Note: I present this for discussion, I have no opinion on its validity -Anthony Watts
Guest essay by Allan MacRae
Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, which reflects the fact that the water cycle and the CO2 cycle are both driven primarily by changes in global temperatures (actually energy flux – Veizer et al).
To my knowledge, I initiated in January 2008 the hypothesis that dCO2/dt varies with temperature (T) and therefore CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record, and so CO2 could not primarily drive temperature. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
In my Figure 1 and 2, global dCO2/dt is closely correlated with global Lower Tropospheric Temperature (LT) and Surface Temperature (ST). The temperature and CO2 datasets are collected completely independently, and yet this close correlation exists.
I also demonstrated the same close correlation with different datasets, using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 ST back to 1958. I subsequently examined the close correlation of LT measurements taken by satellite and those taken by radiosonde.
Earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.
My hypothesis received a hostile reaction from both sides of the fractious global warming debate. All the “global warming alarmists” and most “climate skeptics” rejected it.
First I was just deemed wrong – the dCO2/dt vs T relationship was allegedly a “spurious correlation”.
Later it was agreed that I was correct, but the resulting ~9 month CO2-after-T lag was dismissed as a “feedback effect”. This remains the counter-argument of the global warming alarmists – apparently a faith-based rationalization to be consistent with their axiom “WE KNOW that CO2 drives temperature”.
This subject has generated spirited discussion among scientists. Few now doubt the close correlation dCO2/dt vs T. Some say that humankind is not the primary cause of the current increase in atmospheric CO2 – that it is largely natural. Others rely on the “mass balance argument” to refute this claim.
The natural seasonal amplitude in atmospheric CO2 ranges up to ~16ppm in the far North (at Barrow Alaska) to ~1ppm at the South Pole, whereas the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is only ~2ppm. This seasonal “CO2 sawtooth” is primarily driven by the Northern Hemisphere landmass, which has a much greater land area than the Southern Hemisphere. CO2 falls during the Northern Hemisphere summer, due primarily to land-based photosynthesis, and rises in the late fall, winter and early spring as biomass decomposes.
Significant temperature-driven CO2 solution and exsolution from the oceans also occurs.
See the beautiful animation below:
In this enormous CO2 equation, the only signal that is apparent is that dCO2/dt varies approximately contemporaneously with temperature, and CO2 clearly lags temperature.
CO2 also lags temperature by about 800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
I suggest with confidence that the future cannot cause the past.
I suggest that temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. This does not preclude other drivers of CO2 such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc.
My January 2008 hypothesis is gaining traction with the recent work of several researchers.
Here is Murry Salby’s address to the Sydney Institute in 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I&feature=youtu.be
See also this January 2013 paper from Norwegian researchers:
The Phase Relation between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature
Global and Planetary Change, Volume 100, January 2013
by Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING:
THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
by Allan M.R. MacRae
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) stated in its 2007 AR4 report:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
… Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004.
… Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
However, despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2, no significant global warming occurred in the last decade, as confirmed by both Surface Temperature and satellite measurements in the Lower Troposphere (Figures CO2, ST and Figure 1).
Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend.
Earth Surface Temperature warmed approximately (“~”) 0.7 degrees Celsius (“C”) from ~1910 to ~1945, cooled ~0.4 C from ~1945 to ~1975, warmed ~0.6 C from ~1975 to 1997, and has not warmed significantly from 1997 to 2007.
CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.
The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data.
In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. The attached Excel spreadsheet (“CO2 vs T”) shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months (Figures 2, 3 and 4). The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.
There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”) (Figures 1 and 2). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2“) (Figures 3 and 4).
Natural seasonal variations in temperatures ST and LT and atmospheric CO2 concentrations all considerably exceed average annual variations in these parameters. For this reason, 12 month running means have been utilized in Figures 1 to 4. All four parameters ST, LT, dCO2/dt and CO2 are global averages. ST and LT have been multiplied times 4 in Figures 1 to 4 for visual clarity.
Figure 1 displays the data before detrending, and shows the strong correlation among ST, LT and dCO2/dt. Detrending removes the average slope of the data to enable more consistent correlations, as in Figures 2 to 4. In Figure 3, the atmospheric CO2 curve is plotted with the three existing parameters, and lags these three by ~9 months. This lag is clearly visible in Figure 4, with the CO2 curve shifted to the left, 9 months backward in time.
Figures 5 to 8 (included in the spreadsheet) do not use 12 month running means, and exhibit similar results.
The period from ~1980 to 2007 was chosen for this analysis because global data for LT and CO2 are not available prior to ~1980. This period from ~1980 to 2007 is also particularly relevant, since this is the time when most of the alleged dangerous human-made global warming has occurred.
In a separate analysis of the cooler period from 1958 to 1980, global ST and Mauna Loa CO2 data were used, and the aforementioned ~9 month lag of CO2 behind ST appeared to decline by a few months.
The four parameters ST, LT, dCO2/dt and CO2 all have a common primary driver, and that driver is not humankind.
Veizer (2005) describes an alternative mechanism (see Figure 1 from Ferguson and Veizer, 2007, included herein). Veizer states that Earth’s climate is primarily caused by natural forces. The Sun (with cosmic rays – ref. Svensmark et al) primarily drives Earth’s water cycle, climate, biosphere and atmospheric CO2.
Veizer’s approach is credible and consistent with the data. The IPCC’s core scientific position is disproved – CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months – the future can not cause the past.
While further research is warranted, it is appropriate to cease all CO2 abatement programs that are not cost-effective, and focus efforts on sensible energy efficiency, clean water and the abatement of real atmospheric pollution, including airborne NOx, SOx and particulate emissions.
The tens of trillions of dollars contemplated for CO2 abatement should, given the balance of evidence, be saved or re-allocated to truly important global priorities.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts from Veizer (GAC 2005):
Pages 14-15: The postulated causation sequence is therefore: brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux + solar wind => muted CRF => less low-level clouds => lower albedo => warmer climate.
Pages 21-22: The hydrologic cycle, in turn, provides us with our climate, including its temperature component. On land, sunlight, temperature, and concomitant availability of water are the dominant controls of biological activity and thus of the rate of photosynthesis and respiration. In the oceans, the rise in temperature results in release of CO2 into air. These two processes together increase the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere. If only short time scales are considered, such a sequence of events would be essentially opposite to that of the IPCC scenario, which drives the models from the bottom up, by assuming that CO2 is the principal climate driver and that variations in celestial input are of subordinate or negligible impact….
… The atmosphere today contains ~ 730 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) as CO2 (Fig. 19). Gross primary productivity (GPP) on land, and the complementary respiration flux of opposite sign, each account annually for ~ 120 Pg. The air/sea exchange flux, in part biologically mediated, accounts for an additional ~90 Pg per year. Biological processes are therefore clearly the most important controls of atmospheric CO2 levels, with an equivalent of the entire atmospheric CO2 budget absorbed and released by the biosphere every few years. The terrestrial biosphere thus appears to have been the dominant interactive reservoir, at least on the annual to decadal time scales, with oceans likely taking over on centennial to millennial time scales.
Excerpt from Ferguson & Veizer (JGR 2007):
Ferguson & Veizer Figure 1
A schematic diagram of the principal drivers of the Earth’s climate system. The connections between the various components are proposed as a hypothesis for coupling the terrestrial water and carbon cycles via the biosphere. Galactic cosmic rays and aerosols are included, although their roles are more contentious than other aspects of the Earth’s climate system.
References and Acknowledgements:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Report
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Svensmark et al, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, Copenhagen
www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
Veizer, “Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle”, GeoScience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005
http://www.gac.ca/publications/geoscience/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf
Ferguson & Veizer, “Coupling of water and carbon fluxes via the terrestrial biosphere and its significance to the Earth’s climate system”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, Volume 112, 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
Spencer, Braswell, Christy & Hnilo, “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations”, Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, August 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml
McKitrick & Michaels, “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres, Volume 112, December 2007 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008465.shtml
Considerable insight and/or assistance have been provided by Roy Spencer of University of Alabama, Ken Gregory of Calgary and others.
Conclusions, errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the writer.
Data sources are gratefully acknowledged:
Surface Temperatures: Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Lower Troposphere Temperatures: The National Space Science and Technology Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, USA
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations: NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder CO, USA
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
CO2 emissions (expressed as carbon): Marland, Boden & Andres, 2007, “Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions”, in “Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change”, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., is a Professional Engineer.
Copyright January 2008 by Allan M.R. MacRae, Calgary Alberta Canada
Interesting post. How many of Dr Spenser’s “Skeptic arguments that don’t hold water” did the author manage to include?
p.g.sharrow, Alan Robertson, David A, wickedwenchfan, thank you for your responses.
Special thanks to
TonyL June 14 12:23
Tony, thank you very much for your detailed response. You are obviously someone who enjoys teaching. There are many others like you at WUWT which is why many others like me come to this site.
You described how a warmed object might emit a LWIR photon (or ‘wave’ h/t to wicked) that strikes a CO2 molecule which may itself emit another photon (wave) or simply become more excited and heat up. The first option is called Radiative Relaxation and the second option is called Thermal Relaxation. You explain that Thermal Relaxation is much more common than Radiative Relaxation and so it’s not really correct to say that ‘CO2 is stripping heat out of the atmosphere at the speed of light’ by radiating LWIR into space. Thank you for explaining Relaxation theory which does advance my understanding and connects some more dots for me. You have however raised a new question which I hope you have the patience to consider:
I have learned here that all matter emits LWIR photons (waves) provided it is at a temperature above absolute zero. Thus O2, N2 and CO2 are all capable of emitting photons of LWIR. CO2 is considered a radiative gas because it more easily emits photons – I believe that is because it is a larger molecule. Thus, in your example, if a LWIR photon strikes a molecule of O2, N2 or CO2, then any of them could emit a new photon (Radiative Relaxation) but the CO2 molecule would be more likely to emit one. Alternatively, the O2, N2 or CO2 molecules could all just just heat (vibrate) up a bit without emitting a photon (Thermal Relaxation). You have helped me understand that CO2 may just be a regular gas like the others and perhaps is not the demon that the ‘alarmists’ make it out to be.
When any O2, N2 or CO2 molecules emit LWIR photons (Radiative Relaxation), they are all ‘stripping heat out of the atmosphere at the speed of light’. When O2, N2 or CO2 molecules simply become more excited and heat up without emitting a photon (Thermal Response) then they all are acting identically as a warm thermal insulating blanket held in place by gravity. It seems that CO2 is just another gas like O2 or N2 in that regard. Having more CO2 in the atmosphere would make no difference because it behaves just like the other gases apart from a higher propensity to emit photons which is a ‘bad’ thing in that when it radiates, it ‘strips heat out of the atmosphere at the speed of light’ i.e. cools – just like any other gas!
Thanks again TonyL for your help in getting me to this level of understanding. As a non-scientist I freely admit that I may still be drawing wrong conclusions from lack of knowledge and am eager to delve deeper into the science to try and understand better. I have to say though that at this stage, I still don’t see any problem with having more CO2 in the atmosphere!
When you “blanket” your house with better insulation it doesn’t get hotter inside. The thermostat reduces the heat input, furnace firing rate which is exactly what the water vapor cycle does.
I agree – though it does reduce the cooling which amounts to the same thing.
Actually, my main point was different. When CO2 (or any air gas) radiates LWIR photons, they travel at the speed of light and are gone into space in an instant. This cools the earth ‘at the speed of light’ rather than warming it which is what the IPCC claim. When it doesn’t radiate photons the CO2 molecule simply acts as a thermal insulator just like O2 and N2. (Thermal insulation is not the ‘greenhouse effect’)
@ur momisugly Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
I would like to point out AGAIN, …… that the comments in the above that are denoted by my “boldfaced” punctuation, …. are a biological impossibility, …. which is an unquestionable fact because those denoted claims are directly contrary to my pronounced …. Refrigerator-Freezer Law of Microbial Decomposition of Dead Biomass …….. which is supported and affirmed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), most every Public Health Agency on earth, every housewife that has a refrigerator/freezer …. and every refrigerator/freezer owing business entity that deals in or with perishable food items.
Dry conditions and/or decreasing temperatures (below 60F) retards microbial decomposition of dead biomass, ….. with said conditions being the “norm” during the fall and winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.
Moist conditions and/or increasing temperatures (above 60F) exacerbates microbial decomposition of dead biomass, ….. with said conditions being the “norm” during the spring and summer months in the Northern Hemisphere.
Thus the spring and summer outgassing of CO2 by the decomposing microbes …. oftentimes out-paces the ingassing of CO2 by the photosynthesizing green plants …… simply because said microbes work hard both “day n’ night” …… whereas said green plants only work hard during daylight hours ….. if or when they are subject to bright Sunlight, …. plus the fact they are outgassers of CO2 during night time hours,.
Anyway, due to the long-term (57 years) “steady and consistent” bi-yearly cycling, it is my learned opinion that the seasonal “CO2 sawtooth” is primarily driven by the seasonal surface temperature of the Southern Hemisphere ocean water. See included notations on following graph, to wit:
Keeling Curve Graph w/equinox notations
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
I have a compost pile in my backyard.
In the winter, if I dig into the pile, the air temperature may be freezing, but the pile does not freeze.
…
Isn’t microbial decomposition of organic matter exothermic? Doesn’t it take place underneath the insulating layer of snow ?
Joel D, …. 98% of the dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere has not been raked up into compost piles in people’s back yards.
Samuel, I have seen (but lost the reference) of CO2 release measurements from under a snow deck at -20°C in Alaska, where the bacteria still were at work…
If you have make a good pile of compost, the temperature can go up to +70°C, effectively killing most pathogens and giving a nice and healthy compost in next spring at less than half the original height of the pile…
Samuel is correct: the decay rate should decrease significantly during winter.
================================
The University of Illinois Extension says “warmer outside temperatures in late spring, summer and early fall stimulate bacteria and speed up decomposition. Low winter temperatures will slow or temporarily stop the composting process.” But fear not: “As air temperatures warm up in the spring, microbial activity will resume.”
Because ambient air temperature affects the speed of decomposition, when the temps cool down, so too does the aforementioned oxidation process. Instead of the voracious eaters they were in the summer and early fall, aerobic bacteria revert to a calmer state.
Yet even when the temperature drops, microbes responsible for the breakdown of organic matter can remain active in the compost pile, according the Texas AgriLife Extension Service. The center of the pile can be warm and actively composting because of heat generated by bacteria, but the outer layers of your pile are at the mercy of the daily highs and lows.
http://www.earth911.com/home-garden/guide-to-composting-in-the-winter/
================================
Ferdinand, …. even a blind man can take a walk through the woods on the first warm days of March or April …… and be able to tell you how much of the dead biomass from last Summer’s growth is still lying in place on top of the ground.
Maybe you should get off of those cement sidewalks every now and then …… and get out and about to actually see what is happening in the natural world around you.
Oh yes, … and don’t be measuring the temperature of the center of those manure piles that the Swiss are using to “age” their cheese balls.
Here the average plot of seasonal and δ13C at Barrow and Mauna Loa over the past decades:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
where the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show that the seasonal changes are dominated by changes in vegetation, not by the oceans.
Allan – Re the “mass balance” argument (which is not really an argument, but a proclamation of extreme ignorance with respect to the evolution of dynamic systems): please see my comment above.
For specific examples refuting the argument, we had a very long discussion over this on Dr. Curry’s blog last month, which you might find of interest.
Thanks you for the reference Bart. I read it once but will need to read it again.
I have long made the point that this is a dynamic, not a static system – it always chases equilibrium…
I wrote this in 2012:
My high-risk, sleep deprived response is that Jan Veizer probably has it mostly right in his landmark 2005 GSA Today paper.
In my own words, the CO2 cycle “piggybacks” on the water cycle, and is a huge, DYNAMIC, DISPERSED (global in area) and HETEROGENEOUS system that is condemned to chase equilibrium in time and space into eternity.
Ferdinand says: “All variability in the rate of change is caused by temperature variations. But as the variability and the trend are caused by different processes and the variability is certainly not causing the trend (it has a negative trend…),… ”
Well, I’m not sure that “all” variability is cause by temp but at least you’ve grasped that much.
What you don’t seem to realise is the “trend” is also variability. In this case 50y scale variability. It does not stop being variability just because you chose to draw a straight line through it.
d/dt CO2 was about 1ppm/y in 1960s and is twice that now. That is a variation. It is also an acceleration.
If we filter out everything with a period of 4y or faster we still see strong similarity in dCO2 and T(t).
Here the phase shifting off a bit. This needs to be looked at in more detail , it contains useful information. Phase analysis is not sufficient if we just look at the 9mth lag. It requires more thought.
“Most of the changes in the polar region are blown in from the mid-latitudes by the Ferell cells.”
That is not credible since the annual cycle is greatest in the Arctic, it is generally noted and accepted that it increases with latitude. How can something get blow by Ferell cells, get mixed with other air and end up with a strong annual cycle. Must be that damned polar amplification again, right?
The annual cycle at Schauinsland, southern Germany is at least as large as at Barrow, thus most of the CO2 mass change is from the mid-latitudes to the high North (NOAA had some nice view of that in graph form). Mauna Loa is already in the trade winds and follows at a slower pace…
Why do you make it more complicated than necessary? The whole CO2 cycle behaves as a simple linear process which is disturbed by temperature changes and extra CO2. In both cases the response is quite linear: for temperature at 4-5 ppmv/K (short term) to 8 ppmv/K (long term). For an extra CO2 shot in the atmosphere (whatever the cause) with a e-fold decay rate of over 50 years back to steady state level for the current temperature.
The response function didn’t change much over the past 55 years:
In 1960 the emissions were about 1 ppmv/year, the net sink rate was ~0.5 ppmv/year at a CO2 level ~25 ppmv above steady state. That gives an e-fold decay rate of ~50 years.
In 2012 the emissions were about 4.5 ppmv/year, the net sink rate was 2.15 ppmv/year at a CO2 level ~110 ppmv above steady state. That gives an e-fold decay rate of ~51.5 years.
Thus an about fourfold increase in emissions over the past 55 years coincides with a fourfold increase in increase in the atmosphere and a fourfold increase in net sink rate where the e-fold decay rate didn’t substantially change over time.
You may invent some natural cause for the increase, but need some good explanation, why the extra natural source started at the same moment and in exact ratio to human emissions at a fourfold increase over the past 55 years, and where the human emissions then would hide…
Ferdinand, your key word is “coincides”… It’s merely a coincidence! Why are you so blind to the fact that carbon growth is in lock step with temperature? Without the concurrent rise in temperature, there would be no “fourfold increase in the atmosphere”…
Given the fact that the temperature of the SH ocean water is the primary driver of the amplitude of the bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 ……. then there is little wonder that the “amplitude” of said bi-yearly cycle is greater in the Arctic and/or high northern latitudes ….. than said “amplitude” is a Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Fonzarelli,
The correlation between temperature and CO2 increase 1960-2012:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Between total human emissions and CO2 increase (at Mauna Loa and South Pole):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
A temperature change of half the scale has very little effect on CO2 levels, but at full scale should have added 70-80 ppmv CO2? On the other side, humans have added 135 ppmv CO2 over near the same period…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen June 16, 2015 at 7:03 am
Ferdinand, …. I am absolutely sure of the fact ….. that iffen you squeezed, massaged and stirred a German Chocolate Cake Mix …. long enough, …… like you do with all that CO2 and temperature data, …. you could end up with a pan of Sour Dough biscuits
Ferdi, THAT is what carbon growth being in lock step with temperature increases is telling us… The warmer it gets the faster co2 rises in the atmosphere! Without the increase in temps in the late 70’s which corresponded with a rise in the co2 growthrate and another rise in temps at the turn of the millenium which also corresponded with a rise in the co2 growthrate, we would still be seeing a 1ppm growthrate per year. AND you would not have your “four fold increase in the atmosphere”.
I think you need to take your blinders off and look at the data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.10
fonzarelli, take of your blinders: temperature changes are good for +/- 1 ppmv around the trend and 5 ppmv of the trend (per Henry’s law for CO2 in seawater, vegetation is a net absorber)…
“I think you need to take your blinders off and look at the data:”
—————
They are not blinders, …… they are Rose Colored glasses.
where’s the temperature data from 1957 to 1965? Why is it missing?
It comes down to this which is, is the strength of the GHG effect the result of the climate/environment or is the GHG effect the cause of the climate.
Thus far when viewing the data presented at the recent Heartland Climate Conference which you Dr. Spencer were part of, the evidence they presented ,along with even more sources of data beyond what they presented all strongly suggest that the GHG effect is in response to the climate/enviroment not the cause.
Until that changes the relative strength of the GHG effect is really not materially important to the climate for if the climate cools the GHG effect will diminish.
In addition to much emphasis is being put on the CO2 aspect of the GHG effect and not enough on water vapor. If water vapor has a negative feedback with CO2 then AGW theory is toast.
The lack of a lower tropospheric hot spot ,the fact that water vapor in the upper atmosphere seems to be correlated to ENSO, the fact that temperature always and is still leading CO2 concentration changes, the fact that as CO2 concentrations increase the saturation factor lessens CO2′S effects, the fact that CO2 concentrations were much higher in the geological past and Ice Ages took place all make a very strong case that AGW theory based on CO2 increases amplifying the GHG effect and thus driving the climate is weak to say the least.
Mike for your chart/data one can see clearly that CO2 is still following the temperature not leading it.
Thanks Ferdinand although a decay of 45% does seem high to me and the 1000 year figure also seems rather high. The IPCC’s figures in AR4 give 37,000 Gts/C in the deep-ocean and 100 Gts for the transfer up to the surface-ocean which gives a residence time of 370 years and when carbon is in the surface-ocean it has an approximate 50% chance of being outgassed into the atmosphere or taken back down to the deep-ocean. So the figure should be closer to 740 years to my mind. Given a half-life of 5730 years for C14 that gives an e-folding time of 8186 years and so after 740 years only exp(-740/8186) = 0.913 = 8% should have decayed. Assuming a 1000 years the amount decayed should be ~11%. Not sure how you got 45%. Anyway anthropogenic CO2 is removed from the atmosphere fast with a residence time of about 4-5 years based on the rate of emissions and the current per mil value of -.8.3 which only gives a maximum of 6% for anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course though, that’s irrelevant to the question of adjustment time.
6 percent is about right based on other approaches. The amounts of deep ocean CO2 exchange to surface is almost totally unknown, and are assumed to be zero 14CO2. There are recent estimates of sub-ocean basin geological sources of CO2 far higher than were assumed. Basically, tectonic margin sources of CO2 are far higher than once assumed.
Here is another independent assessment https://retiredresearcher.wordpress.com/
There are two parts to the low concentration of C14 in upwelling deep ocean water, firstly prior to the nuclear testing the natural concentration of C14 was about half of the peak level after testing. Thus the equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean would involve the flux from the atmosphere being twice the flux from the ocean. Secondly the deep water is about 1200 years old which would involve radioactive decay by about 14%.
Richard,
As Phil already alluded: for the pre-bomb testing and pre-human emissions, the return from the oceans and the new production were more or less in equilibrium: some 10% loss from the oceans time delay compensated by new production.
The bomb tests about doubled the natural background in the atmosphere, which is what did go into the oceans at peak height in 1960 as 100% spike, but what returned from the oceans still was the old 45% natural pre-bomb level, compared to the height of the bomb spike.
The data shows CO2 follows the temperature but as we all know if the data does not support AGW theory it is either wrong, ignored or manipulated until it supports their phony theory.
I have never come across this in any other scientific field of study which is changing the data to fit the theory. Absurd.
WMDs? Cold fusion?
The data shows CO2 follows the temperature
The graph shows this for periods of about 10-11 years. What about periods of 30-60 years or longer? Anthropogenic C02 is a 70 year trend… as I mentioned before cause and effect at one period does not necessarily imply cause and effect at another period, especially in complex systems with multiple input variables with different input periods.
This is assuming identical filters were used on C02 and SST (remember filters have their own phase properties). I can’t tell, the source code wasn’t published. If different filters were used that would easily account for the phase change. I’m suspicious of this because I note there’s no data for temperature prior to about 1965. Why is that? Perhaps edge effects on a different filter?…
Peter,
In my paper above I said:
I also demonstrated the same close correlation with different datasets, using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 ST back to 1958.
I do not recall if I published this analysis anywhere, but I just saw it on one of my spreadsheets.
Peter – see fi this works back to 1960 using Mauna Loa CO2 and Hadcrut3.global temperatures – I am not experienced with WoodForTrees, so it’s a bit rough.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1960/offset:0.5/scale:0.2
Allan,
Here is an interesting WFT chart.
And here is one showing that CO2 lags temperature.
Here is another one.
Peter – see fi this works back to 1960 using Mauna Loa CO2 and Hadcrut3.global temperatures – I am not experienced with WoodForTrees, so it’s a bit rough.
I see you making the mistake I talked about (I think) – you average (aka a boxcar filter) the global temperatures but not the C02. Plus you have an offset by 0.5 that I’m not sure I understand.
Paul
I also demonstrated the same close correlation with different datasets, using Mauna Loa CO2 data and Hadcrut3 ST back to 1958.
Also, using an average by itself causes problems, as the boxcar average function has non-constant phase (i.e. the phase delay varies by frequency).
I keep finding problems…
Peter, I suggest you are not being honest in your comments.
The dCO2/dt vs T relationship and the ~09-month lag of CO2 after T are well-accepted The sort of comments you make were commonplace 8 years ago, but were discredited at that time.
If you do not like the methodology I used, then use your own.
Sitting in the weeds taking random potshots is not an honest endeavour.
Peter, see RERT’s graph here:
http://Www.robles-thome.talktalk.net/carbontemp.pdf
He used a different filter – and shows dCO2/dt vs ST back to 1958. Happy now?
My thanks to RERT.
After all of this bashing I’d rather listen to Engelbert Humperdinck !
From Owen above “Likewise, and thank you Anthony, its painfully obvious that claiming to know a surface temp mean of any year is ludicrous. I’m a big tech guy, I want to know the limitations and specs of our gear.”
What about the global CO2 levels? They aren’t even throughout the globe and the sampling is a lot poorer. And then to take the derivative of this and see a correlation? What about this one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/pmod/derivative/mean:12/scale:5
up to 2001.
Some of this data is too good to believe.
Robert B,
Besides the (huge) seasonal changes (some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged each year with CO2 from other reservoirs over the seasons), the yearly averages over the whole world are within a few ppmv if averaged over a year. There is only a slight lag between the NH (origin of the increase) and the SH, as the ITCZ allows only some 10% exchange/year between the air masses of both hemispheres.
Thus taking samples at only one place on earth (e.g. the South Pole), far away from local sinks or sources is representative for the trend in 95% of the atmosphere. The residual 5% is in the first few hundred meters over land where a lot of sources and sinks are at work.
Here the trends from near the North Pole (Barrow, North Slope, Alaska) to the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
In general the Mauna Loa data are taken as representative, as that is the longest series without gaps and it represents the NH free air quite well as most air measured is from the trade winds. Local disturbances are rejected for averaging (but kept in the database).
The CO2 data are accurate to better than 0.2 ppmv and the equipment is rigorously checked and calibrated every hour and every 25 hours by 4 different calibration mixtures. Independent of the continuous measurements by NOAA, Scripps takes it own flask samples at the same spot and checks the data with its own calibration mixtures. Both are in general within 0.2 ppmv of each other.
See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen June 16, 2015 at 7:38 am
Ferdinand, …. and just how in ell could it be possible for there to be a slight lag in the increase …. at the point of origin of that increase?
Are you inferring that Old Man North Wind isa blowing that CO2 south of the equator just as soon as it is emitted into the air in the Northern Hemisphere?
Samuel,
The origin of the increase is in the NH, not just south of the equator. The latter is where the permanent upwelling is, which CO2 is transferred to the poles and there sinks again in the cold polar waters to return after a long time near the equator.
That is a near continuous flux of 40 GtC/year, but that doesn’t add anything to the total amount in the atmosphere as long as there is no unbalance between sources and sinks.
As the data show, the main source of extra CO2 is above 30 N where a lot of humans with their industry reside, here in detail:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
OH good grief, Ferdinand, …. you just got through stating that ….
Ferdinand, there is extra, extra plenty of cold polar waters in the Southern Hemisphere for the ingassing (sink) of CO2 …… but very damn little in comparison, …. of cold polar waters in the Northern Hemisphere for the ingassing (sink) of CO2.
And it is obvious that that is exactly what your CO2 Trends graph is telling you.
OOPS, …. missed a blockquote edit character in above post.
Samuel,
Contrary to what you think, the largest sink for CO2 is in the NE Atlantic, where the THC sinks and it is that stream that is upwelling just south of the equator in the East Pacific.
Moreover, the 13C/12C ratio decline also leads in the NH…
YUP, sure nuff, Ferdinand, ……. upwelling 500 to 1,000 years later in the East Pacific.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/87/106787-004-A4C0F449.jpg
Such silliness, ….. you should author the next “script” for an Al Gore documentary.
And “NO”, absolutely, positively “NO”, the NE Atlantic IS NOT the largest “sink” for CO2.
Now the NE Atlantic might be the biggest “sinkhole” for CO2 from all around the world that is being transported north by the THC, as per above graphic,…… but the NE Atlantic sure as hell isn’t the biggest “sink” (ingasser) of/for CO2.
Ferdinand, just why do you persist in …… “shooting yourself in the foot”?
Those popular greenhouse and blanket analogies are both totally bogus because they are woefully incomplete.
As JoNova observed in some thread, the popular GHE is exclusively about radiation, LWIR, in, out, trapped, etc. Without water vapor a greenhouse is an oven. Water absorbs heat when it evaporates and releases heat when it condenses and moderates the GH. And a little bit of latent heat can carry mega-KJ without a temperature change! Water vapor is the only GHG that matters because it runs the entire show.
BTW when a molecule absorbs LWIR and according to Einstein’s award winning photoelectic energy balance that molecule can only emit at a lower energy level, i.e. microwaves. Good for heating water, but not much else.
The blanket analogy also ignores the power of water vapor. Chop wood on a cold day while wearing a heavy “blanket” coat. What happens to the trapped heat? You sweat! And cool off! Your own personal water vapor thermostat. Powerful stuff, that H2O.
1) According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the additional atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 10% and 200%, i.e. IPCC hasn’t got a clue. The published figure is just an “adjusted” wag, “adjusted” to equal anthropogenic.
2) At 2 W/m^2 CO2’s contribution to the global heat balance is insignificant compared to the power of the oceans and clouds, a bee fart in a hurricane
3) The hiatus/pause/lull (IPPC acknowledges as fact) makes it pretty clear that IPCC’s GCM’s are useless trash.
All other discussion topics are pointless, academic, noise.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/graphics/mlu_c13co2.jpg
Why does δ13C vary seasonally? Note the season variance of δ13C is greater than the season variance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions which disproves the Bern model.
I am curious why the Mauna Loa δ13C ends in 2001.
Caution concerning cult of CAGW graphs, that are displayed in this forum.
Ask those who have created the cult of CAGW graphs to provide a link to the data source for the graphs.
I suspect that they measure the relative amount to carbon 12 and multiply by the CO2 level, in which case 13C/12C would be a better plot. With an uncertainty of just 0.1ppm in CO2, the above plot would be meaningless if it were supposed to be a direct measure of the levels of 13C.
William,
All the available δ13C and other station data up to 2015 can be found at:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
Just click on a station and ask what you want. The data are plotted and after that you can download the data if you wish.
The seasonal swings of δ13C are caused by NH vegetation: high uptake of CO2 in spring/summer, thus high uptake of preferentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 behind. In fall/winter the opposite happens.
That doesn’t prove or disprove the Bern model, as that is for multi-year changes, not for seasonal changes. But with you, I don’t think that the Bern model is right…
Robert B,
δ13C is only a measure for the ratio between 13CO2 and 12CO2, compared to a standard, which in the past was a typical carbonate rock: Pee Dee Belmnite (PDB). When that was exhausted, a conference at Vienna established a “synthetic” standard, which is called the Vienna-PDB standard. The formula is:
δ13C =
(13C/12C)sampled – (13C/12C)standard
——————————————————- x 1.000
(13C/12C)standard
where the standard is defined as 0.0112372 parts of 13C to 1 part of total carbon. Thus positive values have more 13C, negative values have less 13C.
What is the missing sink of CO2? Why is the missing sink of CO2 growing in size? (Note increased plant growth due to the increase in CO2 has been included in the efforts to make the missing sink go away. There truly is a missing sink which explains why it is called the missing sink. )
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-3381.pdf
What do you believe the Bern model or the data?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/03/co2-lifetime-which-do-you-believe.html
I think the ‘missing sink’ has already been addressed by the IPCC and as far as their data is concerned (be it accurate or not) there is no longer a missing sink. The adjustment time given by the IPCC now is between 5-200 years which they define as the take it takes for a perturbation to be reduced to 37% of its initial value. The IPCC and the Bern model do not assume a single lifetime for atmospheric CO2 but rather numerous lifetimes (they use lifetime as a surrogate for adjustment time) based on different sequestration process, such as vegetation uptake (which is relatively fast), ocean invasion, rock weathering and CaCo3 precipitation. The lifetime according to the Bern model and IPCC for an atmospheric perturbation is about 20% removed after 1 year, 35% removed after 18 years, some 25% removed after 173 years and the remaining 20% stays in the atmosphere for, apparently thousands of years. This apparently simple matter is surprisingly complicated in fact. It entails estimating not only the total human emissions of greenhouse gases but also the total natural emissions of the same gases and the rates at which they are being absorbed by the earth’s various sinks, plus consideration of their respective residence-times in the atmosphere. The 50% of the CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere every year is not removed from the atmosphere that year, rather only around 20% of it is (according to the Bern model) and the remaining 30% removed is the uptake of our contributions spanning back to 1750. Understand that this ‘removal’ is not the removal of atmospheric CO2 from the atmosphere, i.e. the residence time, but the time it takes for the system to return to equilibrium. You also say that the Bern model assumes “almost no mixing” of the surface-ocean with the deep-ocean. I have not heard any such thing. Do you have a source? (Preferably a recent one, say from the last 15 years since the model is continuously updated). I am not defending the Bern model. The Bern model has not been checked against physical observation and the IPCC treats it as observed physical reality itself. But there is no missing sink, as least not as far as I can deduce.
William,
Again you are mixing residence time with the adjustment time for an extra injection of CO2 in the atmosphere. The residence time has nothing to do with how long it takes to reduce an extra amount of CO2 injected in the atmosphere back to “steady state” equilibrium for the temperature of the moment.
Your “missing sink” was solved years ago:
From the ~9 GtC/year emitted by humans:
~1 GtC/year is taken away by the biosphere.
~0.5 GtC/year by the ocean surface layer.
~3 GtC/year by the deep oceans.
The rest remains in the atmosphere.
Note: all uptake is as CO2 mass out of the atmosphere, not only the original “human” molecules…
The Bern model can not be tested for the moment as the average decay rate still is in the range of what is observed. Only after a few decades more, the limits of the Bern model should be visible, as according to the model, the deep ocean sinks should become saturated (for which is no sign until now).
Carbon and CO2 are not the same. 1 lb or kg of C produces 3.67 lb or kg of CO2. However, a mole of carbon still produces a mole of CO2. ppm should be expressed in mole terms, not in terms of lb or kg.
Watch it.
Just a quick comment about the commonly held notion that natural carbon dioxide out will equal natural carbon dioxide in such a way that no “ladder” increase will be observed. The match is nearly instantaneous. Thus the ladder increase we DO see must be a fossil fuel signal and is the reason for the increasing CO2 ppm. However, I am endlessly fascinated by the seasonal CO2 swing up and down which is readily announced by AGW scientists to be entirely natural in origin. That brings up a recurring thought to me. If natural mechanisms create that seasonal up and down, it is very likely a plausible mechanism that is able to create long term ups and downs. Trends that may be 100’s, 1000’s and even 10’s of 1000’s of years long. I am using the KISS principle to rule out obvious boring mechanisms before looking at sexy mechanisms. And in this case, I cannot rule out boring mechanisms, mechanisms that would put you to sleep, not lose sleep over.
Fossil fuels, like oil and coal, are ancient plant and animal material, and have the same 13C isotope fingerprint as plants. If the Earth is in a warming cycle, greening will occur. And it stands to reason that a plausible lag exists between sources (the increasing “greening” turning into available abundant food and compost) and sinks (the responsive increase in insects and animals eating that ever increasing abundant food and compost). This is a well-researched correlation that when food is more abundant, things that eat that food will respond by increasing offspring production, but not instantly with that CO2 increase (else we give the animal kingdom the ability to see into the future). This lag would also be reflected in more abundant plants preferring lighter carbon isotopes as their plant food, essentially picking the low hanging fruit first thus eventually changing the ratio of heavier isotopes to lighter isotopes. As the Earth warms and greens, the lag between temperature increase and CO2 increase would be slow. Now enter a cold event. Die-off would be quick, and CO2 would drop like a stone, almost at the same time as the weather turns cold. Paleo-reconstructions appear to demonstrate this CO2 behavior.
An unscientific thought: I think there were folks back in the university hippy days of disestablishmentarianism chose increasing CO2 as the best vehicle to turn entire populations into Shangri La communes while conveniently fulfilling the desires of fellow Earth muffins to rid the planet of their mortal enemy referred to as decedent capitalism. All I am saying is that there was an awfully quick rush to judgement regarding increasing CO2 that plausibly has other perfectly natural explanations.
Sobering Note: What goes up must come down. All people will eventually yearn for the halcyon days of ever increasing CO2 levels.
https://www.facebook.com/?stype=lo&jlou=AfcfCTq_JtiZCi3KzsWT2ICIHrSl5MdH97ChaLCGT9Ck_zWW3sVNkMUJPFb-p1PagPknYnrdB44l2lP8feMNPVhLfj_CCrsqVfMw8vB7i_iTEw&smuh=58717&lh=Ac-C9DN-XzGWvV9ki5w
Pam, I agree with you completely. I’m not so sure about the 19 century “disestablishmentarianism” or “antidisestablishmentarianism” word usage, but it did make my day. GK
Pamela,
Short term and long term natural changes are all temperature related. The short term changes are huge (seasonal) in quantity, but modest in effect, as temperature has opposite effects on ocean surface and vegetation: about 5 ppmv/K, dominated by NH vegetation.
The long term changes involve the (deep) oceans as main component and go up to 8 ppmv/K.
Thus the overall effect of natural changes is between 5 and 8 ppmv/K.
The LIA was probably 0.8 K cooler than today, thus the warming since then is good for 6 ppmv extra. That is all.
At this moment we are at 110 ppmv above equilibrium for the current temperature, while humans have emitted some 200 ppmv CO2 over the past 160 years…
The difference? Human emissions are not temperature related, they only disappear because a higher pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere will dissolve more CO2 in the oceans (and give more plant growth). That is a much slower process than the huge temperature swings that warm the ocean surface and vegetation in spring and summer and cool them in fall/winter.
Thus simply said: despite the enormous seasonal exchanges, the removal of some extra CO2 out of the atmosphere is hardly temperature dependent, but mainly pressure dependent and needs far more time to cope with human (or volcanic, or…) extra input.
Historically, human emissions ARE related to temperature. Warmer regimes lead to population increases thus more emissions, let alone advances into previously sparsely populated land. Further, ice events such as the LIA are not necessarily an equal in equal out proposition. A rebound from a cold event could easily overshoot (or undershoot) the initial amount of decrease. Cold events were likely related to cold SST’s, thus reduced evaporation resulting in clearer skies. That means that ocean heating at depth was optimized. In other words, it was bound to heat up again, and maybe heat up passed the original temperature prior to the slide into an ice event.
So I don’t quite follow your reasoning.
Pamela Gray,
That’s a very interesting comment. Thanks for posting.
I agree completely that rising CO2 is beneficial, and completely harmless at the concentrations being discussed. As Lord Monckton likes to say, within a tenth of a percent there is no CO2 in the air at all.
The demonization of “carbon” is so completely baseless that no one has ever produced a single measurement quantifying man-made global warming (MMGW). There is no solid evidence that MMGW exists, outside of the UHI effect. (I think AGW exists. But it is entirely beneficial, and so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all practical and policy purposes.)
So, why the constant banging on about something for which there’s no real evidence? Because the average person has been taught to accept the opinions of ‘science’. In reality they are mindless lemmings — but some of them are coming around.
The propaganda is reinforced by the video you can watch here. The voice-over drones on, but it is the scary images that do the real work.
That short video was made in 2008, and it predicts what will happen in 2015. Hey! It’s 2015 now! Did any of those scary predictions happen? Even one? See for yourself…
“Earlier papers by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) discussed the delay of CO2 after temperature, although neither appeared to notice the even closer correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature. This correlation is noted in my Figures 3 and 4.”
Well maybe.but I was reading Keeling et al (1995) this morning while waiting to see a doctor. I marked the last paragraph,
“We point out, in closing, that the unprecedented steep decline in the atmospheric CO2 anomaly ended late in 1993 (see Fig 1 c). Neither the onset nor the termination was predictable. Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes on the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in fossil fuel combustion rates, suggesting uncertainty in projecting future increases in atmospheric CO2 solely on the basis of anticipated rates of industrial activity.”
Keeling et al. Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980, Nature, 1995. http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ajw/Geochemical_cycling/keeling_cd_1995.pdf
Dr Murry Salby came to similar conclusions in the first chapter of his text, Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2012), pp,64 ff. He explained his analysis in more detail in a lecture.
The gist of it is here: https://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-part-of-natural-co2-emissions-dynamite-conference-by-prof-murray-salby/
and here: https://meteolcd.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/the-salby-hamburg-conference-phase-lag-between-co2-and-temperature/
and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
In my opinion, what Dr Salby has rediscovered what Keeling et al reported in their 1995 Nature paper. But he has done something else which may be more important. He has shown the mathematical physics relating the long term ice proxy record to the modern instrumental record.
As for the relationship between modern temperature record and the two-way relationship with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, I don’t see in Dr Salby’s text or lecture or in your article here that adds much to what Keeling et al reported in 1995.
“Environmental factors appear to have imposed larger changes on the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 than did changes in fossil fuel combustion rates, suggesting uncertainty in projecting future increases in atmospheric CO2 solely on the basis of anticipated rates of industrial activity.”
You and Dr Salby have confirmed this suggestion. Congratulations.
Thank you for your posts Frederick.
My question is:
What happened to Keeling’s conclusions of 1995? He apparently understood in 1995 most or all the conclusions in my 2008 paper and Salby’s ~2011-2015 work.
Keeling died in 2005, long after the IPCC juggernaut was launched.
Were Keeling’s 1995 conclusions ignored or shunned? Did he recant, remain quiet, or speak out against global warming hysteria?
Here is Keeling’s 1995 paper – I withdraw my above question at 10:45am.
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/ajw/Geochemical_cycling/keeling_cd_1995.pdf
Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980
C. D. Keeling*, T. P. Whorf*, M. Wahlen* a J. van der Pllcht t
*Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California 92093-0220, USA
t Center for Isotopic Research, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
0BSERVATIONS of atmospheric C02 concentrations at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and at the South Pole over the past four decades show an approximate proportionality between the rising atmospheric concentrations and industrial C02 emissions. This proportionality, which is most apparent during the first 20 years of the records, was disturbed in the 1980s by a disproportionately high rate of rise of atmospheric C02, followed after 1988 by a pronounced slowing down of the growth rate. To probe the causes of these changes, we examine here the changes expected from the variations in the rates of industrial C02 emissions over this time, and also from influences of climate such as El Nino events. We use the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric C02 to distinguish the effects of interannual variations in biospheric and oceanic sources and sinks of carbon. We propose that the recent disproportionate rise and fall in C02 growth rate were caused mainly by interannual variations in global air temperature (which altered both the terrestrial biospheric and the oceanic carbon sinks), and possibly also by precipitation. We suggest that the anomalous climate-induced rise in C02 was partially masked by a slowing down in the growth rate of fossil-fuel combustion, and that the latter then exaggerated the subsequent climate-induced fall.
Here is Kuo et al 1990.
The five-month lag of CO2 after temperature (rather than ~9 months) is because Kuo used Mauna Loa CO2 data rather than global data. I noted this in my 2008 paper:
“In a separate analysis of the cooler period from 1958 to 1980, global ST and Mauna Loa CO2 data were used, and the aforementioned ~9 month lag of CO2 behind ST appeared to decline by a few months.”
Coherence established between atmosheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Kuo C, Lindberg C & Thomson DJ, Nature 343, 709 – 714 (22 February 1990)
Summary
The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.
Frederick,
Human emissions are average twice the increase in the atmosphere. The variability seen in the increase rate is the variability in sink rate, not in source rate. That is natural variability which happens on 1-3 years scale by temperature variability and decadal for unknown reasons.
Further, in your link link I have given a comment on Salby.
His point on ice cores btw is physically impossible, as that implies that near all life on earth would have died during glacial periods due to too low CO2 levels.
Observations and analysis support the assertion that the IPCC’s Bern model of CO2 sources and sinks is unequivocally incorrect.
As the NASA CO2 monitoring satellite data indicated (the one month of data that was released completely contradicted the assumed CO2 source and sink computer models that were based on the Bern model). There has been zero further data from the NASA CO2 monitoring satellite. The below analysis conclusion which is supported by the NASA CO2 data is that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted and the majority of the atmospheric CO2 rise is from natural sources.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf
This is a summary of the analysis and data that is used for the above paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TomQuirkSourcesandSinksofCO2_FINAL.pdf
The massive source of low C13 carbon? Note there are micro-organisms that convert the CH4 to CO2.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2232.html#affil-auth
William, thanks for this. I have saved your comment for study. When I saw the satellite images I left a comment that might interest you.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/11/surprise-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-models-have-little-resemblance-to-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-1030133
William,
Repeating the same “arguments” again and again is just noise and doesn’t add to the discussion.
The OCO-2 monitoring has nothing to do with the Bern model: it shows local CO2 sources and sinks, which are heavily season dependent. Wait and see for at least a year of data to know the main sources and sinks over all seasons.
The Bern model is how our extra CO2 will be distributed over all other reservoirs over time. Maybe after 10 years of OCO-2 data we may have some extra information about that distribution, but until then nothing is (dis)proven.
Futher, your “massive” natural source of low 13C did just wait to emit in exact timing and ratio as human emissions started and continue to emit low-13C? Sleep well and dream further…
Thank you Allan MacRae, I have been trying to get this message through to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment before the government settles on future renewable energy targets. My last endeavour was as follows:-
On Monday 25 May, the Australian CSIRO Website displayed the atmospheric CO2 data for the Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, station updated to March 2015. When compared with the data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, for the satellite measured lower tropospheric temperature, it revealed that the correlation between the annual change in each of the CO2 concentration and the Southern Hemisphere temperature was -0.048 with a probability of 33% that the value could be zero. If not zero, then the result indicates that increases in CO2 concentration have corresponded to falls in the temperature during the past 37 years. Alternately there is no reason to claim that there is a causal relationship between the two variables.
Further the correlation coefficient for the annual change in CO2 concentration relative to the Southern Hemisphere 13 month average temperature for each period was 0.66 with a negligible probability of zero correlation. This indicates that the temperature is controlling the rate of change in CO2 concentration, definitely not changes in the CO2 concentration setting the atmospheric temperature level as that is illogical.
Taken together with the fact that the global temperature has remained stable during this century in spite of an 8% rise in CO2 concentration at Cape Grim, this shows that the IPCC has some explaining to do as has our CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology who meekly parrot the IPCC themes.
Results from my earlier work comparing the annual rate of change in CO2 concentration with the average temperature over each 13 month period have been :-
Alert, N. Canada, correlation coefficient 0.16 with probability of zero correlation of 1%,
Barrow, Alaska, 0.54 with probability of zero correlation of 0.2%,
Izańz (Tenerife), 0.54 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 0.69 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Cape Kumukahi, 0.67 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Guam, 0.46 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
NOAA/ESRA Pacific Ocean (00N), 0.62 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Ascension Island, 0.54 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Macquarie Island, 0.73 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
South Pole, 0.22 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
which show that there is good reason to be concerned about the IPCC statements.
Clearly the temperature level drives the rate of change in CO2 concentration possibly due to increased biological activity as the temperature rises. The polar regions exhibit the least correlation as could be expected as they have the lowest temperatures and hence the least biological activity. It is important to realise that the reverse causation is illogical. It would mean that a given rate of increase of CO2 concentration would determine the atmospheric temperature level regardless of the base for the CO2 increase. For example, if a rate of 2 ppm per annum was assigned to a temperature of, say, 20 deg C, this temperature would apply regardless of whether or not the CO2 change was from zero to 2 ppm in one year, 870 ppm to 872 ppm of CO2 in a given year or any other base level.
This explains why CO2 concentration lags temperature on a geological time scale as has been reported repeatedly in the scientific literature. The rate of increase in CO2 does not fall to zero until the temperature reaches a critical low point, that is, the CO2 concentration continues to rise while the temperature is falling but at an ever-decreasing rate.
It also explains why the CO2 concentration has been continually increasing for the past 58 years of recording at the Mauna Loa Observatory but the rate of increase in CO2 concentration has now reached a plateau. In the first 5 years of recording at Mauna Loa, the CO2 concentration was rising at a rate of 0.7 ppm per annum. This rate has continually increased as the temperature rose to reach a plateau of almost 2.1 ppm per annum for the most recent 15 years. The IPCC now have to explain coincident plateaus in each of two variables, namely temperature and rate of increase in CO2 concentration which is completely contrary to their global warming thesis.
This insight tells us the reason why climate model simulations do not produce results that are of any use in reality – they are formulated on false premises.
To conclude, perhaps a natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration through greater biological activity since then, regardless of mankind. It is important to stress that this conclusion has been reached by the mathematical synthesis of actual real-world data and not from any estimates, conjectures, theory or computer modelling. It reflects what has actually happened in the world while climate scientists have been imagining other things.
On Monday 25 May, the Australian CSIRO Website displayed the atmospheric CO2 data for the Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, station updated to March 2015. When compared with the data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, for the satellite measured lower tropospheric temperature, it revealed that the correlation between the annual change in each of the CO2 concentration and the Southern Hemisphere temperature was -0.048 with a probability of 33% that the value could be zero. If not zero, then the result indicates that increases in CO2 concentration have corresponded to falls in the temperature during the past 37 years. Alternately there is no reason to claim that there is a causal relationship between the two variables.
Further the correlation coefficient for the annual change in CO2 concentration relative to the Southern Hemisphere 13 month average temperature for each period was 0.66 with a negligible probability of zero correlation. This indicates that the temperature is controlling the rate of change in CO2 concentration, definitely not changes in the CO2 concentration setting the atmospheric temperature level as that is illogical.
Taken together with the fact that the global temperature has remained stable during this century in spite of an 8% rise in CO2 concentration at Cape Grim, this shows that the IPCC has some explaining to do as has our CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology who meekly parrot the IPCC themes.
Results from my earlier work comparing the annual rate of change in CO2 concentration with the average temperature over each 13 month period have been :-
Alert, N. Canada, correlation coefficient 0.16 with probability of zero correlation of 1%,
Barrow, Alaska, 0.54 with probability of zero correlation of 0.2%,
Izańz (Tenerife), 0.54 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 0.69 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Cape Kumukahi, 0.67 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Guam, 0.46 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
NOAA/ESRA Pacific Ocean (00N), 0.62 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Ascension Island, 0.54 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
Macquarie Island, 0.73 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
South Pole, 0.22 with negligible probability that the coefficient was zero,
which show that there is good reason to be concerned about the IPCC statements.
Clearly the temperature level drives the rate of change in CO2 concentration possibly due to increased biological activity as the temperature rises. The polar regions exhibit the least correlation as could be expected as they have the lowest temperatures and hence the least biological activity. It is important to realise that the reverse causation is illogical. It would mean that a given rate of increase of CO2 concentration would determine the atmospheric temperature level regardless of the base for the CO2 increase. For example, if a rate of 2 ppm per annum was assigned to a temperature of, say, 20 deg C, this temperature would apply regardless of whether or not the CO2 change was from zero to 2 ppm in one year, 870 ppm to 872 ppm of CO2 in a given year or any other base level.
This explains why CO2 concentration lags temperature on a geological time scale as has been reported repeatedly in the scientific literature. The rate of increase in CO2 does not fall to zero until the temperature reaches a critical low point, that is, the CO2 concentration continues to rise while the temperature is falling but at an ever-decreasing rate.
It also explains why the CO2 concentration has been continually increasing for the past 58 years of recording at the Mauna Loa Observatory but the rate of increase in CO2 concentration has now reached a plateau. In the first 5 years of recording at Mauna Loa, the CO2 concentration was rising at a rate of 0.7 ppm per annum. This rate has continually increased as the temperature rose to reach a plateau of almost 2.1 ppm per annum for the most recent 15 years. The IPCC now have to explain coincident plateaus in each of two variables, namely temperature and rate of increase in CO2 concentration which is completely contrary to their global warming thesis.
This insight tells us the reason why climate model simulations do not produce results that are of any use in reality – they are formulated on false premises.
To conclude, perhaps a natural rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration through greater biological activity since then, regardless of mankind. It is important to stress that this conclusion has been reached by the mathematical synthesis of actual real-world data and not from any estimates, conjectures, theory or computer modelling. It reflects what has actually happened in the world while climate scientists have been imagining other things.
There will be at least two changes of Australian federal Govn’t before “Govn’t” realises there is no problem. In that time industry will be destroyed beyond repair! I think I may migrate to a thrid-world country….oh wait!
Bevan Dockery,
Largely agree with your work, but here you go wrong:
For example, if a rate of 2 ppm per annum was assigned to a temperature of, say, 20 deg C, this temperature would apply regardless of whether or not the CO2 change was from zero to 2 ppm in one year, 870 ppm to 872 ppm of CO2 in a given year or any other base level.
There is a dynamic equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere that is governed by Henry’s law. In average for the current ocean temperature the “steady state” is around 290 ppmv in the atmosphere. Any change in ocean surface temperature will change the steady state with about 8 ppmv/K as can be seen in the ice cores of Vostok and Dome C over the past 800,000 years and even for the MWP-LIA cooling in the high resolution ice core of Law Dome.
Thus the influence of temperature is 8 ppmv/K, not 2 ppmv/X/year, where X is the temperature factor. It is a transient process: any temperature increase will increase the CO2 level until a new steady state is reached and then it ends.
The increase of ~0.5 ppmv/year in 1960 to 2 ppmv/year today is entirely the result of the increased pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, which also increased about a fourfold, due to the 4-fold increase of yearly human emissions from ~1 ppmv/year in 1960 to ~4.5 ppmv today.
Thus sorry, your attribution of a continuous increase in CO2 level due to a fixed step in temperature is physically impossible as that violates Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater…
It is not inconceivable that both drive each other, but that the effect is so much overwhelmed by other factors, that it doesn’t lead to runaway feedback.
CO2 therefore may affect climate, and be affected by it, but it doesn’t drive it.
I am more than ever convinced personally, that the water cycle, clouds and the thermal inertia of oceans and the slowness of ocean currents, is more than enough of a system to account for climate variability and that it probably dominates all the effects that cannot be accounted for by long term solar variability.
CO2 does something, just not very much, and certainly nothing to be alarmed about.
The good news according to Pam: In every warm period, there is ample evidence of a slowly creeping greening of the Earth. Which is not instantaneous. It takes time to green a desert and extend flora and fauna past a tree line. It takes time to expand a meadow-like environment into a savanna. This moist greening has a rather snail’s pace yet regular procession into previous cold or hot deserts. The temperature can even “pause” yet this greening continues. This greening will then also change the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere at a pace consistent with that greening. I think the CO2 pump that is currently at work putting additional CO2 into our atmosphere is related to this slow greening during this modern warm period. If we were to stop burning fuel in our homes, cars, and industry, the Earth would burn fuel in the form of natural fires due to increasing fuel load. In the absence of cars, CO2 isotopic concentrations would still be similar to what they are now due to additional plants sucking up lighter carbon isotopes. The fact that greening would be creeping forward would be reflected in a stair-step atmospheric CO2 ppm growth pattern as flora and fauna work slightly out of step to take advantage of that additional CO2. Let me say it again, while temperature fluctuates around the general pattern of warmth, the Earth settles down to a steady pattern of green growth.
The bad news: Since this modern warm period is likely due to our oceans coughing up this beneficial heat through warm, moist evaporation, we should actually be concerned that the Earth is LOSING heat, not gaining it. The tank will run dry and leave us vulnerable to cold events that result in much pain and sorrow. Unless we work to always be prepared for cold. Not a single person who came across the Oregon Trail cursed the warm days. They did indeed curse the cold.
Thank you Pamela for your insightful comments.
I suggest that one’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s scientific competence.
To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.
I suggest that we, and others like us, have been essentially correct in our predictions to date.
In 2002 I was asked by my Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) to debate in writing the issue of catastrophic humanmade global warming and the proposed Kyoto Protocol.
Our PEGG debate was reprinted at their request by several professional journals, the Globe and Mail and la Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae]. Until recently, our debate was located at
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
We knew with confidence based on the evidence that global warming alarmism was technically false, extremist and wasteful.
We clearly stated in our 2002 debate:
On global warming:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
On green energy:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
On real pollution:
“Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.”
On squandering resources:
“Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.”
I suggest that our four above statements are now demonstrably correct, within a high degree of confidence.
I (we) also predicted in another article published in 2002 that global cooling would re-commence by 2020-2030. I now think cooling will start a bit sooner, by 2020 or sooner. Not sure how much cooling or for how long, but I would happily be wrong about this last prediction – the only one that has not been proven true to date.
Regards, Allan
This is good thinking.
Pam had very good commentary in this area.
Thank you Anthony for posting my paper and thanks for all the interesting comments. I thought it was time for this debate and hope the thread is left open for a while longer.
The satellite CO2 data seems to support my position and I look forward to seeing much more of it.
The satellite data should also resolve the “mass balance argument”, which is so important to some people. I find it unnecessary to resolve this question at this time, because it is NOT critical to the fractious global warming debate.
it is clear by now that climate sensitivity to CO2 is so low as to be no threat to humanity or the environment.
It is also clear that more atmospheric CO2, whatever the cause, is beneficial for humanity and the environment.
Regards to all, Allan
Thank you Allan for initiating discussion on this topic. I have read your articles in the PEGG and from one member to another, I have appreciated the discussion on both sides of the issue there (and here) as diverse opinions were allowed. In some places nearby that is not as politically acceptable. I think there are so many issues about climate that it will take a long time to sort out, perhaps another century.
We will be long gone, but our tracks will be here. People like you and others here on WUWT leave great tracks to follow.
Thanks to all with both agreeing and dissenting views. That is how we move forward.
Wayne Delbeke, P. Eng.
Something that does not receive nearly enough mention is that climate alarmists assume the amount of co2 the oceans and land emit is fixed. So their whole unprecedented rate of change argument is probably nonsense, unless you believe the oceans and land never made up the difference of our 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide (5% of total co2 emissions currently).
Who makes that assumption? Care to support that claim.
Allan you are spot on.
Thank you Salvatore for your comments.