Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report was the most influential in establishing global warming as a serious threat demanding political action. It contained the infamous hockey stick that Richard Muller identified as, “the poster-child of the global warming community.” However, the Report also achieved another distinction, unknown to the media, public and politicians. Disconnect between the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and the Science Report Of Working Group I reached an extreme. Dr. Christopher Essex pointed out, in his excellent presentation for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that the 2001 Science report says,
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
That statement alone disqualifies the IPCC work as the basis for public policy. If it is not enough, consider that the data used for the blade of the stick claimed it was very likely (90–99% chance) that temperature
Increased by 0.6±0.2°C over the 20th century; land areas warmed more than the oceans.
That is a ±33% error factor. Would a media outlet use results from a political poll with such an error range?
The IPCC ignored these limitations and pursued their self-assigned role.
Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report provides a policy-relevant, but not policy-prescriptive, synthesis and integration of information contained within the Third Assessment Report and also draws upon all previously approved and accepted IPCC reports that address a broad range of key policy-relevant questions. For this reason it will be especially useful for policymakers and researchers, and as a main or supplementary student textbook for courses in environmental studies, meteorology, climatology, biology, ecology, and atmospheric chemistry.
In case the policymakers are unsure about the validity of their work, they indicate it is good enough for university textbooks. (Faint praise?)
So much of the so-called science the IPCC created was to amplify the threat of human produced CO2 to global warming. The political mandate was the ultimate arbiter of what and how an issue was included. Most people involved with the IPCC likely didn’t know what was going on. They saw funding and career opportunities, either as bureaucrats or academics. Most were graduates of the emerging “environmental science” programs and ideology with its, “humans are the problem so save the planet at all costs”, mentality. For a few, these were secondary to the real objective of using climate and CO2 specifically, as a vehicle for a political agenda. It is likely most people involved in the IPCC process never read any of the Reports, especially the SPM. If they had, why didn’t they protest about the distortions and contradictions? They easily marginalized the few that quit the IPCC because of what was going on. But then, I never heard of an IPCC person protesting the major scientific errors in Al Gore’s movie or the contradictions between their sea level claims. Apparently, this seems like an academic and bureaucratic example, of just following orders.
An early IPCC claim was that even if humans stopped all CO2 production immediately, the warming impact would continue for 100 years; the theoretical “residency time” for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. It was designed to increase the pressure for immediate political action. This seems like a specious point, considering the massive limitations identified by Essex, but it is more important because the public understand it. The IPCC know the public won’t understand the science, but they will recoil at the idea that the damage will last 100 years.
The IPCC based the number 100 on a “bottleneck” proposed in a 1959 paper by Bolin and Erickson. As the 2007 Working Group I Report notes,
A more sluggish ocean circulation and increased density stratification, both expected in a warmer climate, would slow down the vertical transport of carbon, alkalinity and nutrients, and the replenishment of the ocean surface with water that has not yet been in contact with anthropogenic CO2. This narrowing of the ‘bottleneck’ for anthropogenic CO2 invasion into the ocean would provide a significant positive feedback to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Bolin and Eriksson, 1959).
Bolin was, with John Houghton, the first Co-Chair of the IPCC. It appears reasonable to appoint experts to the IPCC, but as the Wegman Report identified in Recommendation 1 it is unwise.
Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
The 100-year claim was challenged early, as Marohasy explains.
IF carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels only stayed in the atmosphere a few years, say five years, then there may not be quite the urgency currently associated with anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, it might be argued that the problem of elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be easily reversed as soon as alternative fuel sources where found and/or just before a tipping point was reached.
Marohasy presented a 2009 paper by Robert Essenhigh showing that the actual residency time is between 5 and 15 years. Many others have since confirmed the value at between 6 and 7 years.
IPCC Assessment Report 5 (AR5), in a section discussing “What Happens to the Carbon Dioxide After It Is Emitted Into The Atmosphere?”, says,
Before the Industrial Era, the global carbon cycle was roughly balanced. This can be inferred from ice core measurements, which show a near constant atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the last several thousand years prior to the Industrial Era.
This is false. The Ice Core plot for Antarctica shows considerable variation of approximately 150 ppm (Figure 1). But the variation is greater because a 70-year smoothing curve is applied. Compare a 2000-year period of smoothed ice core record against a stomata record (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Both the average atmospheric level and variability are distinctly different.
AR5 then claims,
Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, however, have disturbed that equilibrium.
The certainty of this statement is unwarranted because it is virtually impossible to substantiate and likely wrong because the estimates of natural production are very crude. Error of estimates for two natural sources, ground bacteria/rotting vegetation and oceans exceed human annual production. That figure is also suspect because the IPCC produce it. In the FAQ section of the 2007 Report they answer the question “How does the IPCC produce its Inventory Guidelines?” as follows.
Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.
Tom Quirk concludes in “Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide” that
The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.
Mike MacCracken, whose Ph.D., dissertation involved producing an early climate model, has been involved in the IPCC from its inception. Figure 3 shows him in a photo from the 1985 IPCC formation meeting in Villach Austria, and though retired, he continues to defend the science.
Figure 3 (“Tom” is Wigley).
In a recent email to a climate group, MacCracken invoked the “bottleneck” when he wrote,
“However, a good fraction of each year’s CO2 increment lasts for many centuries…”
In an attempt to support the “bottleneck” claim we learn this from SkepticalScience.
Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean.
There is no evidence that the surface waters are “getting full”. It is just another assumption that supports the narrative. At best we only have computer model estimates of input and output of all gases, including CO2. The general failure of the iron filings ocean seeding program to increase absorption rates indicates that we don’t know.
SkepticalScience (SS) modify the pure 100-year claim as follows.
“Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
The argument here is that it may not be the same CO2 molecule that humans produced. This replaces the initial claim that they could identify the CO2 from burning fossil fuel. It argues that in a series of “boxes” containing CO2, additions are offset by displacement of others. What a surprise! SS provides the AR4 definition.
“Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time.”
SS interprets that as follows,
“It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. Thus, the warming potential of CO2 has very little to do with the residence time of CO2.”“What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere.”
So, it is not the human CO2 per se that causes the warming. It simply overloads the natural capacity to absorb. This assumes, incorrectly, that we know what that is, which is very unlikely with a natural range of atmospheric CO2 from ~250 to 7000 ppm over the millennia. The 2007 IPCC identifies some of the problems.
Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed.
For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.
It is also very likely that the current increase is entirely natural. It certainly is within the error range of any of the IPCC numbers. It also ignores the fact that in every single record of any duration for any period, temperature increases before CO2.
IPCC speculations differ depending on the objective. The macro speculations are wrong as Essex and others explain, but they are too complex for the public and by default establish scientific credibility. Some micro speculations are obscure, such as the claim that CO2 is evenly distributed, but necessary to make their computer models work. Others, like the 100-year ‘residency time’ claim, are politically necessary to support demands for immediate action. Ideally, the latter extend the threat to the children and the grandchildren.
The only ‘residence time’ of importance is how long the IPCC can stay in business and continue to push their totally discredited AGW hypothesis.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Science is said to advance, one death at a time. Only when the AGW zealots have kicked the bucket will we go forward in a significant way.
Assuming the top of the ocean is “getting full” when the level of atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, I would suppose that the historical data would show an immediate upturn in atmospheric CO2 every time the level was rising and went higher than 400 ppm.
Does the historical data show that?
This one is for Ferdinand no doubt he has the data as he notes:
“Sorry Dr. Ball, if you had even the slightest notice of carbonate chemistry, you should know that the oceans are a buffer for CO2, but every buffer can get saturated.”
And the answer is?
If the oceans can get saturated, it won’t be at current or projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
CO2 has been up to ≈20X higher in the geologic past, without the oceans saturating. That’s ≈8,000 ppm. Now it’s at only ≈400 ppm.
There are other things to worry about, such as aliens attaking from Mars, or zombies. Those would be more likely than the oceans saturating due to atmospheric CO2.
Newsel,
See above…
The main point is that the ocean surface is in fast chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere, at about 10% of the atmospheric change. That is a lot more CO2 than for fresh water, but still limited in capacity.
The ocean surface layer is estimated at ~1000 GtC, the atmosphere at ~800 GtC. The 30% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere thus has increased the carbon content of the ocean surface layer with 3% or ~30 GtC. That is all.
The total buffer capacity of the ocean surface still is not used, but the equilibrium with the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is followed quite fast, with a delay of 1-3 years.
The main buffer capacity of the oceans is in the deep oceans, where most of the carbon resides. But the problem is the limited exchange between the atmosphere and the deep oceans. Thus it takes time to remove any excess CO2 above the dynamic equilibrium out of the atmosphere… For vegetation, the extra storage in more permanent carbon (roots, peat, humus, -brown-coal) is even slower…
So, ….. “dynamic equilibriums” are really not dynamic simply because “it takes time” to get them fired up to get them going.
“I see, …. I see”, ……. said the blind man.
And iffen there is no excess CO2 in the atmosphere above said “dynamic equilibrium” then there will be no rainfall, …… right?
Samuel,
Dynamic equilibrium, according to Wiki (sometimes reliable, except for things climate related):
A dynamic equilibrium exists once a reversible reaction ceases to change its ratio of reactants/products, but substances move between the chemicals at an equal rate, meaning there is no net change. It is a particular example of a system in a steady state.
Thus while still lots of CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and other reservoirs, the levels in the atmosphere don’t change anymore beyond some natural variability. If the levels are above the temperature controlled equilibrium, it takes time to remove the extra CO2 and reach again a new dynamic equilibrium at the same level as before or a new level, depending of the source and quantities involved.
Beautiful weazelworded rhetoric, Ferdinand, …… simply beautiful.
Complete lack of science quality ……. but still simply beautiful verbiage.
I’ve said on numerous occasions, the only way to expose this climate change fraud and deception is through the legal system … testing the evidence of the IPCC and its scientific spokesmen who are fuelling this deception and fraud. Failing that, it requires an official inquiry such as the calling of a Royal Commission like those held in say the UK, Australia and New Zealand, or a in the US, a Congressional Hearing in which the IPCC can be held to account for its work, and where the counter evidence of the sceptic scientific community may be considered.
“Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.”
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm
More fuel for the fire:
IPCC Official Climate Policy Is Redistributing the World’s Wealth.
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Then we have the backup for IPCC Rev 4:
UN IPCC INVESTMENT AND FINANCIAL FLOWS TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE
691. The Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) was adopted by the GEF Council in September 2005. The RAF is designed to increase the predictability and transparency in the way the GEF allocates resources.
http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/application/pdf/background_paper.pdf
It’s a shame to see all the resources that have been wasted on the diversion of ‘carbon pollution‘ instead of honest exploration of the entire, complex climate system and it’s relationship to the heliospheric environment. This macro-focus on selected feedbacks has produced little empirical science or remedial benefit, and it is obvious to the unbiased thinker that a greater perspective of our climate system must be achieved before we can quantify the existence and magnitude of anthropological forcing.
A more sluggish ocean circulation and increased density stratification, both expected in a warmer climate, would slow down the vertical transport of carbon, alkalinity and nutrients, and the replenishment of the ocean surface with water that has not yet been in contact with anthropogenic CO2. This narrowing of the ‘bottleneck’ for anthropogenic CO2 invasion into the ocean would provide a significant positive feedback to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Bolin and Eriksson, 1959).
Isn’t that opposite to the recent hypothesis that the “missing heat” has been transported to deep ocean?
The heat can get there, but the CO2 can not, is apparently the CAGW claim. I would think many factors can contribute to the ability of the claimed surface water CO2 bottleneck to change. I doubt that the system is linear at all concentrations. At any rate there is no evidence of dangerous acidification” of the oceans, and the longer the CO2 stays in the atmosphere, the better for plants, forests, and crops. The C in all CAGW claims is once again MIA.
I think the disparity was the “political science solution”.
Gunga Din
This is off-topic. My son forwarded your kind message and I take the liberty of thanking you for it here because I don’t know how else to do it.
Richard
You’re welcome.
“That is a ±33% error factor. Would a media outlet use results from a political poll with such an error range?”
I’m ROFL, remembering the botched polls before the last BC provincial election.
I’m always suspicious of error bands, but I have not studied how they are calculated.
I haven’t heard a credible explanation for the botch, my guesses include that people don’t give straight answers and a significant proportion of the population is not included (those who have only a cellular phone, those usually aren’t listed, in the US over 25%, Canada not as high but increasing).
Your context is different but ….
Friends:
I commend the above rational and factual essay from Tim Ball.
The article has engendered much discussion but the debate has ignored what I consider to be the most important statement in the article, and it says
Yes! And we made the same observation in one of our 2005 papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
Salby has said the same.
The arguments in the above discussion reprise arguments repeatedly made on WUWT and elsewhere. I most recently summarised them on WUWT and I ask that people note the reprise says “If the sinks don’t fill then the anthropogenic overload hypothesis is falsified”. That reprise ishere and says
There are three main categories of opinion as to the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I itemise each of them.
1. The anthropogenic overload hypothesis.
Many people (e.g. Ferdinand Engelbeen, the IPCC, Robert Brown, Willis Eschenbach) observe the annual emission of CO2 from human activities (i.e. the anthropogenic CO2 emission) is greater than the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and say this suggests the anthropogenic emission is overloading the system such as to cause the rise. For convenience I am calling this the anthropogenic overload hypothesis.
The three main problems with this hypothesis are:
(a) the anthropogenic CO2 emission is only ~2% of the total (i.e. natural and anthropogenic) emission each year and few natural processes are significantly overloaded by such a small change as 2%. This is especially important because the anthropogenic emission is locally emitted and natural local emissions vary by more than this. This local variation is clearly demonstrated by the preliminary OCO2 data for atmospheric CO2 concentration plotted here and here where the anthropogenic emission from e.g. Europe is not discernible.
(b) In some years, almost all of the anthropogenic CO2 emission seems to be absorbed into the sinks for CO2, and in other years almost none seems to be absorbed. The overloading should exist or not and not be intermittent. Supporters of the hypothesis smooth the data to obtain an apparent fit between the anthropogenic emission and the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
(c) Importantly, the observed dynamics of the system are not as would be expected by overloading of the sinks for CO2. This is the data for atmospheric CO2 concentration as recorded at Mauna Loa. The annual rise is the residual of the seasonal variation each year. The seasonal variation has a clear ‘saw tooth’ form: it rises rapidly and almost linearly then falls rapidly and almost linearly. There is no reduced rate of fall as the sinks for CO2 fill and, clearly, they do not fill prior to the rapid transition to seasonal rise in atmospheric CO2. Other CO2 measurement sites show the same effect. If the sinks don’t fill then the anthropogenic overload hypothesis is falsified.
The only rational opposition to this conclusion I have seen was provided by Robert Brown in a WUWT post. I have failed to find that post so cannot link to it and will explain my understanding of the opposition anticipating that Robert Brown will correct me if my understanding is wrong. He points out that electrical circuits can provide similar ‘saw tooth’ signals by use of components such as capacitors which can switch from being electrical absorbers and emitters (as some mechanisms in the carbon cycle switch from being absorbers to emitters with the seasons). Hence, an analogue computer model of the carbon cycle could probably emulate the Mauna Loa data. Perhaps so, but it is hard to equate such switching with the anthropogenic overload hypothesis.
2. The disturbed equilibrium hypothesis.
Some people (e.g. me, Arthur Rorsch) think the carbon cycle is constantly moving towards an equilibrium which it never achieves and something has altered the equilibrium state with the result of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In this hypothesis, the cause of the rise is the cause of the changed equilibrium to the carbon cycle. The human emissions of CO2 may have caused the changed equilibrium or e.g. temperature rise in past decades may have changed the equilibrium. Some processes of the carbon cycle system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to the new equilibrium.
And the observed dynamics of the carbon cycle fit with this.
The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 is provided by effects of processes with rapid (i.e. hours, days, weeks, months) rate contents responding to the changing seasons
while
the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is provided by effects of processes with long (i.e. years, decades, centuries) rate contents responding to altered temperature or anthropogenic emission or etc..
Using this hypothesis, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be modelled as having an entirely natural cause, an entirely anthropogenic cause, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
Each of the six models in this paper matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the IPCC uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of this paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(i) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(ii) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
3. The temperature response hypothesis.
Other people (e.g. Bart) say the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be explained as being a result of temperature change. And the clear relationship of CO2 and temperature over short times is said to support this hypothesis.
It can be hoped that he OCO2 data will indicate the evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration across the planet with the seasons. If so, then it may be capable of resolving which – if any – of the three above hypotheses is correct.
Richard
Richard,
Your “most important statement in the article” was completely refuted times ago: there is a huge delay of CO2 increase and δ13C decrease between the SH and the NH: 6 months with altitude and 12 months between the hemispheres. See my response here…
The source of the extra CO2 clearly is in the NH and has a low 13C/12C ratio that are verifiable facts.
1.a) The current human emissions are already 6% of the natural emissions and still increasing. What some skeptics always seem to forget is that there are also natural sinks and that there are hardly any human sinks. Thus while humans provide 6% of the total emissions, humans provide 0% of the total sinks, except for their part in the increase in the atmosphere, which is about 100%. That makes that humans are responsible for 6% of total emissions and 3% of total sinks…
b) There is a temperature caused variability in the natural sink rate, mainly caused by the influence of temperature (El Niño) on tropical vegetation. That doesn’t say anything about the cause of the trend, as the trend is definitively NOT caused by vegetation. Trend and variability are from different processes, independent of each other.
c) Same problem as for b) for your reasoning: the seasonal changes are dominated by the influence of temperature on the extra-tropical NH forests, but the trend is NOT caused by vegetation: vegetation is a net sink for CO2. Moreover the extra sink caused by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1 GtC/year in vegetation and 3.5 GtC in/out the oceans. The seasonal change is ~60 GtC back and forth within a year in vegetation and opposite ~50 GtC in and out the oceans. The net result is what can be seen at Mauna Loa and other stations. Hard to detect the extra flux caused by humans. That is derived from oxygen and δ13C measurements, not from CO2 fluxes.
Moreover, while seasonal changes are caused by temperature changes, the influence of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is pressure related, thus independent of the seasonal or long(er) term temperature changes. The extra uptake is in direct ratio to the extra pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium for the current temperature.
2. But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Sorry Richard, there is only one variant of the 6 theoretical possibilities that fits all observations: human emissions. All other variants fail one or more observations thus are falsified.
Extra ocean emissions fail the mass balance, the measured increase of DIC in the oceans, the pH decrease and the decrease of the 13C/12C ratio both in the atmosphere and the ocean surface.
Extra emissions from vegetation fail the increase of CO2 uptake by the biosphere as derived from the oxygen balance. The earth is greening.
Other possible sources (volcanoes, rock weathering,…) are either too small, too slow and/or have the wrong δ13C level.
3. The temperature response hypothesis.
Which is already falsified: the short term CO2 rate of change response to temperature is entirely a response by vegetation, as the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show. The longer term trend is NOT caused by vegetation, that is a different process, independent of vegetation and hardly or not influenced by temperature…
Ferdinand
Please don’t ‘nit pick’.
The issue is whether all CO2 emissions (both ‘natural’ and anthropogenic) can be sequestered locally to their sources.
I, Quirk, Salby, and the preliminary OCO2 data suggest that all CO2 emissions (both ‘natural’ and anthropogenic) ARE sequestered locally to their sources. It remains to be seen if annual OCO2 data will confirm or refute this suggestion.
If the suggestion is right then the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are NOT overloading the ability of CO2 sinks to sequester all the CO2.
Richard
Richard, if all human emissions were sequestered locally, there wouldn’t be a drop of 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere in direct ratio to the emissions.
If the estimates of the continuous CO2 throughput from/to the deep oceans via the atmosphere are right (about 40 GtC/year based on the 14C bomb tests spike decay), then there is hardly any local uptake of human emissions, except for the distribution over all reservoirs.
Ferdinand
To dispute is not – of itself – to refute.
There is not sufficient data to refute any of the three hypotheses I stated, but the balance of evidence strongly suggests that the one you favour is wrong.
As I said
I am willing to wait a year for that information. You choose to shout that your ideas are right despite the contra-evidence.
Richard
Ferdinand
I am adding this separate post because I genuinely desire your explanation of the fact that, as I said,
Please explain how that preliminary finding concerning atmospheric CO2 concentration over Europe is equated in your mind with your assertion that
Richard
Richard,
The OCO-2 satellite measures total CO2 column.
Humans emit ~10 GtC/year. Even when that is one-way additional, that is spread over a year or about 0.01 ppmv/day. It will be a hell of a job for the satellite to detect these differences, even if most of the emissions are concentrated in smaller parts of land and even when the satellites have the ability to concentrate over smaller areas for as long as seven minutes. Further, the satellite measures continuously around midday to obtain the maximum response, but that means also that land already heated up and there is more wind and turbulence which mixes ground emissions into the bulk of the atmosphere.
The main point of my objection was the following sentence:
the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted.
It is very clear that this is not the case: there is a huge lag of the SH behind the NH, as well as in CO2 levels as in δ13C levels. That is what the data say. It is there that Tom Quirk was completely wrong (he used a method that didn’t make a difference in leads or lags by multiples of a year) and Dr. Ball just copied that wrong statement.
Last but not least:
But the above findings demonstrate that there is no data that only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
As demonstrated many times, the anthropogenic emissions fit all known observations.
What you are doing is looking at some particular processes which are temperature driven (seasonal, 2-3 years). The uptake of any extra CO2 from the atmosphere is practically independent of temperature, it is pressure driven. There is no temperature driven process that can explain a 110 ppmv rise (and a drop of 1.6 per mil δ13C) in only 160 years, without violating one or more observations…
Ferdinand
Sincere thanks for your reply.
You say
Sorry, but that does not wash. It seems you are claiming the air over Europe is conveyed to “the bulk of the atmosphere” (e.g. to Southern Africa where atmospheric CO2 concentration is high) within the hours of each day.
I will attempt to address the matter again in a more clear fashion.
You claim the sinks for CO2 are overloaded by the addition of anthropogenic CO2. Specifically, you say that local sequestration cannot remove all the locally emitted CO2 both natural and anthropogenic and, therefore, an amount of CO2 equivalent to a proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 accumulates in the air..
However
1. Europe has HIGH anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
But
2. Europe has a LOW atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Please explain how these two facts coexist when – as you claim – the anthropogenic emission is overloading the system.
Richard
Richard,
I have no idea why the European CO2 concentration of humans and industry is not visible in the satellite data, while the US East coast and China are visible, but again India is not. Better ask the NASA for that discrepancy. Just wait and see for the data after a full year, as the background regional and seasonal variability should level out…
I still doubt that the satellite accuracy is good enough to detect the human contribution. But that doesn’t prove that the human contribution is too small to be the cause of the increase over a full year…
Ferdinand
Thankyou for your additional response.
You now say
It pleases me that you now say you are willing to wait a year for an annual indication of the OCO2 data.
However, the satellite accuracy does NOT need to be “good enough to detect the human contribution” for it to falsify your overload hypothesis. The satellite data only needs to indicate that the anthropogenic emission is not overloading the CO2 sinks.
As I and others have repeatedly pointed out and Tim Ball’s article quotes Tom Quirk as saying
And the low atmospheric CO2 concentration over Europe (indicated by the OCO2 satellite’s preliminary data) suggests that Europe’s local anthropogenic CO2 emission is completely sequestered locally.
This is a “discrepancy” of the observation with your hypothesis.
Thus, the “discrepancy” contradicts your hypothesis and, therefore, refutes your assertion that
I repeat that I am pleased you now say you are willing to wait to obtain a year’s OCO2 data before making deductions from the data. The preliminary OCO2 data indicates that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is not overloading the sequestration abilities of the sinks, but it is only preliminary. I again repeat the conclusion of my first post in this sub-thread.
Richard
Richard,
I don’t know why you still insist that Tom Quirk was right by saying that there is a “the lack of time delays between the hemispheres”, because the time delay between the hemispheres is VERY clear in both the CO2 and δ13C data.
That proves beyond doubt that the extra source of CO2 is in the NH and that the extra source of CO2 has a low 13C/12C ratio. (Not) by coincidence that is where 90% of the low-13C human emissions are.
Further, if the satellite can’t detect the very small local human emissions, it can’t prove or disprove that human emissions are the cause of the increase.
It doesn’t matter if human emissions are 0.1% or 1% or 10% of the total carbon circulation, it only matters that human emissions are one-way addition and that the natural carbon circulation didn’t change over time (as the slight increase in residence time shows). All increase then is from the small addition…
Ferdinand
My reply to your latest post is in the wrong place. Sorry.
This link jumps to it.
Richard
@ur momisugly richardscourtney February 23, 2015 at 10:46 pm
Richard, the aforesaid “temperature response hypothesis” is the only logical explanation for the “steady and consistent” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 as defined by measurements conducted at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, between 1958 and 2014 ….. and which are consistent with the only “steady and consistent” natural cycle associated with the natural world, ….. the seasonal Equinox cycle.
So, unless one can define and explain a different “natural cycle” that gives reason and cause for the aforesaid …… “steady and consistent” bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2, ….. then they are just spinning-their-wheels without any foreseeable hope of proving their conjecture.
And the aforesaid short-term “bi-yearly CO2 cycling” should not be confused or associated with the long-term Interglacial warming/cooling cycles that result in yearly increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2.
Iffen the global surface temperatures continue with their “pause”, or begin to decrease, …. then the atmospheric CO2 will, sooner or later, begin to respond accordingly.
Samuel,
The bi-yearly CO2 cycle has a global amplitude of ~5 ppmv for a global temperature change of ~1°C. Mainly extra-tropical vegetation driven.
The change over ice ages and interglacials was about 8 ppmv/°C over many thousands of years. Mainly (deep) ocean temperature driven.
The current change is ~110 ppmv for a change of ~0.8°C over only 160 years, while humans have emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 in the same period.
Thus the influence of temperature on CO2 levels suddenly increased a 20-fold in the natural emissions increased (a 4-fold in the past 55 years) in complete lockstep with human emissions, but human emissions simply disappeared?
Shur nuff, Ferdinand, …. the Flying Spaghetti Monster just confirmed to me what you stated above.
And he was mighty impressed with your “disappearing act” concerning human emissions.
Why he even told me that he “should have thought of that”.
Now that was a compliment you can be proud of.
“Other people (e.g. Bart) say the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be explained as being a result of temperature change.”
Not quite. I say the rise is the result of a temperature modulated process. I do not have a firm position on what that process is, though I have at least two candidates. But, the bottom line is that the temperature relationship explains the curvature in the CO2 plot and, as human inputs would induce a curvature of their own, it is not possible that they are contributing significantly.
Ferd (2/24/ 3:18am): “3. The temperature response hypothesis … is already falsified: the short term CO2 rate of change response to temperature is entirely a response by vegetation, as the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show.”
Janice: Oh, Ferdinand — 1. Dr. Salby’s “hypothesis” has NOT been falsified; and 2. AGW’s conjecture about CO2 driving temperature is so ephemeral that it is not even susceptible to BEING falsified. So far, the null hypothesis, i.e., that human CO2 does nothing to cause climate shifts has MOST DEFINITELY NOT BEEN FALSIFIED.
******************************
Bart (2/24/1:43pm): “… the temperature relationship explains the curvature in the CO2 plot and, as human inputs would induce a curvature of their own, it is not possible that they are contributing significantly.”
Yes, indeed, Bart! #(:)) And Dr. Murry Salby agrees with you:
Dr. Murry Salby (Hamburg lecture, April, 2013) —
{With times in video linked below}
{10:32} 1. Native (natural) emission of CO2 depends strongly on temperature.
{10:58} 2. Net CO2 emission has .63 correlation with temperature.
{11:35} 3. CO2 evolves like the integral of temperature, i.e., it is proportional to the cumulative net emission of CO2 from all sources and sinks.
{13:52} 4. Temp. and CO2 evolve coherently on all times scales longer than 2 years.
{14:03} 5. CO2 lags temp. by a quarter cycle (i.e., in quadrature, using cosine and sine, lags by 90 degrees).
{35:41} 6. AGWers claim that human CO2 dilutes atmospheric Carbon 13; for this to be true, native sources of CO2 must NOT dilute C13: ({36:34} Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr; {37:01} Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2.
Note: *Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
{37:34} 7. Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”
{39:14} 8. CO2 is conserved in the atmosphere, it is homogenized, i.e., evenly distributed, over long time periods (as observed, for land levels only, via satellites).
{39:40} 9. Big CO2 sources are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia).
{41:20} 10. Observed deviations of global mean (natural) CO2 deviate widely, sometimes more than 100% from year to year, decade to decade – they are INcoherent with human CO2 emission rate, i.e, net global natural emission evolves independently of human emission.
{42:35} 11. Observed global (land or ocean measurements) CO2 emission has strong sensitivity (.93 correlation {43:41}) to surface properties (mostly temperature, c = .8, and also soil moisture), i.e., increase in either increases CO2 native emissions.
{44:28} 12. C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up => C13 down.
{45:15} 13. Opposite changes of C13 and CO2 are the same ones seen in the ice proxy.
{45:22} 14. Satellite record shows that the emissions are clearly NOT human, unless human emissions cause volcanic eruptions and El Nino.
{52:25} 15. IPCC Claimed in 2007: “All of the increases {in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times} are caused by human activity.” Given the observed sensitivity of native emission of CO2 and C13,
the IPCC’s claim is IMPOSSIBLE.
Dr. Murry Salby, Hamburg, April, 2013 (youtube)
Bart
Thankyou for posting that clarification.
I apologise if my summary failed to accurately report your view. Any distortion was not intended.
Richard
Janice,
We have been there before: Dr. Salby is certainly wrong on several points, especially his CO2 migration through ice cores, which implies negative CO2 levels during glacials and enormous CO2 levels during peaks in the past.
Salby never responded to criticisms, thus my objections still are open…
Janice,
Ok, I’ll bite.
Point by point:
I do largely agree with your point 2 about the (small) influence of CO2 on temperature.
I do agree and disagree on following points by Salby:
1. Yes.
2. Yes, but that is only for the variability around the trend, not for the trend
3. Nonsense. While the integral of the natural variability is zero to slightly negative, the slope in CO2 is not caused by temperature.
4. Yes, 5 ppmv/°C seasonal, 4-5 ppmv/°C over 2-3 years, 8 ppmv/°C over multi-millennia. NOT ppmv/°C/year.
5. Yes, for the variability, not for the increase over the past 160 years.
6. No, the only other source of low-13C CO2, vegetation, is a proven sink for CO2, thus not the cause of the 13C decline in the atmosphere.
7. Nonsense: oceans, carbonate deposits, volcanoes,… all have a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere.
8. Yes, but the current increase is a lot higher than the historical dynamic equilibrium.
9. Yes, but big sinks are near the poles. Both level off each other, be it that the sinks are slightly larger than the sources. The contribution of all natural sinks and sources today is negative at about halve the human emissions. Seems that many skeptics always look at sources, but forget to take into account the sinks…
10. No, the variability in sink rate varies widely, but that is only +/- 1 ppmv from year to year, while human emissions are 4.5 ppmv/year and the increase in the atmosphere is ~2 ppmv/year and the trend is already 110 ppmv.
11. The natural variability is a variability in sink rate, not in source rate (it may be a local source, but globally nature still was always a net sink over the past 55 years). The correlation is only about the variability, not the trend.
12. Yes, and that proves that the short term variability (mainly from tropical vegetation) and the longer term trend are from different processes: vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2 since ~1990.
13. Yes, but that can be from vegetation or from burning fossil fuels. There was little change in the 13C/12C ratio over the past 800,000 years (a few tenths per mil δ13C) but suddenly there is a drop of 1.6 per mil δ13C over the past 160 years in lockstep with human emissions…
14. Satellites until now were not accurate enough to detect human emissions, maybe the OCO-2 satellite can do the job.
15. No, all the observations point to human emissions. All alternative explanations fail one or more observations…
@ur momisugly Janice Moore February 24, 2015 at 2:40 pm
Janet M, thank you for posting the above because it is that simple scientific FACT that negates the “junk science” claim that …. “the rotting and/or decaying of biomass in the Northern Hemisphere during the fall and winter months from the end of September thru to mid-May of each calendar year …. is directly responsible for the bi-yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 as is defined on the Keeling Curve Graph”.
Microbial decomposition of biomass begins to decrease ….. if the moisture content of the biomass decreases and completely stops if the biomass is void of moisture …. and/or ….. if the temperature of the biomass decreases below 60F ….. and pretty much slows to a halt as the temperature decreases to 40F ….. and completely stops when the biomass freezes at 32F.
And most everyone in the civilized world is aware of the above facts because, to wit:
OOPS, that last part should read as follows:
Mother Nature also employees the use of “refrigeration” to prevent biomass decomposition ….. but us humans refer to it as “wintertime”.
Sam Cogar! #(:)) — You’re welcome. Thanks for saying so.
******************************
FERDINAND!!! #(X\)
Okay.
Dear Ferdinand,
1. Your tenacity and sincerity are to be admired.
2. However…. (!)
That a man of your obvious integrity supports his assertions with SO MUCH:
— unsupported generalization (e.g., about natural CO2 sources being a net sink THUS — WE — KNOW that human CO2 is the source of any increase);
— asserted with far higher confidence (usually) than warranted by the facts (e.g., the oceans buffering properties); while
— glossing over or COMPLETELY IGNORING powerful refutations, often dismissing them with essentially nothing more than, “That’s just not true;”
is troublesome.
You have clearly closed your mind to letting in the opposing view. Why?
Why is your goal, with THIS issue, not pure, objective, science?
Why is your goal to argue as hard as you can for AGW?
What are you REALLY arguing against? Against capitalism and consumption? Against the coal industry? There is some deep emotional reason that fuels an otherwise honest, intelligent, man’s irrational behavior (here, arguing using such often spurious methods/assertions).
Well, anyway, Mr. Englebeen. I argue as strongly as I do not against you as a person, but on behalf of the facts. I have compassion in my heart for you. Something is driving you, giving you great energy, to keep on arguing for AGW.
And whatever it is matters to you very much (you may not even be consciously aware of it anymore; it may be that painful of a matter).
Thank you for always being so polite and respectful to me. That isn’t how I am ALWAYS addressed, heh.
Sincerely yours,
Janice
Janice,
My only aim is to have the science right: I will react as good on mistakes/impossibilities made by skeptics as mistakes/impossibilities made by warmistas…
Basic is that humans emit about twice the amount of CO2 as is measured as increase in the atmosphere. At least that is the case since accurate CO2 measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa started 55 years ago.
Further, all known observations fit the theory that the human emissions are the cause of the increase in the atmosphere.
Everybody can come with a new theory to explain that the increase in the atmosphere is not from human emissions. But to challenge the mainstream “consensus” of human emissions as cause, that should be based on extremely good, solid arguments, which explains ALL observations and also explains what happens with the surplus of human CO2 emissions.
Until now I only have seen alternative theories which fail one or more observations, or even all observations and a lot of hand waving about the faith of human emissions if “something natural” was the cause of the increase. Human emissions seems to disappear in space without leaving a trace, while the “alternative” mimics human emissions at exactly the same timing and (slightly quadratic) increase ratio…
Sorry, but I don’t have seen any proof that whatever natural cause can mimic human emissions: neither volcanoes, oceans or vegetation show such a nice, smooth increase over time and also violate other observations if they were the cause of the increase…
As always… best regards,
Ferdinand
Ferdinand Engelbeen February 25, 2015 at 1:21 pm
The past 57 years of Mauna Loa monthly CO2 observations as stated here @ur momisugly ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
DO NOT FIT YOUR THEORY about human CO2 emissions ….. and thus the reason you avert your eyes and mind to the Mauna Loa observations.
There is no human CO2 “signature” anywhere within the Mauna Loa observations and there never has been.
Furthermore, there is an explicit bi-yearly Equinox CO2 “signature” within the Mauna Loa observations that has remained steady and consistent each and every year for the past 57 years.
To wit:
Janice
I, too, have been in long dispute with Ferdinand about the carbon cycle but do not accept your view that he is arguing “for AGW”.
He has invested much of his time and effort into study of the carbon cycle and has committed himself to one interpretation. As you say, it is frustrating that he promotes his interpretation by making “unsupported generalization” and ignores “powerful refutations”, but I don’t see that as his attempt to promote AGW: I see it as his fervour to promote his interpretation of the carbon cycle.
The actual behaviour of the carbon cycle remains unresolved while available data remains inadequate to reject all except one interpretation. Until then, fervent adherence to individual interpretations is inevitable by individuals who have invested much time and effort to obtaining those interpretations. And it is such fervour in support of different interpretations which drives all science forward.
I have personal reason for wanting as early a resolution of the carbon cycle matter as possible, but I recognise we must wait until at least the first complete year of OCO2 data is acquired. The truth will out for those with patience and ability to wait.
Richard
Samuel,
The past 57 years of Mauna Loa monthly CO2 observations as stated here…
…DO NOT FIT YOUR THEORY about human CO2 emissions
If humans emit twice the amount of CO2 directly into the atmosphere than is observed in the trend at Mauna Loa, then how on earth does that prove that humans are NOT responsible for the increase? The seasonal variability hardly changes with extra CO2 in the atmosphere – human or not, but some more CO2 will be captured by vegetation and oceans: about halve the human emissions in mass (not the original molecules).
According to your reasoning, human emissions simply disappear (to where?) and “something natural” simply follows the human emissions in exact ratio and timing over the past 55+ years?
You may believe that, but I don’t think so, based on a lot of information about mass balance, 13C/12C decline, 14C bomb spike decline, Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature, the oxygen balance and decay rate calculations…
Ferdinand,
The only per said “mass balance” in existence in the universe is the one (1) that exists only in your imagination.
The Bible believers have their “God of Creation” …. and you have your “Mass Balance” thingy.
But the natural world responds dynamically to “cause and effect” …. and it matters not one (1) twit what you think it should be doing.
“Claiming your ignorance is knowledge is religion.”
Skpetical Science to me appears to not understand the reason given as to why the oceans cannot effectively absorb anthropogenic CO2. The biological process of CO2 sequestration is a totally different thing from the Revelle Factor which is a ‘chemical buffer’ that inhibits the absorption of anthropogenic CO2 through changes in the partitioning ratio of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC). The Revelle Factor operates alongside and independently of the sequestration process Skeptial Science is talking about. According to the Revelle Factor when the ocean absorbs anthropogenic CO2, it decreases pH and CO32, and it the relationship between CO32 and CO2(aq) that effectively determines the Revelle Factor. By my understanding the Revelle Factor relates essentially to the rate at which CO2 may be absorbed by the surface ocean at equilibrium whereas Henry’s law relates to the proportional amount of CO2 that ends up being absorbed by the entire oceans at equilibrium. My issue with the Revelle Factor is, well, I have a few issues. The resistance from the surface ocean to absorb anthropogenic CO2 from the changes in the DIC ratio should apply to natural CO2 as well. But it does not. Also the value of the Revelle Factor we are told is 10 meaning the surface ocean can only absorb 10% of anthropogenic CO2 upon equilibrium while ignoring sequestration from the surface ocean to the deep ocean. This implies that if sequestration from the surface ocean to the deep ocean suddenly ceased and the current ratio of DIC stayed as it is now in the surface ocean, CO2 from all sources would just continue to accumulate in the surface ocean until the partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans were 10:1 respectively, in violation of Henry’s law, which implies that water should contain more CO2 than air upon equilibrium (approximately 50 times as much) at the current surface temperature. As Tom Segalstad points out, the “buffer factor would give about 10 times higher CO2 concentration in air verses water”. There is no logical basis for the Revelle Factor, although the tenuous BATS time-series is often given as ‘evidence’, and assuming the measurements are even an accurate representation of global DIC and pH, it ignores other possibilities such as changes in eutrophication/degradation which can have the same affect. The fast-equilibria of Henry’s law still holds in my view, and the oceans are probably absorbing practically all anthropogenic CO2 in accordance with the 1:50 partitioning ratio at the average surface temperature of 15C. Plus, I think the increase in CO2 is likely temperature-driven too.
Richard,
You are confusing several items:
– Henry’s law is for the solubility of CO2 in water: that is quite fixed for fresh water and for seawater: at a certain temperature the ratio between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 (free, gas) in water is fixed. The point is that Henry’s law is only for free CO2 in water, not for bicarbonate and carbonate. Thus whatever the change in the atmosphere or what was its cause, a 50% change in the atmosphere will give a 50% change of free CO2 in water, no matter if that is fresh water or seawater.
– The Revelle/buffer factor is how much total carbon (free CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) gets dissolved in water when the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases.
For fresh water that makes hardly any difference: in fresh water 99% is free CO2, only 1% is bicarbonate.
For seawater that makes a difference: about ten times more CO2 is dissolved than in fresh water, but that is mainly as bicarbonate (90%), 9% is carbonate and only 1% is free CO2.
– The Revelle/buffer factor is as good for natural as for human CO2. If there was a CO2 increase from volcanoes (under or above sea), the extra CO2 would be absorbed in the same way and extra in the deep oceans, as these are undersatured in CO2 for the temperature and pressure in the deep…
– The Revelle/buffer factor is for the current level of carbon in the ocean surface, that is not the same factor as 160 years ago or over 50 years. As the buffer capacity gets exhausted, the Revelle factor will get lower. The factor is about the reaction to a change in the atmosphere, not the absolute levels…
– The ocean surface and the atmosphere are in close contact with each other and the exchange of CO2 is very fast. The equilibrium is reached in a few years for a constant CO2 level in the atmosphere: about 1000 GtC in the ocean surface and about 800 GtC in the atmosphere. Thus the ratio is about 10:8, but that doesn’t play much role, it is the resulting pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere which gives a CO2 flux into the oceans or from the oceans. No matter if the quantities are 50:1 or 1:50…
– The 50:1 from the deep oceans is what matters on long term when a new equilibrium is reached between CO2 in the deep oceans and the atmosphere, but that will need a lot of time, as there is only a limited exchange between deep oceans and atmosphere…
Ferdinand, not a scientist just an engineer but your contention that ocean CO2 buffering capacity is exhausted is, based on the historical data, a long, long reach. Go back to when CO2 was 8000ppm. What happened? Well here we are. Or are we all just a figment of our imaginations?
Newsel,
The 8000 ppmv was a long time ago. Most of the 8000 ppmv of the Cretaceous period you can find back in the white cliffs of Dover and a lot of other places as carbonate deposits. Together with the carbonate deposits, the ocean’s buffer capacity decreased to what it is now.
That is not exhausted, certainly not for the deep oceans, but it makes that the ocean surface layer is in rapid equilibrium with the changes in the atmosphere at about 10% of the change.