decay especially quicker in the fall.”
Not of the previous years, but of the current year and it doesn’t stop in winter, even not in Alaska under a snow deck.”
————–
Now just why in hell did you change your claim to “current year” when you originally stated “previous years” which was what I was responding to in my above statement? Was that a CYA ego “thingy” just so you could accuse me of being in error, or what? fer shame, fer shame
Of course it don’t matter one twit because your statement is still FUBAR. The leaves and debris from the CURRENT YEAR are even less likely to rot or decay because they are pretty much dried out when they fall to the ground. And I dun tolt you that DRY biomass won’t rot or decay. It will last for years n’ years. REF: houses, furniture & .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“But if you have a more detailed insight of what happens where at what time of the year in this part of the carbon cycle, I am eager to learn…”
————–
HA, given you above devious shenanigans I seriously doubt your eagerness to learn, but on the contrary, it appears you are eager to prove me wrong …. and tout yourself as being correct and infallible. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm
“Welcome to the club of believers in a permanent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by a sustained small increase in temperature of the oceans.”
I hope you have paid attention enough not to number me among that club.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm
“If I remember well, PaulK calculated that the response of CO2 to T variations lags T with 90 deg for all short term frequencies which are a lot smaller than the lower frequency.”
You are mis-remembering. That is quite impossible, and it is not what he did.
“As the trend – if that is a sinusoid at all – has a wavelength of at least 600 years and the short term frequencies are 1-3 years, I don’t see the problem.”
That would be a real problem for AGW!!! (And, for we humans).
Bart says:
January 10, 2014 at 4:51 pm
I hope you have paid attention enough not to number me among that club.
Salby anyway is, but doesn’t show an underlying mechanism, but you do indirectly too: temperature itself can’t give a sustained increase in the atmosphere, except in combination with another process, which must give a slightly non-linear increase in CO2 for the combination with temperature. That combined process must mimic the human emissions at exactly the same rate and timing over the past 160 years, which is highly unlikely…
You are mis-remembering. That is quite impossible, and it is not what he did.
From Paul_K at Bishop Hill’s blog:
The output response is phase-shifted relative to any sinusoidal temperature input; as response times get larger, the phase shift asymptotes to a shift of exactly pi/2. Hence, putting any realistic (i.e. long) transient response in place brings temperature exactly into phase with dCO2/dt. All that is required is that ocean equilibration for a change in temperature is a longer term process than the longest periodicity of the temperature cycles we are considering here. This seems to me to be a very safe assumption.
As the longer term process has a periodicity (if any and if T related at all) much longer than the longest short-term frequency, all short term processes are pi/2 shifted in CO2 vs. T and dCO2/dt matches T at exactly the same phase.
That would be a real problem for AGW!!! (And, for we humans).
Not if the increase is not temperature related. If it is temperature related and the current increase rate is weakening (which is hardly visible), then we are near 1/4th of the wavelength and the total wavelength is over 600 years and we may expect a further increase for some 160 years for the next peak. Which is likely for human emissions, but not for a temperature related process…
Samuel
This is what I said:
Meanwhile fallen leaves and debris from previous years is decaying all year round, somewhat more in summer and especially fall, but even under snow in the forests of Alaska…
That wasn’t completely right: in fall new leaves add to the total amount of decayable debris.
And I am eager to learn, but it must be based on verifyable facts. As you tell me that fallen leaves are dryed out, that is right, but that these don’t deteriorate because they are dry isn’t right: fallen leaves in general are wetted by rain and dew and if you put that on a heap, the volume can be seen shrinking all fall and winter, leaving less than halve the volume after winter, as I can see in my own garden. Even if it has been freezing during months (which is seldom here, but it happens).
The first of the links I gave about the Alaskan CO2 emissions in winter show that a combination of fungi and bacteria is working especially in winter under the snow deck and the bacteria die out in summer.
But this all is an aside for the main point of this article:
Does the carbon cycle, and specifically the fungi/bacteria/roots combination affect CO2 levels in the amosphere?
It may, but that depends:
The total amounts of carbon stored in vegetation/soils (or deep oceans) have no influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as long as there is no exchange.
The exchanges of carbon between carbon stored in vegetation/soils (or deep oceans) have no influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as long as there is no difference between inputs and outputs.
Thus all what counts is the difference between total inputs and outputs of all natural fluxes + human emissions, which is quite accurately known: some 1 GtC/yr extra sink in the biosphere, some 0.5 GtC/yr in the oceans surface layer and the remainder of the difference between the emissions (9 GtC/yr) and the increase in the atmosphere (4.5 GtC/yr) in the deep oceans: 3 GtC/yr. The latter is not/hardly measurable, but as other sinks (like rock weathering) are much smaller/slower, the bulk of the difference is going into the deep oceans.
That answers the question of the influence of the above article on the carbon balance: there may be an influence (if there is a trend over the years), but that is incorporated in the overall increase of CO2 uptake by the biosphere as a whole.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 11, 2014 at 2:06 am
“Samuel
This is what I said:”
————–
Really now! Tell someone else, they’ll believe you.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“Thus all what counts is the difference between total inputs and outputs of all natural fluxes + human emissions, which is quite accurately known: ”
————–
Which is horsepucky, because you don’t have a clue what those actual figures are.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“some 1 GtC/yr extra sink in the biosphere, some 0.5 GtC/yr in the oceans surface layer and the remainder of the difference between the emissions (9 GtC/yr) and the increase in the atmosphere (4.5 GtC/yr) in the deep oceans: 3 GtC/yr. ”
————–
Sure nuff, to wit:
[(9 GtC/yr) – (4.5 GtC/yr)] – [(1 GtC/yr) + (0.5 GtC/yr)] = 3 GtC/yr
(4.5 GtC/yr) – (1.5 GtC/yr) = 3 GtC/yr increase in CO2.
But I can play a more accurate game than yours, to wit:
Via the Mona Loa data the yearly increases in CO2 ppm was, to wit:
2011 5 2011.375 394.21 – 1.17 ppm increase from May 2010
2012 5 2012.375 396.78 – 2.57 ppm increase
2013 5 2013.375 399.76 – 2.98 ppm increase
And given the fact that the:
Average mass of the atmosphere = 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.
Amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in atmosphere was = 396.78 ppm or 0.039678%
Therefore:
(5 quadrillion mtA) x (0.00039678C/A) = 1.9839 trillion mtC
Then:
(1.99 trillion mtC) / (397 ppmC) = 5GtC per 1 ppmC
Thus:
(2.57 ppmC increase) X (5GtC/1 ppmC) = 12.85GtC increase in CO2 in year 2011/12
And that calculated 12.85GtC increase in CO2 …. is 4 times greater …. than your guesstimated 3 GtC/yr increase in CO2.
Lord a mercy, …. did I make mistakes in my calculations ….. OR WHAT?
NAH, the proponents of CAGW got the same results of 5GtC per 1 ppmC that I did, … but then they did some “reverse” mathematical calculations so that their guesstimated “quantities” of their CO2 emission sources would all add up to equal the 5GtC figure.
But the CO2 kept increasing, ….. but their average temperatures didn’t …. and thus “BIG trouble in CAGW City”. The heat is missing, the heat is missing.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 11, 2014 at 1:14 am
“That combined process must mimic the human emissions at exactly the same rate and timing over the past 160 years, which is highly unlikely…”
An a posteriori observation is never improbable. It just is. The probability waveform has collapsed with the measurement.
“As the longer term process has a periodicity (if any and if T related at all) much longer than the longest short-term frequency…”
It doesn’t. By your own admission, the rise in CO2 is a 20th century and later phenomenon. For the trend induced by temperature to have settled out to the point it would be undetectible, you would need a time constant on the order of 10 years or less. There are, e.g., twenty year cycles readily apparent in the data. You would see massive phase distortion in those cycles if the transfer function were as wideband as you are claiming. There is no distortion at any scale.
“If it is temperature related and the current increase rate is weakening (which is hardly visible), then we are near 1/4th of the wavelength and the total wavelength is over 600 years…”
This is gibberish.
“..which is hardly visible…”
Which is blatantly visible.
Dear Bart,
THANK YOU for sharing those excellent graphs (linked at 10:45pm today). You go, O Science Giant! (and impeccable writing style Giant, too)
Janice
Samuel C Cogar says:
January 11, 2014 at 10:07 am
Via the Mona Loa data the yearly increases in CO2 ppm was, to wit:
The exact data over the past 50+ years from Mauna Loa and the emissions (from EIA) are here in graph form up to 2011 (the last year of the published emissions):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
~9 GtC/yr emissions is ~4.15 ppmv/year
The difference with the increase of ~2.15 ppmv (trendline in 2011) is what goes into the sinks. The whole biosphere accounts for ~1 GtC/year, based on the oxygen (and 13C/12C) balance:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
The ocean surface is another fast sink, but limited to 10% of the change in the atmosphere, due to the buffer/Revelle factor. The increase in the atmosphere being ~4.5 GtC/year, the increase in the ocean surface accounts for ~0.5 GtC/year (the ratio carbon atmosphere/ocean surface is ~800/1000 GtC). The increase in carbon (DIC) in the ocean surface layer can be seen in a few longer series, here at the Bermuda’s:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
Fig. 5 shows the increase in total inorganic carbon (DIC).An increase of 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
The rest of the sinks is highly probably in the deep oceans via the THC…
(1.99 trillion mtC) / (397 ppmC) = 5GtC per 1 ppmC
The ppmv is CO2, not C. You need to divide the 5 GtC by 12/44. But the real ratio for the current atmosphere is 2.12 GtC/ppmv.
But the CO2 kept increasing, ….. but their average temperatures didn’t …. and thus “BIG trouble in CAGW City”. The heat is missing, the heat is missing.
I agree, and I don’t think that CO2 has such a high influence on temperature and natural variation has a much larger influence on temperature than incorportated in the models. But that doesn’t imply that humans aren’t the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Janice Moore says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Janice, you are great admirer of everybody who gives food to your own ideas of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if Bart uses a common fault in what I have read some time ago in a book titled “How to Lie with Statistics”.
Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph (where Mt C = 2120 x ppmv). That gives a false impression on the average reader like yourself. If you plot the two variables on the same scale, you will see the real ratio:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
With the emissions about twice the increase in the atmosphere… Still the calculated increase of CO2, based on a linear increase of the sink rate with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium (the red line in the graph) is largely within the natural variability caused by the short term temperature variability.
Bart says:
January 11, 2014 at 10:41 am
It doesn’t. By your own admission, the rise in CO2 is a 20th century and later phenomenon. For the trend induced by temperature to have settled out to the point it would be undetectible, you would need a time constant on the order of 10 years or less.
If and only if the trend is induced by temperature, for which you need to violate Henry’s law and a couple of other observations… The peak frequency is around 3 years. Beyond that there is hardly any peak visible.
We are back on the same dead end…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:22 am
“Bart used two different scales for similar variables in his graph”
So did Ferdinand, implicitly, in the similar plot he produced which he did not link to here. He just didn’t label the other axis. And, he performed his fit across the entire data set, so that it gave a misleading impression of a constant trend, which was basically just an exercise in showing that least squares trending is robust, something we already knew well.
But, even then, he cannot disguise the fact that the rate of change of CO2 has been flat for the past decade, in precisely the time period that temperatures have been flat, and you can readily see that in the plot he linked. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions have continued accelerating.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
January 12, 2014 at 3:28 am
“If and only if the trend is induced by temperature…”
No. The temperature trend was also established in the last century.
“…for which you need to violate Henry’s law…”
Fully consistent with Henry’s Law, as I demonstrated here.
“The peak frequency is around 3 years.”
The Fourier transform shows strong frequency content across the entire Nyquist band. Particular formations with ~20 years periodicity and longer can be readily observed in the plot.
“We are back on the same dead end…”
Patience, my friend. The divergence between emissions and overall concentration is already stark. It will not take much longer – a decade at the most – to become extremely pronounced, at which time you will be forced to make a reevaluation of your position.
“No. The temperature trend was also established in the last century.”
As was the emissions trend.