His new research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It reveals the mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, including its increase during the 20th century. Thereby, the analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emission.
Watch the video from London, 17th March 2015
h/t to Andrew Montford and Philip Foster
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A couple of comments, one about comments. first, yes, he assumes that all fossil fuels will be used to generate energy for simplification. The truth is, all fossil fuels won’t be used to generate energy since more and more of the petroleum is turned into plastics and other synthetics as it is.
Second, I was dismayed with the comment about investing in contraception, although it probably was made more for comic relief, if you will. However, I found the curve matching “fossil fuel emissions” growth being compared to population growth rather interesting. Certainly carbon dioxide emissions from humanity does increase with increase in population, but the vast majority of population increase is in areas that are not contributors to “fossil fuel” emissions. If the curves match so closely, it must be because we breathe, more than we drive, and that is universal for all people. Thus the suggestion in that graph is that fossil fuel emission is even less a percentage than he is suggesting.
When he mentioned the 2 trillion dollars “wasted” on bird mashers and bird blinders, I couldn’t help but think to myself how far ahead would we be towards finding that universal source of energy that is going to be needed for everyone to enjoy the fruits of civilization had that money been properly spent in research, instead of knee jerk reactionism.
“If the curves match so closely, it must be because we breathe, more than we drive, and that is universal for all people.”
This ought to be balanced against the decline, if any, in the numbers of other large mammals. Assuming that 7 billion people exhale carbon dioxide is true but confounded by the diminished numbers of elephants and Bengal tigers.
ls it correct that increases in CO2 lead to the greening of the planet. ?
lf that is the case, then would not that in itself lead to warming independent of the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Taxed, perhaps, since foliage is green and has lower albedo. But it is not so simple. Terrestrially, NPP is about 1% of insolation energy yearround in the tropics. That by itself is equivalent to 1% increase in tropical albedo. Increased transpiration (plus plant transpired organics like conifer terpenes or iodocarbons from ocean algae or dimethyl sulphide from phytoplankton (the CLAW hypothesis) are also known to increase low cloud formation and albedo. Net net is hard to say.
amazing lecture ….:>) I had caught one other that I believe Janice had posted and found it very good . I am speaking at a much lower pay grade then the majority of the board posters but in a simple way can hook onto what Professor Salby has offered up to the skeptics . The AGW science guys have usurped the truth with a inverted fallacy that has left integrity of science and math on the fringe of truth .
Is it not time for the skeptics to put together a team to challenge those other harlots on the other side of the debate to crush them once and for all ? .
NIPCC?
“Is it not time for the {warmists, skeptics} to put together a team to challenge {skeptics, warmists} to crush them once and for all ?”
All reports of crushing the other side are premature. Part of the difficulty is the existence of more than two sides. Do you want to crush all-but-yours? That would be difficult. Perhaps a coalition of all-but-one could crush the one, then a new coalition formed to crush something else (as in the game of RISK).
Hey, did someone say my name?? #(:))
Hi, Terry,
Here is the other Dr. Murry Salby lecture (Hamburg, 2013) just FYI
(youtube)
Here is the youtube link for the London lecture
(Note: I added a space in between the last two characters in the link (the 5 and the 8) so it would not create a control window in this comment box:
Dr. Murry Salby (London, 2015)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9WGcW_Z5 8
(youtube)
IT TOOK ME ALL DAY TO MAKE TIME (here and there) TO WATCH (and take notes) SLOWLY AND UNDERSTAND!
How did you all do it??? Wow. This is a site full of VERY smart people!
Excellent.
Janice
P.S. Unlike somebody above, I thought his London lecture SIGNIFICANTLY expanded upon and or supplemented (e.g., additional information about Carbon 14) the Hamburg lecture. Dr. Salby also did not discuss ice core proxies at London as he did at Hamburg. I highly recommend watching BOTH.
When you pit government against individuals/small organizations, it is like a football game with the N. E. Patriots against a High School team.
All governments are corrupt; it is the degree of corruption that matters. IMO, the W. developed economies, once a bastion of freedom/liberty and hero-worship to emerging economies/dictatorships, have reached a level of financial corruption unparalleled in history.
Education, Science, and the incestuous relationship of gov’t with our International Corporations (which own most of the media) have all come under the thumb of government funding/regulations.
This political agenda doesn’t care about the science, it never did.
There is no bigger lie in my lifetime than Global Warming. IMO the future is bleak as the Patriots will win. The non-elite citizens will lose.
So…Roy Spencer and Chang..no atmospheric escape from planet Earth? No sputtering, no knockon, no impact expulsions? CO2, being such a heavy molecule, never rises in our atmosphere to the point where the required escape velocity is much weaker…ever?
Never ionizes and gets sucked off the planet at the magnetic poles in the planetary winds (NOT solar winds)?
Never exits in massive waves accelerated by asteroid impacts, or Sun flares, or perhaps nuclear explosions or even shuttle launches?
Ok. I’ll be sure to refer anyone who claims otherwise to you personally. 🙂
Yeah, that’s about right. I think you’ve got it.
Aphan- you’re looking in the wrong direction for “escape” of CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 escapes from the atmosphere in the form of limestone and certain other sedimentary rocks.
Salby is completely right about one thing. CO2 emissions are proportional to global population. Cheap energy from fossil fuels have enabled population growth since the industrial revolution. It would be far more efficient now to invest in contraception rather than renewables to reduce carbon emissions.
Asking people to abstain from burning fossil fuels and return to ‘natural’ subsistance living, is like asking people not to sin. It simply won’t work.
“Asking people to abstain from burning fossil fuels and return to ‘natural’ subsistance living, is like asking people not to sin. It simply won’t work.”
Asking people to stop burning fossil fuels is not just asking them to stop sinning, but rather, it is asking them to die. Without cheap energy most of the planet’s 7+ billion people would die. Asking them to stop using energy is asking them to commit suicide. That simply won’t work as you say.
And one must ask; why? What is the fear of CO2? I saw a graph that had CO2 at approximately 7,000 ppm in the distant past. Did the earth perish then? I saw that the dinosaur era might have had about 1,000 ppm and there was no “runaway” warming due to some mystical feedbacks then.
If CO2 warms the planet, like the prevailing myth says, why does warmer temperatures always come before CO2 rise. Molecule time travel? (hey, a movie plot!)
Mark, you cryptically answered your own question. The fear of CO2 is because of a movie plot!
I say now is the time to hold AGW theory accountable with the data. I am so sick and tried of AGW theory being able to oppose the data as if their theory is correct and the data is wrong. Usually when a theory keeps failing data after data test it is time to move on to something else.
I will send a list of many of the data test this theory has failed to verify against next. It is amazing.
Salby is completely right about one thing. CO2 emissions are proportional to global population. Cheap energy from fossil fuels has enabled exponential population growth since the industrial revolution. It would be far more efficient now to invest in contraception rather than than pretend that renewables can reduce carbon emissions.
Asking people to abstain from burning fossil fuels and return to ‘natural’ subsistance living, is like asking people not to sin. It simply won’t work.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this..
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Salvatore, nobody is perfect! 🙂
Excellent presentation. Very much appreciated.
The 2 pictures at the links below provide pictorial evidence that his points are legit.
If CO2 emissions from humans were as dominant as in this 2005-2007 SIMULATION of CO2 created by a NASA computer model:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/
Then, the reality of our first actual measurements of CO2, below would match up closer to the simulation:
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details/
Since the 2nd picture, based on actual measurements does not show the US as the propagandized massive source of CO2 from industry and heating/cooling and transport and with the unexpected sources in the Southern Hemisphere, it’s clear that some large unaccounted for sources of CO2 not related to burning fossil fuels is taking place.
Please Mike,
The first video is from a full year of simulation, the second from 6 weeks! Let’s wait for a full year (and preferably several years) of data…
Ferdinand,
Fair enough. Additional measurements of CO2 for a one year period, will show seasonal variations better than anything we’ve guessed at up until now. Additional years will add to our understanding.
Agree with you that it is premature to make any conclusions based on just 6 weeks of data because of this fact. However, one can say that there were some early surprises.
As someone who hates watching “scientific” videos, I’ve been waiting for years for Dr. Salby to actually publish something with, you know, logic, and descriptions of methods, and data, and code, and footnotes to references that I can actually look up … have I missed it?
If and when Dr. Salby decides he’s tired of being a video star and deigns to write down his ideas, I’ll pay attention. Until then, I consider his lack of written ideas, lack of data, and lack of code to be a deliberate choice on his part.
And while I wait for him to put his thoughts down on paper, in a perhaps ill-advised attempt to interject rude numbers into the discussion, the ice core data (Vostok) shows the following:
As you can see, from the ice ages to the interglacials there is a peak to peak CO2 swing of about 100 ppmv. And there is a corresponding global temperature swing estimated at around 6°C peak to peak.
So … using rough numbers, the temperature-driven change in CO2 is on the order of
100 ppmv / 6°C = 17 ppmv CO2 increase per degree of increase in global surface temperature
I’m sure y’all can see the problem. At 17 ppmv CO2 increase per degree of warming, the ~ 0.6°C warming over the last century leads to a change in CO2 levels on the order of ten ppmv … and that’s an order of magnitude too small to explain the 100 ppmv change in CO2 levels over the same period.
w.
The ice core data can’t capture possible short excursions above ~330 ppmv such as experienced during the recent past decades. While I agree that some portion of the gain in CO2 since the depths of the LIA some 300 years ago is liable to be man-made, there is no good way to measure that portion with any precision or accuracy. If we had valid observations from Hawaii stretching back a million years, then we could talk about probable human influences. But we don’t.
milidonharlani,
The current increase of 110 ppmv over 160 years would be measurable as a 15 ppmv peak in the 560 years resolution of the Dome C ice core over the past 800,000 years and higher peaks in all other ice cores with a better resolution (but smaller time span). See here.
Sorry reference here…
IMO Antarctic ice core data lack sufficient resolution for high 300s or 400s ppmv during multidecadal intervals of the Medieval & prior Holocene & previous interglacial warm periods:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/antarctic-ice-cores-the-sample-rate-problem/
Nevertheless, I agree with your analysis that at least some important part of CO2 increase during the Modern WP is liable to have been man-made.
Willis, as usual, I can only agree with you…
Dr. Salby never responded to any critique on his stories, not even when directly asked (as I did in London last year).
The ice core data indeed show a direct correspondence between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature, I do find the ratio somewhat lower at 8 ppmv°C/:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
and surprisingly linear.
Most of the deviations are from the huge lags of CO2 changes (longer during cooling than during warming) after temperature changes.
The literature shows equilibrium changes between seawater and atmosphere from 4 to 17 ppmv/°C.
Anyway far too small to explain the current increase…
Thanks, Ferdinand. My back-of-the-envelope calculation of 17ppmv appears to be within the range of the literature that you cite. However, your figures and mine are about equivalent. The reason is that you are looking at the temperature changes in the Antarctic alone, whereas I used an estimate of the corresponding global temperature changes. Global temperature changes between glacials and interglacials are generally thought to be about half of the polar changes, a conversion factor that I used above. That’s why your number is about half of mine.
And as you say, in either case it’s far too small to explain the current CO2 changes.
w.
I’ve always had a ‘meeting of the minds’ with what Willis writes. I can’t recall ever being in disagreement. Not so with Ferdinand Engelbeen.
For quite a while early last year I argued with Ferdinand over the source of the rise in CO2. I thought it was mainly due to the 800 ±200 year lag in ocean outgassing from the MWP. But with admirable patience, along with plenty of facts and evidence, Ferdinand convinced me that the recent rise in CO2 is due almost entirely to human emissions. I’ve encorporated that into my thinking, and I very much appreciate his taking the time to explain repeatedly, until it sunk into my hard head.
That is an example of the difference between climate alarmists, and skeptics (the only honest kind of scientists, IMHO). Skeptics are willing to change their minds when the facts and evidence support it. Not so alarmists. They never seem to change their beliefs. Instead, they alter their arguments with confirmation bias: cherry-picking only those factoids that support their man-made global warming (MMGW) narrative. They reject all contrary evidence and reasoning.
Dr.Salby can change my mind, too. But to do it he needs to be completely transparent, by disclosing all of his methods, data, methodologies and metadata. It’s what we demand from folks like Michael Mann (who has never been very transparent). Climate skeptics can’t get away with hiding anything just because they say what many of us want to hear.
Truth is the goal, and in the long run it is all that matters. Only by putting everything on the table and hashing it out can we arrive at what is currently considered scientific truth. The job of skeptics is to deconstruct all Conjectures and Hypotheses (and Theories and Laws, if possible). When the smoke clears, only those facts and evidence that remain standing are considered valid. Anything else is an appeal to priestly authority, and that takes us in the wrong direction: back into witch doctor territory.
is comparing temperatures from a local proxy with CO2 (well mixed gas?) from that proxy a good idea?
Daniel,
If you are referring to the temperature proxy’s in the inland ice cores of Antarctica, the δD and δ180 measured in ice cores reflect the temperature of the seawater of the catch area where most of the water vapor originated where the snow was formed of.
For coastal cores, that are the nearby oceans. For inland cores that is most of the SH oceans. So these more or less reflect the temperatures of the whole SH. With a lot of caveats, of course…
Dank U wel.
Willis,
Are you aware that Salby also thinks that current methods underestimate CO2 levels in ice cores? His conclusions are at time 25:00 in this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc (Hamburg 2013) (I’m just a lay person though – apologies if I have misinterpreted)
GregS,
Dr. Salby was completely wrong on that point:
– There is a theoretical migration of CO2 in relative warm (coastal) ice cores, but all what that gives is that the resolution gets from ~20 years to ~22 years at middle depth and to ~40 years at full depth of the core. There is no measurable migration in the much colder inland ice cores
– Migration does shave the peaks, but that doesn’t change the average over a larger period: if a peak was originally 3000 ppmv and you measure 300 ppmv (a factor 10 as Salby alludes), then the 3000 ppmv was distributed over the rest of the ice core which thus originally had far less CO2. That means that the 180 ppmv measured during the coldest periods, 90% of the total time, originally was around 150 ppmv, enough to kill already a lot of plant life.
– Migration doesn’t stop after one glacial period. As the first period was 3000 ppmv some 100,000 years ago, the second period needed to be 12000 ppmv to measure the same 300 ppmv in the ice core after 200,000 years, etc… Effectively killing all life on earth in the in-between periods with far too low CO2, even negative for the next periods…
yes.
By your “logic”, we should ignore everything you post about here, since you can’t get any papers published by credible journals. Which is not surprising, since you’re not a scientist. To be a scientist, you have to practice the scientific method, which you ignore.
Catherine Ronconi
Please state to whom your rant was addressed.
Richard
Catherine, if you are referring to me, I’ve had my work published in journals including Nature magazine. However, I don’t see where I said that anything not published in “credible journals” should be ignored.
Perhaps if you made it clear who you are referring to, and if you quoted what they said that you object to, your comment might make more sense. As it stands, it is long on heat but short on light …
All the best,
w.
Sorry.
To Willis.
It is laughable to claim a letter to Nature as “work”.
Catherine Ronconi April 14, 2015 at 10:23 am
Catherine, it appears you are totally unfamiliar with Nature magazine. My submission to Nature was a “Communications Arising”. This is different from a letter to the editor. A “Communications Arising” is a short article which is peer-reviewed by three different reviewers, has different length limits from letters to the editor, and allows for a Figure. See how you look when you start displaying your ignorance?
As such, I fail to see why you think it is “laughable” to get a peer-reviewed short article published in Nature … perhaps you could inform us why you think it is funny. The editors of Nature didn’t see the humor in it, nor did the peer-reviewers.
Or perhaps you could establish your bonafides by listing for us the “Communications Arising” or any other peer-reviewed work that you’ve published in Nature …
I’ve also published in a couple of other journals, so your claim that I “can’t get any papers published by credible journals” is an outright fantasy on your part. I advise you to do your homework before uncapping your poison pen, it just makes you look like an idiot when you make such easily falsifiable statements. Today I got notice of the following citation to my work on extinctions published in Diversity and Distribution:
Not only published, but cited … sorry, Catherine, but you didn’t do your research.
Finally, you seem totally clueless regarding the fact that whether a scientific article is in a journal or not has nothing to do with whether the article is true and correct or not. I see that rather than deal with any of my scientific statements, you foolishly think it is enough to try to diss my publication record … can you say “ad hominem attack”? I knew you could …
Catherine, I have no clue what your day job is, but if it has something to do with science, I pity your employers.
w.
Willis
In the questions and answers he was asked when he will publish and his reply was that he won’t until he retrieves his data that the talks were based on and is reinstated into the field. As far as I know, and that is not far, he has never gained access his the work since the university dismissed him while he was out of town. I have never heard any more of what is going on there since the last piece on Jo Nova’s site in which he set out a series of facts as he perceived them about his and the University’s actions .
Thanks, DMA. Look, was Dr. Salby mistreated by Macquarie University? Quite possibly.
Having said that, I note that Dr. Salby says that Macquarie agreed to assist him to:
However, he says, they failed to do provide the resources necessary to do that. Fair enough, sounds like he has a legitimate beef with the University.
But even so, he still should have a computer model with several hundred thousand lines of code, comprising numerical models and analyses. BUT there is apparently a huge difficulty, one that has frozen his research in its track … the program won’t run in Australia.
So where’s the problem? Is the fact that his program won’t run in Australia the reason he hasn’t published his results? Really?
If another scientists can’t replicate your results, you are in trouble. But if you can’t replicate your own results …
w.
PS—As a programmer with fifty years of experience, I’d have to see his reputed model with “several hundred thousand lines of computer code” to believe it. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist … I’m simply a “trust but verify” kind of guy.
I agree it would be nice to see a reproducible paper from Salby, even through unofficial channels.
Regarding ice core data, personally I see his approach to interpreting them presented in his earlier videos as pretty solid, though. We don’t see actual CO2 levels in ice cores, we only see strongly filtered mean and it’s impossible to figure out what was really happening on shorter time scales. What we see now in Mauna Loa measurements is too short time scale to be directly compared to ice cores.
Kasuha,
The minimum peak at length that can be detected depends of the resolution of the ice core. That depends of the accumulation rate at the place where the core was built. For coastal cores that can go to 1.5 meters of ice equivalent per year, for high altitude far inland cores a few mm/year.
That makes that two of the three Law Dome ice cores have a resolution of better than a decade, but only cover 150 years of history before reaching bedrock, while Dome C has a resolution or 560 years, but covers 800,000 years of history.
Law Dome cores even have a ~20 years overlap with direct measurements at the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
Anyway, the current increase of 110 ppmv over a period of 160 years would be measurable in all ice cores, with a minimum amplitude of 15 ppmv for the Dome C ice core, spanning 800,000 years…
Ferdinand
You say
Sorry, but no. That is another of your infamous circular arguments.
The longest time series of direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration is from Mauna Loa, and it began to be obtained only 57 years ago in 1958.
The 160 years derives from displacing ice core data in time and then splicing that temporally displaced ice core data to the 57 years of Mauna Loa data. Even if that data adjustment and splicing were correct, you cannot use the ice core data as evidence of its own indication.
Richard
Richard,
The 160 years derives from displacing ice core data in time and then splicing that temporally displaced ice core data to the 57 years of Mauna Loa data.
What?
Richard are you still using that enormous blunder from the late Jaworowski? There was no “displacing of ice core data” at all. Jaworowski simply looked at the column of the ice age, not at the column of the average gas age of Neftel’s ice core research at Siple Dome.
When I confronted him with that (by email), he replied that there was no difference between the ice age and gas age as in all ice cores there are plenty of remelt layers which isolate the gas diffusion from the atmosphere.
Neftel saw only one remelt layer near bubble closing depth and calculated the ice age – gas age difference accordingly. See for the data and references:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
Further, the gas age – ice age difference was confirmed by the 1996 work of Etheridge e.a., measuring CO2 levels top down in firn and ice at Law Dome.
Other measurements in proxies also show the same increase in CO2 and the drop in δ13C:
Your beloved stomata data show a smooth CO2 increase from 1900 to 2000, compared to ice core data until 1960 and Mauna Loa data after 1960 in ratio to human emissions over the full period.
Coralline sponges show a smooth decline in δ13C since ~1850 in ratio to human emissions over the full period. If you back calculate the δ13C changes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, you do find the ice core CO2 levels again. The resolution of the coralline sponges is 2-4 years.
If the ice cores didn’t reflect real CO2 levels and/or the timing of the average gas age wasn’t correct, or if there were huge peaks from natural releases from whatever source, all or at least some curves should show a gap or bump where the difference occurred.
I haven’t seen any discussion yet of several things from that video. First, if you assume his Carbon14 curve is anywhere close to reality, human-caused CO2 disappears from atmospheric circulation in about 9 years. I assume that would be true of all atmospheric CO2. One could then conclude that CO2 emitted today will be gone from the atmosphere by 2025, absorbed by sinks. He said in the questions period that he used 5 different methods to calculate the turnover in CO2 and that this one was close to the longest period he derived.
A particularly fascinating point is that even if we cut fossil fuel emissions by 50 percent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach the same amount just over ten years later, according to Professor Salby . A lot of misery with little gain. He also removed man’s estimated contribution and at the present rate of increase, the same level was reached around 2120, instead of 2092. You may as well stand on the tracks and try to stop a locomotive under way by attempting to halt it with your hands.
The other big problem here in the discussions is that despite increasing CO2, there has been no measurable change in average temperatures over 18 years now and it is probably now starting to edge downward along with the PDO and AMO. Soon, we should see the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase start to edge downward if temperature is the major cause of CO2 increases.
Meanwhile, it appears to me that the lesson to be learned here is that governments around the world should be working to decrease the effects of industrialization and fossil fuel use on the environment and let Earth take care of its climate. In reality, there doesn’t appear to be a choice in the matter.
What is the lag time between when CO2 is absorbed at the poles and out gassed at the equator? Would that matter?
Johnny,
The lag time is about a two years for the increase in the far NH to reach the South Pole, but the deep ocean sinks need about 1000 years to go from the poles to the equatorial upwelling places.
It doesn’t matter much for total quantities of CO2, but it does matter for CO2 isotopic composition: what sinks is the current composition (13C/12C, 14C/12C), what is upwelling is the isotopic composition of ~1000 years ago. Additional in both cases is the shift in composition at the surface boundary…
Is the concentration of dissolved CO2 lagging by 1000 years too?
JohnnyCrash
Is the concentration of dissolved CO2 lagging by 1000 years too?
Indeed, but the variability doesn’t make much difference for the bulk of CO2.
Assuming that e.g. the MWP of thousand years ago was as warm or warmer than today, that would give somewhat less (about 3%) CO2 dissolved in slightly warmer seawater at the sinks of that time and thus 3% less CO2 getting into the atmosphere from upwelling waters today.
That is only true if there was no mixing with the bulk of the deep oceans and no carbon enrichment from dead plankton/shells, fish (excrements) into the deep oceans where the flows are passing…
In reality the changes play a minor role in the carbon budget.
Ernest,
There was a temperature drop 1946-1975, but CO2 increased with 15 ppmv.
There is a flat temperature since ~2000, but CO2 goes up without problems.
There is no reason to expect that CO2 levels will drop with increasing human emissions even if the temperature drops substantially every year…
The problem with the 14C drop speed is that what is going into the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of today, while what comes out is the isotopic composition of ~1000 years ago. That means that the 14C spike drop is a lot faster than for 12C. The same problem occurs with the low-13C CO2 from fossil fuels: that is “diluted” by high-13C CO2 circulating from the deep oceans. That makes that the ~14 year e-fold decay rate of the atomic bomb tests spike is some factor 3 too small. The decay rate of any substantial CO2 spike (whatever its origin) in the atmosphere is around 50 years.
Thanks for your time and input.
What I don’t think has been properly dealt with is the recent greening of the planet. If CO2 was a wonderful 280ppm when 1/3 of all Finns died of starvation because of crop failure during the LIA and it took 100ppm addition to give us bumper crops and a greening planet and this is supposed to be worrisome. Further, when historically in the MWP we had wine grapes growing in Scotland and a host of other accounts supporting the existence of a more lush climate, how can there be any logic in a steady 280 ppm at that time.
No, ladies and gentlemen with all your arithmetic and frozen fingers and y=mx +b, the world was in another “greening” phase that comes only with higher CO2. Similarly, the Sahara was once green with jungle/grass land animals (the area around Lake Chad, complete with the animals represents a vestige island of green left behind when the desert passed south).
Okay, history and archeology don’t count, so let’s go to logic. If you believe there was a Holocene Climate Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, MWP which were about as warm and warmer than now, how did it get there? What do you suppose the CO2 level was? Be careful how you answer! If you believe that the CO2 had to be around what it is today or higher to have a temperature at or higher than now, then you have to reckon something wrong with the analyses of the ice cores (I believe resolution is a very likely problem). If you believe that CO2 was below 280, then you have to believe that CO2 and temperature don’t in fact correlate. Or you have to believe that Scotland grew a hardy grape that could do without sunshine and could cope with ‘starvation’ CO2 and today’s unremitting rain and lousy weather. Back of the envelope doesn’t always give credible results.
Gary,
Temperature and CO2 where tightly coupled over the past ~800,000 years at about 8 ppmv/°C, with a (long) lag of CO2 changes after T changes.
Until about 160 years ago. After that, CO2 levels did rise and δ13C levels (and 14C levels) did drop in complete lockstep with human use of fossil fuels.
Thus the ice cores do show the right (but smoothed) CO2 levels of the past, where temperature was the driver of CO2 levels, but that doesn’t exclude the much increased CO2 levels of today to have a (small) influence on temperature.
In my opinion, both higher CO2 levels and a modest increase in temperature are beneficial for plant growth and nature as a whole…
For what it’s worth as a side point, all atmospheric helium eventually “boils” into space from the upper atmosphere, because a fraction of its velocity distribution (ambient temperature) exceeds gravitational escape velocity. That fraction will leave, to be replenished by thermal redistribution from the remainder of the distribution. That’s why it is so important to conserve terrestrial supplies. Basically, it is generated geologically through radioactive emissions of alpha particles (which when electrically neutralized become helium) and trapped in likely basins such as petroleum deposits. But everyone knows this, so it is not a controversial point.
Ernest CO2 concentrations will follow the temperature curve with various lag times but they will follow as they have always done.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f64fd3c5970b-pi
One of several data sources that shows CO2 has never had nor will it correlate with the temperature trend. Co2, as has been the case will never lead the temperature which was explained quite well today.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
Good data showing there is nothing special about co2 concentrations on the rise today.
Salvatore,
You shouldn’t read only the articles you do agree with, but also read the comment section below the same article, you will find my name very often there…
Regarding the interesting correlation between global population and CO2 emission, one might remember that correlation does not identify the direction of causation. I suggest it is more likely that that the increase in the use of fossil fuels is the cause of the population increase. Without the means to produce useable energy, human productivity and populations grew slowly over millennia. It is the development of industrial civilization and all the associated services and inventions that has allowed humans to live longer and their children to survive into adulthood. It is this change that has caused the population to expand dramatically.
At THE HOCKEY SCHTICK we see the headline “Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby’s work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
Note that this is an old link. Still, I thought it interesting.
Mark,
Dr. Pettersson could replicate Salby’s estimate, because he made the same mistake: assuming that the decay rate of the 14C bomb spike is the same as for a 12CO2 spike, while the 12CO2 concentration in the upwelling is the same as at the sinks, but the concentration of 14C at the upwelling was only halve of that at the sinks in 1960…
See my comments below the article you cited…
Oh, I can see what he did wrong – he made the mistake of asking whether increasing concentrations of CO2 is really due to human contribution. Good question, but not popular. Personally I think he will be vindicated, but not necessarily in his lifetime. I have often wondered why the global concentrations of CO2 did not follow global economic activity – i.e. why did it not falter at all during the 2008 global financial crisis?
Salby goes on to the derive several independent approaches a conservatively high upper bound of the anthropogenic contribution (%) of the total CO2 volume mixing ratio (ppmv) in the atmosphere circa 2007. He finds the 2007 upper bound value of anthropogenic contribution of atmospheric CO2 to be less than 33% in one approach and less than 28% in another approach, he thinks it the actual value of anthropogenic CO2 is likely significantly less than these conservatively high upper bounds.
Salby does not show that there is no anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2. He shows that it is likely relatively very small compared to what the IPCC and its endorsed research shows.
John
NOTE: The 28% and 33% represent the contribution upper bound for the increase in the atmospheric growth of CO2 for that year of 2007.
John
For a more detailed statistical analysis, click on my name to review my blog on the subject. I welcome comments there and wish that others would expand on it.
John,
Humans emit about twice the measured increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The increase in the atmosphere is the result of the human emissions minus the net sinks.
The net sinks depend of the pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere in the atmosphere above the equilibrium pressure with the oceans.
The equilibrium pressure with the oceans depends of the ocean temperatures.
All these factors are known and the net result can be calculated. That is the red line in the following graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
The calculated increase in the atmosphere is for 95% caused by human emissions, 5% by the (ocean) temperature increase since 1959.
The calculated trend is largely within the natural variability of the observations…
Ferdinand,
Your figure of % contribution of yearly increase in CO2 that is anthropogenic appears in roughly at least three times (and likely much more than 3 times) that of Salby’s calculated upper bound. So, discussion centers on the observations of that are the basis of Salby’s calculation of the conservatively high upper bound for the yearly anthropogenic % contribution to the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2. Do you have problems with the observations he bases his calc on? His calcs seem very straightforward.
I think a position that the large natural sinks and sources (compared to the anthropogenic emissions source) should not be the major part of the yearly change, prima fascia, seems unrealistic.
This discussion of Salby versus the IPCC in CO2 contribution of yearly increases seems in the same form as the argument about the of attribution of temperature increases as entirely do to man versus being dominantly natural. It seems unrealistic to claim the majority is man causes in temperature or in CO2 discussions. It looks like a return to more realistic attributions versus exaggerated attribution about climate change.
John
John,
The main problem with Salby’s interpretation is that he tries to extrapolate a trend out of the variability of the trend. Have a look at the difference in dimensions.
The variability has hardly any influence on the trend of CO2 and mostly levels off to zero after a few years.
Further, there is simply no process on earth which can increase the CO2 levels from the small trend in temperature as is observed in the past 55 years.
Secondly, he looks at the residence time of the 14C spike as result of the atomic bomb tests of the 1950’s. But he forgets that the residence time of 14C is reduced because what goes into the deep oceans today’s 14C concentration, but what comes out is the concentration of ~1000 years ago, thus long before the 14C spike. That makes that 14C is removed about 3 times faster than a 12C/human CO2 spike and thus the maximum human contribution calculated by Dr. Salby is a factor 3 too low…
The huge CO2 in/outs are mainly temperature driven: seasonal and 2-3 years (Pinatubo, El Niño),with changes of 4-5 ppmv/°C. The natural carbon cycle shows surprisingly little variation over a full seasonal cycle: +/- 1 ppmv around the trend.
The current increase and accompanying sink rate is mainly a matter of pressure: the increased pressure in the atmosphere causes an increased uptake in the oceans and vegetation.
Two completely different processes with hardly any cross influence between them.
“Further, there is simply no process on earth which can increase the CO2 levels from the small trend in temperature as is observed in the past 55 years.”
Maybe there is, per my comment up thread.
A very serious objection would be yours and Willis’s ice core analyses which show small temperature dependent CO2 swings somewhat higher than allowed by Henry’s law.
What could be the difference between current and historic temperature dependence?
Human CO2. It’s greening everything else…
If you watch the facial and body expressions of Salby you can definitely see an “I’m right, they are wrong” arrogant attitude portrayed. That’s guaranteed to make anyone that disagrees with you angry from the outset.
Peter Sable – Maybe Salby’s demeanor came across to you as arrogance, but you can rarely know precisely what’s going on in a the head of a person you are less than well-acquainted with. It’s more likely you saw something of yourself in him.
Peter Sable,
Salby came across to me as having premeditated thoughtfulness; as having deliberated directness. I did not get arrogance vibes as you did.
Interesting differences in impressions between you and I.
John
Peter, If you are correct how did we get a bunch of politicians who get elected who exhibit the I’m right attitude when they don’t have a clue of the facts. Know any who have done this?
Peter, If you are correct how did we get a bunch of politicians who get elected who exhibit the I’m right attitude
Because politicians are expert at hiding their true feelings and projecting the appropriate image for the appropriate moment. I suspect Salby is not such an expert.
Salby came across to me as having premeditated thoughtfulness
Really, you didn’t see the look down his nose smirk dozens of times?
I’m critiquing his presentation style completely independent of any technical merit. Presentation style only how many people listen and their emotional reaction, not if you are factually or theoretically right or wrong.
Maybe Salby’s demeanor came across to you as arrogance, but you can rarely know precisely what’s going on in a the head of a person
I’m not sure what’s going on in his head, but I’m speaking to his presentation style, which if he’s not self-aware of, means it doesn’t matter what was going on in his head, only what the audience observed.
And the science of what an audience observes is settled.
Peter,
Have you missed the arrogance of John Kerry and others in the administration when they call those who disagree with them as flat earthers, d*****, etc.
From graph above: ‘The calculated increase in the atmosphere is for 95% caused by human emissions,…’
I assume .005% is caused by “Nature”. I understand and I could be wrong over the course of one year I emit more Co2 than my car. I understand and I could be wrong, the world’s ant population exhales more than the human population Which brings me to ask a stupid question. Has anybody calculated how much Co2 animals and insects contribute to Co2 each year? If so, how did they manage to count all the animals and insects or did some just guess?
….and insects or did someone just guess?
old construction worker,
All living creatures use carbon derivatives which was first captured by photosynthesis and use oxygen to capture its energy and exhale CO2 as result. That is a (mainly seasonal) cycle on its own, where ~60 GtC is going in and out over the seasons: leaves/wood/seeds/fruits growing in spring/summer/fall and leaves and other debris and food/feed decaying/eaten all year long, but extra decay in fall/spring.
How do we know what the balance of all these exchanges is: that can be seen in the oxygen balance.
CO2 uptake by plants releases oxygen. Plant decay and food/feed uses oxygen. Fossil fuel burning also uses oxygen, but that can be calculated on the base of fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency.
Since about 1990 it is possible to measure the oxygen decline in the atmosphere with sufficient accuracy to see what happens with the oxygen balance. That shows that somewhat less oxygen is used than calculated from fossil fuel burning. That means that the biosphere as a whole (land + sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals) is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net, increasing sink of CO2:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and more elaborated (free!)
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Thus whatever you exhale or burning wood of a few decades old or pushing organics on a pile of compost doesn’t alter the CO2 content of the atmosphere over the long term: all what you do is bringing CO2 back into the atmosphere which was captured out of the atmosphere by plants a few months to a few decennia before…
In contrast, CO2 from burning fossil fuels does add to the current atmosphere, as that was captured millions of years ago in an atmosphere much richer in CO2 than today…
I appreciate very much these “bite sized” explanations. It is much easier to grasp little principles than to try to cope with the entire system all at once.
A very enjoyable presentation. No doubt there will be strong disagreement from some.
The problem with the conventional view on CO2 is that it relies on co-incidence to explain observation. That the CO2 sinks and sources and their derivatives are co-incidentally in just the exact right balance to explain the observations. I find this co-incidence an unlikely explanation.
Salby tackles the problem from a different angle without the reliance on co-independence and get a different answer. Is he right? Not sure, but if he is then there is a great danger in the government policies being proposed. They are no different than ordering the tides to stop rising.
History is full of examples of government crusades down the wrong path.
The problem with Salby’s approach is that he tries to explain the sea level change based on the change over the tides. Besides the difference in size (for CO2 the opposite way), there is nothing that connects the trends with the variability…
Any pot growers worth her bud knows to augment greenhouse CO2 to 1200 – 1500 ppm.
And it is interesting to note that optimal temperature for growth increases from 24 degrees C (without CO2 augmentation) to 32 degrees C (with CO2 augmentation).
Flowering plants love much more CO2 + warmer temperatures. The increase in yield is astonishing.
On a side note, in the state of Oregon, USA, it will be legal to grow and possess pot as of July 1st.
So, in the beach town where I live, for the local Fourth of July parade it will be legal to walk:
— nude (so long as not sexually aroused)
— with an open beer
— smoking a joint
— carrying a loaded AR-15 over the shoulder
God bless America.
(Being a pretty serious athlete, I don’t drink or smoke, but if I did, I’d be … um … packin’.)
Excellent…. except pot growers/smokers rarely get out to vote. Fantastic nugget of info though.
We won’t know that for sure until there is no stigma or penalty for admitting to it nationwide. The number of untested individuals who hide those behaviors is only a guess and there are no exit polls that (I know of) from places that have legalized it. What you you said could just as easily be stated about binge drinkers and home distillery operators. Failure to vote is a symptom of the same frustrations with the system which motivate folks like Timothy McVey in a more active way.
Max, I once read that pot was almost extinct in the US and the strains were limited to only propagated populations. Maybe this is like bringing back a species from near-extinction.
Most of the good stuff is grown indoors. Read why here: http://www.theweeklings.com/kago/2013/03/12/the-mexican-connection-part-i-cannabis-wrecks/
Scroll down until you see a picture of “Katie Arnoldi, volunteer for Operation LOCCUST.” It’s a long article so read the end of it. She describes how Mexican cartels are planting in CA national parks and hauling up young impoverished Mexican farmers who have nothing to do with the drug trade. They make them sleep on the ground, and tend the plants for 3-6 months.
The problem is this:
This is scary:
Three-fourths of the marijuana sold in this country to teenagers comes from these Mexican cartel grows. That’s why they have to legalize this quickly, so that the kids and adults who buy this stuff can be assured they are getting it from a good source.
Are these chemicals going into Nestle’s bottled water?
Exactly. The current ice age biosphere is both temperature and Carbon limited.
I have just finished watching and found it very well presented, I don’t claim to understand it all but it follows a very well thought out path using measurements and data and holds together much better than WE’RE RIGHT YOUR WRONG that I see used as reasoning from the pro CAGW brigade.
James Bull
What an improbable world where humans account for only 3% of the CO2 and natural processes account for 97%, but homo sapiens are blamed for upsetting the CO2 apple cart.
A few thoughts.
1. Strange assertion that homo sapien is not part of natural processes. Evolutionary science might be interested in the development of this new species that is not part of nature. Until Evolutionary science confirms a new unnatural species has emerged, it is reasonable to state 100% of CO2 is created by nature.
2. The argument is the 97% of CO2 by nature is OK because nature automatically balances (via sinks, oceans, vegetation, temperature, whatever) for any increase or decrease in natural CO2. Apparently either nature is mad at humanity (see 2a below) or being a new unnatural species (see 1. above) nature refuses to handle humanities CO2 in it’s natural process of balancing.
2a.) If you believe some intelligence has consciously decided to only balance out non-man-made CO2, then you might want to give a shout out at intelligent design central.
3. Fossil fuels was, is and always will be a naturally made and is good at being burned and therefore an excellent fuel for advancing civilization. Add some music and dancing girls and “It don’t get more natural than fossil fuel.” would make a good jingle.
4. A whole lot of mathematics can sometimes add up to a whole lot of nothing. It happens.
5. A new psychiatric diagnosis code might be considered : Maximous-Infatuation-Humanus-CO2itus.
Alx April 13, 2015 at 6:41 pm
What an improbable world where humans ACCOUNT for only 3% of the CO2 and natural processes account for 97%, but homo sapiens are blamed for upsetting the CO2 apple cart.
So you have a swimming pool with a constant circulating flow rate with a natural loss rate of 2% and to make up for that you add a hosepipe and constantly add 4%. Who do you think is responsible for the pool overflowing?
Phil asks “Who do you think is responsible for the pool overflowing?”
Susan!