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.
William, people that do not accept Dr. Salby’s conclusions are simply in denial of the data which is the common theme that all AGW theory enthusiast have.
No matter what the data shows the norm is, if it does not agree with the absurd theory it is either wrong, ignored or manipulated.
AGW theory unlike other theories demands the data conform to it rather then the other way around.
Salvatore,
I am a luke-warmer, but as critical against claims made by skeptics as those made by climate alarmists.
If I point to fundamental errors in the reasoning of Dr. Salby (backed by Dr. Spencer, who certainly is a not an alarmist), then it is because such fundamental errors undermine the case of all skeptics against the AGW mainstream. where other items are far more relevant: like the lack of warming in the past 14/18 years with ever increasing CO2 levels.
The (huge) deviation of the climate models from reality is the best argument that skeptics have to counter the “consensus”. That the CO2 increase is not caused by humans is not only a bad argument, it is simply stupid to use it, as all observations show that humans are the cause of the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Fair enough because the answers are very elusive and if that were not the case the wide divergence of opinions on this matter would not be present.
Salvatore Del Prete April 15, 2015 at 7:54 am
Thanks, Salvatore, but because Dr. Salby has not provided a link to either his data or his code, I fear it’s not even possible to be “in denial of the data” … to date, there’s no linked data to deny.
w.
William,
OK, one last time:
1. I have listened to Salby’s previous lecture in Hamburg, was present in London at his lecture a year ago and have listened to the first 10 minutes here. Also have read the excellent summary by Janice (thanks Janice for that work!). I do understand what he has done and do disagree on several points,
2. Multiple, independent claims do all fail, if they all make the same fundamental mistake: they are all based on the residence time, which in this case doesn’t say anything about the decay rate of an extra shot of CO2 into the atmosphere. The residence time may be 5-9 years, the e-fold decay rate of extra CO2 is over 50 years. The IPCC estimate is also largely overestimated, as that is based on the saturation of the deep oceans (the Bern model), for which is not the slightest indication.
3. The mass balance is near full proof that the increase is almost all human caused.
4. The phase analyses only shows what the cause is of the variability around the increase, it says nothing about the cause of the increase as the main cause, human emissions, gives no detectable variability in the atmosphere.
5. The satellite data series is too short to have any value for what happens in the atmosphere over a full seasonal cycle. Thus can’t refute the IPCC source/sink model.
6. The source/sink model may be adjusted in the future as better measurements come in, no matter (a)biogenic methane or other natural CO2/CH4 sources. But that doesn’t alter the net mass balance which shows that nature is a net sink for CO2 over the past 55 years…
7. I have no opinion about future natural cooling or warming, the sun-earth connection, a-biogenic methane etc. That is also not relevant for the discussion about the current work of Dr. Salby…
Good summary.
A different way to attack the GHG effect is through water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere which is the major contributor to the overall GHG effect.
OBSERVATION- Recent observations have indicated contrary to AGW theory( which is almost always the case) that the mixing ratios in the tropics (water vapor) have been falling not rising as called for by AGW theory. No hot spot for example.
My thought is rather then evaluate the future GHG effect based on CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere maybe a better way to go about it might be through future water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere.
After all water vapor accounts for some 75% of the atmospheric opacity. Therefore even a very slight change in this greenhouse gas concentration level is going to impact the overall GHG effect regardless of CO2.
I CAN say regardless of CO2 concentrations, because the data has proven conclusively, that the positive feedback between an increase in CO2 concentrations and water vapor does NOT exist. If anything the opposite is happening. That is what the data says to the dismay of AGW enthusiast , but they will ignore it as usual.
That aside a cooling climate (oceans cooling) should diminish the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to the fact less evaporation would be taking place. Under this scenario convection would be less which would cause the corresponding temperature of the surface of the earth to drop less if the GHG effect were in a steady state. However the GHG effect would be less due to the lower amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to less evaporation from the cooler oceans. The diminish role of convection although causing less cooling per say in regards to the surface temperature of the earth would not be able to compensate for the overall cooling due to the diminish GHG effect therefore the temperature trend would be negative.
This argument is the opposite of the false argument AGW theory is trying to put upon the public presently which is increasing concentrations of CO2 will create a positive feedback with water vapor(increasing it) which will amplify the temperature rise from CO2 . Although convection would increase under this scenario a cooling mechanism it would only be able to retard the overall temperature increase due to the overall increase in the GHG effect.
I have just proposed the opposite take and the data thus far is more supportive of my scenario rather then the scenario AGW theory has put forth.
If I got parts of the lecture right, Dr Salby states that from the warming of the last hundred odd years humans contribution to increased Co2 is under a third of the rise seen and that the bulk of the increase is due to thermal factors. i.e. earths temperatures warming regardless of Co2 increases and in fact the warmth causing the other two thirds of c02 increases -hence his statement about which is the horse and which is the cart. But back to the co2 created thermally, is that an established scientific principle?
The last thing I would say is I was shocked by the shock on Chris Moncton’s face when Salby told him there were no papers to be published and he wouldn’t do anything until he was reinstated in the scientific academic world.
Lawrence,
It is as Willis more or less said: no data, no methods, no calculations, no proof of anything.
Increasing seawater temperatures are good for 4-17 ppmv/°C change in equilibrium with the atmosphere (experimental, confirmed by ocean data).
Increasing temperatures in general give more net CO2 uptake by the biosphere.
Ice cores show changes of 8 ppmv/°C over the past 800,000 years.
The warming of the oceans over the past 55 years thus is good for ~5 ppmv increase in the atmosphere.
The current increase is 110 ppmv above equilibrium.
Human emissions were 200 ppmv over the same period of increase.
Seems quite clear that mainly humans are responsible for the increase…
Mr. Engelbeen, I just wanted to commend you for again exhibiting preternatural patience.
I aspire to that level of patience but never get anywhere close.
So does this precise knowledge of ‘thermally’ produced co2 actually exist? Of course like many I want to believe that Murry has just grasped that there are severe misunderstandings of our understanding of how the atmosphere works and we’ve all been looking at it the wrong way, but his theory strongly rest on this thermally induced co2. I don’t want to be rude but there were amongst that scant video audience some weird people who just never asked the right questions. Why some of the questions were so whacko that Murry had to feign he couldn’t hear them. But back to that thermally created co2 -is that real or not?
Lawrence,
Of course CO2 is released from the oceans when the planet warms. The question is to what extent and how rapidly. There is Henry’s Law, but the ocean-atmosphere interface is not lab simple.
Other “thermal” sources of CO2, I don’t know.
Joe Bron,
Over 20 years ago, at the early years of the Internet, grass roots movements were the first to see and use the benefits of the Internet. There was an action group against the dangers of dioxins and its causes. Chlorine and PVC were the main enemies to fight against according to them. As I worked in such a factory at that time, I entered the discussion, defending my job with facts and figures. The reactions were furious, so I decided to stay calm and always on topic, as that was the only way to get not banned from the discussion list (at the end they banned me anyway, as Greenpeace pressed the list owner to do that). Of course the die-hards weren’t convincible, but the majority, just sympathizers and lurkers got on my hand over time…
So I am rather hardened by that experience, where the reactions on WUWT are very modest, compared to what I have endured at that time…
Lawrence13 and Catherine Ronconi ,
For the ocean surface, it is quite easy: that is in direct contact with the atmosphere and has a high exchange rate (1-3 years), thus that is in rapid equilibrium. According to Henry’s law, the in/decrease of the ocean-atmosphere equilibrium is somewhere between 4 and 17 ppmv/°C, both measured in laboratories and in the field. For practical purposes: about 8 ppmv/°C, as that is the (very) long term average.
For the deep ocean exchanges, that is more difficult: a lot of CO2 is going into the deep near the poles and returns some ~1000 years later at the upwelling sites near the equator. The amounts are estimated at ~40 GtC/year, based on the dilution of the 14C bomb spike and the 13C “fingerprint” of fossil fuel burning.
The 40 GtC/year at equilibrium is what goes in and out without disturbing the equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere.
The outgassing of the oceans at the upwelling places is directly proportional to the CO2 pressure (pCO2) difference between ocean surface and atmosphere: 750 μatm in the equatorial oceans, 250 μatm near the poles and around 400 μatm (= ~ppmv) in the atmosphere everywhere.
See: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml and previous and following pages.
Thus the 40 GtC/year in is the result of 350 μatm CO2 pressure difference at the equator and 40 GtC/year out is the result of 250 μatm pressure difference at the polar sink places at equilibrium. Wind mixing and surface area do the rest of the job.
If the seawater temperature increases everywhere, the pCO2 of the oceans changes with ~8 μatm/°C, which makes that the pressure difference increases a few % at the upwelling and decrease a few % at the sink places. That gives more influx to the atmosphere and less outflux into the sinks and as result, CO2 levels do increase in the atmosphere.
Any increase in the atmosphere, whatever its cause, will decrease the CO2 influx from the oceans and increase the CO2 outflux into the ocean sinks for the same reason: pressure difference changes.
The net result is that with an 8 ppmv/°C increase in the atmosphere, the warming of the oceans is fully compensated and the original fluxes are restored. That is at exactly the same increase for the dynamic deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges as for the relative static ocean surface exchanges. In graph form:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
which was made for a 17 ppmv/°C change, but the principle is the same…
Lawrence and Catherine,
Some addition (a repeat from down the reactions, but it belongs here):
I was not sure at first, but after repeatedly listening to the video, here is a the point in his speech where he introduces the “thermally induced CO2” (from Janice’s transcript):
11:05 – Integrating thermally-induced CO2 emission backward, i.e., subtracting therm. CO2 for each preceding year (year x-1) from current CO2 (year x), repeating this going back to 1980, gives an accurate estimate of net natural CO2 (since most net natural CO2 emission is thermally induced).
Where he assumes that the full CO2 year by year increase (variability + offset) in de/increase is thermally induced (thus all natural), not easily to decipher, but that is what he really does.
Of course that shows that the whole in/decrease is from natural causes as he simply uses not only the variability but includes the offset, while the offset of the curve in rate of change is for 95% what humans introduced…
In reply to Ferdinand Engelbeen April 15, 2015 at 8:16 am
William,
Every one of your comments is incorrect. You appear to have no understanding as to what are or are not the issues and what are the logical implications of the observations. Listen to Salby’s presentation and think about the subject before you comment. You also need to read Thomas Gold’s Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels which is directly related to this subject. There is a much larger source of CO2 into the biosphere than volcanic eruptions. There is hence also a much larger sink of CO2. The Bern model is not correct.
William,
Observations do not support the Bern model. That is fact. Repeating the Bern model assumptions and they are assumptions does not make the Bern assumptions correct. Do you understand what is an assumption and what is fact?
William,
Salby’s analysis includes a new case (new video more analysis, you however have not listened to the video and repeat the same silly comments without thought) that uses ‘mass’ balance in addition to phase analysis. The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not track the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There has been a 40% increase in anthropogenic CO2 yet the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues to track temperature. The IPCC model analysis assumed the CO2 sinks would decrease as atmospheric CO2 rises. There is a magic wand that forces a higher percentage of CO2 into the sinks. As Salby notes in his presentation there is no physical explanation for that paradox.
William,
Your comment is irrational. You do not understand what phase analysis and hence do not understand what is the implication of Humlum et al’s paper result that in 7 out 8 case atmospheric CO2 increase when temperature increase rather than temperature increases when atmospheric CO2. Salby confirms Humlum et al’s conclusion with CO2 mass balance analysis and find it too supports the assertion that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural CO2 emissions rather than anthropogenic CO2 increases.
William,
The very first issue of the NASA CO2 satellite data refutes the IPCC source/sink model, as does Humlum et al’s paper, as does Salby’s mass balance analaysis, and as does the bomb C14 data. The fact that there has been no new update of the NASA CO2 satellite data indicates the data in question refutes the IPCC source/sink model.
Flip this problem around. What do you think the public, media, and political opposition reaction will be if they find that more than 73% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural sources, the majority of the temperature rise in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, and almost 2 trillion dollars has been wasted on green scams that do not work.
The outrage could be greater. Imagine there is evidence of a massive cover-up of the science/observations that confirm the above assertions.
The cult of CAGW will end abruptly when the planet abruptly cools and atmospheric CO2 levels abruptly drop. The solar cycle has been interrupted. Each and every time the solar cycle abruptly slows down the planet cools.
William what do you of my thoughts that I posted at 8:31 am? Thanks
correction– William what do you think about my thoughts posted at 8:31 am ? thanks.
William,
Please reply on what I have said, not on what you think that I have said…
1. I didn’t use neither defended the IPCC’s Bern model, to the contrary.
I did say that all defenses of the Salby models were based on the residence time (as noticed by Janice), which doesn’t say anything about the increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus Salby and the IPCC are equally wrong.
2. The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not track the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The increase in the atmosphere does track human emissions extremely well:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
By looking at the variability in sink rate and cherry-picking the two periods, Salby does create a false impression of discrepancy, which disappears if you look at the full length of the record and isn’t even important at all: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than the human emissions, the increase is caused by human emissions. No matter if that is 5% or 95% of the human emissions…
3. I do not understand what phase analyses does.
May be not, so please explain to me how you can separate two CO2 inputs to the atmosphere with phase analyses:
One with a huge variability and little trend.
The other with no detectable variability and a huge trend.
Humlum made the same mistake as many others before and after him: he uses the residence time instead of the excess decay rate. And indeed, in almost all cases, CO2 follows temperature changes with 4-8 ppmv/°C except over the past 55/160 years which is what we are discussing now.
4. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. The full data of NASA’s satellite will be published soon and will be used to adjust the IPCC CO2 cycle estimates, but there is not the slightest sign hitherto that human emissions are not the cause of 95% of the increase…
The next 6 weeks of OCO-2 data are available here:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/datareleases/First_CO2_data_from_OCO-2
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704194504575031404275769886
In support of less water vapor as a cause for a lesser GHG effect.
regarding the mass balance argument: in my opinion, no realistic carbon balance or budget has been demonstrated with reasonable basis in science (estimates of this and that – are not really science!). I also would suggest that any such carbon balance/budget is a pipe dream to derive or determine. For a start, there is a heck of a lot of carbon stored in carbonates around the world, along with subterranean volcanic co2, methane clathrates, organic muds/slimes, etc, etc – the potential SUM of which, to my knowledge cannot be reasonably determined/estimated.
Similarly, the outgassing (or sinking) from such sources cannot be reasonably determined (again, in my opinion). The whole earth ‘carbon cycle’ is comprised of an immense sum of many many parts. Hence, whilst I agree that Salbys work requires confirmation and scientific analysis before it can be accepted – his summary point, that co2 is rising naturally (as well as with an anthropogenic component) is almost certainly the most likely state of play. Ignoring the GHG part of the argument of CO2 – and concentrating on the source and sinks of CO2 seems fairly more likely to yield some productivity towards our overall understanding. Also, given the clear misunderstanding and overstating of the climate sensitivity to CO2 ‘in the atmosphere’ as amply demonstrated by many people – this should probably now be considered a dead end for research UNTIL we know the true scale of the carbon mass balance/budget meme.
It is quite a point for the observation that the CO2 rise is not correlating with actual (albeit estimated) fossil fuel use over the decades, don’t you all think? As a slight aside, cross correlate that observation, with the apparent 800 year lag between temps rising and increases in CO2 and it is quite feasible that the major part of this current CO2 gradual increase is derived from several hundred years ago? Obviously we cannot say for certain which of the many ‘sinks’ are failing (though the loss of rainforest would be a good start!) or which of the many emitters are surging (if at all). But the point is that if you have billions of tonnes of carbon/co2 in storage and a large total carbon cycle (lets call it the freely ‘moving’ carbon cycle) – isolating one or even a few ‘parts’ part as being contributary or not (either way) is extremely difficult, if not impossible?
I can think of many examples of things that we know or believe are changing, I already mentioned the rainforest (obv human caused!) but there are things like corals, algae, sea-life in general, all of which may be growing or declining in varying degrees. Plankton blooms must ‘sink’ carbon – equally when they dont occur, this ‘sink’ is lost – and this kind of discussion can be had for probably every part of the carbon cycle – i.e. what is actually happening and how much could it cause or affect the ‘net’ changes as observed? Basically, I am with Salby in his indication that it is likely the major factor is naturally derived – but unfortunately with the current science, I don’t see how we can ever know as we don’t know what we can comparing observations to? Hope that makes sense.
Kev,
Nobody can make a mass balance of the carbon cycle in sufficient detail, although the larger sinks/sources are reasonably known. But that is not necessary to know the net balance at the end of the year: nature is more sink than source for the past 55 years. Here again that graph, which is based on only the calculated human emissions and the measured increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
As long as the increase in the atmosphere is smaller than human emissions, humans are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere.
Besides a small contribution caused by the increase in temperature (~5 ppmv), the natural carbon cycle added zero, nada, nothing more CO2 to the atmosphere, no matter how much cycled through the atmosphere, no matter the residence time, no matter how much each individual in or outflux changed over time… To the contrary, nature removed a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere, each year again.
The increase in the atmosphere is not from vegetation, as that is a proven net sink for CO2 out of the oxygen balance.
The increase in the atmosphere is not from the oceans, as that would increase the δ13C level in the atmosphere, while we see a firm decrease in lockstep with human emissions, thus also not from 800 years ago.
As already said to William, the increase in the atmosphere tracks human emissions extremely well if you plot it over the full period and do look at the total, not the year by year variability or even a few cherry-picked decades as Salby did…
Again your data is geared to benefit your argument which does not make it correct.
As for me I am on board with Dr. Salby, and William.
Ferd (is the abbreviation ok?)
I’m sorry, but your argument is missing the point I was trying (probably badly) to make. which is that the natural sources and sinks are largely unknown, evenmoreso if you consider that we don’t know what they are ‘doing’ at any given time. If you cannot see the ‘big picture’ with respect to the carbon cycle, I’m afraid that’s your problem! Seriously, you accept that a carbon cycle is undefineable in sufficient detail – bit you stil concur that human emmisions are the source based on some graph produced by others?? That’s illogical ! and unscientific! The graphs you post mean NOTHING without appropriate scientific backing – they are still essentially ‘guesswork’!
Kev (Kevin?),
Ferdi is OK,
While the main in/out fluxes are roughly known, based on O2 and δ13C measurements, what is rock solid is what I plotted above:
Human emissions are calculated from fossil fuel sales (taxes!) and burning efficiency. They are probably more underestimated (by under-the-counter sales…) than overestimated.
CO2 increase in the atmosphere is very accurately measured in the atmosphere.
The difference is the net sink of CO2 somewhere in nature, as no CO2 escapes to space.
Thus without knowing any individual in/out flux or how that changed from year to year or how some sources became sinks and reverse… we know exactly (within reasonable error bars) what humans emitted and what the increase was in the atmosphere and what nature contributed. The latter was more sink than source in every year of the past 55 years.
If you think that nature in any way (besides a very small increase due to slightly warmer temperatures) was the cause of the increase in any year, please show me how that can be true and in such a case what happened with the human contribution…
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E71CzjwDuYE/UxJu7sz_1iI/AAAAAAAAAbo/IlmNk7_47lY/s1600/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png
For my money if/when the temperature trend were to decline back to around 1900 levels the amount of CO2 increase at the very least would slow down significantly. By how much is the question but I doubt the current rate of increase would continue. The question is over what duration of time? What would be the lag effect?
On the other hand it would not go back to the lower levels it was around 1900 due to human input.
As I had mentioned earlier a better way to attack AGW theory I think is by what effect would lower sea surface temperatures have on water vapor in the atmosphere. The correlation between increases in CO2 and water vapor proving to be incorrect.
continued reply to Ferdinand:
What I am contending is that ANY and ALL assessments of sinks/emitters versus the actual natural CO2 concentration (as measured) is entirely ‘fictional’ – ok, maybe not ENTIRELY fictional, but certainly onley generic and geared to an agenda. If you KNOW a ‘base level’ then you can perhaps ‘observe’ an imposed change. Without that ‘base level’, frankly, you are pissing in the wind! And that is without applying any real testing scientific criteria!
and also – how the feck does anyone know (scientifically, and reproducibly) what the main sinks/emitters are doing? FFS, we can’t even predict when earthquakes will happen despite numerous measurements (and models!) of movements of the earths crust! And you think we know where all the Co2 comes from???
Kev,
There is a lot of literature out there, based on measurements which tries to make an inventory of the carbon budget: tall towers over land (measuring in/out fluxes) over many places, including the Amazon, nowadays satellites, etc. Several million of sea surface and deep ocean data (pCO2) to measure in/out fluxes of the oceans, O2 and δ13C measurements which show the difference between oceans and vegetation as sources/sinks, etc…
Some links:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml about the ocean exchanges
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf about the distribution of CO2 between the oceans and vegetation…
Salvatore,
The influence of temperature on CO2 levels is 4-5 ppmv/°C over short term (seasons, Pinatubo, El Niño) to 8 ppmv/°C over (very) long periods: MWP-LIA, glacial-interglacial changes.
Thus all what the 0.8°C increase since 1880 does is adding some 6 ppmv CO2 to the atmosphere. The opposite is visible in the Law Dome ice core (~20 years resolution):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
Where the ~0.8°C cooling did give a drop of ~6 ppmv.
Since ~1850, CO2 increased with ~110 ppmv. If temperature was responsible, that would need an increase of over 12°C of the ocean surface…
Re Salvatore Del Prete April 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm
Unless someone looks carefully at this plot one might think that Temperature is linked to CO 2.
1) First if the plot continued to 2015, on would see that there is no temperature increase although CO 2 continues to rise at an all time high rate.
2)Looking at the period from 1880 to 1910, the temperature fell circa 0.5 degrees while CO 2 rose circa 10 ppm.
3) Again in the late 30’s to the 50’s the temperature fell circa 0.5 degrees while Co 2 rose almost 15 ppm
These numbers might be off base since the plot is so clear.
On the other hand we see that there are seasonal variations in the order of 15 ppm at one station so the station seems to track CO 2 changes caused by seasonal sink rates with good precision, see below:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/graphics_gallery_images/co2_sta_records.png.
It seems strange that seasonal CO 2 change is significant relative to the above lack of linkage.
I think Salby also showed similar historical disconnects between temperature and CO 2 which makes it difficult to accept the claimed CO 2/temperature link .
Catcracking,
Different processes at work in the variability:
1. Seasonal processes: mainly the influence of temperature over the seasons on the mainly NH forests.
Higher temperature: lower CO2, higher δ13C (which points to vegetation as main cause), ~5 ppmv/°C.
In/out: ~60 GtC/season
Difference: ~1 GtC/year more sink than source.
2. Short term (2-3 years) processes (Pinatubo, El Niño): influence of temperature on tropical forests.
Higher temperature: higher CO2, lower δ13C (vegetation decay in the tropics by drought and fires)~, 4-5 ppmv/°C.
In/out: temporarily with temperature, levels out after 2-3 years.
Difference: about zero over longer term.
3. Long term processes (centuries, multi-millennia): influence of temperature on the (deep) oceans.
Higher temperature: higher CO2, higher δ13C, ~8 ppmv/ δ13C.
In/out: surface (seasonal): ~50 GtC/season, deep oceans (permanent): ~40 GtC/year.
Thanks to the different influence of temperature on CO2 and δ13C it is possible to know the dominant cause of some increase or decrease in the atmosphere.
Besides that, we have human emissions which are independent of temperature but have their own “fingerprint”: low δ13C and zero 14C. As vegetation is a net, increasing sink since ~1990, all δ13C decline in the atmosphere is caused by human emissions, be it diluted by the deep ocean exchanges which return higher δ13C from the deep oceans to the atmosphere than reverse…
Ferd…
I probably have not made my point clear.
Looking at the plot below, there are 3 significant periods up to 40 years long where the temperature declined although CO 2 was increasing significantly. No one has explained adequately the lack of linkage claiming CO 2 increase causes increase in temperature especially since the alarmists recently claimed that CO 2 rules over natural forcing functions..
I’m an engineer, no engineer would use such a lack of correlation to design a component that is expected to be safe and reliable.
Also I find it amusing that climate scientists argue constantly about the sensitivity to temperature rise versus CO 2 increase when we have adequate data to show it is actually all over the place including negative.
To claim any linkage one would need to admit that other forces such as natural are significantly stronger and variable.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MW_NJp28Udc/VNS3EAEqpOI/AAAAAAAAAUs/hjhuLZFkdoM/s1600/hadcrut4%2Bhiatuses.png
Catcracking,
I agree, natural variability of temperature is far more driven by natural influences, whatever they may be (solar, clouds, ocean oscillations,…) than by CO2.
All climate models (over)focused on the period 1976-2000 where there is a parallel increase of CO2 and temperature, but that link is opposite in the period 1946-1975 and zero since 2000.
The period 1946-1975 was explained away by using aerosols as scapegoat, where there is a huge offset between the climate sensitivity for CO2 and aerosols. But the scapegoat was already killed in the 1990’s: while SE Asia increased its SO2/aerosol emissions, the US and Europe decreased it, so that in balance there was/is little movement in aerosol emissions. Big problem for the climate models and especially for the models with huge sensitivity for CO2 and SO2…
But the (non-)correlation between temperature and CO2 goes two ways: while there is a huge correlation between short term (seasonal, 2-3 years) temperature variability and CO2 rate of change variability, there is hardly any influence of temperature on CO2 levels, contrary to what Dr. Salby (and many others) try to prove…
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen April 15, 2015 at 2:04 pm
You do not understand Salby’s calculation and you do not understand the issues. There is a much larger natural source of low C13 CO2 and there is a much larger natural sink (likely do to more mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean which is required for heat to hide in the ocean).
The CO2 sink has increased in effectiveness by 300%. As Salby notes in his video that is not physically possible. The CO2 sink’s effectiveness is proportional to the total CO2 in the atmosphere not the increase in CO2. The sinks should remain roughly the same effectiveness, with the exception of plants which thrive when there is more CO2. For example, if the sink was 50% effective then when atmospheric CO2 rises it should continue to be 50% effective.
What is observed is there is no change in the rate in rise of atmospheric CO2 (Now 2 ppm per year average with the increase in atmospheric CO2 tracking the integral of average planetary temperature not the integral of anthropogenic CO2 emissions) yet anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 60%.
Salby does a mass balance calculation using the information from this graph to calculate a maximum portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 of 33% that is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
William,
You do not understand Salby’s calculation and you do not understand the issues. There is a much larger natural source of low C13 CO2 and there is a much larger natural sink
William, I do perfectly understand what Salby has done and by looking further in detail, it is only getting worse…
There are only two main sources of low 13C: recent organics and fossil organics. All other sources (oceans, volcanoes, carbonate rock weathering) are richer in 13C than the atmosphere.
Recent organics do exchange a lot of CO2 with the atmosphere over the seasons: about 60 GtC/season in and out.
Vegetation takes CO2 away in spring-summer-fall and releases it back as decay in fall-winter-spring.
Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis decreases the total CO2 in the atmosphere (as can be seen in the NH summer) and increases the δ13C level in the atmosphere, as photosynthesis uses 12CO2 by preference. Thus more CO2 uptake by plants gives a higher δ13C level and more O2 in the atmosphere. More decay from the same plants (or its use as feed, food by insects or animals) will increase CO2 and decrease the δ13C and O2 level in the atmosphere.
The O2 balance shows that the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of O2, thus a net user of CO2 and preferential 12CO2. Thus not the cause of the firm decline of δ13C since about 1850, in lockstep with human emissions…
The CO2 sink has increased in effectiveness by 300%. As Salby notes in his video that is not physically possible. The CO2 sink’s effectiveness is proportional to the total CO2 in the atmosphere not the increase in CO2.
Salby is completely wrong on this: human emissions increased a 4-fold over the past 55 years, so did the increase speed in the atmosphere and so did the extra pressure in the atmosphere: from 25 ppmv above equilibrium in 1960 to 105 ppmv above equilibrium today and so did the sink rate, be it within natural variability.
Have a look at the calculated increase in the atmosphere, based on the emissions and the calculated sink rate caused by the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above the equilibrium for the temperature of any given year (the red line in the graph):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
largely within natural variability…
Ferdinand could you please provide a link – to the data – that you used to make this graph.
This is an interesting subject.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
William,
Human emissions:
Carbon dioxide emissions inventory from the US Department of Energy (DOE) since 1750:
were here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls but the link is dead
the update since 1980 still is at:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8
CO2 measurements:
Yearly averaged carbon dioxide concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958 to last full year, NOAA:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Sink rate is simply CO2 measurements minus emissions.
Found an alternative database for the emissions since 1751:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
I was not sure at first, but after repeatedly listening to the video, here is a quite remarkable point in his speech (from Janice’s transcript):
11:05 – Integrating thermally-induced CO2 emission backward, i.e., subtracting therm. CO2 for each preceding year (year x-1) from current CO2 (year x), repeating this going back to 1980, gives an accurate estimate of net natural CO2 (since most net natural CO2 emission is thermally induced).
Here he assumes that the full CO2 year by year increase (variability + offset) in de/increase is thermally induced (thus all natural), not easily to decipher, but that is what he really does.
Of course that shows that the whole in/decrease is from natural causes as he simply uses not only the variability but includes the offset, while the offset of the curve in rate of change is for 95% what humans introduced…
Sorry, but I am getting a very bad feeling here…
https://twitter.com/bigjoebastardi/status/577264038893252608
I think the better way to go about in proving AGW theory is wrong is to attack it from the CO2/water vapor positive feedback claims which the data keeps showing to be incorrect.
My post Apr. 15 at 8:31 addresses this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
This is where my focus is, in trying to show AGW theory is a house of cards ready to fall and be consumed by natural climatic forces chief among them solar variability.
to Ferdinand:
the abstracts of the three references you suggested all show the point I am trying to make, namely that CO2 sources and emmitters are a bugger to determine!
ref 1: ”Accordingly, the distribution of pCO2 in surface waters in space and time, and therefore the oceanic uptake and release of CO2 , is governed by a balance between the changes in seawater temperature, net biological utilization of CO2 and the upwelling flux of subsurface waters rich in CO2.”
Clearly, no-one knows how much CO2 may be upwelling from deeper waters? In which case, how do they know how much of any CO2 measured in the near surface waters (mixing layer) is from the atmosphere or from below?
ref 2: ”Recent time-series measurements of atmospheric O2 show that the land biosphere and world oceans annually sequestered 1.4 ± 0.8 and 2.0 ± 0.6 gigatons of carbon, respectively, between mid-1991 and mid-1997. The rapid storage of carbon by the land biosphere from 1991 to 1997 contrasts with the 1980s, when the land biosphere was approximately neutral. Comparison with measurements of δ13CO2 implies an isotopic flux of 89 ± 21 gigatons of carbon per mil per year, in agreement with model- and inventory-based estimates of this flux. Both the δ13C and the O2 data show significant interannual variability in carbon storage over the period of record. The general agreement of the independent estimates from O2and δ13C is a robust signal of variable carbon uptake by both the land biosphere and the oceans. ”
Note the word variable in the last sentence!
ref 3: ”From 1994–2002, We find the average CO2 uptake by the ocean and the land biosphere was 1.7 ± 0.5 and 1.0 ± 0.6 GtC yr respectively; these numbers include a correction of 0.3 Gt C yr due to secular
outgassing of ocean O2
. Interannual variability calculated from these data shows a strong
land carbon source associated with the 1997–1998 El Nino event, supporting many
previous studies indicating that high atmospheric growth rates observed during most
El Nino events reflect diminished land uptake. Calculations of interannual variability in
land and ocean uptake are probably confounded by non-zero annual air sea fluxes of O2. The origin of these fluxes is not yet understood.”
Again, see last sentence!
regards
Kev
Kev,
What is the problem? The huge fluxes between oceans, biosphere and atmosphere are roughly known to +/- 50%. That is of academic interest and it gives an idea how the CO2 sinks are distributed between land and (deep) oceans.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the net result of all these fluxes is known to +10/-5 % as that is the estimated accuracy of the fossil fuel emissions, the accuracy of the CO2 measurements is better than +/- 0.01%.
Sorry,
are roughly known to +/- 50%
should be read as:
are roughly known to +/- 50% of the net sink rates.
The large exchange fluxes themselves are known to +/- 10%
If a GHG effect does exist which I think is correct and an increase in CO2 all things being equal is going to cause a temperature increase,a tropical hot spot,and OLR to decrease, why is it that none of this is happening?
?w=614
The most sensible explanation is there must be a flaw in AGW THEORY and how it views the GHG effect.
When one looks at the data objectively the data shows no temperature increase despite CO2 increases, no reduction in OLR radiation despite CO2 increases, no lower tropospheric hot spot despite CO2 increases, and a lower mixing ratio/ specific humidity trend in all levels of the atmosphere from varied data sources,despite CO2 increases. Given that one has to conclude perhaps a flaw in AGW theory exist. That flaw being the strong positive feedback claim it makes between CO2 and water vapor.
For if this feedback between CO2 and water vapor were as strong as AGW theory suggest the tropospheric hot spot would have been in evidence beyond a doubt by now, and humidity levels through out the atmosphere would not be dropping. They would instead be in a definite up trend.
This leads me to believe that there is either no positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor or that a stronger positive feedback probably exist for water vapor then CO2. That stronger positive feedback being sea surface temperatures. Evidence of this being strongly supported by the drop in specific humidity levels in the tropics which have been shown to correlate very strongly to the phase of the PDO. A warm PDO being associated with higher specific humidity levels and vice versa.
My post at 8:58 am Apr. 16 ,shows the data between the PDO , and specific humidity levels in the atmosphere.
This makes sense because evaporation the source for water vapor in the atmosphere is less when water is colder and or in a cold environment, in contrast to when the water is warmer and or in a warmer environment.
If one follows this train of thought going forward it is easy to see why in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions ,water vapor in the atmosphere would lessen. The reason being sea surface temperatures will become colder because the visible light and long wave UV light emissions from the sun would decline and since they penetrate the skin of the ocean surface waters to several meters in depth in contrast to IR radiation which can only penetrate the skin of the ocean surface to a depth of 1 mm or so, it stands to reason solar variation is the major force in the determination of sea surface temperatures, and ultimately water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Reduced solar activity correlating to reduced sea surface temperatures and vice versa.
With a decline in sea surface temperatures in response to lower solar activity this would lead to reduced evaporation which would then lead to reduced water vapor in the atmosphere hence making the GHG effect as called for by AGW theory at the very least being diminished, if not null and void.
This is why the data between sunspots and water vapor correlate so strongly. This is also why I think the data keeps showing CO2 concentrations following the temperature rather then leading it. CO2 never being the major driving force of the GHG effect, but subjugated to water vapor concentrations. Thus when water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere decrease the temperature trends on earth decrease which eventually leads to the trend in CO2 concentrations to decrease.
AGW theory has it backwards. It is water vapor that is the driving force behind the GHG effect not CO2. One could say CO2 is correlated to water vapor but water vapor is not correlated to CO2.
See data below.
As far as the convection factor I talked about that in my earlier post at APR. 15 8:31 AM.
Sorry,
are roughly known to +/- 50%
should be read as:
are roughly known to +/- 50% of the net sink rates.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen April 16, 2015 at 8:14 am
William,
So when you state the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions exactly equals the rise in atmospheric that statement is true as you have subtracted the assumed sinks – the line ‘sinks’ on the below graph is not a measured variable but rather a subtraction, a calculated variable that is forced to increase.
As I noted from Salby’s lecture the natural sinks efficiency is dependent on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and remains roughly the same percentage that is sequestered for all sinks, except for plants which thrive when CO2 increases so the amount of CO2 that is sequestered by plants increases when CO2 increases rather than remains the same or decreases as the IPCC has assumed. Salby uses the maximum acceptable increase of CO2 sequestered by plants and finds the calculated sink is too large, not possible physically based on the Bern model.
His calculation creates a paradox using the Bern model assumptions as to what are the sources and sinks and the amount of the sources and sinks. As I noted the paradoxes goes away if there is much larger sink into the deep ocean or sequestering of CO2 to the bottom of the ocean floor by chemical and biological action. A large sink requires a larger natural source of CO2 which is not volcanic eruptions.
The IPCC has not answered the question: Why are the natural sinks increasing by 300%?
The IPCC assumed the natural sinks would decrease the percentage of CO2 that is sequestered, not increase the amount of CO2 that is sequestered from 50% to 70%.
Salby also does a calculation on the net change year by year of C13 and finds there is evidence of a massive low C13 source. The change cannot be explained by gas changes of anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean surface waters. There is a change of 300% between highest and lowest.
There have been a series of recent papers that have discovered active emitting CH4 sources on the ocean floor and recently in the State of Utah. There is a paper that notes the natural seepage of liquid oil into the ocean floor exceeds the total amount of commercial oil that is transported by ship. These observations (50 or so additional observations in Thomas Gold’s book and Gold’s peer reviewed papers) support Gold’s assertion that there is massive source of liquid high pressure CH4 that is extruded when the core solidifies. As I noted there the C13 content in geological formations does not change with time which requires that there be a continuous source of low C13 carbon dioxide.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
William,
You are sometimes difficult to follow…
So when you state the rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions exactly equals the rise in atmospheric
I never said that the rise exactly equals human emissions, I said:
The increase in the atmosphere does track human emissions extremely well
With a 50-55% overall ratio and a R^2 of 0.999 almost perfect…
Why are the natural sinks increasing by 300%
First, it is about 400% – a fourfold over the past 55 years.
Second, human emissions per year increased a fourfold over the same 55 years and the increase in the atmosphere also was a fourfold since 1960: from ~25 ppmv to ~105 ppmv above the natural equilibrium. The increased pressure in the atmosphere is the reason for the fourfold increase in uptake.
Salby also does a calculation on the net change year by year of C13 and finds there is evidence of a massive low C13 source.
Salby – again – looks at the variability around the trend, which is caused by the variability in the uptake by vegetation, which is a source or sink for CO2 and thus sink or source for preferably 12CO2.
The huge declining 13C/12C ratio trend is caused by burning fossil fuels, but if the net sink in vegetation decreases, the 13C/12C ratio decrease speed is more rapid than with increased uptake by vegetation. Around the 1990’s there was even a halt in the decline caused by an extra CO2 uptake in vegetation.
As vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2, it is not the cause of the declining 13C/12C ratio, only the cause of the variability:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
As said before, I have no opinion about abiotic methane, but I don’t see any reason why that would be a sudden extra source at exact the same moment and rate as humans started to release more and more methane (by mining and later exploring + increased rice cultivation) and CO2…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen April 16, 2015 at 2:56 pm
William,
I am not sure whether you fail to understand the observations/analysis or you do understand and have decided a decade or so ago that you belong to the cult of CAGW and will hence keep repeating the Born model which has been falsified by observations.
The Born model is made up of assumptions, not observations. The only CO2 source which will know with certainty is anthropogenic. The other sources and sinks is a calculated guess.
Salby has found an observational paradox related to how atmospheric CO2 has changed vs anthropogenic CO2 emission, that falsifies the Born model (puts the science in question into a crisis).
That is a fact. Furthermore the observational paradox is fairly simple to find and to explain to a non-technical audience.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 does not track anthropogenic emissions of CO2. The year by year increase in atmospheric CO2 is averaging at 2 ppm, flat lining, not increasing to say 3 ppm per year or 4 ppm per year as the IPCC predicted based on the Born model as anthropogenic emissions are increasing year by year.
Planetary temperature also does not track the increase in atmospheric CO2. It also is flat lining which is a paradox as atmospheric CO2 is increasing at 2 ppm per year.
I would assume you understand that atmospheric pressure has not changed and the ocean temperature has warmed slightly so the amount of gas that is entering the surface layer of the ocean is the same and will track the partial pressure of CO2. Also wind speed has not change and temperatures at the poles until very recently are not colder (the south pole has for unexplained reasons started to cool which explains why there is now record sea ice around the Antarctic for every month of year, where the IPCC predicted a reduction in sea ice) so the amount of gas that is moved into the deep ocean has not changed. The CO2 sinks should according to the Born model be less efficient not more efficient with the exception of plants which thrive when atmosphere CO2 increases.
As I noted Salby used the estimate sinks from the Born model and then did a mass/balance calculation. The result of that calculation is 33% is the maximum contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
What you and others in this forum cannot get their heads around, as you keep repeating the Born model assumption, ad infinitum, is the Born model is an assumed model and is based on the assumption that volcanic eruptions and recycled CO2 is the only source of new CO2 into the biosphere.
That assumption is not correct. There is a massive source of low C13 from CH4 that is emitted throughout the planet which explains why the methyl hydrate deposits on the ocean floor exceeds the carbon reserves of all fossil fuels. Note the ocean floor moves under the continents and the oldest ocean floor is 200 million years which will release the methyl hydrate. i.e. There needs to be a constant new source of low C13 CH4 to cover the ocean floor with methyl hydrate.
The CH4 increases when the sun is active as does volcanic activity as does the number of earthquakes. The release of CH4 caused the massive drop in the ocean floor that caused the Thailand tsunami. Gold has an entire section in his book that explains that deep earthquakes where the earth drops can only be caused by the movement of a liquid such as high pressure CH4. i.e. The mantel cannot disappear to enable vast sections of the ocean floor for example to drop.
William,
Even as I have a lot of patience, it has its borders…
As repeatedly said: I didn’t use or defend the IPCC’s Bern model, as that is as wrong as using the rate of change to “prove” that human emissions are not the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
The only CO2 source which will know with certainty is anthropogenic.
Yes and the increase in the atmosphere is exactly measured (+/- 0.2 ppmv).
Thus we know with quite certainty the net result of all the unknown sinks and sources in nature: more sink than source. That is simple arithmetic: human emissions are larger than the measured increase in the atmosphere, thus nature is a net sink for CO2, not a net source, already 55 years long.
Salby has found an observational paradox related to how atmospheric CO2 has changed vs anthropogenic CO2 emission
Salby didn’t find a “paradox”. He compared the change in the rate of change in one period with another period. As Alex somewhere up thread said, that is looking at the second derivative to declare a paradox in a very noisy system. That is like saying that there can’t be a sea level change, because the second derivative of the waves in some periods doesn’t fit such a change…
The increase in atmospheric CO2 does not track anthropogenic emissions of CO2.
Again, that is pure nonsense: the graph I have given somewhere up thread, shows a 99.9% correlation between total emissions and increase in the atmosphere.
It doesn’t matter what the variability of the rate of change or the variability in variability does. As long as the increase in the atmosphere is positive and less than human emissions, human emissions are fully responsible for the increase.
It doesn’t matter that in one year the increase is 1% of the human emissions and next year 99% or a constant 53%. The variability is in the sink rate, not the source rate.
The natural sinks for whatever reason have increased recently as they also did temporarily in the period 1976-1996 with increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 emissions, but a decreasing rate of change in the atmosphere…
And please don’t use the word “Bern model” anytime again against me or anyone else on this thread, as nobody here uses it or want to defend it.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
CO2 changes into the atmosphere on a year to year basis. It looks like since the temperature pause CO2 increases into the atmosphere have slowed.
Yes. The increase in atmospheric CO2 tracks the integral of planetary temperature, not the integral of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Salby also showed the variance in atmospheric C13 supports the assertion that there is large source of low C13 into the biosphere and the source is not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This is an interesting problem as there is sufficient information to work out the basic framework of the mechanisms. Key to the problem is understanding the mechanisms related to the of rate change of the release of CH4 from the deep earth.
I have promised a couple of time to provide a summary of Gold’s deep earth CH4 theory (basically a Coles Notes review of his book and a couple of related recent papers) and the fifty or so observations and 20 new observations that support it, for this forum. I have started the summary and will commit to finishing it by the end of the summer.
The deep earth CH4 mechanisms explains why there were very, very, large deep earthquakes during the recent very active solar period. The number of large earthquakes peaked at ten times normal and very recently dropped back to normal.
People in this forum are confusing an argument where people pick sides and argue to try to win a silly game, with the methodology one uses or should use to solve holistic scientific problems were there are multiple fundamental theory errors. There is one physically correct set of theories/mechanisms that makes all of the paradoxes anomalies go away.
They are so busy defending the standard incorrect set of theories they do not attempt to work out and understand the competing theories.
Salvatore,
If you take the period 1976-1996, the ppmv/year trend is even negative, while temperature and CO2 emissions did go up.
That is simply natural variability in sink rate, which shows huge variability over years to decades.
Over the full period, the average human emissions increased a fourfold, the increase in the atmosphere also increased a fourfold and so did the sinks. Thus the long term increase in the atmosphere follows human emissions.
Further, even if that was not the case, it doesn’t matter: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than human emissions, human emissions are the cause of the increase. No matter if that is 1% or 99% of the emissions…
Posted in 2012 – but I am actually an agnostic on this subject – see my next post.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/unexplored-possible-climate-balancing-mechanism/#comment-1036650
A worthwhile dialogue gentlemen, thank you.
I think the secrets reside in the data. No surprise there.
In 2008 I wrote that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months. I referred to Jan Veizer’s papers and think Jan was generally on the right track.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
I also observed in 2008 that there was no similar detailed relationship between variations in fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 levels – the “wiggles” did not correlate.
I was recently fascinated by the observation that the urban CO2 data from Salt Lake City exhibited NO human signature – only the natural daily cycle was apparent.
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
One wonders if these clever Mormons are all driving Chevy Volts – like the Vikings were driving Volvos during the Medieval Warm Period. 🙂
It seems to me there is evidence that the biosphere is CO2-starved or at least CO2-limited. Since we cannot (except perhaps in winter) see the human signature of urban CO2 emissions AT THE URBAN SOURCE OF THESE EMISSIONS, are these humanmade CO2 emissions being captured close to their source and causing increased biomass in the process? Is there any other explanation? And not all that increased biomass decays in the Spring.
I’m sorry Ferdinand – you are a gentleman and I like you, but I don’t like your mass balance argument. I think atmospheric CO2 concentration is part of a huge dynamic system with biological and physical components on land and in the ocean, and this huge system dwarfs the humanmade CO2 component and is generally unaffected by it. That is what the data says to me.
Variations in biomass (e.g. deforestation and reforestation) may be the huge variable that would make your mass balance equation work better – I agree that we are not exporting CO2 to other planets.
Posted in 2013
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/the-oldest-ice-core-finding-a-1-5-million-year-record-of-earths-climate/#comment-1469229
Re Allan MacRae says: November 7, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: November 8, 2013 at 1:38 am
Allan, we have been there before: the current increase in CO2 is not from temperature but from human emissions.
Allan again:
Ah Ferdinand, now we are back to the Mass Balance Argument (MBA), which for newcomers is about the cause (source) of increasing atmospheric CO2.
I specifically excluded discussion of the MBA from my previous post because, while it is of great scientific interest, I strongly suggest that in the global warming policy debate it does not matter – it is, perhaps shocking to some, irrelevant!
Why? As discussed above, climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS) is demonstrably insignificant or even nonexistent – therefore the only impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial – to plants, the environment and humanity. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current life on Earth, to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
My above conclusion, I suggest, puts the Mass Balance Argument into perspective. You could be correct about the MBA, or your able opponent Richard Courtney could be correct. I don’t know, and as I stated above, it really does not matter for current CO2 abatement policy, since increasing atmospheric CO2 can only benefit the environment, plants and animals, including that interesting subspecies to which Richard, you and I belong.
Returning to the MBA (because it IS scientifically interesting), I wonder if you have ever quantified the clearing and burning of the rainforest in Brazil and the Far East, which has been done to produce biofuel feedstocks of sugar cane and palm oil. I wonder if in fact this foolish and destructive clear-cutting and burning of the rainforest for nonsensical “green energy” biofuels is a more significant source of increased atmospheric CO2 than the combustion of fossil fuels.
In addition to the quantities of CO2 involved, there is also the observation that fossil fuel combustion typically occurs in close proximity to humanity and the plants that we co-exist with, and it has been suggested that CO2 is sufficiently rare and heterogeneously distributed that it is quickly consumed by plants close to its source, when present in excess amounts and when the growing season permits.
As I have stated previously, the humanmade CO2 signature is notably absent in urban environments such as Salt Lake City, where the only observable CO2 signature is natural, despite significant local humanmade CO2 emissions. Conversely, satellite data has shown significant increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations in areas of clear-cut rainforest.
Finally, if I can digress from the scientific for a moment, the clear-cutting and burning of rainforest for biofuel feedstock is another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Greens were clearly responsible for the initiation of this outrage against the environment – a perverse and destructive effect contrary to what was originally intended. This is what happens when you let scoundrels and imbeciles drive the school bus.
Since about 1990, the Greens have been a highly destructive force, causing great damage to humanity and the environment.
I suggest that as a society we can do better, very much better.
Best personal regards, Allan
Dear Allan,
The diurnal and seasonal natural changes in the atmosphere are huge:
– local diurnal CO2 levels can change between 250 and 450 ppmv by day and night under inversion, mainly due to night respiration and day uptake of CO2 by vegetation. The human input in this is much smaller in comparison, but still visible in urban rush hours, like here in Diekirch (Luxemburg) in the extra peak on weekdays vs. weekend:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/diekirch_diurnal.jpg
Although the influence is small, the drop of CO2 on Sunday starts immediately when sunshine comes in, on other days, it starts later. Except on Monday, which shows little peak with more wind speed than on other days, as the inversion layer was destroyed.
As human emissions are, even locally, only a few % of what vegetation emits and absorbs diurnally and over the seasons, it will be difficult to make a differentiation between the local influence of vegetation and the human contribution. The main point is that most of the vegetation – atmosphere exchanges are bi-directional, with slightly more sink that source (based on the oxygen balance), while human emissions are one-way addition…
Best regards,
Ferdinand
Ferdinand,
You have sound logic if we were talking about a physical only system. But biological sinks are not simple, they are almost always resource limited to some degree. CO2 is usually a limiting factor as demonstrated by greening; more growth when more CO2 is available. By adding in our small amount, it literally just feeds the plants. This is demonstrated in numerous ways, most importantly in the preliminary satellite based CO2 data.
v/r,
David Riser
Interesting data, thank you Ferdinand.
This data seems to show a human footprint on local daily CO2 levels, unlike that of Salt Lake City.
This is probably a function of the areal density of cars and trucks.
I suggest that this daily signature of humanmade CO2 is only apparent where nearby plant sinks are insufficient to consume the excess CO2 close to its source.
David,
The advantage of the biosphere in the equations is that it uses or emits oxygen. Analytical problem was the detection limit of the measurements (one needed to see changes of a few tenths of a ppmv in 210,000 ppmv…), which were resolved in the 1990’s. That makes that we can detect – together with the δ13C changes – if the changes in CO2 are from/to inorganic or organic sources, after taking human emissions into account.
That gives that the whole biosphere is a net, increasing, but still limited sink of ~1 GtC/year of CO2, the earth is greening, but not fast enough to remove all extra human CO2 input… See:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
AGW theory is flawed and it has something to do with the positive feedback it assumes between water vapor and CO2 not being correct,and the interactions water vapor has with various atmospheric gasses (ozone comes to mind) and atmospheric processes (interception of emissions of OLR)and water vapor concentration changes at various altitudes in the atmosphere which will produce the ultimate temperature profile of the atmosphere and the ultimate GHG effect.
The dynamics of evaporation( water vapor concentrations in the lower atmosphere) and precipitation events (influencing water vapor concentrations in higher levels of the atmosphere) apparently are more positively correlated with water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere then CO2 concentrations resulting in AGW theory to have flawed assumptions and conclusions.
It is in this area where AGW theory is off ,somewhere in this area and this is where the focus should be, rather then saying there is flat out no GHG effect.
As they say the devil is in the details which I do not know but I think this is the general area that needs to be focused on.
Comments on Positive Feedback Nonsense
The challenge of 2012 to the warmists to provide real evidence of alleged Positive Feedbacks in the climate system is still awaiting a credible resonse.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/07/a-small-milestone/
[excerpt]
Having said that, I’d like to challenge the global warmists to provide some real evidence to support their claims that recent (now stalled) global warming is humanmade AND dangerous.
I am convinced that the warmists are wrong in their claims of positive feedback and high sensitivity of Earth’s climate to increased atmospheric CO2, but I’m open to new evidence.
However, I have yet to see any evidence that the warmists’ claims are technically valid.
The Climategate emails demonstrate that the warmist case has been contaminated not just by technical incompetence, but by severe academic misbehavior, including misrepresentation, conspiracy and fraud.
Rather than hearing more from the abusers and haters, let’s hear from those who truly believe in the technical validity of the warmist case, and will provide real evidence to support their claims.
I believe, based on the evidence, that recent global warming (circa 1975 – 2000) is overwhelmingly natural and cyclical, and that natural global cooling will soon follow. I’ve been studying this subject since ~1985 and I’m still waiting for the warmist case to be supported by facts. We’ve seen too much hatred , particularly directed at us climate skeptics (aka “global warming deniers”). It’s time to end that and get back to a real scientific debate.
Here is the challenge to the global warmists: Show us the scientific evidence to support your claims. I haven’t seen any, and I strongly doubt that it exists.
More Comments on Positive Feedback Nonsense
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/strange-new-attractors-strong-evidence-against-both-positive-feedback-and-catastrophe/#more-54515
[excerpt]
Earth has been much warmer in the past, and catastrophic runaway global warming has never happened.
So the feedbacks to warming in the climate system must be negative, not positive.
The fact that we are still here, having this conversation, is proof enough.
I have also previously stated that natural global cooling will soon recur. I wrote in 2002 that cooling would start by 2020 to 2030. This was based in part on NASA’s now-obsolete prediction that SC 24 would be strong but SC 25 would be weak. SC24 now appears to be weak, so cooling could happen sooner.
I have also stated many times that global cooling is a much greater threat to humanity and the environment than global warming. The threat to food production of even modest global cooling is significant. Do we even store significant reserves of grain anymore? Global cooling is what our foolish governments should be worried about – not small fractions of a degree of natural global warming.
Too often, we are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.