Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Much of the current angst at the UN regarding climate has to do with the idea of “climate reparations”. These are an imaginary debt supposedly owed by the major CO2 emitting nations to the countries of the developing world. As the story goes, we in the industrialized world have been “polluting” the atmosphere with the well-known plant food CO2, and despite the lack of any evidence of any damage caused, we’re supposed to pony up and pay the developing countries megabucks to ease their pain. 
In that regard, I’ve spent the morning laughing at the results I’ve gotten from the Japanese IBUKI satellite CO2 data. It shows the net CO2 flow (emission less sequestration) on a 1°x1° grid for the planet. Their website describes the project thusly:
The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT), developed jointly by the Ministry of the Environment Japan, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (hereinafter the Three Parties), is the world’s first satellite designed specifically for monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from space.
The satellite has been in operation since its launch on January 23, 2009. The Three Parties will now publicly distribute the data of global CO2 fluxes on a monthly and regional basis for the one-year period between June 2009 and May 2010. These flux values were estimated from ground-based CO2 monitoring data and improved GOSAT-based CO2 concentration data.
It has been confirmed that uncertainties in CO2 flux estimates can be reduced by the addition of GOSAT data to the ground-based observations. This is the first concrete demonstration of the utility of satellite-based concentration data in the estimation of global CO2 fluxes.
It is expected that this progress in the field of global carbon cycle research will lead to more reliable climate change prediction and to the development of effective environmental policies for mitigating global warming in the future.
So why was I laughing? Well, let me unfold the story. First, here is the map showing the net emissions for 2010, the only full calendar year of data in the dataset:
Figure 1. Net emissions by gridcell, IBUKI satellite CO2 data. Click to embiggen.
Now, there are some interesting things about this map.
First, it appears to be pretty accurate. For example, if you look at the lower right part of Australia, you can see the two big cities of Sydney and Melbourne as red dots in the sea of blue.
Next, you can see that while the central Pacific is a net emitter of CO2 (yellow band from above Australia to South America), the intertropical convergence zone immediately north of that is a net absorber. I speculate that this is because of the large amount of rainfall in the area. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rain, which is why all rain is very slightly acid. This absorbs more CO2 than in the drier area to the south.
In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.
Next, by and large where there are lots of humans there is a lot of CO2 emitted. Yes, there are also some areas where CO2 is being emitted without much human habitation … but generally, humans = CO2.
So … I figured I’d take the data and divide it up by country, to see how much CO2 each country either emits or absorbs. The answers were pretty surprising … Figure 2 shows the top 20 biggest net emitters of CO2.
Figure 2. Net emissions by country.
That’s where I started laughing … I can just see France demanding climate reparations from India, or the UK demanding reparations from the “Democratic” Republic of the Congo … It gets better. Figure 3 shows the top twenty sequestering nations …
Figure 3. Net sequestration by country.
Funnier and funnier … Sweden and Norway get to demand reparations from Russia, Finland can send a bill to the USA, while Australia can dun China for eco-megabucks.
Now … how can we understand some of these results? I will speculate, as I have no direct data … although it is claimed to be in the IBUKI datasets, I haven’t got there yet.
First, there are two big missing items in the previous standard CO2 accounting, sequestration and biomass burning. In most of the poor countries of the world, they are so ecologically conscious that they mainly use renewable energy for cooking and heating. And despite being all eco-sensitive and all these uncounted millions of open fires burning wood, twigs, and trash add up to a lot of CO2. Plus a bunch of pollution making up the “brown haze” over Asia, but that’s another question …
In addition, both India and China have huge permanent underground wildfires in their coal seams, spewing CO2 (plus really ugly pollution) 24/7. The other wild card is sequestration. In Australia, I speculate that it is due to the huge amount of exposed rock and sand. The mild acids in the rain and the dew dissolves the rocks and sand, sequestering the CO2.
In Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland, I’ve got to assume that it has something to do with being far north and having lots of forests … but there are still lots of unanswered questions.
Anyhow, that was my fun for the morning … someone should write all of this up for the journals, I suppose, but I always feel like I have to give myself a lobotomy to write standard scientific prose.
Anyone want to go co-authors with me and handle the writing and the submission?
And my congratulations to my Argentinian, Brazilian, and Australian friends for winning the carbon lottery, they can demand climate reparations from every other country on the planet.
My best to everyone,
w.
BONUS GRAPHICS: Someone requested white color at the zero level:
And here are the breakdowns by region …
THE USUAL REQUEST: If you think that someone is wrong about something, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS. I SHOUT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT. QUOTE THEIR WORDS so that we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to. If you object to a long comment and all you link to is the comment, that’s not useful. We need to know exactly what you think is incorrect, the exact words that you find to be in error.
CODE: It’s ugly, but it’s here. It’s an 18 Mb zip file including code, functions, data (NCDF files), and product sheet. I think all parts are there, ask if you have questions.
SPREADSHEET DATA: I’ve collated the country-level data into a CSV file here.
DATA: It took a while to find it, because it’s at another website. You have to register first. Afterwards, log in, click on “Product Search and Order”, and select L4A global CO2 flux.
PRODUCT SHEET: The details of the various CO2 products are here, from the same website, not sure if you have to log in first. It’s also in my zipped file above.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At July 9, 2014 at 8:45 am you say of CO2
Well, yes and no.
The atmospheric rise is very close to linear so almost anything which is rising does correlate to it. The human CO2 emissions are cumulatively increasing so, yes, they correlate with the atmospheric increase.
But the human emissions vary and their variations don’t match variations in the atmospheric rise so, no, their correlation with the atmospheric increase is not good: in some years almost all the human emission seems to be sequestered and in other years almost none of the human emission seems to be sequestered. There are reasons which justify 3-year smoothing of the data. The IPCC uses unjustifiable 5-year smoothing of the data to obtain a match between observations and its CO2 model because the correlation is not adequate without the unjustifiable amount of smoothing.
Richard
2nd response to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:25 am
“The global seasonal change in CO2 parallels the global seasonal change in temperature: 5 ppmv/°C. The historical long term change over decennia to multi-millennia is 8 ppmv/°C. The current increase is over 100 ppmv/°C seems quite unlikely caused by temperature as the maximum increase since the LIA is some 1°C.”
————————
Ferdinand, me thinks you associating and/or correlating ….. apples to rutabagas. I really don’t care what your calculated global average temperature is or your calculated global seasonal change in temperatures are. As far as I am concerned those calculated average temperatures are …. “much ado about nothing”.
The premise of my aforementioned claim is based solely on the temperature of the water in the world’s ocean basin. But iffen you want, you can include all the water in the inland seas, lakes, rivers, swamps and canals ….. given the fact that they are also sinks and emitters of CO2.
The average air temperature does not translate directly to the water temperature and bout everyone but imbeciles and children know that to be a fact. Imbeciles and children, on the 1st “HOT” day in April or May, will jerk their clothes off and “jump into” a lake, river or large swimming pool ….. and quickly freeze their testicles “off” iffen they have a pair.
On a side note, CO2 emissions do, per se, parallel the near surface air temperatures because biomass will rot, decay and/or decompose quicker n’ faster when said temperatures are >60F. That is why it “always stinks in the city” …. on the first warm days of Spring. The microorganisms launch their “attack” on the winter “build-up” of dead biomass.
==============
“The seasonal changes are not caused by the oceans: that would increase CO2 levels”
—————
YUP, and that is exactly what I told you is happening. The ocean waters have been gradually “warming” ever since the LIA ended. And they “warm up” and “cool down” on a bi-yearly CYCLE relative to the equinoxes. And unless you can point out another “steady n’ consistent” natural cycle to explain it …. then you are just “spinning your wheels” and getting nothing resolved.
=========
“and the 13C/12C ratio with higher temperatures, but we see lower CO2 with higher temperatures and an inverse change of the 13C/12C ratio, which shows that it is vegetation which is dominant”
—————
GIMME A BREAK, …… association does not equal causation.
You don’t have a clue what all the “sinks n’ sources” are for 13C isotope. Some hardwood trees sequester 13C deep in the soil …. and you don’t know how much is there ….. or if or when it is outgassed …. or consumed by another organism.
==============
“The second is nonsense too: according to Tom van Hoof, stomata specialist, most of the stomata growth is based on the average CO2 level in the previous growing season.”
———
Are you trying to be funny or what? You have been basing your argument on a 1 to 2 ppm/year CO2 increase during the past 200+- years …. and now you criticize me for a past 1 year increase in CO2.
And ps: some plants do have a “memory” for reacting to a “repeated” environmental stimuli, …. but it is not logical for evolution to “assume anything” about the future. And I don’t think plants care much about biases and variability of CO2 because they are only sucking it in during photosynthesis activity.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:17 am
Samuel,
I think we do agree that higher temperatures give more CO2 in the atmosphere.
I think we do agree that both atmosphere and surface (ocean + land) waters increase in temperature in spring/summer. Ocean waters a lot slower than land, but increase they do. Thus oceans release more CO2 in spring/summer and absorb more CO2 in fall/winter.
But what do we see in the atmosphere? A firm drop in CO2 in spring/summer. And a firm increase of the 13C/12C ratio.
It doesn’t matter what kind of plants that (re)start to grow in spring: all plants together absorb more CO2 in spring/summer than the debris of the previous year can emit (including bacteria, insects and animals), simply because each year the whole biosphere is a net and increasing sink for CO2 and preferably 12CO2, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter if that is by C3 or C4 plants or where it is stored.
Conclusion: plant growth and decay dominates the seasonal cycle.
YUP, and that is exactly what I told you is happening.
If the cooling between the warm(er) MWP and the LIA doesn’t drop global CO2 levels with more than 6 ppmv, why would a smaller to similar increase in temperature between the LIA and current temperatures give an increase of 100+ ppmv, against all solubility laws for CO2 in seawater, at exactly the same start years and curvature as humans emitted twice the amounts in the same time frame?
Are you trying to be funny or what? You have been basing your argument on a 1 to 2 ppm/year CO2 increase during the past 200+- years …. and now you criticize me for a past 1 year increase in CO2.
We were discussing the reliability of stomata data vs. ice core CO2 data. The former are based on year by year variable, but also increasing local CO2 levels (no matter if that is over the previous growing season or momentary in spring). These depend on agriculture, industry, planting forests, draining swamps, weather, climate,… in the main wind direction. The latter are based on CO2 levels as measured in 95% of the atmosphere, but smoothed over a decade to several hundred years.
Thus while stomata data have a better resolution, their reliability as CO2 indicators is far more questionable.
richardscourtney says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am
But the human emissions vary and their variations don’t match variations in the atmospheric rise so, no, their correlation with the atmospheric increase is not good: in some years almost all the human emission seems to be sequestered and in other years almost none of the human emission seems to be sequestered.
The problem of the human emissions is that they hardly vary: the year by year variation, including the increase over the years is maximum 0.2 ppmv/year. As about halve the emissions (in quantity) remains in the atmosphere, that gives 0.1 ppmv/year, which is under the detection limit of Mauna Loa.
The net result is that no variability of the human emissions shows up in the Mauna Loa data and all variability around the trend is caused by natural variability.
Meanwhile we know that the year by year variability is caused by (tropical) vegetation as the inverse relationship between CO2 ups and downs and 13C/12C ratio ups and downs shows. But vegetation is not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, as the biosphere as a whole is a net and increasing absorber for CO2.
Human emissions do more than accommodate for the rise in the atmosphere, they are near double the rise. Human emissions are not responsible for the variability around the rise, vegetation is, but vegetation is not responsible for the rise.
As usual, correlation in this case is not causation but more important: non-correlation doesn’t prevent causation here because the variability and the trend are not caused by the same processes.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Your post at July 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm replies to my post at July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am.
Ferdinand, please read my post again because I think our two posts are saying the same things in different words.
You and I disagree about much in this subject. In my opinion, if that disagreement is to be useful then we need to recognise the things we do agree. (What one infers from the points we agree is something else.)
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I apologise if this post is a duplicate bur my first version vanished.
Your post at July 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm replies to my post at July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am.
Ferdinand, please read my post again because I think our posts say the same things in different words.
You and I disagree about very much of this subject. In my opinion, if that disagreement is to be useful then we need to be clear about the things we do agree. (What is inferred from the things we agree is something else).
Richard
Mods:
I have twice tried to post a reply to Ferdinand saying he and I are agreeing (which is unusual).
My posts have vanished. This post is both a test to see if it vanishes,too, and to ask you to check the ‘bin’ and to retrieve one of my posts if it is there.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen :
This is my fourth attempt to post in response to you. All my previous posts have vanished so please forgive me if this becomes a duplicate.
Your post at July 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm replies to my post at July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am.
Ferdinand, please read my post again because I think we are saying the same things in different words.
You and I disagree about very much in this subject. In my opinion, if our disagreement is to be useful then we need to be clear about the things we do agree. (What we infer from the things we agree is something else).
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen :
This is my third fifth attempt to post in response to you. All my previous posts have vanished so please forgive me if this becomes a duplicate.
Your post at July 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm replies to my post at July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am.
Ferdinand, please read my post again because I think we are saying the same things in different words.
You and I disagree about very much in this subject. In my opinion, if our disagreement is to be useful then we need to be clear about the things we do agree. (What we infer from the things we agree is something else).
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen :
This is my sixth attempt to post in response to you. All my previous posts have vanished so please forgive me if this becomes a duplicate.
Your post at July 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm replies to my post at July 9, 2014 at 10:47 am.
Ferdinand, please read my post again because I think we are saying the same things in different words.
You and I disagree about very much in this subject. In my opinion, if our disagreement is to be useful then we need to be clear about the things we do agree. (What we infer from the things we agree is something else).
Richard
I have not been keen on rehashing Ferdinand’s same old rationalizations on this thread. It is very simple, really. Over the past half century, the rate of change of CO2 concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly with respect to a particular baseline. To reconstruct CO2 of the past half century to high fidelity, all you need is the temperature data. Human inputs are largely superfluous.
The genuinely interesting thing about the data Willis has unearthed, to me, is the pattern exhibited in the neighborhood of large sinks, as I pointed out here regarding the neighborhood of the Congo Basin, and here regarding the Amazonian Basin. I hypothesized that, in the neighborhood of a large sink, you might see a ring of elevated CO2, and that hypothesis seems to ring true (pun intended) in these areas. It could be my eyes playing tricks on me, but other areas of high concentration also appear they might be part of a ring or crescent surrounding other potential powerful sink areas.
It stands to reason – rapid depletion of CO2 would lower the partial pressure in the immediate area, causing other CO2 to rush in, in an attempt to equalize the partial pressure, and forming a “lip” of elevated CO2 in the surrounding area. So, my question is, which of the apparent “hot spots” are due to release from a local source, and which indicate buildup on the boundary of a sink area?
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:20 pm
“But what do we see in the atmosphere? A firm drop in CO2 in spring/summer.”
———————
Absolutely correct you are on that. As well as a firm increase in CO2 in fall/winter. An almost identical 6 ppm increase as there was a drop (decrease).
But what else we see is far more important. And that is, we see that firm drop “begin” at almost exactly the same time each year, following the Vernal (March) equinox, …. just like it has been doing said for the past 56 years.
And we also see that firm increase “begin” at almost exactly the same time each year, following the Autumnal (September) equinox, …. just like it has been doing said for the past 56 years.
And they have been doing that very same thing, give or take 5 or 7 days, for the past 56 years regardless of late Springs, early Falls, warm/hot air temperatures, cool/cold air temperatures, droughts, floods, hell or high water.
Now I can predict within 2 or 3 days when said “high” and ”low” CO2 ppm counts will occur, …. but you sure as ell can’t even get close to predicting said via your Average Surface Temperature calculations.
============
“It doesn’t matter what kind of plants that (re)start to grow in spring: all plants together absorb more CO2 in spring/summer than the debris of the previous year can emit (including bacteria, insects and animals), ”
——————
One thing for sure, Ferdinand, I agree with your above statement because, like my Refrigerator/Freezer Law, it negates the “junk science” claim that wintertime rot n’ decay of biomass is the cause of increasing CO2 ppm.
And I won’t argue the C12/13C “thingy” at this time because I really haven’t studied it that much and would only be paraphrasing or mimicking much of my commentary. And I really don’t like doing said because that makes one vulnerable to someone else’s thinking.
===========
And Ferdinand, I don’t understand the reason for these 2 conjoined “quotes” in your above post, to wit:
“Conclusion: plant growth and decay dominates the seasonal cycle.
YUP, and that is exactly what I told you is happening.”
————-
I’ll accept authorship of the 2nd one, but not the 1st one cause its contrary to my thinking.
===================
“If the cooling between the warm(er) MWP and the LIA doesn’t drop global CO2 levels with more than 6 ppmv, why would a smaller to similar increase in temperature between the LIA and current temperatures give an increase of 100+ ppmv, against all solubility laws for CO2 in seawater, at exactly the same start years and curvature as humans emitted twice the amounts in the same time frame?”
—————-
Well now, iffen that question was directed at me, my answer would be:
Me thinks your “6 ppmv” figure is an estimated guess based on proxy data and I consider ALL proxy data as reference data ONLY and not to be used as FACTUAL science evidence. And likewise for your stated “100+ ppmv” figure.
============
“We were discussing the reliability of stomata data vs. ice core CO2 data. The former are based on year by year variable, but also increasing local CO2 levels (no matter if that is over the previous growing season or momentary in spring). These depend on …..”
—————
Me thinks you were obfuscating a tad bit there in your above commentary.
Bart says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Bart, since our latest discussions I have plotted the δ13C rate of change together with the CO2 rate of change. That shows that the short term variability in CO2 rate of change is mainly caused by vegetation:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
and the variability in vegetation uptake is quite certainly caused by temperature variability.
But vegetation is certainly not the cause of the positive trend in rate of change of CO2, as it is a proven, increasing, sink for CO2 based on the oxygen balance. Thus at maximum the CO2 rate of change caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation is zero, but in general slightly negative. That is the opposite to the observed slopes. The same for the δ13C slope: the observed slope is strongly negative, but increasing CO2 uptake by vegetation gives a positive slope in δ13C and a zero to positive slope in δ13C rate of change, while the observed slope in δ13C rate of change is slightly negative.
Thus even if temperature causes both the short term variability and the slope of the rate of change, that are two separate, independent processes. That also means that the factor used to match the slopes and the factor needed to match the amplitude of the variations are independent of each other.
Moreover, as there is no link between the short term variability and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere or the increase of the rate of change of CO2, there is no obvious reason to think that temperature is the main driver for the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The more that there is another candidate which fits both the increase in the atmosphere and the increase in rate of change: human emissions…
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:31 am
I’ll accept authorship of the 2nd one, but not the 1st one cause its contrary to my thinking.
Sorry, the formatting was not very good: the first sentence was my emphasizing of the end result, the second was a new quote out of your reply…
Then about your thinking: all you need to know about the 13C/12C ratio is that ocean’s CO2 is higher in 13C/12C ratio, while CO2 from plants and (indirect) plant eaters is much lower in 13C/12C ratio compared to the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.
That makes it quit easy to know where the CO2 changes in the atmosphere originate. If CO2 levels go up and δ13C (a measure of the 13C/12C ratio) goes up, then the oceans are the cause. If δ13C is going down with increasing CO2 levels, then vegetation (or fossil vegetation by humans) are the cause.
In the case of the seasonal changes, δ13C goes up when CO2 goes down and δ13C goes down when CO2 goes up. Thus vegetation is dominant. That also can be seen by the fact that there is hardly any seasonal variation in the SH: more ocean and less vegetation.
Thus your reasoning is not what the observations show. BTW, you underestimate the amounts of CO2 delivered from bacterial life even at -20°C if isolated under a snow deck…
Me thinks you were obfuscating a tad bit there in your above commentary
As discussed with Richard: ice cores are not proxies, they are direct measurements of ancient CO2 levels (and many more gases), be it a mix of several years to several hundred years. The current increase is over 100 ppmv, but if you only accept the direct measurements, it is already over 70 ppmv. That would even be measurable in the worst resolution ice cores over the past 800,000 years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:41 am
“In the case of the seasonal changes, δ13C goes up when CO2 goes down and δ13C goes down when CO2 goes up. Thus vegetation is dominant. That also can be seen by the fact that there is hardly any seasonal variation in the SH: more ocean and less vegetation.”
———————–
Ferdinand, now that sounds reasonable and logical, but ………..
At the December solstice the furthest reaches of the SH oceans “technically” start their cool down along with the ingassing of CO2 and at the Vernal (March) equinox the entire SH oceans are “technically” in cool down mode and sucking up CO2. Now I said “technically” because the actual cooling of the surface water is delayed due to the horrendous volume of “warm” sub-surface water.
Now by mid-May the aforesaid “delay” is terminated and the entire SH ocean is “sucking up” CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 ppm starts decreasing. …… And the δ13C ppm decreases also, but probably not by very much or for very long …. if this has anything to do with it, to wit:
Excerpted P# 2417 of: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2008/nrs_2008_doctor_001.pdf
“Seasonal trends
Downstream transects were also sampled in June and July, 2003. Downstream increases in υ13C DIC were greater and more rapid in the summer months than during the snowmelt periods (Figure 9). The transect samples collected in June and July showed an increase in υ13CDIC of 3‰ within the first 20 m of stream flow, while in the snowmelt period a 3‰ increase in υ13C-DIC took place over a distance of 450 m.
The rationale for using the carbon isotope value of DIC as a tracer of stream-flow processes stems from the large υ13C difference generally observed between soil waters which obtain most of their DIC from respired soil CO2, and groundwater which obtains DIC from a mixture of soil CO2 and carbonate minerals (Deines et al., 1974).
Due to this difference (often of the order 10‰), the υ13C of DIC can discriminate between soil water and groundwater contributions to streamflow during recharge events (Kendall et al., 1992).”
—————————
Ferdinand, according to the above study the outgassing of CO2 from freshwater sources in the Northern Hemisphere will be extremely high in δ13C during the months of June thru September. The δ13C from soil CO2 and carbonate minerals dominate.
Now whatta ya got to say about that?
@ur momisugly Ferdinand:
“BTW, you underestimate the amounts of CO2 delivered from bacterial life even at -20°C if isolated under a snow deck…”
———————-
OH GOOD GRIEF, ….. you are comparing one (1) snow deck to the entire Northern Hemisphere?
I don’t care where you are at, …. if the temperature drops below 60F most all microbial reduction of dead biomass starts decreasing also and continues to slow up as the temperature decreases to 32F. That is why your Mother owns a refrigerator. (it’s just not for beer, ya know)
Cold temperatures do not affect molds as much but they don’t cause rotting or decaying either. A “moldy” piece of beef taken from the “cooler” sure makes for fine eating after it is has been “grilled” to medium-rare status.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:08 am
Now by mid-May the aforesaid “delay” is terminated and the entire SH ocean is “sucking up” CO2 and the atmospheric CO2 ppm starts decreasing
That doesn’t fit the curves. The main downward trend in CO2 and upward trend of δ13C in May-June is in the NH, while the SH shows a slight increase in CO2 and little change in δ13C. There is little exchange between the hemispheres (10% of all air mass over a year) which makes that also CO2 changes are only slowly distributed between the hemispheres.
That report is about fresh water, not the oceans.
While fresh water is warming faster that the ocean surface, pure fresh water contains about 1% of the CO2 (as DIC) than seawater. That is because fresh water in general is slightly acidic, while seawater is slightly alkaline. But of course if rainwater flows over carbonate rock it gets more alkaline and gets higher DIC by dissolving some of the rock.
Because the low quantities dissolved in fresh water, I don’t think that this plays much role in the seasonal variation, the more that most of the time the δ13C was far below atmospheric δ13C (currently at -8 per mil), thus most releases out of fresh water would lower the δ13C of the atmosphere, while we see a maximum during the summer months. This points BTW to the influence of soluble organic debris in the waters (which is measured as DOC = dissolved organic carbon)
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:37 am
if the temperature drops below 60F most all microbial reduction of dead biomass starts decreasing also and continues to slow up as the temperature decreases to 32F
You forget that snow isolates and that microbiological decay is exothermic. Why do you think that a lot of animals (and humans in earlier times) shelter under snow or in a pile of compost?
Of course it slows down in winter and more in steppe than in forests and more to the North than in areas where winters are less harsh, but vegetation decay goes on all winter…
But we have been there before…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm
“That doesn’t fit the curves.”
——————
Ferdinand, one of the only “fit the curves” thingy that gets my attention is a tight fitting pair of jeans on a well proportioned female.
==============
“The main downward trend in CO2 and upward trend of δ13C in May-June is in the NH, while the SH shows a slight increase in CO2 and little change in δ13C.”
————–
SO, ….. that is EXACTLY what my above quoted scientific study PROVES is occurring. And how can there be a slight increase in CO2 in May-June in the SH when the ocean waters there have been ingassin CO2 ever since the Winter solstice occurred four (4) months earlier.
“There is little exchange between the hemispheres (10% of all air mass over a year) which makes that also CO2 changes are only slowly distributed between the hemispheres.”
——————–
Ferdinand, quit trying to “bedazzle” me. First you said that “δ13C goes up and down”. And now you are saying “δ13C only goes up and down in the NH”.
So tell me big boy, ….. just where in hell in the NH are you actually conducting your measurement of atmospheric δ13C?
And the “amount of time” between exchanges in/of the hemispheric air masses ….. depends on where one is standing. If one is standing on the Equator they are pretty damn quick.
But if one is measuring said exchanges between Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, @ur momisugly 20°N, 156°W …. and the Halley Research Station, Antarctica, @ur momisugly 75°S, 26°W, …… said exchanges can be pretty damn slow in comparison because those locations are one fourth (1/4) the world away from each other. But, ….. their monthly/yearly CO2 ppm measurements still “track” each other steady n’ consistently year after year after year, …… to wit: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_spo_record.pdf
============
“That report is about fresh water, not the oceans.”
—————
WOW, and when did you get your 1st clue that it was fresh water?
You are getting me irritated, Ferdinand. I do not require or have need of your juvenile orientated Science lecture on the Environment, nor need of you telling me what I read in that cited study, therefore if you would restrict your commentary to actual, factual evidence or proofs that supports your argument or negates mine …… then we will get along a lot better.
Highers, and lowers, and curvers, and averagers …… mean nothing to me, OK.
==============
“…. that most of the time the δ13C was far below atmospheric δ13C (currently at -8 per mil), thus most releases out of fresh water would lower the δ13C of the atmosphere,”
————-
Really now? So, the more the outgassing of δ13C CO2 into the atmosphere increases, ……. the more the atmospheric δ13C CO2 ppm quantity decreases. That’s AMAZING.
=================
“You forget that snow isolates and that microbiological decay is exothermic”
————–
YUP, and so is the detonation of a stick of dynamite exothermic. The subject is not how much energy a biological reaction will generate, ….. the subject is the minimum temperatures required for a biological or chemical process to occur.
And in that you are apparently inferring or claiming that all the CO2 produced via the microbiological decay underneath that snow pack is escaping into the atmosphere, ….. then you are defacto claiming that all Ice Core proxy data is FUBAR. Of course I will agree with you that it is FUBAR ….. but not for the same reason.
Ferdinand, ask your Mommy what the “secret” is to making great chocolate fudge candy when “heating” the ingredients for said in a pot on top of a stove “burner”?
A Night Class in Bacteriology and/or Organic Chemistry would do wonder for your thinking and reasoning abilities concerning the above subject matter.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:03 am
Sorry, but I don’t think that further discussion will help you understand what happens with CO2 over the seasons…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:23 am
You are correct on that point …. because it requires facts, evidence, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions to suay my understanding of a specific entity.
Willis Eschenbach,
I just watched Dr Spencer’s Keynote Speech at !CCC9.
Do you think it would be information to lay his “Global Greening” chart over you “Net CO2 FLUX” chart in this thread?
Lets try that again
Willis Eschenbach,
I just watched Dr Spencer’s Keynote Speech at [ICCC9].
Do you think it would be informative to lay his “Global Greening” chart over your “Net CO2 FLUX” chart in this thread?
PMHinSC says:
July 14, 2014 at 1:32 pm
If you can get me his chart I’m happy to try …
w.