While CO2 has increased to “record” levels, the pause in global temperature continues.
Via AP: Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post’s account: The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world.
Here is the press release:
Record Greenhouse Gas Levels Impact Atmosphere and Oceans
Carbon Dioxide Concentration Surges
Geneva, 9 September 2014 (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, propelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide. This is according to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which injected even greater urgency into the need for concerted international action against accelerating and potentially devastating climate change.
The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin showed that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.
In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.
The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984. Preliminary data indicated that this was possibly related to reduced CO2 uptake by the earth’s biosphere in addition to the steadily increasing CO2 emissions.
The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations – and not emissions – of greenhouse gases. Emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere. Concentrations represent what remains in the atmosphere after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans. About a quarter of the total emissions are taken up by the oceans and another quarter by the biosphere, reducing in this way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ocean cushions the increase in CO2 that would otherwise occur in the atmosphere, but with far-reaching impacts. The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”
“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making. We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The inclusion of a section on ocean acidification in this issue of WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is appropriate and needed. It is high time the ocean, as the primary driver of the planet’s climate and attenuator of climate change, becomesa central part of climate change discussions,” said Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.
“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be, since its effects are already being felt and will increase for many decades to come. I echo WMO Secretary General Jarraud’s concern – we ARE running out of time,” she said.
Atmospheric Concentrations
Carbon dioxide accounted for 80% of the 34% increase in radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2013, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index.
On the global scale, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 396.0 parts per million in 2013. The atmospheric increase of CO2 from 2012 to 2013 was 2.9 parts per million, which is the largest annual increase for the period 1984-2013. Concentrations of CO2 are subject to seasonal and regional fluctuations. At the current rate of increase, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross the symbolic 400 parts per million threshold in 2015 or 2016.
Methane is the second most important long-lived greenhouse gas. Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (e.g., wetlands and termites), and about 60 % comes from human activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning. Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1824 parts per billion (ppb) in 2013, due to increased emissions from anthropogenic sources. Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been increasing again after a temporary period of leveling-off.
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%), including oceans, soil, biomass burning, fertilizer use, and various industrial processes. Its atmospheric concentration in 2013 was about 325.9 parts per billion. Its impact on climate, over a 100-year period, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of carbon dioxide. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
Ocean Acidification:
For the first time, this Bulletin contains a section on ocean acidification prepared in collaboration with the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO), the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), and the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OA-ICC) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The ocean currently absorbs one-fourth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, reducing the increase in atmospheric CO2 that would otherwise occur because of fossil fuel combustion. Enhanced ocean CO2 uptake alters the marine carbonate system and lead to increasing acidity. The ocean’s acidity increase is already measurable as oceans take up about 4 kilogrammes of CO2 per day per person.
The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, based on proxy-data from paleo archives. In the future, acidification will continue to accelerate at least until mid-century, based on projections from Earth system models.
The potential consequences of ocean acidification on marine organisms are complex. A major concern is the response of calcifying organisms, such as corals, algae, mollusks and some plankton, because their ability to build shell or skeletal material (via calcification) depends on the abundance of carbonate ion. For many organisms, calcification declines with increased acidification. Other impacts of acidification include reduced survival, development, and growth rates as well as changes in physiological functions and reduced biodiversity.
===========================================
But despite all this, there is still no warming in the lower troposphere:
and no warming at the surface:
NOTE: (added) Some people saw the green line in the figure above as a trend line. It is not. It is a comparison line to show the similarity of global temperatures 19 years apart in relation to McKittrick’s paper on the pause. It simply shows the “plateau” of temperatures has not changed much since then. To see more about the pause in trends, this essay will be informative.
FTA: “The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984.”
This is the same legerdemain as those insisting that global warming hasn’t stopped because current temperatures are at record levels. Of course, the top of a plateau is higher than surrounding areas. It does not change the fact that the plateau is flat.
Since the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperatures, it is the same fallacy. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is not accelerating, but emissions are:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/CO2_zps330ee8fa.jpg
Bart,
I clicked on your link. This is not clear. What does this word “affine” signify, other than “in-laws”? I looked it up, still not clear.
If CO2 does not increase with any close correlation to human emissions, and furthermore half or more of human emissions each year are not seen in the increase in CO2, I would suspect as you point out that something else may be responsible for the increase in CO2. It is not simply warming oceans, as LeChatelier’s Principle tells us. Ocean chemistry is non-trivial. Could there be something going on in the oceans that causes this?
Do you have any likely candidates? I think this strange lack of correlation between human emissions and CO2 annual increases should be investigated. It might be very very important, let human emissions off the hook!
“Affine” basically means a scale factor and an offset. You can see the scale factor and offset I used at the link.
My own hypothesis for what is happening is discussed here.
Michael, the correlation between the short term (2-3 years) temperature variation and the variability in the rate of change of CO2 is clear. That is mainly caused by the influence of temperature (and precipitation) on the tropical forests by ENSO (El Niño / La Niña). But that influence is gone after a few years.
There is no correlation between the steady increasing human emissions and the rate of change for the simple reason that the year by year variability is too small to be detected in the Mauna Loa data.
Therefore Bart thinks that the rise in CO2 is also temperature driven, but that is anyway caused by a different process than the year by year variability, as vegetation is NOT the cause of the increase over longer term, it is a net, increasing absorber of CO2 since the 1990’s.
Bart’s theory is that there was an increased influx from the deep oceans. Including the small temperature increase, that should give the steady increase in the derivatives. But human emissions also increased somewhat quadratic over time at about twice the increase in the atmosphere.
As the sinks don’t make a differentiation between human and natural CO2, the extra CO2, if natural, should have increased a 4-fold since 1960, as the yearly human emissions, the increase in the atmosphere and the sink rate all increased a 4-fold over the period 1960-2013. But there is not the slightest indication that that happened, to the contrary…
Further, Bart’s graph is rather misleading, as he plots human emissions and increase in the atmosphere on different scales and with different offsets. If you plot them on the same scales without offset, the rate of change of the CO2 increase still is largely within natural variability, taking into account the normal response of the CO2 sinks to the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere (the red line in the graph):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
As you can see in Ferdinand’s plot, emissions are accelerating, while concentration is not. Ferdinand is trying to obscure that fact with handwaving.
As you can see in my plot, there were more periods that the rate of change didn’t increase over time, even decreased with increasing CO2 emissions. That is the case for the period 1976-1997, the strongest period of warming in the whole Mauna Loa era, 21 years long. The short term correlation between temperature and CO2 is very clear, the long term correlation is far from clear, but wasn’t more than 8 ppmv/K over the past 800,000 years.
Yes, there are at least two distinct periods where the virtual accumulation of emissions fails to match the concentration. That is because human emissions are not driving concentration.
As the net sink rate is directly proportional to the increase in the atmosphere and not to the momentary (year by year) fluctuations of the inputs, the steady increasing emissions cause a steady increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere and thus a steady sink rate if you plot that over the past 110 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Temperature only modulates the rate of change somewhat, but that gets even after a few years. Their are several discrepancies between negative/flat temperatures and steady rising CO2, but none with the human emissions. Further all other observations agree with humans as cause, none with temperature…
richardscourtney September 10, 2014 at 10:57 am
Phil.
I am saddened that you failed to head my advice that you should not try to be clever because you never succeed. Your response is to do it again.
Instead of admitting you were wrong or merely doing nothing you wrote
The question quoted the net values for N2O and CH4 therefore the answer should give like information, you failed to do so as always.
No, Phil. I gave a complete answer to the question. which did NOT quote net values.
The question stated – and you copied it stating – emissions and made no mention of sequestration when it said.
“Methane… Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources …, and about 60 % comes from human activities…”
“Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%)…”
Emissions of CH4 are normally ‘net emissions’, e.g.
“In situ measurements of atmospheric methane at GAGE/AGAGE sites during 1985–2000 and resulting source inferences
D. M. Cunnold1, L. P. Steele2, P. J. Fraser2, P. G. Simmonds3, R. G. Prinn4, R. F. Weiss5, L. W. Porter6, S. O’Doherty3, R. L. Langenfelds2, P. B. Krummel2, H. J. Wang1, L. Emmons7, X. X. Tie7 andE. J. Dlugokencky8
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2002
DOI: 10.1029/2001JD001226
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)
Volume 107, Issue D14, pages ACH 20-1–ACH 20-18, 27 July 2002
Who state “ net annual emissions (emissions minus soil sinks) of 545 Tg CH4 with a variability of only ±20 Tg from 1985 to 1997 but an increase in the emissions in 1998 of 37 ± 10 Tg, soil sinks are around 10Tg/yr. About 80 Tg/yr come from fossil fuel sources, about 80Tg/yr from domestic animals, about 60Tg/yr from rice paddies and indeterminate amounts from landfills, and biomass burning.
Unlike CO2 which can be sequestered by multiple routes all the CH4 which enters the atmosphere is ultimately destroyed by reacting with OH, leading to an atmospheric lifetime of about 9 years.
Similarly, N2O emission rates are quoted net of soil sinks*, the major atmospheric sink is photodissociation and reaction in the stratosphere.
*”The small uptake of N2O by soils is not included in this lifetime, but is rather incorporated into the net emission of N2O from soils because it is coupled to the overall N-partitioning.”, IPCC-WG1.
Richard as always when you try to discuss technical matters you get in way over your head, I suggest you stop now.
richardscourtney
September 10, 2014 at 5:21 am
Solomon Green
I think what you want to know is that nature emits more than 30 molecules of CO2 for each CO2 molecule emitted from human activities.
Richard
Reply
Phil.
September 10, 2014 at 7:03 am
And absorbs about 30.5 for a net year-on-year increase of ~0.5 molecules/molecule emitted by human activities.
Or, emits 40 and absorbs 40.5 for a net year-on-year increase of ~0.5 molecules/molecule. If human inputs were to cease, sink activity would decrease in concert, to absorb 39.5, for a net year-on-year increase of ~0.5 molecules/molecule.
This is how dynamic systems work, Phil. It is way outside your area of expertise, so you do not understand it. But, this is typical behavior for a dynamic system. The sinks can respond rapidly to effectively remove every bit of additional input from humans.
You, and others, are caught up in the mistaken impression that, because the rise is less than human inputs, it is due to human inputs. But, that is only a possibility allowed by the observation. All it does is fail to rule out human culpability, but it does not establish it. Other lines of evidence do, in fact, rule out human culpability.
Bart, sinks react on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium, whatever that equilibrium might be.
In your case, the input of 40 + 1 molecules gives an absorption of 40.5 molecules. If humans stop emissions, the input goes down to 40 molecules, but the sink still removes 40.6 molecules, as the level in the atmosphere still is the same as last year + 0.5 molecules.
Sinks react on total CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium, not on momentary emissions, except if the reaction is extremely fast, which it is certainly not.
“…but the sink still removes 40.6 molecules…”
No, Ferdinand. This is where you err. The rate of removal by the sinks is proportional to the amount in the atmosphere, such that the level in the atmosphere tracks the rate of input proportionately. If you remove one of the inputs, the rate of removal will initially be elevated, but that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the natural sources can maintain.
An equilibrium is reestablished when removal is once again commensurate with input, and the sink rate has decreased. This is how dynamic systems work. You are trying to apply static analysis to a situation in which it is not appropriate.
In mathematical terms, the level C is proportional to the rate of input by N and A, C = k*(N+A). The sink rate is proportional to that, S = (k/tau)*(N+A).
N = 40
A = 1
S = (k/tau)*(N+A) = (40.5/41)*(40+1) = 40.5 => k/tau = 40.5/41
Take away A:
S = (40.5/41)*40 = 39.5
Bart, that is only true if the sinks react almost immediately on input changes, which may be right for radio frequencies, but is by far not the case for natural processes. That is where you err…
Even the fastest known sink, the ocean surface, needs 1-3 years to equilibrate with the atmosphere. Deep oceans have an e-fold equilibrium rate of ~50 years and vegetation ~170 years.
That means that the sinks don’t change (much) by the input changes of the current year, they only change by the change in total CO2 above equilibrium, which is currently 110 ppmv above the 290 ppmv for the current temperature.
But even if the reaction of the sinks was within a year, that still needs a 4-fold increase of N over the past 55 years, in lockstep with the increase of human emissions and net sink rate or there couldn’t be an increase in the atmosphere. For which isn’t the slightest indication…
“…that is only true if…”
You at least concede it is possible, then. It is, in fact, the case. A few years reaction time is sufficiently fast.
“For which isn’t the slightest indication…”
Yes, there is.
Bart, what you see in the temperature/CO2 derivatives is only one small response of one part of the globe to changing temperatures in the tropics.
That doesn’t play any role in the long-term trend, neither do the seasonal changes, which are way larger in and out. Both are caused by vegetation while the trend is not caused by vegetation. The trend is either caused by the oceans – as you think – or by human emissions, as I am sure is.
Thus how can we know which caused what? By looking at other observations.
If the oceans were the cause, then:
– the sinks should be rapidly accommodating with any increase in the atmosphere
– the oceans should maintain the same ratio of ~40:1 natural:human all over the 4-fold increase over the past 55 years
That should be observable:
– the 14C decline should accelerate over time due to the increased turnover
– the 13C/12C ratio should go up over the past 55 years
– the residence time should shorten a 4-fold in the same period
None of these three points is observed…
Ferdinand,
There is only one way that plot can come about, and that is if CO2 is responsive to temperature over a wide band of all observable frequencies for the interval in question, with uniform 90 deg phase lag and inverse frequency amplitude response. It is responsive to both long term (56 years) and short term (multi-year) temperature variation. There is no significant phase distortion indicating any discontinuity between long term and short term response.
I think when you say “variations”, you are thinking of within-a-year variations. When I say it, I mean multi-year variations, and these are not due to vegetation. Both the multi-year variations in CO2 rate of change and the long term trend in the rate of change match the temperature anomaly. Emissions also have a long term trend. The long term trend is already accounted for.
“– the sinks should be rapidly accommodating with any increase in the atmosphere”
They do respond rapidly, but they cannot accommodate 100% instantaneously. I am not saying anthropogenic forcing has zero effect. I am saying it is so much smaller than the natural effect that it is essentially negligible.
– the oceans should maintain the same ratio of ~40:1 natural:human all over the 4-fold increase over the past 55 years”
The oceans should show an increase in dCO2, and do.
“– the 14C decline should accelerate over time due to the increased turnover
– the residence time should shorten a 4-fold in the same period”
The residence time and e-folding time are unaffected.
“– the 13C/12C ratio should go up over the past 55 years”
There are other available explanations for the 13C/12C ratio.
I think when you say “variations”, you are thinking of within-a-year variations.
That are the seasonal variations, which are rather constant. These are dominated by the NH vegetation growth and decay, not of interest here.
When I say it, I mean multi-year variations, and these are not due to vegetation. Both the multi-year variations in CO2 rate of change and the long term trend in the rate of change match the temperature anomaly.
The short term (2-3 years) variability is also caused by vegetation: mainly the tropical vegetation, which is directly related to temperature/drought with ENSO (El Niño / La Niña). Lasts a few years. Pinatubo also had its influence: increased uptake of vegetation due to scattered sunlight. Can be deduced from the opposite 13C/12C ratio changes and CO2 rate of change changes.
The long term trend was historically dominated by the oceans and is currently certainly not from vegetation.
Thus anyway the short term multi-year variation in rate of change and the longer term trend are from different processes, thus you can’t say that the trend is accounted for by temperature, as the T-factor that gives the short term CO2 rate of change variations has nothing in common with the T-factor that gives the CO2 trend (which historically was 8 ppmv/K).
The oceans should show an increase in dCO2, and do.
Bart, to dwarf the human input, the natural circulation should remain at 40:1 times the human input. As the human input increased a 4-fold over the past 55 years, and the net sinks increased a 4-fold, the natural circulation should have increased a 4-fold too, or it is impossible that the net sink rate increased in ratio with only the human input if the sinks are rapidly accommodating to the inputs.
If the natural circulation didn’t increase and the sinks are (relative) slow, the human emissions are the sole cause of the increase…
The residence time and e-folding time are unaffected.
Of course the residence time is affected if you increase the total inputs and thus the total outputs, the residence time must go down, there is no way that wouldn’t happen for an firmly increased natural throughput.
The 14C decay rate is also affected, as that is not only a matter of throughput, but also of concentration: what goes into the deep oceans is the post-bomb tests current 14C level, what comes out is the pre-bomb 14C level of 1000 years ago. Thus if you double the deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges, the decay rate of the 14C bomb test peak will about halve…
The same for the 13C/12C ratio decay, which also is affected by the deep oceans – atmosphere exchanges.
“…as the T-factor that gives the short term CO2 rate of change variations has nothing in common with the T-factor that gives the CO2 trend (which historically was 8 ppmv/K).”
You may fervently believe so, but it is just wishful thinking. Historical data are not applicable. We do not know the very long term relationship. And, we do not need to know. The best, most modern, most reliable measurements show us what is going on right now, and for the modern era 1958-present. And, it is not what you think it is.
“As the human input increased a 4-fold over the past 55 years, and the net sinks increased a 4-fold…”
Nonsense. I showed you the math. If sinks are 40.5, they would decline back down to 39.5 without the anthropogenic forcing. The expansion of the sinks is 1 in 40.
You are trying to make a circular argument here. It is only going to lead you in circles.
“Of course the residence time is affected if you increase the total inputs and thus the total outputs…”
The time constant of a linear (or, linearizable) time invariant system does not change with the amount of input.
Sorry Bart, reply shifted under the wrong comment…
Phil.
OK. I tried to help you but you insisted on making a complete fool of yourself.
I had hoped you would have learned by now. And I allowed my hope to overcome what I had learned in the past; i.e. you always adopt infantile refusal to admit when you are wrong.
In this case your error is of no importance. But I shall again revert to replying to your interruptions in a manner appropriate to a small child because I was clearly mistaken in thinking you may have started to grow up.
Richard
Sound familiar?
That is my experience arguing with Phil.
Bart
September 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm
You may fervently believe so, but it is just wishful thinking. Historical data are not applicable.
Historical data show that there is a rather fixed ratio between CO2 and temperature over time spans of ~50 years to multi-millennia. The data over the past 55 years show levels far above the historical ratio. That is only possible by an external factor beyond the normal reaction of nature to temperature.
Nonsense. I showed you the math. If sinks are 40.5, they would decline back down to 39.5 without the anthropogenic forcing. The expansion of the sinks is 1 in 40.
But that doesn’t drop immediately when the human emissions stop and the 40:1 should grow together with the 4-fold increase in human emissions:
Here your reasoning:
In mathematical terms, the level C is proportional to the rate of input by N and A, C = k*(N+A). The sink rate is proportional to that, S = (k/tau)*(N+A).
which is in fact wrong, as that implies that the natural sinks react immediately on the inputs and not on the increasing levels in the atmosphere (S = (k/tau)*(C-Co)), but let’s start with that.
Starting in 1960, assuming the ratio was 40:1
N = 40
A = 1
S = (k/tau)*(N+A) = (40.5/41)*(40+1) = 40.5 => k/tau = 40.5/41 = 0.988
in 2014, A increased a 4-fold compared to 1960 and so did S. Thus to maintain the same k/tau one needs:
4*40.5 = 0.988*(N+4)
or N = (162 – 3.952)/0.988 = 160
The fourfold increase in human emissions and sink rate implies a fourfold increase in natural emissions, if the latter is responsible for the increase, as the sinks don’t make any differentiation between natural and human CO2…
But that violates all observations…
More to the point:
Even if we assume that temperature drives a constant increasing amount of CO2 out of the oceanic upwelling places round the equator, that drives the total CO2 level and thus pressure up. The temperature near the sink places plays no role, as the main sinks are always following the edge of the ice cover, where temperatures are always at the freezing point of seawater. The sink rate is directly proportional to the difference in pCO2 of the ocean waters (which is rather constant at freezing) and the atmospheric pCO2 which increases, from whatever cause. Thus the sink rate depends on C-Co, not on the momentary A or N, where Co is the equilibrium pressure of CO2 at the freezing temperature of seawater…
“…But that doesn’t drop immediately …”
Not immediately, but fairly rapidly. In order to gauge what would happen in the no-anthropogenic-forcing case, you have to wait until it has settled out. That is why the “mass-balance” argument is faulty – you have to compare sink activity with anthropogenic forcing to sink activity wholly without it, after all effects of the anthropogenic forcing have dissipated. Only then, if you see CO2 declining, can you declare nature a net sink.
I maintain that the temperature to CO2 rate of change relationship shows that, after settling out, atmospheric CO2 would still be increasing, and nature on her own is a net source.
“…in 2014, A increased a 4-fold compared to 1960 and so did S. …”
Your math is in error. If, in 1960, we had
S1960 = (k/tau)*(N1960 + A1960)
and in 2014
S2014 = (k/tau)*(N2014 + A2014)
and we assume N1960 = N2014, then we have
(S2014 – S1960) = (k/tau)*(A2014 – A1960)
If A2014 = 4*A1960, then (S2014 – S1960) = 3*(k/tau)*A1960, or
S2014 = (1 + 3*(k/tau)*A1960/S1960) * S1960
The factor is not 4, but (1 + 3*(k/tau)*A1960/S1960)
We have (k/tau)*A1960/S1960 = 1 – (k/tau)*N1960/S1960, so
S2014 = (4 – 3*(k/tau)*N1960/S1960) * S1960
if k/tau = 40.5/41 and N1960/S1960 is approximately unity, then
S2014 := 1.037 * S1960
So, no, there was no 4-fold increase in S.
“The temperature near the sink places plays no role, as the main sinks are always following the edge of the ice cover, where temperatures are always at the freezing point of seawater.”
This is a very broad based assertion, which ignores the fact that the ice cover changes in extent, and therefore in area exposed, and therefore in CO2 processed.
I am off on travel very shortly, and so will probably not be responding further before this thread goes stale. We’ll pick it up again next time.
Sorry for the late reply, was a few days absent without Internet access…
S2014 = (k/tau)*(N2014 + A2014)
and we assume N1960 = N2014, then we have
You can’t assume that N1960 = N2014 as S2104 = 4*S1960
The net sink rate increased a 4-fold. In your reasoning that is caused by the increased natural circulation, which thus must be a 4-fold, or you can’t have a 4-fold increase in net sink rate for the same resistance of the sinks:
S1960 = (k/tau)*(N1960 + A1960)
S2014 = (k/tau)*(N2014 + A2014)
where A2014 = 4*A1960 and
(N2014 + A2014) – S2104 = 4*((N1960 + A1960) – S1960)
That gives:
N2014 – S2014 = 4*N1960 – 4*S1960 + 4*A1960 – 4*A1960
or
N2014 – S2104 = 4*N1960 – 4*S1960
A 4-fold increase in net sink rate is only possible with a 4-fold increase in natural throughput, if natural fluxes are responsible for the change.
This is a very broad based assertion, which ignores the fact that the ice cover changes in extent
The maximum uptake by the cold waters near the poles is at the edge of the ice cover, which shifts between winter and summer, the main sink rate does change somewhat over the seasons but not spectacular. The exact place of the THC sink in the NE Atlantic only shifts with the ice edge, without much change in ocean downwelling. But anyway the average uptake doesn’t shift much over a full seasonal cycle and mainly depends on the CO2 partial pressure difference between atmosphere and ocean surface near the poles.
The CO2 uptake is directly in ratio with the CO2 partial pressure difference between atmosphere and ocean waters. The maximum measured difference at the cold sinking waters was 400 – 250 μatm for ~43 GtC/year uptake, whatever the input near the equator. No matter the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, if the human contribution ceased, the first year would give a drop of ~3 GtC according to me and still an increase of 2.9 GtC, according to you. But anyway, the difference in uptake since the year before is caused by the change in total atmospheric CO2, not in ratio to the inputs. That is where your reasoning goes wrong…
I laid it out for you, Ferdinand. It is elementary. Sinks did not increase 4-fold. The very notion is silly.
Bart, if the net sink rate increased a 4-fold and the human emissions increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years, then the natural input must have increased a 4-fold too, or it can’t be responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.
Sinks don’t react on human input alone, they react on the total increase above equilibrium. If most of the total increase above equilibrium is caused by a natural influx, as you pretend, then the natural influx must have increased in ratio to the human input (or more) and in ratio to the increase in net output, or you violate the physical equality of human and natural CO2 (besides a very small difference in isotopic composition).
This indeed is elementary…
cdquarles September 10, 2014 at 11:11 am
No.. The correct chemistry term is neutralization. When I add an acid to an alkaline buffer, I’m neutralizing it via titration.
Reply
Phil. September 10, 2014 at 11:54 am
No, it’s only ‘neutralization’ when you add exactly enough acid to balance the bases (i.e. to pH 7), ‘acidification’ is adding acid to a solution thereby reducing its pH, not necessarily to pH 7.
cdquarles September 10, 2014 at 11:57 am
Nope. That’s still neutralization in a titration.
I’m afraid you’re failing HS Chem:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Acids_and_Bases/Acid%2F%2FBase_Reactions/Neutralization
“When a solution is neutralized, it means that salts are formed from equal weights of acid and base. The amount of acid needed is the amount that would give one mole of protons (H+) and the amount of base needed is the amount that would give one mole of (OH-). Because salts are formed from neutralization reactions with equivalent concentrations of weights of acids and bases: N parts of acid will always neutralize N parts of base.”
Also:
“In chemistry, neutralization (US spelling) or neutralisation (UK spelling), is a chemical reaction in which an acid and a base react quantitatively with each other. In a reaction in water neutralization results in there being no excess of hydrogen or hydroxide ions present in solution. The pH of the neutralized solution depends on the acid strength of the reactants. Neutralization is used in many applications.”
And:
“neutralization
[-īzā′shən]
Etymology: L, neutralis + Gk, izein, to cause
the interaction between an acid and a base that produces a solution that is neither acidic nor basic. The usual products of neutralization are a salt and water. neutralize, v.
Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.”
Apologies if I repeat anything. Don’t have the time to read the entire thread.
1) Are we all aware that methane is not chemically inert, and that it oxidizes when released into the atmosphere? One molecule of methane begets one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water vapor. How much of the increase in CO2 concentration is the result of methane oxidation?
2) Does anyone know the full extent of methane clathrates on the seafloor, and the degree to which they dissociate and give off methane gas? For that matter, does anyone know the full extent of naturally-occurring pools of liquid carbon dioxide on the sea floor (observed), which may become atmospheric gas if disturbed by seismic motions?
3) And are we all aware, from the data on atmospheric carbon dioxide during the nuclear testing in the 1960s, that the residence time for carbon dioxide is measured in decades? (The tests created carbon-14, which formed carbon dioxide, and we had a perfect radioactive tracer to see how concentration varied with time for these tagged molecules.)\
4) And, just for laughs, to heck with methane! What about isoprene, which is outgassed by trees? Ever been in a mountainous Douglas Fir forest at the height of summer? You would swear your head is in a bucket of turpentine. No surprise that all the fire hazard warnings are in the red flag zone.
One of the methods of the CAWG argument is to limit the field of discourse to a subset of the facts. Nature is BIG, both in size and in quality.
1) the continuous release of methane in the atmosphere gives a level of around 1.9 ppmv with a decay rate of ~10 years, that means a supply of ~0.3 ppmv/year, of which a large part is human too. Humans emit 4-5 ppmv CO2/year, thus natural CH4 is less than 5% of the human emissions in CO2 equivalents.
2) no direct measurements, but in the previous interglacial temperatures were 5-10 K higher in the Northern latitudes, forests growing up to the Arctic Ocean and no (summer) ice or permafrost left. That did give a maximum of 0.7 ppmv CH4 in the atmosphere. The current CH4 level is 1.9 ppmv. largely human induced…
3) careful with 14C as tracer: what goes into the (deep) oceans are the past-bomb tests levels but what comes out of the deep oceans is the 14C level of 500-1500 years ago, thus (much) lower. That makes that the e-fold decay rate for the 14C bomb test peak is ~14 years, but the e-fold decay rate for an excess 12CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot longer, as near as much 12CO2 is returning from the deep oceans as was absorbed…
4) good question…
It all depends on the power of the sinks. The 14C tracer establishes a lower bound for the e-folding time. If the sinks are active, the residence time and the e-folding time approach one another.
So the conversation/formula for CO2 sequestration seems to always assume that the uptake by vegetation remains constant and yet I’ve seen references to the ‘greening effect’ that increasing levels of CO2 have had globally.
Doesn’t more ‘green’ imply increasing rates of CO2 sequestration by plants?
Forgive me if this question seems trivial. I admit I have not studied these topics. Just ‘common sense’ or intuition drives me to ask.
It’s not trivial, in fact CO2 sequestration has gone up approximately in step with CO2 levels, it’s just always going up by less than the emissions of CO2, so it doesn’t catch up.
The uptake by vegetation can be deduced by the oxygen and δ13C balances. More uptake gives increases the 13C/12C ratio and O2 in the atmosphere. More uptake in the oceans gives a small change in 13C/12C ratio but no change in O2.
See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and more recent
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Since the 1990’s, the biosphere as a whole (land and sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals) is a net increasing sink for currently ~1 GtC/year. But humans still emit 9-10 GtC/year…
The GLOBAL index from NOAA also disagrees with WMO:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth
1996 1.07 0.07
1997 1.97 0.07
1998 2.84 0.10
1999 1.34 0.07
2000 1.25 0.10
2001 1.80 0.10
2002 2.38 0.07
2003 2.24 0.10
2004 1.61 0.05
2005 2.43 0.07
2006 1.74 0.06
2007 2.09 0.07
2008 1.77 0.05
2009 1.69 0.10
2010 2.41 0.06
2011 1.71 0.09
2012 2.40 0.09
2013 2.54 0.09
ah edim spotted that also I see.
Yawn!
“Long lived GHGs… ocean acidification…”
More alarmist drivel.
Moving from desperation to outright panic.
My earlier response to this was removed for some reason?
Bart September 11, 2014 at 11:42 am
“…but the sink still removes 40.6 molecules…”
No, Ferdinand. This is where you err. The rate of removal by the sinks is proportional to the amount in the atmosphere, such that the level in the atmosphere tracks the rate of input proportionately. If you remove one of the inputs, the rate of removal will initially be elevated, but that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate faster than the natural sources can maintain.
Not according to your model Bart, according to you the rate of change of CO2 only depends on T!
Ferdinand and I have been telling you that it depends on the rate of input but you insist that it only depends on T. Now when it suits your argument you change your tune.
No, Phil. According to me, the rate of change is most sensitive to a T dependent forcing. These numbers of sensitivity to emissions are small, due to the feedback action of the sinks, and can be neglected.
Bart September 10, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Sound familiar?
Yes it does Bart, thank you for referencing it, that is exactly what you do.
You keep posting your model of total dependence on Temperature and refuse to even acknowledge evidence against it . Only last week we had the following exchange:
September 4, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Phil.: “The data shows that during the 90s the ocean absorbed a net ~2.0 PgC/yr, not the temperature dependent outgassing you propose.”
Bart: “The data show no such thing. Again, you are begging the question.” Note an assertion with no attempt to cite any evidence to support it
Phil.: “Indeed they do, for example:
M. Battle, M.L. Bender, P.P. Tans, J.W.C. White, J.T. Ellis, T. Conway, R.J. Francey
Global carbon sinks and their variability inferred from atmospheric O2 and δ13C
Science, 287 (2000), pp. 2467–2470
R. Keeling, S.C. Piper, M. Heinmann
Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric O2 concentration
Nature, 381 (1996), pp. 218–221
Takahashi et al.
Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
Volume 49, Issues 9–10, 2002, Pages 1601–1622”Note a statement backed up by evidence to support it
Bart: “The direct measurements of CO2 since 1958 and temperatures in that interval contradict it.”Note an assertion with no attempt to cite any evidence to support it
The latter despite the fact that Takahashi et al. is based on those very direct measurements, and determine an uptake of ~2.2PgC/yr, indicating that you hadn’t even bother to read the abstract, the first line of which is: “Based on about 940,000 measurements of surface-water pCO2 obtained since the International Geophysical Year of 1956–59”.
These are all interpretations, based on negotiable premises. This isn’t negotiable. It is a very clear, and unequivocal signal. And, no matter how I try to explain to you why it is non-negotiable, you shy away from confronting it, and seek refuge in comforting narratives.
This isn’t negotiable.
Which graph only shows that the variability in CO2 rate of change is directly driven by the short term changes in temperature. But that says next to nothing about what drives the overall trend. Temperature can’t be the cause of the 80 ppmv increase since 1960, as that violates Henry’s law of the solubility of CO2 in seawater and a host of other observations…
And, that the trend in the rate of change is driven by temperature. Since emissions also have a trend, and it is already accounted for, emissions are not driving atmospheric CO2 concentration.
There is no violation of Henry’s law because the oceans are constantly overturning, and the surface oceans of today are not the same as the surface oceans of tomorrow. This is your big problem, Ferdinand – trying to apply static analysis to a dynamically changing system.
Bart, whatever the overturning rate, the sinks react on the total increase in the atmosphere, which increased ~80 ppmv in the past 55 years. For the past 18 years it was ~40 ppmv with zero increase in temperature.
That is impossible without increase of the outflux at the sinks side and a decrease of influx at the upwelling side per Henry’s law. Moreover, there is not the slightest indication that the overturning significantly changed over the past 55 years, while you need a 4-fold increase to cause the 4-fold increase in net sink rate and rate of change.
Last but not least, any temperature increase at the upwelling (or downwelling) side causes some 3% change in influx (or outflux), far too low to give the 40/80 ppmv increase in the atmosphere. If it is a matter of extra influx (either quantity or concentration), then it is not temperature related, as temperature is not the main cause of the increase…
Sorry, no. You are not a very math-centric person. What I have explained is very elementary, really.
I’ve been right so far, Ferdinand. Emissions are accelerating, atmospheric concentration is decelerating. This situation will continue for the next couple of decades as temperatures modestly decrease. At some point, you are going to have to acknowledge the divergence.
Bart, your math is excellent, but I doubt that you have experience with real life physical processes (except maybe high frequency processes).
If the input increases for whatever reason, the output will follow, depending of how fast the sinks react on an increase in the atmosphere. If the net output increases a 4-fold, that is only possible if the average pressure difference in the atmosphere vs. the dynamic equilibrium pressure increased a 4-fold.
If that is caused by humans, as I am sure it is, the increase over time was a 4-fold of the human input alone, which is what is observed. If it was from an increased natural input, that input must have increased a 4-fold or you can’t have a 4-fold increase in net output together with a 4-fold increase in human input…
BTW, atmospheric increases still are increasing unabated, which is impossible without reaction of the increasing pressure in the atmosphere on the natural inputs and outputs, if the latter were the cause. No temperature related process can do that.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant!!
This link; ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/flask/surface/co2_mlo_surface-flask_1_ccgg_event.txt
is the raw-data from MLO. As we can see, at the beginning of last year, the level was over 400 ppmv. several times. But on the last reading on 31. of December it was down to 323,17 ppmv. That alone should tell everybody, human can not be responsible. Because 1. The CO2 emissions we put out in the atmosphere is the biggest source of CO2, right!? And 2. It doesn’t go away, it stays there for years. So how do the alarmists explaine the difference of 24% (77 ppmv) in one year?
This post i posted 11. September 2014 is wrong, it should be 2% in a year (7 ppmv.)
You forget that there is a huge seasonal in- and outflux of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere caused mainly by the larger amount of land and forests in the NH. That causes a change of 2% around the trend over a year at sea level and 1% around the trend at the height of Mauna Loa. Here the variations for Mauna Loa and Barrow averaged over the last decades:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
The opposite change of CO2 and δ13C prove that changes in vegetation are dominant. If the oceans were dominant, the CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other. The drop of CO2 goes from May to September, where the growth of extra-tropical forests is maximal, while from September to May the decay of fallen leaves etc. is higher than the CO2 uptake by photosynthesis.
The seasonal variation in the SH is much smaller: more ocean, less forests…
So we can expect a few more years of “new” press releases that we are doomed because humans have exceeded the magic 400 ppmv CO2 border…