I’m really quite surprised to find this paper in Nature, especially when it makes claims so counter to the consensus that model projections are essentially a map of the future climate.
The Hockey Shtick writes: Settled Science: New paper ‘challenges consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year’.
A new paper published in Nature “challenges the current consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year” and finds “semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”
The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems “are currently missing from many major climate models.” In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.
The paper joins many other papers published over the past 2 years overturning the “settled science” of the global carbon cycle.
Climate science: A sink down under
- Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature13341
- Published online21 May 2014
The finding that semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide has repercussions for future levels of this greenhouse gas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13341.html
more here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
richardscourtney says:
May 26, 2014 at 3:32 am
Richard, as usual, you are trying to win a discussion by futilities about words. Ice cores are direct measurements of averaged global CO2 levels, where the averaging period depends of the snow accumulation rate. The ice age – gas age difference also depends of the accumulation rate, but there is not the slightest influence of that difference on what is measured in the gas bubbles.
Stomata data are not global, simply because they are taken near ground level over land where huge changes in CO2 level can be meausured within minutes. Compare the CO2 data for a few summer days at Giessen (semi-rural, mid-west Germany) with these from Barrow (Alaska), Mauna Loa and the South Pole (all unfiltered raw data):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
Because most plants don’t grow a few hundred meters above ground, they don’t live in global CO2 levels. That is easily seen in regular flights measuring CO2 from ground level up to several km, here for the Rocky Mountains:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/inversion_co2.jpg
Above the inversion layer, the same values were measured as at Mauna Loa at 6,000 km distance.
I can give you other theories which provide different indications.
Yes, but the difference is that “my” theory fits all observations and I still haven’t seen any alternative theory that doesn’t fail one or more observations…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At May 26, 2014 at 7:10 am you assert
That is wrong on both counts.
You persistently ignore information which completely falsifies your theory. For example, I refer you to my above post at May 23, 2014 at 12:39 am which is here here. It explains information which I have repeatedly put to you and you have studiously ignored; viz.
So, your theory is directly refuted by observations (the sinks are observed to not fill) and requires no interpretation from the observations.
None of the other explanations is directly refuted by observations.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I have thought long and hard before answering this point in your post at May 26, 2014 at 7:10 am .
You offensively claim
That is pschological projection by you. I don’t do that, but you do. For example, in that same post you say
Well, ice cores form at ground level and they cannot record variations because they take decades to form. Stomata data also do not record such variations because they take months to form.
In reality, those variations indicate that – as I said – an indication from one site cannot be a “global” indication.
Indeed, you admit that temperature has some effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration so – if a single site provides “global” CO2 data – then that site would provide a “global” temperature indication.
You are choosing the proxy data which fits what you want to be true and saying other proxy data must be adjusted to match it (with no reason for the adjustment except what you want to be true).
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 26, 2014 at 7:28 am
Richard, as repeatedly said to you: the seasonal swings and the long-term trend are different processes. The seasonal swings are the direct result of temperature changes on plants: growing new leaves and wood in spring-summer-fall and decaying the same leaves in fall-winter-spring. That are huge changes in a few months which are repeated each year. The change in total carbon is ~60 GtC for each direction (~120 GtC if you include the day/night respiration/uptake of CO2). The net result of that change is currently ~1 GtC/year more uptake than decay. That is caused by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is entirely the result of the 9 GtC/year extra CO2 humans emit. The increase in uptake is near independent of the temperature trend.
Thus seasons = temperature influenced (as good as the 2-3 years variability in rate of change)
Extra uptake = pressure influenced.
Different causes, different effects…
richardscourtney says:
May 26, 2014 at 7:42 am
Well, ice cores form at ground level and they cannot record variations because they take decades to form.
Ice cores are formed at ground level in an (cold) desert: there are no local sources or sinks of CO2 of any substantial influence and CO2 levels measured at the South Pole or the edge of the ice cap or at Mauna Loa or Barrow near the North Pole are within a few ppmv. The high resolution ice cores can’t measure cyclic variations of less than their resolution, but even the 560 years resolution Dome C ice core would show the current change in CO2 over 160 years, even if that was part of a 640 year cycle and not a one-sided increase, as it certainly is.
Still ice cores show global CO2 levels, but averaged over the resolution period, while stomata data show local (partly corrected) CO2 levels, but only averaged over the necessary amount of sample.
Thus while stomata data show changes over a shorter period than ice cores, the absolute figures of both average and changes should be taken with a grain of salt.
you admit that temperature has some effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration so – if a single site provides “global” CO2 data – then that site would provide a “global” temperature indication.
That was true for the pre-Industrial past and very general: there was a 8 ppmv/°C ratio between temperature and CO2 levels, but with a variable lag of several decades to several millennia. That isn’t true anymore since humans emitted enough CO2 to disturb that dynamic equilibrium process…
Scott Scarborough says:
No, Its a 33 1/3 % increase in Co2.
May I add to the fun? Thanx:
Atmospheric CO2 has risen from ≈3 parts in 10,000, to 4 parts in 10,000. Chicken Little would think that means the sky is falling, but it’s only an acorn.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Ferdinand says:
…there was a 8 ppmv/°C ratio between temperature and CO2 levels, but with a variable lag of several decades to several millennia. That isn’t true anymore since humans emitted enough CO2 to disturb that dynamic equilibrium process…
…and nothing happened. There is no indication of any harm from the added CO2. Therefore, the default position, the Occam’s Razor conclusion, is that CO2 is “harmless”.
CO2 is also quite beneficial. Increased agricultural production and the overall greening of the planet are due to rising CO2 emissions. Ferdinand, you should emphasize these points more in your conclusions. Otherwise, when you quote big numbers like gigatons, folks like warrenlb start running around in circles, clucking that the sky is falling.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 26, 2014 at 8:27 am
We have bounced around several different concepts on this thread, but while we have your attention on CO2, let me ask you to apply your background on CO2 to the following …
CO2 is considered one of several greenhouse gases.
1. Over the years since 1800, what is the consensus plot of CO2 ppmv vs time, and what is the plot of man’s releases of CO2 over that same period? You have the far shorter plot above, but that does NOT address the apparent global warming between 1800 and 1945.
2. If relative humidity is 50% in today’s current conditions of 400 ppmv CO2, what are the ground level equivalent ppmv of the so-called greenhouse gasses at STP in winter (lowest total humidity) and summer (highest actual water vapor concentration)?
3. One writer above claims that CO2 becomes more and more important in its greenhouse gas radiation controls as altitude increases because the ground-level water vapor disappears as the air temperature decreases towards the stratosphere. If so, what are actual greenhouse gas concentrations at 30,000 ft, 50,000 feet, and 120,000 feet altitude?
RACookPE1978 says:
May 26, 2014 at 10:02 am
About point 1:
CO2 levels over the past 1,000 years can be derived from ice cores, where the resolution is ~10 years for the past 150 years and ~20 years for the past 1,000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
and accurate measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa since 1958.
For human emissions we have estimates since about 1751 and more accurate calculations, based on fossil fuel sales since a few decades. The 1900-current plot was derived from figures at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
I fully agree (and so does the IPCC) that the warming 1850-1945 was entirely natural. The problem is that the climate models all use CO2 as the sole cause of the increase in temperature after 1945. They did run into troubles for the period 1945-1975 where there was a slight cooling with increasing CO2, but used the cooling effect of “human aerosols” as scapegoat. The problem now is repeated with the 2000-current “pauze” despite record CO2 increase and levels and the scapegoat doesn’t work anymore this time. Simple conclusion: climate models have no clue what the influence is of the natural variability on temperature, thus can’t know the influence of more CO2…
About point 2:
I have no idea, but there is a nice tool on the Net which shows you the net effect of different scenario’s: Modtran. It is based on Hitran, a very accurate lab line by line absorption measurement series for different GHG mixtures in air at different air pressures. The Hitran model then was reduced in size and increased speed for Modtran at a slight cost of resolution:
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/modtran.html
The difference between summer and winter in the mid-latitudes outgoing IR is ~52 W/m2 for clear skies, but that is mostly the result of the colder surface temperatures in winter. What I don’t have is the incoming (solar) energy for the same band, which would show the difference between energy ins and outs.
About point 3:
Water vapour indeed drops rapidely with height, while there is little change of CO2 with height, only a lag of the increase with altitude (and latitude, mainly between NH and SH).
Here a few profiles:
http://ara.abct.lmd.polytechnique.fr/uploads/images/pyf_compa_co2.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/Photo_Gallery/GMD_Figures/coil_profile.jpg
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Simple conclusion: climate models have no clue what the influence is of the natural variability on temperature, thus can’t know the influence of more CO2…
Thank you. The Null Hypothesis is relevant here. Since there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening now compared with before the 1940’s, and since all current climate parameters have been exceeded in the past, CO2 cannot have the claimed effect.
Phil Jones shows that step changes since the LIA have been almost identical, despite big differences in CO2.
CO2 simply does not have the claimed effect. It probably causes some small warming, but a slightly warmer planet is beneficial. And if the truth were told about global temperatures, we would probably be observing a very slight cooling.
At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. That is my testable hypothesis. It has never been falsified, but I would be just as happy if you falsified it because then we would have learned something more.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Thank you sir. Files and data saved.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Your assertion-filled and evidence-empty post at May 26, 2014 at 8:27 am includes this gem
Perhaps that is right and perhaps it is not.
Please provide evidence that “humans emitted enough CO2 to disturb that dynamic equilibrium process”.
And
Please say the date and say how you know the date “since” we did it.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 26, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Please provide evidence that “humans emitted enough CO2 to disturb that dynamic equilibrium process”.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
the same for the CH4 levels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_ch4.jpg
The same for the 13C/12C ratio:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
Human emissions since 1751 are estimated twice the increase in the atmosphere and firmly confirmed in the last decades. But only since ~1850 one can see the human “signal” getting above the natural noise.
Of course, one can make any theory that fits the increase of CO2 since ~1850. But that should also fit all other observations ánd remove all human emissions at the same time. I am still waiting for such a theory…
Richard, you can be as naive as you want, but ignoring all evidence because you don’t like the result is what we can expect from CAGW people. Sceptics should do better than that.
As Dr. Spencer said: saying that humans are (probably) not the cause of the recent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the 10 worst arguments you can use in a debate with others.
Ferdinand:
I asked you to justify your assertion that “humans emitted enough CO2 to disturb that dynamic equilibrium process” and you have replied at May 26, 2014 at 10:54 pm.
Your reply rephrases your assertion in several ways but does NOT justify it.
For example, you say this.
What “signal” and how is it seen “above the natural noise”? You don’t say.
And what is that “noise”?
The natural emission is two orders of magnitude more than the anthropogenic emission.
Why was the “dynamic equilibrium process” not disturbed by natural variations in CO2 emissions If it is disturbed by such a tiny addition as the anthropogenic emission?
Please note that answers to these questions are not affected by the relative magnitudes of the anthropogenic emissions and the increase in the atmosphere since 1751 (unless you can show otherwise).
And having made those evidence-free assertions you say to me
I am NOT ignoring any evidence:
I am asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions and you are failing to provide any.
THERE IS NO “RESULT” FOR ME TO LIKE OR DISLIKE.
I don’t know if the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a natural cause, an anthropogenic cause, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes: but I want to know. You believe the cause is anthropogenic and ignore all information which refutes your belief. And I am not so naïve as to accept your belief without evidence (especially when you fail to provide any evidence).
And – as I said – I want to know the cause of the rise. Achievement of that knowledge cannot be helped by opinions concerning expedient arguments to further the sceptic cause.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 27, 2014 at 12:56 am
Richard, I know, it is at no avail to have any discussion with you, because you simply don’t accept any argument that does need you to admit that humans are the cause of the recent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In short for those still listening:
– over the past 800,000 years the current increase in CO2 and CH4 and N2O and the decrease in 13C/12C ratio is unprecedented, even in the worst resolution ice cores.
– natural CO2 variability over the same 800,000 years is 8 ppmv/°C (resolution 560 years), 8 ppmv/°C over the MWP-LIA transition (resolution 20 years), 4-5 ppmv/°C over year-by-year variability and 5 ppmv/°C over the seasons. But we see a change of over 100 ppmv/°C over the past 160 years…
– natural variability of the 13C/12C ratio is +/- 0.2 per mil over the Holocene and similar changes for a glacial-interglacial transition. Current drop since ~1850 is 1.6 per mil…
Of course that is not 100% “proof” that humans are the cause, but if all indications point in the same direction and there are no contradictions, then the best fit is probably the real cause. And you have to come with much better evidence to overturn the above knowledge.
dbstealey says:
May 26, 2014 at 9:30 am
Loved the Chicken Little/ acorn line !!
Saying that Co2 has increased 30% is misleading at best. It does not represent the reality at all. Does it? So where is warrenlb to correct us? Why was everyone jumping on me when I am only trying to show how the math is being used to “up the scary factor”. Where are my challengers now? Do they really think 30% increase in Co2 is representative or describes the reality in any way? Isn’t science supposed to be descriptive and representative?
Are people so easily mislead? Rhetorical question, because clearly, the answer is yes.
– – – – – – – – – –
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
I am still listening.
An observational database shows that Man’s burning of fossil fuels puts its CO2 inside the boundaries of the Atmosphere Subsystem (AS) of the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS). I have not met a person who says that is not so. This CO2 put into the boundaries of the AS by man is not based on observation from Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric CO2, it is based on records of fossil fuels shipped, sold, taxes on sales and kilowatts of power produced (etc.).
There is no interpretation needed of that situation just described in the preceding paragraph. But the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 data needs interpretation as to causes of its time series behavior (keeping separate the subject of ice core proxies of atmospheric CO2).
Given the nascent state of knowledge of the carbon cycle within the EAS, it appears to me that multiple plausible interpretations exist about possible significant causes of Mauna Loa CO2 time series observations. Man’s fossil fuel burning is one of the plausible candidates for cause of some changes seen in the Mauna Loa CO2 time series.
I think science will fill the void in carbon cycle knowledge. Am I overly optimistic about scientific progress?
I appreciate your openness to all the possible causes to Mauna Loa time series observations in the face of nascent carbon cycle knowledge.
John
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You start your post at May 27, 2014 at 5:15 am with falsehood about me which – in reality – does apply to you.
You then provide a list of facts (some of which are dubious) which you admit
I do not need to “overturn” anything because you have not shown – and nobody can show – that any of those facts is evidence of an anthropogenic cause.
Ferdinand, you are the one making assertions, not me.
You are the one failing to provide any explanation of and/or justification for your assertions.
I only have a duty to doubt your assertions unless and until you provide some evidence to support your assertions.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 27, 2014 at 5:15 am
IMO, the Eemian, which was warmer & lasted longer than the Holocene, shows what nature on its own can produce in the way of CO2 concentration during an interglacial. Studies both of ice cores & leaf stomata indicate a possible upper limit to Eemian CO2 of around 330 ppm, IIRC. Dunno how reliable these studies might be.
Ferdinand,
I keep asking, but the answers you give do not respond to my question. You say that human emissions are the reason for the rise in CO2. That was not my question.
What I want to know is this: can you find any testable, measurable data showing any global harm caused specifically by the rise in anthropogenic CO2?
If you can find any scientific evidence showing global harm, or global damage, that is specifically attributable to the rise in human CO2 emissions, then that is reason enough to try and find a solution.
I have asked that question a score of times, but so far no one has ever posted any evidence of global harm due to CO2.
If CO2 causes no harm, then CO2 is ipso facto ‘harmless’, and the carbon scare is based on a false alarm.
As a matter of fact, the rise in CO2 is measurably beneficial to the biosphere, which leads to my repeatedly posted, testable hypothesis:
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
Please falsify that, if you can.
John Whitman says:
May 27, 2014 at 8:42 am
The above article is one of the many steps to unravel parts of the carbon cycle. But while these are of interest, the large contributions are already roughly known:
– a ~90 GtC exchange between oceans and the atmosphere of which ~50 GtC seasonal in and out the (mid-latitude) ocean surface and ~50 GtC continuous between the equatorial upwelling places and the sinks at the poles.
– a ~60 GtC seasonal exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, mainly due to the (mid- to high-latitude NH) forests.
These rough estimates are based on oxygen and δ13C balances and the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere.
Besides that, we have the mass balance: currently 9 GtC in from humans, 4.5 GtC left in the atmosphere = 4.5 GtC absorbed by nature as a whole.
Which makes that the natural carbon balance was negative for over 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
be it quite variable. But even so: the natural variability is less than 2% of the the natural in/out fluxes, which is remarkable low for natural processes. And the natural variability is less than halve the human contribution…
Even if the carbon cycle was double the estimates (which isn’t the case, as that would halve the residence time), that doesn’t change the net result, which is the difference in calculated emissions and what is measured as increase in the atmosphere.
From the oxygen balance we know that the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2 of ~1 GtC/year since ~1990.
From buffer chemistry (and measurements) we know that the ocean surface layer is a net sink of ~0.5 GtC/year.
The rest of ~3 GtC/years is going into the deep oceans, as all known other possible sinks are either too small or too slow.
Thus in light of the mass balance and all other observations, the only explanation that fits all observations is the increase in human emissions…
dbstealey says:
May 27, 2014 at 10:16 am
At current and projected concentrations, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
Please falsify that, if you can.
Because I agree with that, I don’t see any reason to falsify that!
The more reason that I regret that so many sceptics insist that humans are/may not be the cause of the increase. That is a bad argument if the main discussion must be about the very low impact of CO2 on temperature and its benefices for the biosphere…
milodonharlani:
re your post at May 27, 2014 at 9:26 am.
I think this blog provides a good summary of the stomata indications
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
and the links to its referenced sources are useful for more detailed information.
Richard
Ferdinand says:
Because I agree with that, I don’t see any reason to falsify that!
Thanks.
But the way the Scientific Method works, everyone [including me] must try to falsify the hypothesis.
I have tried [really], but failed. It seems that no one is able to falsify the hypothesis that CO2, at current and projected levels, is harmless, and beneficial to the planet.
richardscourtney says:
May 27, 2014 at 1:45 pm
I think this blog provides a good summary of the stomata indications
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
There are several factual errors in that blog, but the main problem is already in the second figure, where the remark is put: “ice cores understate CO2 average and CO2 variability”. While the latter may be true, the average in ice cores is not changed by the averaging over the resolution period. Thus the sentence should be: stomata data overstate the CO2 average but may give a better idea of the CO2 variability. Even that may be overstated, as that is local variability, not global.
The stomata data are in trunks of over 1,000 years, the Dome C ice core has a resolution of 560 years. Not enough to see the faster variations, but by far enough to compare the averages.
Anyway for the latest 1,000 years we have better resolution ice cores (~20 years) which can rival with the stomata data for resolution. Even for the full Holocene we have the Taylor Dome ice core with a resolution of ~40 years.
Further, the comments on ice cores on that blog are – gently said – completely outdated…
Further even the stomata people have looked for other influences on the stomata data than CO2:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100807122601AAtkPIt
The second comment is of interest.
Water has as much influence as CO2 on the stomata data for some species:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016819238490090X
A lot of information about the stomata (index) data can be found at:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/RPP.pdf
with this intriguing sentence:
A common explanation for this CO2 `ceiling’ phenomenon [note less response of stomata density or index] is that plants today have not experienced elevated CO2 levels (350+ ppmv) for at least the entire Quaternary and possibly longer
Ferdinand:
Please try to understand that showing something is possible is NOT the same as showing it is true.
It is possible that human activities are the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I am seeking information which shows that possibility is or is not true in part or in whole.
The nearest to such information in this thread was provided by milodonharlani whose post at May 27, 2014 at 9:26 am says
Assuming those studies and indications are “reliable” then that does suggest a ‘natural’ upper limit of CO2 around 330 ppmv.
But you ignored that information – which supports your assertion of anthropogenic cause of the rise – because it relies on stomata data that refutes your assertion of ice cores being sample bottles.
Richard