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.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:12 pm
I’m aware of measurements higher than 280 ppm in the 19th century, but they were taken in or near cities in smoky, CO2 rich industrial Europe. I’d be happy if it could be conclusively demonstrated, for instance, that CO2 was higher during the Medieval Warm Period (or even the LIA) than now, but it really doesn’t matter, since CO2 isn’t mainly responsible for whatever warming may actually have occurred since the 19th century & continued growth in the life-giving gas won’t produce any catastrophes. Higher ocean temperatures increase atmospheric concentration, but not IMO enough to account for the supposedly observed gain.
“The problem I see with this kind of theoretical exercises is that it is all frequency analysis, which largely explains the short term response of CO2 to temperature, but human emissions have no frequency (or maybe an extremely long one) and no detectable response to the small variations in human input.
Everything can be broken down in to series of frequencies even a linear rise. That is the basis of Fourier analysis.. If there’s no detectable response to the small variations in human input your hypothesis has a problem.
“Thus all you do is trying to explain a long term trend from short term variability, while one of the largest input factors, about twice the observed increase in the atmosphere AND twice the inter-annual variability, goes undetected in a frequency analyses…”
No, what I’m doing is showing that if the short term variations are well explained by temperature then someone needs to assess what the long term is instead of assuming it’s negligible and making baseless comparisons to the flip between two difference states of the climate system.
The human emissions will not go undetected in a frequency analysis.
While you can be quite informative at times, you are clearly well out of your zone of competence on this stuff. I suggest you stop trying to discuss something you do not understand.
richardscourtney says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:01 pm
that is merely an iteration of your misplaced belief that ice cores are sample bottles. That proxy data does NOT indicate actual historical atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Of course, if you don’t like the data, the data must be wrong.
Ice cores indeed are little sample bottles. Not snapshots of ancient atmospheres, but time weighted averages over the period that the pores in the snow were still open to the atmosphere.
These averages are between a decade for the past 150 years to 560 years for the past 800,000 years.
That are not proxies, but accurate (1.2 ppmv – 1 sigma) direct measurements of CO2 itself.
BTW, the ice cores show a similar trend as coralline sponges for δ13C changes with a resolution of 2-4 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Coralline sponges show the same δ13C changes as the surrounding seawater, which is in close contact with the atmosphere. Quite remarkable that the “sample bottles” in ice cores show similar changes over the past 600 years…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Your post at July 7, 2014 at 1:39 pm is silly. Ice cores are NOT sample bottles for a variety of regions which we have repeatedly discussed.
However, if ice cores were sample bottles then their indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration would have similar temporal resolution to the stomata data: they don’t.
Richard
Greg Goodman says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:33 pm
No, what I’m doing is showing that if the short term variations are well explained by temperature then someone needs to assess what the long term is instead of assuming it’s negligible and making baseless comparisons to the flip between two difference states of the climate system.
OK, I was out of my depth for frequency analyses, but I am well aware of what happens with (physico-chemical) processes.
As the plot of the inter-annual variability shows, temperature causes an increase of the CO2 rate of change and an opposite decrease of δ13C, which is a response of vegetation on this kind of temperature variability. Further investigation has shown that it was mainly a response of tropical vegetation on temperature and rain patterns, but that is not important here. What is important is that the response is from vegetation.
The longer term trend over the past 1.5 decade shows that vegetation is a net absorber for CO2 of about 1 GtC/year and increasing.
Ergo, the temperature influence on short-term CO2 rate of change variability and the temperature influence on longer term CO2 rate of change are opposite to each other in the case of vegetation.
That leaves the question of what caused the long term increase of CO2 and its rate of change.
There is no reason to use temperature as the driver of the recent increase: historical ratios show some 8 ppmv/°C. Henry’s Law gives 17 ppmv/°C as change in equilibrium for the oceans (without counting the reaction by vegetation). Vegetation is a proven net sink and the oceans are (sparsely) measured net sinks for CO2. Moreover, ocean releases would increase the atmospheric δ13C level, while there is a record decrease observed.
There are a lot of reasons to accept that human emissions are the cause: that fits all observations while all alternatives I have heard of violate one or more observations…
If there’s no detectable response to the small variations in human input your hypothesis has a problem
The year by year change of human emissions is maximum some 0.2 ppmv. After all absorption processes some 0.1 ppmv of that variability may be left. The detection limit of Mauna Loa is somewhat better than 0.2 ppmv. Thus these small variations over a year go undetected. That was reason for Bart even at the beginning of the discussions to discard human emissions as cause of the increase…
My question exactly. How does this breakdown per capita?
richardscourtney says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:56 pm
However, if ice cores were sample bottles then their indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration would have similar temporal resolution to the stomata data: they don’t.
Richard, you know that this can’t be true: ice cores are sample bottles of a mix of several years of air. Their resolution is a matter of snow accumulation rate which gives the years needed to seal the pores from the atmosphere into isolated bubbles. But ice core CO2 still is directly measured as CO2, even if it is a mixture of several years. For those interested in the age distribution, see fig.11 in:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
Stomata data are CO2 proxies, with all the problems that gives: reacting on local CO2 levels over land, already biased compared to “background”, a bias which may change with climate, wind direction and land use changes in the main wind direction…
Thus bluntly said: if there is a discrepancy between stomata data and ice core data averaged over the same period longer than the resolution of the ice core, then the stomata data are certainly wrong…
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At July 7, 2014 at 1:56 pm I wrote
At July 7, 2014 at 2:49 pm you have replied saying
Yes, Ferdinand. And sample bottles do not take several years to seal while several processes happen to their contents while they seal.
We could go through all this yet again, but there is no need because your answer confirms that ice cores are not sample bottles, and their contents do not have the annual resolution of stomata data because they do not perform like sample bottles.
Richard
There is nothing new here.
At the turn of the century scientists produced peer reviewed papers while working at Princeton University and undertook to measure CO2 on the ground by taking measurements off the coast of North America in the Pacific, and took measurements at various points across North America. They observed that the prevailing air blowing in from the Pacific from Eurasia, had elevated CO2 levels which were generally reduced or ocasionally added to, as the air traversed across America on the prevailing winds. Coastal California industry elevated the levels but the CO2 was bio-sequestered and lowered as it transited across California’s agricultural lands and then western forest, rangelands and grasslands before being severely depleted in the rich agricultural wheat and cornfields of mid America. CO2 levels elevated a bit in the American “Ruhr Valley” industrial cities before falling once again until it raised a bit on the Eastern Seaboards cities before exiting into the Atlantic. But the air going into the Atlantic was depleted in CO2 versus the air entering from the Pacific indicating that America was a vast CO2 sink despite its industrialization and advanced civilization.
Many Americans grew wealthy transforming that bio-sequestered CO2 into lumber, paper, meat and agricultural products. They used the wealth, to purchase industrial products of increasing cost and sophistication, like our transportation vehicles cars, trucks, locomotives and planes which don’t pollute like their predecessors once did.
The Greens managed to suppress and ignore this information for a decade or more as it didn’t fit their agenda of Global Warming and western “Guilt” and “Blame America First”, as a source for their elitist skimming of funds.
Proving once again Abe Lincoln’s aphorism is true. “You can fool some of the people all the time; and all the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people, all of the time”. The Truth is coming out.
stas peterson:
Thankyou for your post at July 7, 2014 at 4:05 pm.
It is good to see that some sanity and empirical reality has been returned to this thread.
Importantly, the kinds of issues which you report for the continental US require consideration for the entire planet. The satellites provide the possibility of obtaining information which will allow such considerations to displace all the various models based on assumptions and beliefs.
Richard
Have a look at this link. Well worth a read:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683560/Green-group-lobbyists-drafted-White-House-energy-policy-tit-tat-revenge-against-secret-Bush-Cheney-oil-industry-meetings.html
All of this begs the question (formal sense). It assumes CO2 is harmful, in defiance of all biology. Consider that over geological time, all the O2 in the atmosphere is sourced and sustained by CO2 breakdown by vegetation.
As for land vs. ocean, a recent NASA satellite survey indicated that the Amazon balanced on a diurnal basis, but the runoff into the oceans fed and stimulated a major plankton bloom in the Atlantic, boosting O2 levels.
richardscourtney says:
July 7, 2014 at 3:11 pm
You’re good at word games that distract attention from the essence: that ice cores show real ancient CO2 levels, while stomata data are proxies with all the problems this entails.
See the similarity between ice core data and the South Pole data with an overlap of ~ 20 years (1960-1980):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
And the problems of the calibration of stomata data with direct measurements and… ice core data over the past century:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/stomata.jpg
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I strongly object to your psychological projection at July 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm where you write.
NO! How dare you?!
Stomata data and ice core data are proxies. They each have uses but neither is a direct measure.
YOU are using “word games” by pretending the ice cores act as sample bottles. THEY DO NOT!
I cited evidence that they do not and you agreed it, but you tried to overcome that by saying the “bottles” trapped average air of several years (actually it is decades). No sample bottle collects a temporal average amount of sample.
Stomata data and ice core data are useful proxies for ancient atmospheric CO2 concentration. But it is plain wrong to accept either as a direct measure. Indeed, the stomata data are the nearer to a direct measure because stomata of present day leaves grown in atmospheric CO2 values under laboratory conditions can provide direct calibration for stomata data. No such calibration is possible for the ice core data.
Claiming that either stomata data or ice core data are not proxies is a “word game” called falsehood.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 8, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Richard, where I used to work they had to sample waste water in ratio to the exit flow. That was collected in one flask, sealed and sent to the government. Still one sample bottle, but the weighted average over a few weeks of waste water flows. It allowed the government to calculate the exact water pollution from the factory after waste water treatment.
Ice cores do the same for air: they sample air over a certain time frame as a weighted, asymmetric average, more from recent years than from earlier years. That allows researchers to exactly measure the average CO2 level over a certain time frame.
That time frame depends of the snow accumulation rate and is less than a decade for 2 out of 3 Law Dome ice cores and up to 600 years for the Vostok ice core.
And like it or not: ice cores CO2 is directly measured as CO2. Calling a direct measurement a “proxy” is a distortion of the truth.
Richard,
Indeed, the stomata data are the nearer to a direct measure because stomata of present day leaves grown in atmospheric CO2 values under laboratory conditions can provide direct calibration for stomata data. No such calibration is possible for the ice core data.
Besides that there is no “calibration” needed for CO2 in ice cores (except for the analytical methods themselves), the 20 year overlap with atmospheric measurements and additional measurements in firn top down until sealing depth confirmed that ice cores are reliable for ancient air averages.
And do you really believe that one can calibrate stomata (index) data in a laboratory? I like to see the data and compare them to field data (the absolute data, not the calibrated ones!).
Even if the stomata data are not influenced by other variables than CO2 at all (which is not true), they are reflecting local CO2 levels “averaged” over the previous growing season. Any idea how the local CO2 level changed over the centuries in the main wind direction(s) with changing land use?
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at July 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm.
If you really have managed to convince yourself that ice cores are sample bottles then you have deluded yourself.
As you know, the ice core proxies provide different ice age and gas age for the same core sample. That also demonstrates the ice does NOT act as a sample bottle.
Look, I keep telling you that the ice core data and the stomata data are proxies. I do not need to pretend that either of them provides a direct measurement because I am not claiming either method provides a direct measurement. You are making that claim while I am saying neither is a direct measurement. But I do know that one proxy (stomata) can be calibrated for known conditions and the other (ice) cannot.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Richard, what has a difference in age between ice and enclosed gas to do with the quality of the ice data or the gas data? Simply nothing. The ice is only a container for the air mixture, which is younger in average than the surrounding ice for the simple reason that the pores still are open years to centuries after the snow did settle.
As several stomata series are based on oak leaves, how do you calibrate the stomata data from leaves of a 500 year old oak in a laboratory under known conditions? But even in the case of experiments in greenhouses, 48% of all species tested respond as expected to changes in CO2. In open top chambers, which resemble more real life conditions, that is reduced to only 13%, due to increased influence of confounding factors… See:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/RPP.pdf
Chapter 4 is also of interest: “Potential confounding factors”.
This Stomatal Index study found Allerød pollen zone (c. 12,760 cal yr BP) of c. 400 to 425 ppm. The authors note, “This datapoint is constructed with only two leaves and may be an outlier (although note concurrent peak in the Loss On Ignition record).”
http://www.academia.edu/2949675/Stomatal_proxy_record_of_CO2_concentrations_from_the_last_termination_suggests_an_important_role_for_CO2_at_climate_change_transitions
I don’t think that CO2 does play an important role in glacial/interglacial transitions, but even this one possibly spurious result should give pause to wonder how reliable CO2 reconstructions are from all proxy data.
milodonharlani says:
July 7, 2014 at 1:29 pm
“Higher ocean temperatures increase atmospheric concentration, but not IMO enough to account for the supposedly observed gain.”
————
milodonharlani, it is your stated ….. “supposedly observed gain”, …. the yearly one of “1.5 to 2 ppm” that is, …. that IMO defines the higher or increasing ocean temperature as the culprit responsible for said yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
And my above claim of culpability is based solely on the ….”supposedly observed bi-yearly gain and loss” …… of an average “6 ppm” of atmospheric CO2 as measured at the Mona Loa research facility in Hawaii.
The above stated “1.5 to 2 ppm” average yearly increase in CO2 ppm ….. as well as said average “6 ppm” bi-yearly cycling (increases/decreases) of atmospheric CO2 can easily or readily be observed either on the Keeling Curve Graph or on NOAA’s ERSL data base of monthly average CO2 ppm calculations for every month from April 1958 thru to the month of June 2014.
Keeling Curve graph: http://blogs.redding.com/redding/dcraig/600px_mlo_record.jpg
NOAA’s ERSL data base: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Now concerning the “accounting for” the supposedly observed gain, IMO there is insufficient knowledge of all the different emitters and sinks of CO2 for anyone to make even a reasonable guess as to the primary source(s) of said gain ….. let alone calculate an exact amount or quantity of said CO2. The only figure that is reasonably accurate is the calculated daily average of CO2 ppm as measured high in the atmosphere atop Mona Loa where the “noise” caused by H2O vapor is nil to nothing. And subsequently, the calculated weekly, monthly and yearly CO2 ppm averages are also reasonably accurate.
Now Mother Nature performs several different functions or actions that one could describe as being “cyclic”, but none of which could be described as being truly cyclic that “cycles” on a specific time/date year after year after year except the seasonal or equinox cycles that are determined by the earth’s orbit around the Sun.
Now both the Keeling Curve Graph and/or NOAA’s ERSL data base defines a “steady and consistent” 1.5 to 2 ppm average yearly increase in CO2 ppm for every year in succession for the past 56 years ….. as well as a “steady and consistent” average 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 for every year in succession for the past 56 years.
Now there is nothing else in the natural world, nor is there anything that humanity has or is doing …… that is or has been “steady and consistent” for each and every year for the past 56 years, … therefore the primary driver of the 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm has to be the seasonal changes in the temperature of surface water of the world’s oceans.
And this can be verified by the “yearly high” and “yearly low” of the CO2 ppm that always occurs “just like clockwork” following the Spring and Fall Equinoxes ….. with the “yearly high” always occurring around mid-May of each year …… and the “yearly low” always occurring last days of September or first days in October of each year. The “yearly high” in mid-May lags behind the Spring equinox simply because it requires more days to “cool down” the surface waters of the Southern Hemisphere ocean than it does to “warm them back up” after the Fall equinox. The 6 ppm variance is due to the different in the ocean “surface area” of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
To view a Keeling Curve graph with included equinox and ppm notations, click this url link:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
richardscourtney says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Said to” Ferdinand Engelbeen:
“Look, I keep telling you that the ice core data and the stomata data are proxies. I do not need to pretend that either of them provides a direct measurement because I am not claiming either method provides a direct measurement. You are making that claim while I am saying neither is a direct measurement”
——————
My learned opinion is, ….. you are both wrong.
The ice core proxies do not provide a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 …… whereas stomata proxies do provide a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2.
Keeling proved that there was TOO DAMN MUCH NOISE to measure CO2 ppm at or near the surface due to the different air masses moving in and out of the area. H2O vapor ppm will screw up the count. And so will snowfall. And it’s not always snowfall that traps the CO2, wind blown snow will trap it quicker. And pack it tight, too, Much, much tighter than falling snow, which has to “settle” to become tightly packed.
Plants do not grow forty-eleven stomata on each leaf because it figures there won’t be very much CO2 in the air. Nor do they only grow 1 dozen stomata on each leaf because it figures there will be great amounts of CO2 in the air. The stomata are produced as the leaf grows to full size … and the number of stomata is determined by the amount of CO2 in the air at the time of leaf growth.
Thus, the number of stomata per leaf “surface area” …. is equivalent to a thermometer reading at “time n’ place”.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:24 pm
IIRC correctly my first ever public comment on global warming in the 1980s was that science doesn’t know all the sinks, so how can we even estimate what CO2 might be in 2100, for starters. Or maybe it was about this interglacial compared to previous ones. But what I said then about sinks hasn’t changed much in the subsequent 30-odd years (some very odd indeed).
But I don’t overly concern myself with the source of increased CO2, whether human or natural, since its climatic effect is so limited. Would be nice to know, but for policy purposes doesn’t really matter, since even if the presumed increase is all our fault, so far it’s a good thing & likely to remain so.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:24 pm
Now there is nothing else in the natural world, nor is there anything that humanity has or is doing …… that is or has been “steady and consistent” for each and every year for the past 56 years, … therefore the primary driver of the 6 ppm bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm has to be the seasonal changes in the temperature of surface water of the world’s oceans.
You are right and wrong on several counts:
– Natural increase/decrease is quite constant over every season again, but the increase after a full seasonal cycle is not constant. It is slightly quadratic increasing over time and so are human emissions. The latter are two times higher than the observed increase over time:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
There is a near fit between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere at 50-55% of the emissions. The fit of temperature with the CO2 increase is more problematic.
– 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.
– The seasonal changes are not caused by the oceans: that would increase CO2 levels 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:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
The SH has less vegetation and more ocean and shows little variation over the seasons.
– Any warming of the oceans will not give more than 17 ppmv/°C extra CO2 in the atmosphere (Henry’s Law). Not 100+ ppmv. The 100 ppmv above the temperature controlled equilibrium actually pushes more CO2 into the oceans.
The ice core proxies do not provide a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 …… whereas stomata proxies do provide a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2.
The first is nonsense: they measure CO2, CH4, CFC’s, Ar, N2, O2 and any gas you want directly in the air bubbles either by crushing the ice under vacuum and GC or NDIR apparatus or by sublimating all ice and trapping all gases cryogenically and measuring them successively over a mass spectrometer for the mass of different isotopes. The only drawback is that the ice core bubbles are a mixture of several years to centuries, depending of snow accumulation rate.
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. But even so, stomata (index) levels are influenced by drought and several other factors. And last but not least, stomata data are by definition measured in plants which grow on land, where there is a huge bias (and lots of variability) compared to “background” CO2 as measured over Antarctica. Nobody knows how the bias changed over the centuries… Here the local bias at Giessen, Germany, semi-rural, over a few years compared to Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg
To use your thermometer example: stomata data is equivalent to trying to deduce a global average temperature from a thermometer placed over an asphalt parking lot…
1st response to: Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:25 am
“You are right and wrong on several counts:”
——————–
Of course I’m RIGHT on the only “count” that matters.
===================
“– Natural increase/decrease is quite constant over every season again, but the increase after a full seasonal cycle is not constant.”
—————-
DUH, the increase after a full seasonal cycle has also been quite constant for the past 50 years …. with an average increase of 1 to 2 ppm per year. To wit:
year ——————— CO2 ppm – % increase — avg ppm increase/decade
Decade end 1940 – ____ 300 ppm est.
Decade end 1950 – ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% (avg 1.0 ppm/year)
Decade end 1960 – ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% (avg 0.6 ppm/year)
Decade end 1970 – ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% (avg 0.9 ppm/year)
Decade end 1980 – ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% (avg 1.3 ppm/year)
Decade end 1990 – ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% (avg 1.6 ppm/year)
Decade end 2000 – ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% (avg 1.5 ppm/year)
Decade end 2010 – ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% (avg 2.0 ppm/year)
Year end _ 2012 – ____ 393 ppm – 1.0% (avg 2.0 ppm/year)
And the exponential INCREASE in world population has no effect on it, to wit:
Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade
year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.1% —— 1.0 ppm/year
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 3.2% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.7% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 3.8% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.5% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.3% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.1% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2012 – 7,057,075,000 – 3.62% ____ 394 ppm – 1.3% —– 2.5 ppm/year
Based on the above statistics, to wit:
Fact #1 – In 70 years – population increased 198% – CO2 increased 29% – Heat Islands increased est. 300/400+%
Fact #2 – Atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for the past 70 years, …… whereas human generated CO2 releases have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Fact #3 – Global Temperatures have been steadily and consistently increasing a few hundredths or tenths of a degree for the past 70 years, ……. whereas human created infrastructure, housing, vehicles, etc. (Heat Islands) have been increasing exponentially every year for the past 70 years.
Conclusions:
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
• Increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and world population increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and Heat Islands construction increases.
• Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
But then of course, …… I am not looking through Rose Colored Glasses.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 9, 2014 at 6:31 am
Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 70 years there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:
– Increases in Average Global Temperature and atmospheric CO2 ppm increases.
Agreed with this and all other points. The correlation is between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
Human emissions are not only caused by population growth but also by increasing industrialization and increasing wealth… That gives a slope in the year by year increase rate of CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg