Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
From the start, Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis: The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias.
A recent example appeared from the BBC, triggered by more evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. The egregious example is the BBC report on the first images from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2). See also Anthony Watts’ report from the AGU.
Figure 1
Preliminary evidence essentially exonerates humans as the source of CO2. That is a narrative unacceptable to the IPCC and all their media supporters. As a result the BBC, whose lack of journalistic integrity and political bias, was exposed in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), are obliged to spin the evidence. One comment in the article says,
It is possible to see spikes, too, on the eastern seaboard of the US and over China. These probably include the additional emissions of CO2 that come from industrialisation.
This misinformation is contradicted by the lower than average levels over the UK and Europe. Another comment on Figure 1 says,
Also apparent are the higher concentrations over South America and southern Africa. These are likely the result of biomass burning in these regions.
This misinformation is a contradiction because the area of southern Africa is mostly grasslands and desert. How does that generate “biomass burning”? Figure 2 shows a map of the climate zones of Africa, ironically, it appears in an article pleading for financial help to deal with climate change.
Figure 2
The claim that South American levels are due to forest burning is ridiculous. At any given time, only a small area of the forest is being burned. It was higher in the past because countries like Brazil were encouraged to provide tax incentives to farmers to clear land, with help from the World Bank. The idea was that a country must have a solid agricultural base for a viable economy. The practice was stopped when the environmental finger of rainforest destruction was pointed.
In 2006 a report exposed another misconception about sources and concentrations of atmospheric gases, especially so-called greenhouse gases. Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute determined that the rainforests were a very large source of methane. Keppler,
“…was surprised when he saw signs of methane being emitted by plants he was examining in normal air. “If we were following the textbook, we would have ignored it as a mistake,” he says.”
This is not surprising, given the structure and process of a tropical rainforest. They are an illusion because the soils that sustain them are among the most unfertile in the world. People wonder why agriculture doesn’t flourish, it is because of the poor soils. Many projects have failed with this illusion.
People are familiar with deciduous and evergreen trees. The former have leaves that grow and are discarded with the seasons. Evergreens have needles that remain attached year round but are ready to begin photosynthesizing quickly, thus maximizing the short growing season. Trees in the tropical rainforest are what I call deciduous evergreens. They always have leaves but are constantly shedding and replacing them. This means the leaf litter is constantly supplied to the surface but very rapidly rots, and the tree quickly takes up the nutrients. Laterite soils underlie the rain forest.
Laterite soils are reddish subsoils found in tropical regions that are formed by the rock layer breaking down and leaching through the soil. They are rich in minerals such as iron oxides and aluminum, and most don’t support plant life or vegetation well because they dry hard and compact, and lack organic matter. Laterite deposits can be a few inches or hundreds of feet thick and are normally horizontal. When very wet, laterite soils can be cut into bricks for building.
The important soil formation factors are high temperatures and constant rainfall that literally washes out most minerals essential for plant growth. The various shades of red depend on the percentage of iron.
When the vegetation is removed the soils bake iron hard. They are also very difficult to plow because of quartz particles that wear out a steel plow very quickly. Several schemes failed over the years because they ignored the physical realities of tropical soils. The first major one was Fordlandia, an attempt during the Second World War to grow rubber in the Amazon rainforest. Rubber, a crucial wartime resource, was no longer available from Malaya. They transferred the rubber plants back to South America but farmed it without care to the soil conditions. Look at the inappropriate formal row cultivation in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
After World War II, the drive for increased agricultural production, centered on production of vegetable oil. In Britain they created the Groundnut Scheme in East Africa. Groundnut is the English term for peanut. It was also a disaster, as a 1981 article titled, “The East African Groundnut Scheme: Lessons of a Large-Scale Agricultural Failure” explains.
Another scheme built on lateritic soils without care to their limits, was the 1967 brainchild of shipping billionaire known as the Jari Project. He built a massive processing plant (Figure 4) in Japan and had it towed to Brazil to process a fast growing tree (Gmelina) for pulp and paper. The project staggered along for some years but ultimately failed.
Figure 4
I am aware that there were other factors involved in the failure, but the common denominator and primary factor was the limitations of the tropical soil.
The few people that survive in the tropical rainforest know the limitations of the soils. They developed slash and burn agriculture in which a small are is cleared and the vegetation burned to provide briefly a higher level of nutrients sufficient to grow crops for one or two years. The area is then abandoned back the rainforest.
Methane (CH4) was targeted before CO2 in the environmentalists rush to blame humans for every change detected. Much of the focus was the role of cattle that received attention from Jeremy Rifkin’s fantastical book and campaign titled “Beyond Beef”. He effectively blames cattle for all the failures of civilization.
The problem was that methane was a minute fraction of the atmosphere and greenhouse gases. Methane is 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases and only 0.36% of the total greenhouse gases. Like CO2 they have inflated the warming potential by claiming it is 20 times more effective than CO2. Despite this, it can’t be very important because in an article about methane “leaking” from the sea floor, Andrew Weaver, Lead Author and contributor on computer modelling for four of the IPCC Reports said,
“[Methane] was not considered in any of the predictions at all.”
That didn’t stop the journalist from fear mongering.
“But one thing is certain: The fact it hasn’t been factored into previous global warming predictions means forecasts even as recent as the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are too conservative.”
A disturbing remark, but not as intended. If it isn’t factored in, then it indicates all previous estimates of greenhouse effects are wrong and the effect of other variables including CO2 are overestimated.
Other sources were blamed before cows, each tied to some human cause. A 1982 Science paper argued that termite numbers were increasing commensurate with clearing of forest and bush. Disclosure of a calculation error in the numbers pushed the termites aside. Increasing beaver populations briefly became the target. Expanding wetlands resulted from reduced trapping and the consequent population explosion. Thawing permafrost is raised occasionally as a source of increased methane, but a study by Georg Delisle rejects the alarmism.
He studied time periods from the last 10,000 years when the global temperature was warmer than today for several thousand years by as much as 6°C. Ice cores that had been extracted from Antarctica and Greenland provide exact information about the composition of the atmosphere during the these warm periods. His conclusion: ‘The ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica provide no indication of any elevated release of greenhouse gases at any time even though back then a deep thawing of the permafrost when compared to today would have been the case.’ This was clear to see on the poster he used for his presentation. Obviously CO2 and methane are much more stable in the ground also when it thaws (sic).
Reports of methane bubbling up in the Arctic Ocean triggered a new spate of articles. Most stories are alarmist.
“Far more of the greenhouse gas methane is seeping from seabed deposits in the Arctic shelf into the atmosphere than previously thought.”
Some reports take a reasoned view. A New Scientist article says,
“The trouble is, nobody knows if the Arctic emissions are new, or indeed anything to do with global warming.”
The reality is they don’t know how much there is.
“Estimates of how much is out there are vague. There could be anywhere between 500 to 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon in the hydrates and another 7.5 to 400 gigatonnes in the permafrost.”
Another problem that likely influenced decisions to ignore methane was the IPCC chart depicting global levels over time (Figure 5).
Figure 5
This underscores their failed projections shown in Figure 6 from Assessment report 5 (AR5).
It’s not surprising because all greenhouse gas numbers are very crude estimates for each source. The only table, to my knowledge, that pulls together the various “source” estimates, was produced by Dr. Dietrich Koelle for 2010 data.
The error range of two natural sources, Ocean outgassing (tropical areas) and Ground bacteria, rotting and decay, exceed the total human contribution. The latter supposedly includes what goes on at the surface under the tropical rainforest. It is a vast natural composting process producing nutrients to sustain the vegetation.
The satellite data is only a surprise to the IPCC supporters, because it completely contradicts their assumptions and narrative. Once again, as it has from the start, the evidence contradicts the consensus assigned to the IPCC hypothesis. Instead of acting in a scientifically appropriate manner and re-examining their science, they misinterpret and mislead through a compliant, politically biased messenger, the mainstream media.
“Preliminary evidence essentially exonerates humans as the source of CO2”
No Tim Ball it doesn’t. I am sure you are familiar with the “CO2 rug”graph that has been around for more than a decade.
Fascinating.
And? How does your mentioning of something disprove the statement?
Hans published the seasonal graph at the other discussion on WUWT. Here the graph again:
http://www.stonybrook.edu/globalhistory/images/SparkyImages/co2rug.gif
Looking at 1.5 months of data doesn’t say anything about the total contribution over a full seasonal cycle…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen: December 22, 2014 at 2:00 am
——————–
And just why is the above graph so far outta kilter …. and with a 20 ppm yearly CO2 fluctuation between the North and South Pole?
Wow Ferdinand,
I have been wondering where and why NASA/NOAA disappeared that three D CO2 cycle map.
Nobody has yet explained to me why the largest amplitude cycle of CO2 variation on earth is at the north pole, where there are no trees or grass to engage in biological exchange with the atmosphere.
I have an original uncolored version of thet map which I got off some NOAA web site, but when I started asking questions about it, they disappeared it.
For one thing the roughly 18-20 ppm cyclic amplitude at the north pole, puts the lie to the claim that CO2 persists in the atmosphere for 200 years.
That extra 20 ppm vanishes in about 5 months, and leads to about a 2.5 year decay time constant, if 280 ppm is presumed to be the natural baseline level that CO2 is trying to decay to.
How very clever to plot that 3-D graph rising to the right, instead of declining to the right.
It gives the illusion of a growing amount of CO2. Well it is growing, but not as depicted in that distorted 3-D.
Clearly something is removing CO2 very rapidly at the north pole, and it isn’t trees or cornfields.
I have posited that it happens during the arctic ice melt, when the CO2 deficient ice melts to yield open water that is deficient in CO2 due to the segregation coefficient between liquid water, and solid water. Henry’s Law then sees to it that the ocean devours all that excess atmospheric CO2 at more than three times the Mauna Loa rate, as it returns to a normal ocean water CO2 level.
Come the fall ice minimum, when the refreeze starts, and that ocean water freezing, will again disgorge tons of CO2 as well as NaCl rejected from the solid state at the freezing interface, and in the case of the CO2, then rejected by the ocean, into the atmosphere, as the Henry’s Law limit is exceeded, by the CO2 expelled from the ice.
But that is my opinion of course and not to be depended on.
A Scripps CO2 expert said that was all bunk, but couldn’t explain why the fastest CO2 atmosphere exchange occurs where there are no trees or grass or cornfields.
Yes I know there is all that biology going on under the water; and none of that EVER happens around Antarctica, where the oceans are biologically dead, and the atmospheric CO2 never changes, as depicted in that 3-D plot.
Notice that there is almost no significant cyclic CO2 variation south of the equator, including all the southern ocean. So much for ocean biological cycles.
Samuel C Cogar, repeated seasonal fluctuation doesn’t say anything about a trend over longer periods.
It takes 20-25 years of data to (statistically) know the few mm trend of sea level change within the meters of waves and tides and storm fluctuations. It takes only 2-3 years of data to see the trend in CO2 change above the average seasonal variations…
And indeed, while the trends are more or less the same at near the North Pole and the South Pole, the SH lags the NH with 1-2 years. Which proves that the main source of the CO2 increase is in the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
george e. smith,
The main seasonal changes are in the extratropical vegetation where a lot of trees restart to grow in spring and shed their leaves in fall. That can be seen in the opposite movement of CO2 levels and δ13C levels. The highest amplitude is near ground above the polar circle (Barrow), but the same amplitude can be found at 1000 m height in Schauinsland, southern Germany, midst the Black Forest. Most of the amplitude changes in Barrow is imported from more southerly latitudes by the Ferrel cells which circulate from the mid latitudes at height to the North and back near sealevel…
Again, the amplitude is dominated by vegetation growth and wane (including in the oceans), but that is not the cause of the trend, neither of the speed with which the extra CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. The seasonal processes are fast, temperature dependent processes which are hardly influenced by the increased CO2 pressure (pCO2) in the atmosphere. The removal of CO2 (in oceans and more permanent organics) is a pressure dependent process, which is hardly influenced by temperature…
Coloration be damned, Figure 1 has a range of only 15 ppm with most of the differences about half of that.
So what’s the big deal?
+10
1,000,000 divided by 15 equals 1/66,666th of all atmospheric gas.
It’s been known since at least 2011 that most global CO2 emissions arise from the equatorial tropics plus East Asia. Chiefio blogged about this, discussing the global CO2 measurements from the Japanese JAXA satellite.
The truly ironical twist was that North America and Europe were net CO2 absorbers, mostly because of their intense agriculture. So, it seems that the industrialized world is absorbing CO2 and the non-industrial world is emitting it. The charming confusion of the JAXA spokesman describing this unexpected result is touching.
Chiefio went on to an entertainingly droll conclusion, ala the fatuous morality of the IPCC and its fellow-righteous, that the under-developed nations obviously owed climate reparations to the industrialized countries, for their purported crime of GHG-induced climate change.
All monthly maps of the CO2 mixing ratio from the Japanese satellite. As one can see, there is a seasonal component whereby southern mid-latitudes exceed the global average in September/October but in all the other months, the northern hemisphere is higher and the southern
http://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatBrowseImage/browseImage/fts_l2_swir_co2_gallery_en.html
Look at the individual months, Bill. Taking 2013 as typical, January 2013, the NH Winter, shows predominant CO2 emissions in north Equatorial Africa, China, and, surprisingly, around Pakistan. Industrialized North America and Western Europe are lower emitters than the former areas. The same holds true in January 2014, except possibly the disparity is greater.
In July 2013, the NH Summer, the greater emitters were sub-equatorial Africa and the South American rain forest. Once again, North America and Europe are lesser emitters. The same looks to be true after checking months in the other available years. The JAXA page display shows similar results.
June 2013 is interesting, in that North America has emissions now equivalent to northern non-industrial equatorial Africa, except that the NA heavier emission areas extend well up into the Canadian Arctic. Likewise the Siberian Arctic looks to be a high CO2 emitter. These last clearly cannot be due to industrial activity.
May 2014, the latest monthly chart, shows southern US and northern Mexico with approximately equivalent emissions to northern Africa. In the American south, CO2 emissions appear higher in southern Alabama and Louisiana (bayou country) than around Galveston/Houston (oil refinery country).
High emissions also extend right across northern Europe, and through the sparsely industrialized sub-Arctic Russia, all the way East through Japan. Alaska and the Canadian Arctic again have some strong emission areas. Some of that should clearly be industrial, but some seems very unlikely to be so.
All of this leads one to wonder whether the emissions that do occur in industrial areas can be due only to industry and transport. That is, even around urban regions, might there be globally significant ecological sources of CO2?
For our Australian cousins, by the way, it appears you folks are never a serious global source of CO2 emissions, no matter what the time of year. You slackers! 🙂
If politicians were being sensible, as soon as repariation is concenred, the developed world ought to tell the developing world that there will be no financial reparation from developed world to developing world since the developed world are carbon neutral or a carbon sink, and it is the developng world that are the net CO2 emitters.
Of course, we do not live in a sensible world so even though the industrial developed world are not net CO2 producers, tehy will still end up paying compensation to those who are net CO2 producers.
That is the crazy world of the UN.
Now I wasa thinking, is not the industrial developed world a “sequester” and “transporter” of zillions of tons of CO2, each and every year?
Now, fer instance, consider the San Joaquin Valley in California or the upper Midwest in Iowa and Nebraska, ….. which sequesters zillions of tons of CO2 in the agricultural products (vegetables, beef, corn, etc.) that they produce and then transports those products to the urban areas all across America …. where that sequestered CO2 is either re-sequestered or outgassed back into the atmosphere.
So, CAGW wise, shouldn’t those agricultural locales be both “temperature & CO2 poor” compared to those urban areas?
I repeat: Shazzzaaaaamm!!
http://www.scienceemergence.com/media/wiki/images/42/bfb178899a242759182ee772eb35f530/polder_monthly_plot.png
Cute. No link.
Shazzzbot!!
Make that
http://www.science-emergence.com/media/wiki/images/42/bfb178899a242759182ee772eb35f530/polder_monthly_plot.png
The African hotspot of CO2, as shown here, is over a “moist subhumid” area. I suspect this is seasonal. CO2 globally tends to peak globally when most land areas are experiencing spring, due to warming temperatures accelerating decay of dead vegetable matter. So, it seems natural to me that subhumid southern Africa would have a CO2 spike in its springtime. I would like to see the color coded CO2 map progress over a whole year, as vegetated areas that have seasons alternate between being net CO2 sources and net CO2 sinks. The “CO2 rug” graph shows strong seasonal variations by latitude, with the northern and southern hemispheres taking turns at being net sources and net sinks, and the land-rich northern hemisphere varying more by season.
Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 generated by fossil fuel burning is well known, and greater than what the atmosphere gained – nature as a whole has been a net sink of CO2, not a net source.
“… nature as a whole has been a net sink of CO2, not a net source.”
———————–
That may be the single most important point in the entire worldwide discussion about CO2.
Now talking about “net sinks”, …..
I have yet to see any estimations as to how many gigatons of calcium carbonate that is being per se, permanently sequestered each year in the oceans, lakes and rivers of the world via shell-forming invertebrates, etc., etc. To wit:
“Calcium carbonate is essentially insoluble in sea surface waters today. Shells of dead calcareous plankton sinking to deeper waters are practically unaltered until reaching the lysocline where the solubility increases dramatically.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate_compensation_depth
I haven’t seen that, either and am not sure that we have any idea. Some wag here at WUWT recently remarked that mankind’s true purpose must be to reintroduce sequestered carbon into the biosphere. It’s no secret that CO2 atm/v was over 8,000 ppm during the age(s) of megafauna and had dwindled to around 300ppm before we came along. Woe be to life on the planet if CO2 atm/v fell to 200 ppm.
Recent discoveries hint that sources for volcanic release of CO2 may be other than mere subducted limestone and that the deep mantle may contain enormous amounts of C/CO2.
Just to try to put things in perspective, the range of that NASA map is 15.5 parts per million or about 4% of total CO2. Never mind the instrumental accuracy, are we not looking at another case of inappropriate precision?
David Chappell, 4% does not strike me as unrealistic precision. The mission target is +/- 1 ppm accuracy, with calibration/validation to be done against ground based instruments.
The bigger issue is the BS coloring of the map in Fig. 1. C’mom, using red to depict the most CO2, and blue the least is simply to subliminally sway the uninformed to think the difference is huge and that it is hotter in those spots due to CO2. As I posted up thread and David repeated, the entire range of the map is only 15.5 ppm with most of the differences only about half that. So I ask again, what’s the big deal?
Tom in Florida,
If they had set dark blue to 0 ppm and red to 400 ppm, how well do you think you’d be able to see anything except red?
Perhaps they should set up some special stations to measure DWLWIR and temperature under these ‘hot spots’, and if these are seasonal only, as some suggest, throughout the year there should be changes to DWLWIR and temperature that perhaps we can begin to link with the CO2 concentrations.
Brandon Gates
December 21, 2014 at 8:03 pm
“If they had set dark blue to 0 ppm and red to 400 ppm, how well do you think you’d be able to see anything except red?”
You still miss the point. The depiction of such a small variation with such a large change in color scheme is deceitful. My suggestion would be to take the median of 387 – 402, make that a medium blue and adjust the lower amount to a slightly lighter blue and the higher amount to a slightly darker blue. Then you would have a more meaningful depiction without the fake alarmism.
Mr Gates, I didn’t say unrealistic, I said inappropriate. The target may well be +/-1ppm (though that immediately degrades the value of the colour scheme selected) but what is the spatial and temporal precision? Is it like the temperature fudges, one reading per 1200km square?
David Chappell,
I really don’t understand how the choice of scaling — which is all about range of observed values — has anything to do with precision of the values within the range.
I gather from my readings that temporal resolution is about 16 days (233 orbits @99 minutes) to obtain global coverage. With mission life expected to be 730 days, the math says we’d get 45 “complete” global snapshots.
Each spectral sounding captures 3 km^2 of surface, and the instrument is capable of nabbing 72,000 of them per sunside orbit. That implies the spacecraft will take one sounding every 0.3 linear km of travel (with ~9x oversampling) so that’s an approximate latitudinal resolution.
At the equator, longitudinal resolution is no nearly as impressive at 172 km. Multiply by 0.6 = 106 km * 0.3 km = 32 km^2. In perfect conditions. If my math is not horribly wrong. [1]
Much better, or worse depending on how you look at it. There are far more ground-based temperature monitoring stations than CO2 observing installations so in that sense it’s a vast improvement. But as with all remote sensing solutions, conditions are not always perfect etc., etc., so the final product will be the result of many models and interpolations.
—————————
[1] Calcs:
40,075 km – circumference of Earth
20,038 km – 1/2 circumference of Earth
20,038 km / 72,000 observations = 0.278 km between observations
40,075 km / 233 equator crossings = 172 km between crossings
Tom in Florida,
Oh good grief. There are good arguments to not use a rainbow color scheme for heat maps because the luminance changes can trick the eye into finding significance where none exists. In this case, that’s going to happen in the yellows and other “light” colors. But so long as there’s a legend clearly showing what colors map to which values “deceit” is an inappropriately strong term to use.
“…so the final product will be the result of many models and interpolations.”
No need to say more.
David Chappell,
Ahhh, the climate contrarian’s favorite out. I’m curious, do you reject any and all science which uses statistical and physical modeling and/or other methods of infilling data? Or do you only stop thinking and reading when you observe those sorts of standard tools are applied to climate research?
Of course, any model employed by climateerz will produce the required resultz. Mustn’t let the faithful off the hook, you see. The movement needs bolstering, you see.
The special bleatings begin in earnest.
Policy based evidence manufacturing?
The ironies abound, for every aspect of climate for which we are told we lack measurements and certain doom must there for await..
When the devices to measure that unknown is finally produced, at less than government speed, the actual data seems to deflate the narrative.
I guess they should have stuck with Treemometers.
On their website they still show 10 year old out of date temperature graph
Are they too busy, forgetful or allergic to the pause
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
Sorry folks but I am not sure this means anything. The data shows CO2 concentrations highest in the southern hemisphere tropics/temperate zone but the data was taken during the southern hemisphere spring when temperatures are warming at the fastest rate. If the same plot was taken 6 months later would it show the greatest CO2 levels in the northern hemisphere tropics/temperate zone? Then again, remember that only 5% of the total CO2 emission is down to fossil fuel use so 95% is natural. Would you expect a plot of CO2 levels to highlight the 5% or the 95%? I am very much a sceptic and I think there are excellent reasons to seriously question whether human use of fossil fuel is really the driver of CO2 concentration changes but we must remain as objective as possible else we fall into the same problem of bias as the warmists.
Michael Hammer, it doesn’t mean what Dr. Ball argues it does. In fact he doesn’t really argue it, he just says these observations refute the IPCC before oddly switching over to a long and dubiously relevant discussion of methane which takes up the bulk of his post. It’s been well-known for quite some time that natural CO2 fluxes dwarf the anthropogenic contribution, but one must always keep in mind that in equilibrium, half of those natural fluxes would be absorption.
There are no surprises here, just good scientists following up on previous research and looking for higher resolution, better quality data.
Where is the CO2 from the much maligned NH industrial emissions? The power plants, cement burners, iron& steel, etc., etc. Where?
mpainter, buy a CO2 meter. Place it near the tailpipe of a running automobile and leave it for a few minutes. Take it to to another location away from any obvious vehicle exhausts and let it sit for the same amount of time. Report back with your results.
We are talking about a satellite, are we not?
Go read the post, Gates. Do you see any anthropogenic CO2? Nice image, wrong message for the alarmists eh , Gates.
mpainter,
Ah, your third charming trick: repeating the same question after it’s already been answered. See again China perhaps?
If you want to couch it in those terms, the IPCC kicked that own goal a while ago:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-7-3-l.png
Natural fluxes out: 210 GtC/year. Anthro fluxes out: 6.4 GtC/year. [reviews the OCO-2 plot] Where’s the discrepancy again?
Well, Gates
I see that you prefer cartoons to satellite data.
What should be done with the Greenpeace creeps who vandalized Nazca? Your fellow global warmers?
mpainter,
Once again, you dodge the question I posed. Is there something in that cartoon which disrupts your narrative?
For the record, Greenpeace should make restitution. If they don’t offer it voluntarily I support legal action forcing them to do so.
The first odd thing I saw with this graphic was that it appeared to contradict the Mauna Loa inspired global average CO2 level as 400 ppm. If the tropics were serious producers, and the Antarctic, either non-producers or absorbers, I would have expected the tropics to be pumping out much more than 402.5 ppm to get the global average to 400. (I’m aware of the seasonal variation of CO2; my point still stands even if November’s was 398 ppm).
Looks like a 12-month study of global CO2 is going to say Mauna Loa is too high, despite all the corroborating stations elsewhere in the world. Or that the 12-month, satellite record will have to be “adjusted” to reflect the “truth”. And will have to be every year of measurement.
Which says the satellite doesn’t “measure” anything, it calculates from some non-perfected, infinitely adjustable (for “good reasons”) equation.
Nothing is certain, nothing is settled in CAGW. Except ideology.
You definitely have to look at a full year, not the 1.5 month of current OCO-2 data. The seasonal variation at Mauna Loa is +/- 4 ppmv, at ground level (Barrow) it is +/- 8 ppmv. In the SH it is less than +/- 1 ppmv. Besides that, oceans in the tropics are permanent sources of CO2 and the cold polar waters are permanent sinks, which return their CO2 via the deep oceans back to the tropical upwelling zones, some 1000 years later…
In reply to Ferdinand Engelbeen –
Odd that there is light blue over the tropical oceans. Odd the major source of CO2 appears to be in the southern hemisphere overland. I support your assertion that more data is required, however, the surface CO2 data that is available does not appear to strongly support the assertion that the majority of the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic.
As Salby’s notes the only CO2 ’emission’ which we are sure of is anthropogenic. If Salby’s assertion is correct – Salby asserts that the majority of the recent CO2 rise is non-anthropogenic – then there is a major source of low C13 CO2 which we are not aware of and the planet absorbs/uses more CO2 than estimated.
William, I was in London where Dr. Salby did give his speech in the parliament. The few pertinent questions I had still remain unanswered. Main points:
– If the oceans warm up, the equilibrium gets 8 ppmv/°C higher. That is all. Higher temperatures on land tend to decrease CO2 levels, but over the long run, oceans are dominant.
Dr. Salby integrates the temperature increase over time. That can’t be right, as any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will push more CO2 into the oceans (Henry’s law).
– He assumes that there is a huge migration of CO2 in ice cores to explain the low levels over the past 800,000 years. But the (theoretical) migration in “warm” coastal ice cores is very low and in inland negligible. Moreover, if there was migration, that implies that the CO2 levels during glacial periods would be negative…
Doug – I would have expected the tropics to be pumping out much more than 402.5 ppm to get the global average to 400.
Might be that the ppm include water vapor, not the ‘dry air’ as reported by Mauna Loa. See
400 CO2 ppm / 104000 w/ water vapor included = 384 real air CO2 ppm
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Ferdinand,
It appears you have not listened to Salby’s presentation, as your comment ignores Salby’s findings. Whether you were or were not in London is irrelevant.
You certainly have not thought about what is the solution to Salby’s observational paradox. A paradox is by definition an observational that cannot be explained by the standard ‘theory’. (Paradoxes are not change by those who ignore them. For example the IPCC ‘scientists’ are ignoring the fact that the planet has stopped warming.)
In the case of this problem ‘What is the primary reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2’, the theory is the majority of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Salby found atmospheric CO2 changes as the integral of planetary temperature. Atmospheric CO2 does not changes in direct relationship with anthropogenic CO2 emission. That is an observational fact not a theory. You must I assume be aware that the mysterious CO2 sink increases to sequester more and more CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased 40%. yet year by year atmospheric CO2 continues to increase roughly as the integral of temperature.
Salby’s finding is not theoretical, it is an observational fact, that must be explained. The sinks and sources of CO2, except for the anthropogenic sources and sinks are not known. As Salby notes correctly in the paleo past planetary temperature rises and then CO2 increases. That is an observational fact also.
As I have noted before the source of the earth’s oceans and CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is from core released CH4 (The late Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist Thomas Gold, in his book ‘Deep Hot biosphere The myth of Fossil fuels’ provides roughly 40 observations to support that assertion. For example he discusses the fact that there is coal seam that in the Canadian province of New Brunswick that runs vertically cut through sedimentary layers of different time periods.) The core released CH4 is deficient in C13 which explains why the C13/C12 ratio in sediments does not increase with geological time.
The solution to the Salby’s observational paradox is the cause of the recent temperature increase (P.S. the cause of the recent temperature increase is not CO2. If the cause of the recent temperature increase was anthropogenic CO2 emissions there would not be a secession of warming, no warming, zilch warming, for 17 years.) is also causing an increase in low C13, CH4. The CH4 is converted to CO2 by it appears biological processes which explains the massive amount of CO2 emissions overland in the Southern hemisphere.
William, I have listened to Dr. Salby’s lecture in Germany and reacted on its publication at WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-313/#comment-1346717
It is because I had a lot of questions about his hypothesis that I travelled to London. Unfortunately the question time was limited (and he evaded the questions) and I was not properly dressed (no tie!) to follow the organization and Dr. Salby into the catacombs of the Parliament…
Salby found atmospheric CO2 changes as the integral of planetary temperature.
One can integrate any trend and compare it to any other trend: there is always a high correlation, but not necessarily a causation…
Think about it: with an arbitrary offset it is easy to match the small rise in temperature with the rise in CO2. But that implies that at a constant temperature, as we have in the past 14/18 years, there will be a constant addition of CO2 due to the temperature difference with the offset. That violates Henry’s law of CO2 solubility in seawater: as the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases, less CO2 is released from the (warm) oceans and more is pushed in the (cold) oceans (and land vegetation), thus reducing the increase until a new equilibrium is reached:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
As Salby notes correctly in the paleo past planetary temperature rises and then CO2 increases.
Yes, but what Dr. Salby didn’t notice is that there is no continuous growth after a temperature rise: the rise and drop of CO2 is not more than 8 ppmv/K NOT 8 ppmv/K/time as his integral implies.
During the previous interglacial temperatures were higher than in this interglacial, but CO2 levels remained 270-290 ppmv for thousands of years. Today we are at 400 ppmv at a lower temperature…
As I have noted before the source of the earth’s oceans and CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is from core released CH4
It may be historically so, but if you can explain why the CO2 in the atmosphere starts to increase and the 13C/12C ratio to decrease in exact timing and ratio to the human use of fossil fuels, you may have a point. I don’t see how the deep magma release of CH4 and CO2 would know when to increase over time and where on earth the human emissions would hide while the natural releases are not hiding…
The CH4 is converted to CO2 by it appears biological processes which explains the massive amount of CO2 emissions overland in the Southern hemisphere.
Most of the CH4 is oxidized to CO2 by OH radicals in the upper troposphere. The CO2 emissions overland in the SH are only seasonal, the satellite only shows a few weeks of data in Austral spring. Over a full year, the main increase starts in the NH, the SH lags the NH…
Don’t get too excited just yet.
Even the most ardent warmists accept that natural sources of CO2 are way larger than fossil-burning sources of CO2, and as all the natural sources will have a large seasonal component the sort of map the new measurements produce doesn’t prove anything at all.
Warmist arguments – accepted by the majority of serious sceptics – that increases in atmospheric CO2 are down to fossil fuel burning rely on (1) the mass-balance argument – which I find very unconvincing- and (2) the carbon isotope ratio changes, which seem to me much more solid, although not quite clinching, perhaps.
Hold your fire for now.
But we can expect, over a couple of years, perhaps, some really exciting and perhaps surprising revelations from the new data.
mothcatcher,
Why wouldn’t “ardent warmists” accept that natural CO2 fluxes are larger than anthropogenic?
Brandon –
Not quite sure of your point here – I agree they do! But you are right – the more trivial anthropogenic sources are, relative to natural, the tougher it may be to sell the idea. Is that what you are getting at?
mothcatcher, I understand why it’s counterintuitive at first blush. What unties it is to realize those large natural fluxes were happening before we industrialized, and tended toward an equilibrium. Our emissions, though a fraction of the natural outputs, are simply changing the equilibrium point. For the past million years or so of the current icehouse Earth regime, CO2 has never gone above about 300 ppmv; we’re currently flirting with 400. Those observations alone are difficult to chalk up to coincidence, never mind all the further research which has been done to confirm that yes, our activities really are causing the net rise.
the vast majority of people I talk to, on hearing that fossil fuel burning is only 4% of the total CO2 created each year simply don’t believe it. they have repeated been told that CO2 is going to destroy the world, so it is inconceivable to them that our production is only a small percentage of the total.
they quite naturally assume that the 4% number cannot be true, because common sense tells them that you will not get a catastrophic change in the climate by emissions that are a small fraction of the total.
otherwise global climate would fluctuate greatly with even small changes in vegetation, and land use changes would significantly outweigh fossil fuel burning as a source of CO2. After all, humans currently use 40% of the land for cities and agriculture, up from only 4% 150 years go.
Therefore, land use change would significantly outweigh fossil fuel burning as a CO2 source, given that the natural CO2 fluxes are 96% of the total.
Because it don’t make them wet their britches.
Moth catcher:
What Gates is trying to say is that naturally emitted CO2 does not cause one to wet his britches.
Brandon Gates, you say,
That makes no sense.
It assumes that natural fluxes are constant (!).
1) If there was a lightning strike that lit a forest fire in Indonesia… the CO2 emissions would have spiked and thus moved the equilibrium point.
2) If a couple or maybe three volcanoes occurred in the same half decade then… the same.
3) If the MWP actually occurred and the ice-cores are accurate then the CO2 equilibrium would have moved 800 years later… so how small can the impact of man be to still be distinguished in the movement of the equilibrium?
What makes industrialisation important? It has to be the significance of the CO2 emissions.
But if the anthropogenic CO2 is so small relative to everything else then they aren’t very likely to be significant.
Natural fluxes aren’t constant (anymore than anthropogenic fluxes). But natural fluxes (and hence their changes) dwarf the anthropogenic fluxes.
For the past million years or so of the current icehouse Earth regime, CO2 has never gone above about 300 ppmv; we’re currently flirting with 400. Those observations alone are difficult to chalk up to coincidence, never mind all the further research which has been done to confirm that yes, our activities really are causing the net rise.
==============
that is illogical. low CO2 is consistent with low temperature during the ice ages. when temps warmed up, CO2 followed as would be expected.
in the past 150 years, humans have converted more than 1/3 of the plants land surface to cities and agriculture. Given that natural fluxes are 25 times greater than human fossil fuel burning, and the land covers 3/10 of the globe, land use could account for 1/3 of 3/10 of 25 = potentially 2.5 times the impact of burning fossil fuel.
In other words, if our land use changes increased natural release of CO2 by 1/5, and reduced CO2 absorption by 1/5, on only that fraction of the land surface that we have converted, that would equal all the CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Brandon
You’re attributing to me views that I don’t hold. Right now, I buy the idea that human activity has generated the additional CO2. However, I don’t think it’s a shoo-in and I’m still listening out for good alternative descriptions of what’s happening. The previous long period of CO2 stability is good evidence, but wholly circumstantial.
MCourtney,
“Tending toward equilibrium” implies that the system got out of equilibrium to begin with, which further implies non-constant fluxes: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/ice-cores/vostok-ice-core-petit-web.gif
I know practically every wiggle in Petit et al. 1999 from the raw data, so I’m quite in touch with the fact that CO2 fluxes and levels are anything but constant.
True. Indonesians set things on fire themselves quite a bit as well. Look at Sumatra for starters. You’ll see some smudges in the neighborhood of Java as well.
It takes a really big series of volcanic eruptions to make a dent. The vast majority of CO2 flux is from biological activity.
The MWP was cooler than the Eemian interglacial. Compare the CO2 levels between the two.
300 ppm to 400 ppm is a 33% increase.
mothcatcher,
That wasn’t my intent, apologies. The general theme of this thread is extreme skepticism that humans are causing most of the observed CO2 rise, and you unfortunately caught some splash in my return fire.
ferdberple,
It’s perfectly logical. And for a first approximation, the math is even easier than what you’ve done below.
Yes I know. Here’s this chart again: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/ice-cores/vostok-ice-core-petit-web.gif
Look all the way over to the top right and tell me if anything looks out of place to you.
Agriculture offsets much of that difference because corn fixes CO2 just like any photosynthetic organism. I don’t have the estimates handy for the net, but I don’t see that it’s material to the discussion at this point. CO2 in the atmosphere by our doing is still CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiative effects are still the same.
Brandon Gates, thank you for responding to me.
OK, agreed. And that is my point. Non-constant fluxes existed before man acted.
1) Yes. Man simulates nature. But it has been natural, as well. And so the results have been naturally caused, as well. Man wasn’t created 6000 years ago so it wasn’t a new thing. AGW is a meh.
2) OK. That is true. But as the world is not that new it is still worth mentioning. Yes, that is true within current observations (you are right!) The vast majority of CO2 flux is from biological activity.
But volcanism could still dominate. And over geological time – if a dangerous or newsworthy event could happen – it would.
3) The MWP was comparable to now. And it was still 800 years ago. So, I think you should reconsider your objection. (Note: I don’t doubt that man’s influence is probably the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration).
Finally, 300ppm to 400pmm is more than the rise in CO2 and it [is still] purely of academic interest… unless you can show that that potency matters.
0.0003 to 0.0004 = meh.
MEH, Shout I. Unless you can show potency.
And that is what I am asking for you to provide, Brandon Gates.
MCourtney,
If you’re talking about a Lake Toba magnitude event, or the Yellowstone Caldera going up perhaps. The aerosol cooling effect would probably be the bigger problem, however.
Depending on which reconstruction you look at, the MWP was still cooler than the Holocene maximum. Try matching up Marcott 2013 for the Holocene max and Moberg 2005 for the MWP.
It’s difficult for me to see that from the arguments you’ve presented, but I’m content to take your word for it.
We could start with Milankovich’s orbital parameters not being able to fully explain the Vostok ice core temperature records: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSTEVkSjV1LUZVZ3c
The above stated “CO2 equilibrium” ……. is no more than a “weazelworded” way of stating “average CO2 ppm”.
And everyone should realize that ALL calculated “averages” are non-physical quantity numerical values that simply represents the mean or “central” value of a specific set of numbers or “number set”.
All calculated “averages” are in equilibrium to their respective “number sets”, …. thus it is said “average” that is in equilibrium, … not the CO2 ppm quantity represented by the “number set”.
Duh, iffen a farmer calculated the average weight of all the potatoes he had stored in ten (10) different potato bins …… he surely wouldn’t be claiming that he had a “potato equilibrium“, … would he?
Samuel C Cougar,
No. Equilibrium and average are two distinctly different concepts.
True an average is a non-physical quantity but that doesn’t make them non-useful. There are cases when taking an average is the ONLY measurement option. A single good-old-fashioned alcohol bulb thermometer is a good example. Any single temperature measuring instrument is taking “instantaneous” averages.
What is “ppm” if not akin to an average, hmm? Both involve dividing one numerical value by another to arive at some per unit quantity.
Of course not. As you’ve framed the question, it’s not one of equilibrium. If you’d like to discuss the market demand for potatoes per unit time relative to the rate the farmer is able to supply them, the the market clearing price of potatoes is determined by an equilibrium function somewhat more appropriate to the concept I’m actually writing about.
@ur momisugly Brandon Gates: December 22, 2014 at 10:43 am
“What is “ppm” if not akin to an average, hmm?”
——————
“ppm” is parts per million …. and “NO”, ppm is not akin to an average.
Brandon, getta clue, an “average” is a snap-shot-in-time abstract numerical value whose sole purpose is that of reference data or information.
HA, an average is akin to ….. the square root of -1.
Typo (need sleep)
“Finally, 300ppm to 400pmm is more than the rise in CO2 and it si till purely of academic interest”
Should be,
!Finally, 300ppm to 400pmm is more than the rise in CO2 and it is [still] purely of academic interest”.
[8<)..mod]
Good points.
Do you know of any CO2 data that shows the significant decrease in human CO2 production during economic recessions (of which we have had two or three in the past century)? Mauna Loa, last I saw, didn’t seem to capture those changes.
Hardly visible in the data, as even with the latest crisis, human emissions hardly decreased, thus still increasing the CO2 levels, be it at a slightly slower rate.
@ur momisugly Brandon Gates: December 22, 2014 at 10:43 am
“No. Equilibrium and average are two distinctly different concepts.”
——————
You really need to familiarize yourself with the concept of “weazelwording”.
Samuel C Cogar,
aargh, blockquote!
@ur momisugly Brandon Gates: December 23, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Brandon, an “average” is an abstract numerical number (digit(s)) that is mathematically calculated to derive the mean numerical value of a specific entity (number set) and which is oftentimes expressed as a percentage (%) of said entity.
And in actuality it matters not a twit what you use that calculated “average” for, it still only applies to the specific “number set” that was used for said calculation.
Here, Brandon, pick whichever calculated CO2 ppm “dot” average on this graphic that “turns-your-crank” ….. and then explain to me how it defines, explains or infers an “equilibrium” to anything other than itself.
http://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/mlo_one_monthmar-apr2013.png
And I specifically stated “weazelwording”, …not “weasel word”. Thus your Wikii definition of “weasel word”, to wit:
“1. Numerically vague expressions (e.g. “some people”, “experts”, “many”)”
Defines the fact that “equilibrium” was the weasel word that was used by or stipulated by the “weazelwording” weazelworder in the cited statement being discussed.
So cease with your “weazelwording” in your futile attempt to justify your commentary about the value and/or use of “averages”.
Samuel C Cogar,
Yeah, just like ppm. Like I said, they’re akin to each other.
No one of those dots define, explain or infer an equilibrium. They’re just individual estimates of how much CO2 was floating around the Mauna Loa Observatory per unit volume of atmosphere on a particular hour/day/week. Yes, on average.
No one dot says anything about how those CO2s got there, only that they were there. When I write “equilibrium” I mean “equilibrium”. Go read the definition again.
My head is spinning, all without the benefit of any eggnog. Woe is me.
Hey man, averages are your red herring here, not mine. Your unwillingness (or inability) to understand the difference between taking an average and a physical equilibrium process would be your issue, not mine.
It is very hard to draw conclusions from this CO2 chart. Springtime in the SH should show reduced CO2 there as plant growth surges drawing CO2 from the atmosphere, and fall in the NH should show increased concentrations as leaves fall and begin to rot.
No one has yet suggested a mechanism by which only around half of human emissions enters the atmosphere, year after year. The graphic with annual emissions totals is revealing because, as Dr. Ball points out, human emissions are less than the annual variability of natural sources.
There is no way Mother Nature could vary as much as she does, and yet take up half of our emissions every year. Something else must be happening. The chemistry of the oceans is immensely complex, and appears to me to be the most likely driver of atmospheric CO2.
Where are the NH anthro-CO2? This is continuous, does not wax and wane seasonally. Where is it?
Good grief mpainter, you’re asking questions which were generally answered near the middle of the last century: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Look especially at the inset at the bottom right showing the seasonal cycles. Note that the low part of the cycle corresponds with the NH autumn season, specifically the month of October. Look at the image at the top of this post. Notice that the time period covered is all of October and the first week of November.
What do you think of GreenPeace, B Gates?
mpainter, I’m not a fan.
A little thick, are we Gates?Anthro-CO2 are seasonal, do you say?
mpainter, human emissions are ~4 ppmv/year or ~0.01 ppmv/day, far below the detection limit of the satellite, except when concentrated in smaller areas (towns) and if the satellite can concentrate on these “hot spots” (which it can). So maybe it can give some answers, but I fear that it will need more accurate instruments to get the human component…
mpainter,
No, you’re just up to your usual trick of inventing an argument you wish to refute instead of dealing with the actual argument being made.
Ferdinand, we both agree that anthropogenic CO2 is of such little consequence, compared with natural sources, that the new carbon sniffing satellite smells none at all.
So why does B Gates wet himself over CO2? Can you answer that?
mpainter,
At issue here is not my alleged lack of potty training, but where the increase from 300ish to 400ish ppmv CO2 concentration has come from. Sort of pointless to talk about anthropogenic CO2 effects when the anthropogenic part itself is under dispute. Do try to stick to the subject.
Can you imagine the consternation in the White House when they realized that their CO2 sniffing satellite showed no anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
I’ll wager Holdren was on the phone within the hour.
I can imagine what he said: “What kind of satellite is this?”
mpainter,
It would likely be on par with my consternation that you think we need satellites to figure out that this graph isn’t sheer coincidence:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
This satellite will take a heavy load off the minds of the gullible, weak minded types; that is, the ones who are susceptible to the climate alarmism that one sees peddled everywhere. Now, they can be shown that anthropogenic CO2 is so inconsequential as to be undetectable by the latest carbon sniffer. Thus truth, as revealed by the progress of science, makes the world a better place for all.
mpainter,
It appears to be working far better and more immediately than you yourself realize.
Doesn’t seem to have worked in your case.
“A recent example appeared from the BBC, triggered by more evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. ”
Don’t get me wrong- I totally agree with what Tim Bal says- but am missing the link as to why the fact that C02 concentration varies across continents/oceans contradicts the IPCC hypothesis. How are the IPCC results dependent on C02 being constant? Like temperature, I’ve always assumed C02 concentrations varied, and it was just the “change” the average change that was being measured Just as I think it’s nonsensical to make climate predictions on a world (as opposed to local) averages- it seems crazy to base predictions on an average increase in C02. However, I’m having a hard time explaining to my layperson friends, how the fact that it varies across continents nullifies the IPCC hypothesis. Can anyone help explain this in layman’s terms?
Louise Nicholas
You ask
I will try, and I draw your attention to the above discussion between M Courtney and Brandon Gates which has already addressed it.
My explanation is as follows.
1.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration is asserted (e.g. by the IPCC) as having been stable at 300 ppmv prior to the industrial revolution, but has risen to ~400 ppmv since the industrial revolution. This assertion of stability prior to the industrial revolution is supported by ice core data but is refuted by stomata data.
2.
The anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) emission (aCO2) is at most only 4% of the natural CO2 emission (nCO2).
3.
But if a rise in emission of only 4% causes a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 400 ppmv then such changes in nCO2 cannot have happened naturally if atmospheric CO2 concentration was stable at 300 ppmv prior to the industrial revolution.
4.
The aCO2 is emitted from specific localities (i.e. industrialised regions) and is asserted to have caused the 300 to 400 ppmv rise.
5.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration must be very constant at every location for the asserted stability prior to the industrial revolution to be possible: otherwise, the natural variation in sources of nCO2 would have induced rises (or falls) similar to those of the 300 to 400 ppmv rise said to have been caused by the localised aCO2.
6.
The OCO2 data shows the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies between locations. Also, throughout each year the atmospheric CO2 concentration is known to vary by much more than the total aCO2 of each year at every location (e.g. see the Mauna Loa data).
7.
Point 7 refutes the requirement of Point 6.
I hope that helps.
Richard
Ouch!
Obviously, I intended to write
7.
Point 6 refutes the requirement of Point 5.
Sorry.
Richard
Richard, we have been there before…
1. ice core CO2 data are direct measurements of a mixture averaged over the resolution period. The latter varies between ~10 years over the past 150 years and ~560 years over the past 800 kyears, The repeatability of ice core measurements is better than 1.3 ppmv (1 sigma).
Stomata data are proxies and have a lot of problems…
2. It is near 7%, but still one-way while 93% is two-way with more sink than source, that is zero contribution from the natural cycle over the past 55 years.
3. Depends of the time frame: temperature gives fast changes (2-3 years) in vegetation uptake/decay, but the influence on permanent storage in vegetation and the deep oceans is much slower: a half life time of ~40 years for any excess CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That is too slow to capture all human emissions in short time but fast enough to follow the temperature changes during glacial-interglacial transitions which need ~5000 years.
4. Agreed.
5. There are large variability’s in the first few hundred meters over land (the main problem for stomata data), that is less than 5% of the atmosphere by weight. In 95% of the atmosphere (including at ground level in -ice- deserts) CO2 levels are between +/- 2% of full scale. As some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 of other reservoirs over the seasons, that is quite well mixed.
6. Again: OCO-2 shows a scale of +/- 8 ppmv for a seasonal in/out of ~80 ppmv CO2. Seasonal cycles level off after a full cycle. The global seasonal cycle is +/- 5 ppmv, the total increase is 110 ppmv where humans have emitted over 200 ppmv of CO2…
7. The seasonal CO2 variability at Antarctica is less than 1 ppmv. With a resolution of ~20 years over the past 1000 years, it is possible to detect a one-year peak of 40 ppmv or a 20 year long increase of 2 ppmv. Even the ice cores with the worst resolution would detect the current 110 ppmv increase in the past 160 years in the full 800,000 years record.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen: December 22, 2014 at 2:51 am
Iffen Keeling had not moved his CO2 testing facility to atop Mauna Loa in 1958 and started recording fairly accurate atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities …… then those persons involved in calculating, estimating and/or guesstimating the quantity CO2 associated with the various post-1958 CO2 sources and sinks …. and/or …. those persons involved in calculating, estimating and/or guesstimating the quantity of CO2 associated with the various pre-1958 CO2 proxy sources and sinks ….. would not have a factually accepted “baseline” to adjust their claimed results to ….. and thus all the aforesaid persons would be claiming their “CO2 quantities” are the actually accurate ones.
Richard:
Yes, Ferdinand, the data indicates the values at the sample site. This is true of all the CO2 proxy data including the ice core data.
The difference is that the ice core data are no “proxy” data, they are real, measured CO2 levels, be it from a mix of several years, while the stomata data are proxies with all the problems involved (how does temperature and/or drought change the stomata index/density?)..
But the main difference is that the stomata data reflect only local CO2 data, affected by local CO2 changes over time, while ice core data represent the CO2 changes in 95% of the atmosphere…
That the stomata (index) data reflect the local average CO2 level of the previous growing season is a detail to inform Samuel. I don’t make a point of that.
I hammer the point that the stomata data indicate response to atmospheric CO2 concentration in the region(s) where emission and sequestration occur.
Yes and that makes that their value is questionable: either you need stomata data from every square meter on earth to calculate the average global CO2 level, or you take some distance of the mess which happens in the 5% of the atmosphere where the largest exchanges are happening. And simply measure at a place distant from any local disturbances, which the South Pole is…
I still wonder why people who do (rightfully) reject any temperature data from the middle of towns or other UHI places insist to accept CO2 data from equally contaminated places, while a single series from a remote place gives you all the historical information you need…
Ferdinand
I said I had made my final contribution to this sub-thread, but I cannot allow these outrageous assertions from you to stand. You say to me
The ice core data are ” real, measured CO2 levels” IN THE ICE CORES. They are proxy data for the CO2 levels in past atmospheres because they have been modified by a variety of processes and factors (including the “mix of several years” which you mention).
It is simply true that a sample indicates the conditions at the sample site and this is true for both stomata and ice core data.
Let us make the mistake of assuming you are right that “ice core data represent the CO2 changes in 95% of the atmosphere”, then that stresses the importance of the stomata data which you refuse to consider. As I keep telling you, the stomata data indicate CO2 in regions where CO2 emission and CO2 sequestration occur.
Richard
Ferdinand
You rightly say, “we have been there before…”.
Yes, many times including several on WUWT. I see no reason to iterate it all again so if anybody wants to see our disputes then they can use the WUWT Search facility.
The point is that you and some others pretend ice cores are sample bottles for air but they are not, and you malign the stomata data because it refutes what you want to be true. Some other people champion the stomata data and malign the ice core data because that suites what they want to be true.
In reality, the ice core and stomata data are each useful proxies.
In this case the stomata data are very useful proxies for the very reasons you say they should be ignored.
You say
The stomata respond to the “large variability’s in the first few hundred meters over land”. That is NOT a “problem for stomata data”: it enables the stomata to provide useful information about the variability.
As I said,
It is refuted BECAUSE – as you say – “There are large variability’s in the first few hundred meters over land” and that is the region where CO2 is emitted and sequestered. The emission affects the concentration and the concentration affects the sequestration. The stomata data indicate response to atmospheric CO2 concentration in the region(s) where emission and sequestration occur.
Richard
Ferdinand really detests the stomata proxies simply because they are the most accurate of all the CO2 proxies.
And in my learned opinion … the stomata does not, per se, respond to the “large (CO2) variability’s in the first few hundred meters over land”.
In actuality, me thinks the leaves of the plants respond to the “average CO2 ppm” at the near-surface level that said leaves are situated at.
The stomata in the leaves of the plant have to function consistently and reliably during the extent of the growing season (4 to 6 months) …… therefore the leaf produces the optimum number of stomata to do so …. and therefore the large variability in the near-surface CO2 ppm be damned.
“Survival of the fittest” also applies to plants.
Samuel C Cogar
It is good to agree with you for a change.
Yes, I agree with you when you say
However, that average is affected by the variability and – in the context of this thread – the variability is very important. As I said
Richard
Richard:
it enables the stomata to provide useful information about the variability.
It enables the stomata to provide useful information about the local</b. variability of where the leaves did grow (mainly based on the average of the previous growing season). Even when there was hardly any variability in the bulk of the atmosphere… The local variability does change from year to year and century to century, because of changes in land use in the main wind direction: from marshes to crops, from grassland to forests and from sea to land, not to forget the growing industry and traffic in recent centuries…
Even the main wind direction may have changed between warm and cold periods and back (MWP-LIA-current).
Thus while ice cores provide real CO2 measurements, be it averaged over the period of resolution, the stomata data are proxies, of which the absolute CO2 level should be taken with a grain of salt.
If the average of the stomata data over the same time frame as the resolution in ice cores differ from the ice core data, then the stomata data are certainly wrong…
Samuel C Cogar:
The number of stomata doesn’t change during the growing seasons, its density is determined by the average CO2 level over the previous growing season (implemented in the new knobs). Indeed at the height where the plants grow.
The main problem, as explained to Richard, is that one can determine the local bias over the past century, compared to ice cores and direct measurements, but there is no way to know the changes in local bias over the previous centuries due to (huge) changes in land use and type of crops grown…
And indeed, even if stomata are the best of the proxies (which I doubt) they still are proxies, while ice core measurements are direct measurements of (averaged) ancient CO2 levels…
Ferdinand
This will be my last post in this sub-thread. I answered the requests for clarification from Louise Nicholas and your responses do not show any error in my clarifications.
You attempt to distract from the usefulness of stomata data by making two nit-picks.
You say
Well, gast my flabber!
You say to ignore the stomata data because it is displaced in time by one single, solitary year!
No, Ferdinand, your assertion is NOT a reason to reject the stomata data.
And you say
Yes, Ferdinand, the data indicates the values at the sample site. This is true of all the CO2 proxy data including the ice core data. If that were a reason to reject the stomata data then the same rejection criterion should apply to the ice core data.
Importantly, I yet again repeat the point you are ignoring; viz.
I hammer the point that the stomata data indicate response to atmospheric CO2 concentration in the region(s) where emission and sequestration occur.
Richard
Sorry, used the wrong reply button… My reaction is upward…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen: December 23, 2014 at 6:43 am
“Thus while ice cores provide real CO2 measurements, be it averaged over the period of resolution, the stomata data are proxies, of which the absolute CO2 level should be taken with a grain of salt.”
——————-
OH GOOD GRIEF, … Ferdinand, …. the leaves of the plants respond directly to the average variability of the atmospheric CO2 ppm ……. whereas the per se “yearly” snowpack that created those ice cores didn’t respond to anything other that the weight of the per se “yearly” snowpacks that accumulated over top of them.
And given the fact that no one has a clue what the weather conditions were when each one (1) of said snowpacks “trapped” its quantity of CO2 molecules …… then no one has a clue what the average variability of the atmospheric CO2 ppm was at the time of said “trapping”.
Ells bells, they don’t even know if said snowpacks were created by wind-blown snow, …. extremely light snowfall over several weeks ….. or extremely heavy snowfall over 1 or 2 days, ….. all three (3) of said which will have a drastic direct effect on the availability of CO2 molecules in the at-surface atmosphere subject to being trapped by said snowfall.
Plant stomata numbers are a direct correlation to the average variability of the atmospheric CO2 ppm.
Ice core proxies are ……. proxies.
And to quote a wise person, to wit: “everyone seems to have forgotten that proxies are not data, they are presumptions based on guesses.”
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen: December 23, 2014 at 6:54 am
“…. while ice core measurements are direct measurements of (averaged) ancient CO2 levels…”
——————-
Ferdinand, …. you know very well that was an oxymoronic statement.
Direct measurements and averaged measurements are directly contrary claims.
And quit trying to teach me a lesson in/on Botany. I done passed that College course with a pretty good Grade many years ago, back in 61’ I think it was.
Be still my beating heart, wow, we have Dr Tim talking about dirt and not long ago rgb stating his assertion that goats make deserts.
I have, for a little while now, reasoned that deserts are actually like rainforests in that they are self-sustaining – possibly the only place in Climate Science where positive feedback is alive and working. Which comes first in a rainforest, is it the forest (trees) or the rain. You don’t get one without the other. Chicken/egg situation. Likewise a desert, the heat creates the dryness and the dryness creates the heat – effectively via the paucity of water.
Anyway (and does anyone on this planet actually get their hands dirty any more), I have data. Not a lot, but some.
My data came from my garden, a small patch of greenery (meadow grass mostly) amongst a very large patch of greenery and maybe 10 miles downwind from the city of Carlisle (Pop ~100,000 and famous for its biscuit and tyre factories, one of each) and maybe 50 miles downwind from Sellafield nuclear facility.
My experiment was to take a handheld CO2 meter, place it on a brick and put a heavy black plastic bucket over the top of it – on the lawn in my garden. Do not hand-hold CO2 meters, they read garbage if you do.
So, I switch on the meter, place it on my outdoor picnic bench and let it stabilise to whatever reading it wants to settle on. I note that reading and put it under the bucket for exactly 5 minutes. Remove it from the bucket, note the reading and put it back on the bench in the open air. Try hard not to breathe on it and leave it, typically for 10 minutes to a stable reading. Note the reading, put back under the bucket for 5 mins and repeat until bored or it starts raining. Usually the latter round here.
OK?
The readings I got from an experiment on an afternoon in late July, temperature about 16 deg C, were as follows:
398….457
401….436
400….440
402….513
403….444
401….441
404….418
The low readings are from the bench, in the open air and the high readings after 5 minutes under the black plastic bucket on the grass lawn in my garden. All are parts per million as indicated by my CO2 meter. This was one consecutive set of readings, 5 mins under the bucket and 10 minutes in the fresh air. The meter was not switched off for the duration nor in any way recalibrated. (It has a setting to do that if you want – it normalises to 400ppm) I held my breath as I moved it, quickly, from one to the other.
Now everyone, go do some sums. Take the diameter of the bucket as 60cm and its depth as 35cm, near as sod it straight sided.
How much CO2 is coming out of each unit area of ground per unit time?
Its an interesting answer if you do it as tonnes per year per hectare then maybe, just to scare yourself, multiply it by the area of farmland on Planet Earth, circa 10% of its total.
Also, this was ground that has never (not in 25 years anyway) had any artificial or otherwise fertiliser applied. Considering that around here, typical applications of fertiliser cause a 4 or 5 fold increase in crop yield and that fertiliser acts primarily on the soil bacteria and it is they producing the CO2 How might you adjust your answer? I really haven’t a clue, that’s another experiment to run sometime, when I’ve got time.
and it not raining.
There’s a figure you may need, the density of CO2, which I understand to be 1.92 grams per litre at STP
Here’s another shorter run I did, actually at 2 in the morning in October, temp= 7 deg C
441…490
433….488
423….487
419….472
Same everything as above.
For the sake of this thread and for that matter the comparisons being made with seasonal readings, isnt taking photsynthesis out of the equation by placing a black plastic bucket over your lawn (or doing it at night) slightly affecting the resultant CO2 if you take out the one factor removing it!! Your conclusions are only measuring dark CO2. Plants produce CO2 at night
Nice to see this. The problem is that CO2 is not well mixed in the first few hundred meters over land. It is better mixed with high wind speed but even better: measure CO2 far away of huge sources and sinks. That includes vegetation and human activity. That is why they measure “background” CO2 on mountain tops, Antarctica and on islands or coastal where the wind is mainly from the seaside…
If you measure over land, one can find enormous levels of CO2 at night under inversion (no wind) and much lower levels during the day. Here for a few summer days at Giessen (SW Germany, semi-rural) and the same days at Mauna Loa, Barrow and the South Pole (all raw data):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
That’s the boundry layer. Local wind changes will change those readings. Higher wind will lower the readings due to mixing. You need to get at least 100 meters above the surface to get close to real atmosphere CO2 concentrations.
On a calm day you should see higher CO2 near the surface.
Hi Pete
Where from and how much for a CO2 meter?
Cheers
It was from ebay, direct from China. Mine cost me ~£70. You can pay what you like for one but you’re never gonna get Mauna Loa accuracy. I don’t trust mine in any way to give an absolute value, but for measuring differences/trends between locations/times, if you’re careful (Do Not Breathe on the thing), its something, a start point for further thought/investigation.
The range on the graph is very narrow, 387 to 402, despite the wide range in color scheme. Besides, how is biomass burning (farmers burning their fields, or grasslands to prepare for planting) not considered human activity?
Right, Barry,
Those slash and burn miscreants owe me indemnification for all that CO2 that have polluted my air with, here in the heart of heavily populated, heavily industrialized US, which is shown above to be innocent of CO2 crimes.So pay up, miscreant subsistence farmer.
Not really, SCIAMACHY (another satellite based spectrometer which has been in orbit almost a decade) shows the same pattern, but if you look at the details you can clearly see the anthropic emission centers..
GOOD ARTICLE! Interesting, and I learned a bit about soil and weather, and politics and psychology, and atmosphere, and more. Gad I hate that red clay soil when it is wet, like grease under my tires.
I wouldn’t be too quick with conclusions here. The satellite picture appears to agree rather well with NASA’s CO2 model of which a video was posted not very long ago here.
Move the slider to October and if you take different color coding into account you’ll see pretty much the same picture. So no surprise here, rainforests appear to be hosts of highest CO2 concentrations on the planet this time of year. But if the model is right, they won’t keep it very long. And in as little as three months it might be alarmists shouting “it’s worse than we thought” over output of the same satellite.
Kasuha, I’m pretty sure the different color scale is what has been throwing people comparing the two. The satellites are not intended to say anything about “it’s worse than we thought” by my reading; we simply want better understanding of the geographical locations of sources and sinks.
I do fully expect to have to eat these words in the future … the law of large numbers dictates at least one prominent researcher will eventually find something alarming in these data.
How on earth you come to that conclusion even with the colour coding is a complete mystery. In your October graph the bias is still massively in the NH whereas the new data shows a hugely greater bias to the Southern Hemisphere regions. This is a huge shift of CO2 concentration
mwh, go to 2:23 in the video, which corresponds to 10/11/2006. Of course the proper way to do this would be to grab the model output and average it over 10/1-11/11 then match that to observations.
You ought to be happy that NASA has finally listened to you and gone out and done “real” science by taking actual observations. There’s just no pleasing some people, is there.
Come on Brandon that snapshot is showing some trends in the right direction but run the sequence either side or just stick on that single day and it does not show the greater levels over the southern tropics that the new imagery does. The amounts are not precise but the distribution should be even without calibration. this is unexpected and I look forward to this source of Data building a more thorough picture of what is going on. It would appear from this early preview that CO2 is more sensitive to temperature not temperature more sensitive to CO2. However a few years of these actual readings instead of models will put an awful lot of this argument to rest and should help to decide whether CO2 should be such a large contributor to forcings/feedbacks in temperature predictive models
mwh,
I don’t doubt even a “perfect” model run over a short period of time would not match up well with observational data over a similar period of time. Imperfect model, hello? Chaotic system, yes?
The proper analysis is not eyballing images with different color scaling, but grabbing actual data over (at least) several annual cycles and crunching numbers.
Bonus points if the comparison is 2014 observational data with 2014 model output instead of 2014 to 2006 ….
Ok, what do small sample sizes tend to do to distributions?
Well I certainly hope so too. We probably will find something truly unexpected … in fact I hope we do! That makes the experiment ever that much more worth doing.
Over short periods of time, CO2 is unarguably more responsive to temperature than the other way around. This is NO surprise whatsoever.
Thus far my understanding of this mission is not to quantify CO2 forcing effects but sources and sinks. Not just geographical locations, but the CO2 fluxes. That might make some difference in a radiative physics model in some GCM somewhere, but I don’t think that’s the main thing they’re after here. This seems to be mostly about better understanding the carbon cycle, which is key to guessing what might happen with atmospheric concentrations under various forward-looking emissions scenarios.
Kasuha:
Well, I looked at the NASA CO2 model you provided, went to October, and contrary to your claim, it is *very* different than what the Orbiting Carbon Observatory saw in October. I’m not sure why you would make this clearly inaccurate assertion.
This was never about science. This was always about usurping National laws with international ones. In short, power.
Tim Ball says –
“As a result the BBC, whose lack of journalistic integrity and political bias, was exposed in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), are obliged to spin the evidence.”
***it would be be fun to be a fly on the wall at this “off the record” indoctrination session! (scroll down below the Jeff Goodell/Rolling Stone article for the following):
20 Dec: South China Morning Post: Climate change: How to bring China on board
by Mark Footer
That’s where the Joint US-China Collaboration on Clean Energy (JUCCCE) comes in. Founded in 2007, the Shanghai-based non-profit organisation facilitates what it calls “programmatic collaboration, rather than clean energy ‘shuttle diplomacy’ between China and the US”.
Last year saw the birth of JUCCCE’s China Gateway programme, the aim of which is to bring together Western “convenors” and Chinese counterparts in “salons”: meetings in convivial surroundings that build circles of trust in which progress on a range of bilateral issues can be made…
“There was this widely held belief that China screwed everything up in Copenhagen [at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference],” says
Peggy Liu, founder and chairwoman of JUCCCE, at the Slow Life Symposium, an annual informal get-together of the environmentally minded organised by eco-resort operator Soneva Group and held this year (see page 22) at the Soneva Fushi resort, in the Maldives…
We decided to focus on people who are on the world stage, who can magnify what they learn about China to the outside world, who are advisers to advisers of principals of nations,” says Liu, naming Greg Barker, the British minister of state for climate change, and
Nick Mabey, once a senior adviser to the British prime minister, as members of the programme.
Liu speaks with a passion many potential convenors must find hard to resist and she mentions she has just recruited one of the other symposium participants, David Monsma. Executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Energy and Environment Programme, Monsma advises on, among other things, responsible Chinese investment in Africa…
***”We brought in another group right before the Summer Davos, in Beijing, with a couple of BBC Radio folks. This was off the record . there is a huge push from the Chinese partners [which include the Chinese Academy of Governance and the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development] to do this because they feel China has risen much faster than they were prepared for and no one has trained them to speak to Western press, Western people. Most of them can’t travel; government officials’ passports are now being confiscated. So they would like to learn how to speak to a BBC Radio journalist…
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1664632/behind-scenes-historic-us-china-climate-pact
Yep, according to the CO2 map poor undeveloped East Timor is a hot spot and heavily industrialised Java isn’t so much.
Has anyone ruled out fish farts as a source of greenhouse gasses? It’s surely worth a few million and a peer review or two.
I somehow wondered why this project was going to provide anything useful at all. I assume that the results as graphed are not surface concentrations but average tropospheric concentrations. If so, how does that help? If one is trying to pinpoint a source, the measure needs to be for the lower troposphere. I suspect what we are seeing are the spring blooms in the Southern Hemisphere – noticeably missing in Australia due to the aridity, but present in Indonesia and Papua to the North. Personally I think the jury is out – not on humanity’s guilt. I never believed that, but on what this is actually showing. Could be that this is a white elephant because we will never really know what we are looking at.
It will be very interesting for the coming years, the Bern model expects a sink saturation soon and a huge increase in the airborne fraction, it will be interesting what the sinks will do, and now there will be no hiding when they won’t saturate.
I’m sure you know that the assumption that the Bern model is correct is the basis for the entire IPCC fiasco
Global CO2 sinks will never “saturate” on any time scale. The amount of research on that is huge:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/is-the-bern-model-non-physical/
For those interested in the claims that CO2 stable isotope ratios are evidence for anthro-CO2 as cause of global increase, there are doubts:
http://tinyurl.com/lvb846l
Quite a few people are working on C12/C13 ratio within the atmosphere. See also global biogeochemical carbon cycle. The short answer is that the CO2 increase since industrialization is mostly natural, with a small amount of fossil fuel increase. Since atmosphere CO2 has a fairly rapid exchange of CO2 to and from permanent sources and sinks, the amount of anthro-CO2 in the atmosphere is about 15 to 25 ppm out of the total of 400 ppm. CO2 never “accumulates” in the atmosphere, from any source. It’s all a matter of long term sources and sinks. See also the atomic bomb CO2 decay rates.
Quite right. The notion that anthro-CO2 would “accumulate” and displace natural sources is absurd, but you hear it a lot.
bw, the story by Chiefio is completely wrong: both C3 and C4 plants have a lower δ13C ratio than the atmosphere and all fossil fuels are (much) lower. Oceans (including the isotopic shift at the sea-air border) , volcanoes and carbonate rocks are all higher than the atmosphere.
Thus if the δ13C level drops, that excludes oceans, volcanoes and rock weathering as cause. Rests the difference between plant decay and human emissions.
Based on the oxygen use balance, the biosphere as a whole produces more oxygen than it uses. Thus the biosphere is a net sink for CO2 (~1 GtC/year) not a source and all δ13C decline is from human emissions.
It seems Ball doesn’t really understand the difference between naturally and unnaturally occurring CO2 emissions, as well as the balance of CO2 inputs and outputs. Another embarrassing post for whats up.
That’s doctor Ball to you, chump.
Wake me when you understand any of this.
Trafamadore says that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Silly fellow.
Could you quote the exact words where you think he is wrong and explain his error?
Too many. Okay, first two paras make no sense and say nothing. Then Ball says “Preliminary evidence essentially exonerates humans as the source of CO2.”
Wow. The project tells us where [CO2] is high and where it’s lower. Natural sources are expected to be seasonally variable and mask human emmissions. So the data says nothing about humans. We put a little bit extra CO2 into the air each year, forcing the average higher each year. The Hawaii record also shows this each year, the ups and downs of the yearly pattern are always more dramatic than the yearly increase. Same thing.
So why do you let Ball blabber on about this, are you just unthinking sheep? It’s an embarrassment to your site.
trafamadore says:
…first two paras make no sense…
OK, fair enough. You can’t understand. Not surprising.
And:
…why do you let Ball blabber on about this, are you just unthinking sheep? It’s an embarrassment to your site.
You show no respect… but you want to be respected?
Doesn’t work like that.
It certainly seems as if Ball is presenting the concept of biomass burning in South America and southern Africa as if it is a ridiculous “guess” without any research into these events. So…either “wrong”, “ignorant”, or “deceptive”. It would certainly be helpful if Ball would counter the actual research into biomass burning rather than waving his hands in a belittling fashion: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/4859/2014/acp-14-4859-2014.pdf
I’m not holding my breath
Wow. db apparently is a sheepie. Who would have known.
trafamadore December 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Too many. Okay, first two paras make no sense and say nothing. Then Ball says “Preliminary evidence essentially exonerates humans as the source of CO2.”
Wow. The project tells us where [CO2] is high and where it’s lower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, this project does exonerate humans as the source of additional CO2 because it doesn’t show elevated levels that correspond to the industrial centres of the world. Of course, this is poorly calibrated and very preliminary data.
Oh wait, that’s what he said. Preliminary.
You can’t rely on seasonal variability in this particular argument because human emissions are very concentrated, and hence would show as elevated levels in comparison to the immediately adjacent land, no matter the seasonal swing being low or high.
That said, I wouldn’t agree that humans are having no impact on CO2 levels. But as written, Dr. Ball is not wrong in this case.
trafamadofe sez:
Wow. db apparently is a sheepie. Who would have known.
LOLOL!! traf has completely run out of arguments! Now he’s at the name-calling stage of his desperate alarmist deflection. Who would have known?
Well, I would have known, for one: our boy traf hasn’t had a decent argument since he first showed up here. It must really suck to have Planet Earth herself debunking his religion-based Belief system.
===========================
Next: I agree w/hoffer: we are having an effect on global T.
But it is such a minuscule effect that it can’t even be measured! That is a fact anyone can observe: where are the measurements? There are none.
But if the alarmist crowd ever admitted that publicly, they would be admitting that they have basically lost the CAGW/AGW debate. So they stick with their rhetorical tactic of ‘say anything’ — anything except for that.
Natural sources are expected to be seasonally variable and mask human emmissions.
Well Traf, let’s examine that notion and see if the back of the envelope math makes sense.
Human contribution to net CO2 in the atmosphere is commonly estimated at about 2 ppm per year. The scale on this graph only shows a range of 15.5 ppm, so 2 ought to stick out like a sore thumb. But then again, this is a snapshot that is averaged over a number of weeks, which would tend to smear out the human activity signature. Or would it?
Only about 30% of the earth’s surface is land, and that’s where the vase majority of human activity takes place. So, for human activity to drive an extra 2 ppm over the earth as a whole, we’d need to see 9 and 1/3 ppm over land (above normal background). Well on a scale whose range is only 15.5 ppm, 9.33 ought to show up pretty plainly. But wait, its worse than that.
According to a World Bank report in 2009:
Another interesting perspective was given by a new global map of European Commission’s Joint Research Center which was published in the World Bank’s World Development report in 2009.[3] According to the report, 95% of world’s population is concentrated on just 10% of world’s land surface.
http://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-worlds-land-is-populated-by-humans
So by extension, 95% of the effect should be originating on just 10% of the land surface. In order to arrive at an average of 9.33 ppm as an average over the land mass, we’d need, with 95% constrained to just 10% of land area, elevated CO2 levels over heavily populated and industrial centres centres of about 90 ppm higher than background ought to be visible. Since the scale only has a spread of 15.5 ppm in the first place, this would be readings that are off the chart in the industrialized centres of the world, and by substantially more than the range of the graph in the first place.
Trying to excuse the preliminary results because it the NH is in fall season also makes little sense. That’s when the industrial population centres of the earth in the NH ramp up CO2 because of need to heat buildings, efficiency of combusion engine drops, producing more CO2 per mile, and so on. So the theory hasn’t a leg to ystand on in this study.
My own theory being theory being that the results are not yet properly calibrated, and so no conclusions can be drawn from them. But if someone wants to, the logical conclusion based on this data and manner of its presentation does not support the notion that he earh’s increase in CO2 is from human activity.
” Now he’s at the name-calling stage ”
…
Oh …..??
..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/21/settled-science-the-ipccs-premature-consensus-is-demonstrated-by-the-orbiting-carbon-observatory/#comment-1819022
…
Pot meet kettle…..(note word “chump”)
A perfectly fine label; he disrespected Dr. Ball. The question is, how much reading did you have to do to find that? It wasn’t even applied to you. And aren’t you the same jamoke who dances in the street when you think WUWT’s traffic has taken a dip? [It hasn’t, you know. You were educated on that.]
“And aren’t you the same jamoke ”
…
Can you write a post without the name calling?
“We put a little bit extra CO2 into the air each year, forcing the average higher each year …” trafamadore at 5:32 pm.
=================================
The atmospheric CO2 concentration started to rise steeply http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide_14.gif around 100 years before human emissions took off http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.jpg (CDIAC).