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
I’m a high school (Chem/Phys) teacher (also in Calgary, coincidentally) and I’ve long wondered about this issue. I sometimes explain to my students how a prior warming of the oceans would result in off-gassing, as gases have lower solubility at higher temperatures. I’ve not seen anything that addresses this head-on (admittedly, I don’t read a lot of the original research).
Hi Shane – suggest you show your students this beautiful animation (below) and see what they think of it.
Oceans are a factor, but Northern Hemisphere terrestrial life dominates the water cycle and the CO2 cycle.
Best, Allan
[Excerpt from my 2015 paper]
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 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
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.
**************************
Thank you – I’ll look it over.
Only if the pCO2 is in equilibrium with concentration of CO2 in the ocean. If CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere so that pCO2 exceeds the concentration in the ocean mixing layer then the net flux will be into the ocean (Henry’s Law). The outgassing of CO2 as a result of temperature is small relative to the flux into the atmosphere from combustion so the net flux is into the ocean.
May I suggest looking at looking at CO2 concentration, estimated anthro CO2 emissions, and abledo of photosythesizing spectra land and sea. And photosynthetic flourecence.
Hello Ferdinand,
You may recall that in March 2008 I suggested on climateaudit that since atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months, we could predict CO2 concentrations up to about 9 months in advance by knowing temperatures. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2720
I made my prediction on March 12 and you did so on March 16. As I recall, both our predictions were fairly accurate.
Here is my question:
We know that that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature, and the integral CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months, so:
What are the physical mechanisms that best describe this mathematical relationship, and are consistent with all the known facts (and ignore the unproven myths)?
Others are also welcome to post their responses to this question.
It is very late here, so I may post my thoughts in the morning.
Regards, Allan
Sadly, I have to disagree. Seriously. You are implicitly assuming that CO_2 and temperature have to be locked together over the last 15 years, but of course they don’t, because there is without any possible doubt a natural variation in the climate of unknown amplitude. For the length of the thermometric record, this variation has been sufficiently regular to be called the 60 year cycle, although I fit it to be 67 years, not 60, rather robustly.
Here is a graph that I have posted before of global temperature fit to CO_2 concentration (as a function of time). The fit is excellent. There is a clearly visible oscillation around the straight up log curve (plus all sorts of 1-10 year noise). I fit it to a sinusoid just for grins (because I cannot justify it in any way with a physical model so it is pure numerology) and the fit improves more still to being as good as one could ever expect a fit to be to real-world data:
//http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Toft-CO2-PDO.jpg
This graph directly refutes your assertions, in considerable detail. The climate changes in ways that aren’t related to any direct cause, and it is highly multifactorial. CO_2 is very likely to be a knob participating in the control of the climate, as it is predicted by physics that it should so be, and the model above fits the data rather well.
rgb
rgb – What exactly do you disagree with?
Are you making the same mistake that Ferdinand and others have repeatedly made on this thread?
Please read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963079
If you are, the perhaps read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1962375
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I disagree that the evidence you present in any way supports your assertion here:
The problem is that, as Ferdinand repeatedly points out above, you are mistaking a lack of correlation in the thermal record between the small fluctuations in CO_2 concentration on the one hand and the thermal record and the mean CO_2 concentration over the so-called hiatus plus longer term evidence that CO_2 has lagged temperature on geological time scales (and with no better than geological resolution, that is with huge error bars in all directions) for evidence that the current CO_2 increase is:
a) Not caused by humans; and
b) Not causing global warming.
That’s why I posted the graph below, which is pretty good evidence that the CO_2 increase has caused global warming because I can think of no reason for Henry’s Law to follow a logarithmic relation in concentration with almost exactly the theoretically predicted climate sensitivity for CO_2-driven warming. As for the evidence that it is anthropogenic — well, I’ve looked into the evidence as best I can, and all I can say is that the evidence as presented on Ferdinand’s website is pretty conclusive. His arguments make clear mathematical sense. They explain the little ripples you are confusing for a cause. The numbers work out very well indeed. And most of the alternatives that are suggested to try to “disprove” the anthropogenic hypothesis have more holes than a piece of swiss cheese.
Note well that Ferdinand, as far as I know, is not a CAGW enthusiast. He isn’t claiming anthropogenic CO_2 is going to make the oceans boil, like some utterly irresponsible NASA directors might once have done. I think he is open (as am I) to alternative hypotheses, and even more to evidence. But the evidence has to make quantitative sense, and given the rather good agreement between cumulated anthropogenic emissions (which are a source of CO_2) and the observed increase, one has to ask what one would have seen if humans were not adding CO_2. Take away the anthropogenic contribution, and the numbers no longer work out.
Note well that the curve fit below assumes no lag between CO_2 and temperature — sure, it could just be a coincidence that it works so very well, but the problem with coincidences is that they are strictly less likely than the straight up conclusion that CO_2 is causing the warming and that humans are causing the CO_2 increase that is causing the warming.
Otherwise the system has a dangerous (and in my mind very unlikely) instability — as the ocean warms it releases CO_2 at a rate that almost precisely causes it to get warmer according to the greenhouse effect. It is difficult to see why such a process would stop, once started, if the amplitude of the response was great enough to explain the increase in atmospheric CO_2 without the additional CO_2 produced by human civilization.
So put me into the Ferdinand camp on this issue. Your article above fails to convince me otherwise. So does Salby’s arguments. The numbers just don’t work out, and they tend to neglect the simple fact that they do work out, rather easily, if you just assume a dynamical reservoir with fast and slow processes coupled to the atmosphere and an additional monotonic source. If you like capacitative models (which aren’t insane in the context) you can imagine having a bunch of capacitors and resistors that hold a certain amount of charge that fluctuates around from reservoir to reservoir with temperature and season and so on, but no matter what sort of system you design that explains the data, if you stick a battery into it that trickles additional charge into the network of reservoirs for 200 years and observe that the net charge in the system increases at about the rate that this charging occurs, with about half of the additional charge retained in the topmost (atmospheric) reservoir, one really has to have a personal bias on the issue (I think) to look much further for the cause of the increase.
That doesn’t mean that Ferdinand (or I, for being convinced by his argument) aren’t mistaken. But you are a long way from proving that he is. He can easily explain your results. You, on the other hand, have a very hard time coming up with a reasonable explanation for where the extra CO_2 comes from, because Henry’s Law isn’t really a free shot — the numbers sooner or later have to work out, and they just don’t.
rgb
OK rgb, I suggest that you are, in fact, making the same mistake that Ferdinand and others have repeatedly made on this thread.
Repeating – Please read this [excerpt]:
“I am agnostic on Ferdinand’s Mass Balance Argument.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963079
Then read this from Richard [excerpt]:
“Nonsense! Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1962375
Then read this from Ferdinand [excerpt]:
“But indeed you haven’t claimed that the increase is not human induced, my bad.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1962670
The “mass balance argument” has been elegantly critiqued by Richard S Courtney many times on wattsup and elsewhere – his debate with Ferdinand on this point goes back for years.
I suggest the “mass balance argument” is an irrelevant distraction to the discussion of my article.
The “mass balance argument” has been elegantly critiqued by Richard S Courtney many times on wattsup and elsewhere – his debate with Ferdinand on this point goes back for years.
Indeed it has, I’ve participated in it on multiple occasions. As an engineer you should understand ‘mass balances’, Courtney does not.
Any fluid mechanical system is governed by the mass balance equation, the continuity equation and the energy balance equation. In the case of a system with multiple chemical species, species balance equations also apply, as any chemical engineer will tell you.
In the case of our atmosphere the species balance equation has to apply, it’s not optional!
One form of it is as follows:
d[CO2]/dt = AnthroCO2 + natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T)
AnthroCO2 is well known over recent decades, as is d[CO2]/dt,
thus it’s clear that the annual natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T) has been negative at least since the sixties.
A balance equation such as the nonsense one that Bart trots out which assumes that the only variable which controls the balance is temperature does not meet the physical reality test.
Major terms in natSourceCO2([CO2],T) and natSink([CO2],T) would be Henry’s Law for the ocean and photosynthesis.
RGB,
Thanks a lot, I was feeling a little lonely last days in this discussion…
I was not right about the first part of Allan’s take on the cause of the rise of CO2, which for him may be human or not (despite all evidence), but I too disagree with him on the second part: even if all CO2 lags T and even if it isn’t human caused, that is not proof that there is no influence on temperature without runaway effect, as long as the overall feedback factor is less than 1 (in the old engineer’s sense, definitions seems to have changed). Estimating anything about a trend from the little noise around the trend is not smart…
And I think we largely agree on the effect: the theoretical effect of 2xCO2 (from line by line absorption in Modtran) is 0.9°C. With some water vapor feedback 1.2°C.
I used a simple EBM (energy balance model) on a spreadsheet and could reduce the original 3°C for 2xCO2 (Oxford model estimate) to 1.5°C without problems, only by reducing the (theoretical) impact of human aerosols to 1/4th of the original. Which seems more the real value than the “ready to fit” value of the early models. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/oxford.html
Nic Lewis and Judith Curry did a similar exercise based on real life data and did find an ECS of ~1.6°C for 2xCO2, recently expanded by Nic Lewis at:
http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/02/implications-of-recent-multimodel-attribution-studies-for-climate-sensitivity/
With the implication that the longer the “pause” gets, the lower the ECS will be…
Seems that some real good climate scientists like Hans von Storch are already looking at the consequences for their climate models:
https://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
Phil, this getting tiresome.
Apparently you, Steve, Ferdinand and rgb have not read what I have written and persist in mis-stating my position and then trashing it.
From now on, I will only bother responding to those who demonstrate an ability to read.
Repeating AGAIN – Please read this [excerpt]:
“I am agnostic on Ferdinand’s Mass Balance Argument.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963079
Then read this from Richard [excerpt]:
“Nonsense! Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1962375
Then read this from Ferdinand [excerpt]:
“But indeed you haven’t claimed that the increase is not human induced, my bad.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1962670
…
I suggest the “mass balance argument” is an irrelevant distraction to the discussion of my article.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Some questions:
Does your calculation of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity assume that most or all the recent warming is due to increased atmospheric CO2? Why?
What was the ECS based on the cooling period from ~1940 to ~1975? Was it MINUS ~1C?
What was the ECS based on the warming period from ~1975 to ~2000? Was it PLUS ~2C?
What was the ECS based on the “Pause” from ~2000 to present? Was it ~ZERO?
What are the error margins of ECS? About MINUS 1C to PLUS 2C, based on your analyses?
Do you use Surface Temperature measurements rather than satellite temperatures post-1979 for your calculations? If so, why?
Do you assume that atmospheric CO2 concentrations pre-1958 are accurate? If so, why?
If you are so sure that increasing atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion, why does the satellite data show the greatest atmospheric CO2 concentrations exist over moist warm tropical land areas, typically with low industrial activity, NOT over industrial cities?
Why is it that daily CO2 concentrations over certain cities show no upward spikes in CO2 at rush hour, and only show the natural CO2 signature?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The “mass balance” argument is ridiculously bad. Anyone who has ever taken it seriously should be immediately dismissed as unqualified to opine on the issue.
oops, sorry…
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Toft-CO2-PDO.jpg
This chart is so bogus in that co2 has nothing to do with the temperature trend when plotted on it’s own.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sunspot+integral+pdo++amo&form=IE9TR&src=IE9TR&pc=MDDRJS
This chart is just as convincing with out CO2 which acts in response to the climate does not lead the climate.
Big deal. With 7 parameters, I can fit an elephant… and its calf!
Really, RGB, I am shocked that you would put weight into such a superficial fit over such a brief interval of time.
Hey, look! I can fit a parabolic function to the middle of the temperature series! So, the driving force must be parabolic!
Or, a long term sine wave. Or, a cubic or quartic polynomial. Or, a freaking modified Bessel function of the 1st kind!
Sheesh.
When you can actually fit all the low order polynomial + variational behavior, like here, call me.
Excellent example of auto-correlation.
Also, to dbstealy above — you know I love your posts, man, and I hope that this very, very simple graph will allow you in the future to say that you don’t just believe CO_2 is causing some warming because Lindzen (who is a very smart physicist guy) says it is or (better yet) because we can compute how much warming it should produce according to a well-validated theory of atmospheric radition, but because the data agree pretty well with that theory as this fit clearly shows.
That doesn’t prove that CO_2 is responsible for the warming observed, but it hardly counts as evidence against the hypothesis.
Note well that this fit assumes that HadCRUT4 is a reasonable estimator of past temperatures. It also presents its error bars, which are frankly unbelievable. If one (not unreasonably) doubles the error bars before 1950 and triples them before 1900, we would be forced to admit that we cannot be certain if the world has warmed at all over that stretch, but I think that there is sufficient evidence from other lines that even if the precision is overestimated, it is still not unreasonable that some warming of this order of magnitude has occurred, so I’ll take it at face value until there is a good reason to do otherwise.
Note also that the fit implies an equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 1.8 C (temperature change per doubling of CO_2 concentration). This is not at all in conflict with the theoretical computations for CO_2-only no-feedback warming. This is exactly what Lindzen and Choi conclude IIRC, that the feedbacks the climate models rely on to get extreme warming are maybe slightly positive, maybe slightly negative, but are slightly either way and hence are negligible. Recent work (plus my own eyeballs and those of Willis Eisenbach supplemented in both our cases with some good-fun curve fitting suggest that aerosols in general and volcanic aerosols in particular are almost complete non-factors in climate variation, so their inclusion in climate models with large weights causes them to overemphasize CO_2 plus feedbacks to cancel them during the reference period where they were normalized (which happened to be one of the 67 year upswings in my fit). Oops.
One last thing about the fit that is interesting is that there is no lag, no “uncommitted warming”. Given that the fluctuations in the climate around its local equilibrium are an easy 0.1 to 0.2 C on either side, this is hardly surprising. Surface temperatures show no signs of any intermediate scale relaxation times at all longer than a few decades.
There is plenty of room for error in my fit, but the odd thing is that this kind of fit puts fairly strict limits on the climate sensitivity. It is the first thing one ordinarily would do — see how the temperature varies according to the simplest mean-field model and compare the result to reality. I’d say that precisely that — the simplest mean field model — is in very decent agreement with reality, and makes it almost certain that the higher climate sensitivities with strong feedbacks are incorrect, although one can certainly get this result with a smaller CO_2 sensitivity and modest feedback from e.g. water vapor or smaller CO_2 and larger natural variation or larger CO_2 and partial cancellation from this and that. The problem is that with a lot of possible causes in a highly multivariate system, it is nearly impossible to refute any particular model that can be made to fit the data. The only good reason to stick with mine is that it is very, very simple, and Ockham’s Razor suggests that one should not multiply causes without some very good reasons.
rgb
rgbatduke
I prefer blockquoting the sentences from each person I am reply to … But your comments are both too long to quote in their entirety, yet also too accurate and too important to simply say “Yeah. Good point.”
However. Please critique the following.
Error bars aside – and they are critical in the final conclusion! – it should be possible to make three such calculations as you describe this morning:
Man’s addition to the worldwide CO2 levels can only be estimated, but since 1850, worldwide CO2 levels are increasing.
The effect of increasing CO2 on global average temperatures is claimed to be logarithmic. Thus, the increase in global average surface temperatures should increase proportional to the log of CO2 over time.
Global CO2 levels are estimated before 1950, then are known with some accuracy after the Mauna Loa measurements began in 1950. Log values of estimated CO2 should be available for each year since 1850.
it hasn’t – “peaks” occurred around 1880, declined into 1910-1915, rose again between 1915 to 1940-45, fell from 1945 through 1972-76, rose noticeably from 1976 – 1998 El Nino, then have flattened over the 18.5 year period from 1996 through today’s 2015.
We “should” be able to determine the influence of ln (total average CO2) on global average surface temperatures by comparing the three differences in the “acceleration” of temperature over time of the three second differentials of the three “S” curves of peak-decline-valley of each 60 year period (1885, 1945, 2005 as “peaks for example).
“IF” increasing CO2 truly affects global average temperature, then the three “declines” after each local peak should be decreasing, or flattening. If each peak-decline-trough is the same, then there CO2 – from ANY source or sources! – has no measurable affect on climate. If each successive peak-decline-trough is getting smaller as CO2 increases, then either Man’s addition of CO2 is changing the climate by that amount of ln(delta CO2) , or the long-term 1000 year climate cycle is dominating man’s role so much that CO2 has no measurable influence.
If the three periods are significantly different from each other – and we MUST compare the full shape of the three “S” curves to each other, not some simple linear equation so favored by people who think climate never changes – then we are either at or approaching the Modern Warming Period’s 1000 year maximum, or we need some other theory on CO2 influence.
Does Duke have any “for-credit” post-graduate classes or senior-junior level classes we can register for “independent study” to write up such an analysis? Or related “projects” on similar questions?
I did some of the analysis you suggest, but I have to disagree that we know the CO_2 levels with any particular accuracy pre-1950. I think we know them on average to some crude resolution, decreasing as one goes back in time, but I am unconvinced that the ice core data is particularly reliable. If you like, I’m happy to accept their numbers as long as one adds rather large error bars. The same thing is true only more so with regard to direct measurements. They simply cannot be easily compared to Mauna Loa’s pristine data.
What we do know is that over the Mauna Loa record, the variations relative to simple hyperexponential growth have been almost nonexistent. Here’s a picture:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/cCO2oft-65yr.jpg
Sure, there are some variations but they are at most 2-3 ppm relative to the smooth curve. This makes me very suspicious of much larger variations that appear in the ice core record, especially when they do not match. And in any event, well over half of the total CO_2 increase has happened during the ML record — it is implausible that there would have been much larger variations before over a much smaller range from the probable starting values around 280 ppm in 1850.
Note also the noise and natural variability in the temperature graph. It is far too large for one to be able to extract much statistically significant meaning by trying to look at the small differences you suggest. They would literally be lost in the noise and one wouldn’t be able to conclude much one way or another from them because one can clearly see a sinusoidal variation that is most definitely not CO_2 that has an amplitude order of 0.1 C, as well as variations 2 to 3 times that great on a scale of (very) roughly five years. I try to be careful not to even read too much into the sinusoid — I have no predictive theory to explain it that makes any sort of physical sense, although one can certainly try to ascribe causes after the fact, such as “it’s the decadal oscillations” which might be true but leaves us with the problem of predicting the decadal oscillations.
rgb
“What we do know is that over the Mauna Loa record, the variations relative to simple hyperexponential growth have been almost nonexistent.”
Why in the world are you plotting total concentration, which hides everything but the low order polynomial behavior from the eye?
The variations relative to quadratic growth have been almost nonexistent. Take any slowly varying basis you like, and the variations relative to it will be miniscule.
You’re throwing away the most important information.
But, look in the rate-of-change domain, and it all becomes clear.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadcrut4_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1200month_low-pass_loess1_30_1950:2020a.png
Bart,
All what you have done is attributing variability and slope of the CO2 rate of change to temperature. But as proven many times to no avail, the variability and the slope have nothing to do with each other. The variability is proven beyond doubt from the influence of temperature variations on (tropical) vegetation, while the slope is not caused by vegetation at all: vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2.
Thus there is not the slightest reason to combine the CO2 rate of change variability with the rate of change slope, these are caused by different, completely independent processes.
As human emissions are average twice the observed increase in the atmosphere, I have a good candidate for the second process, which fits all known observations. What is your candidate which fits all observations?
No, Ferdinand, it is not at all “proven”. All you’ve done is assert it. It is quite impossible. There is no phase distortion.
You have a lousy candidate. It doesn’t match the rate of change, it is diverging during the “pause”, and the slope in dCO2/dt is already accounted for by the temperature relationship.
Bart,
The fact that the variability in rate of change of CO2 is caused by vegetation is as rock solid as the CO2 measurements themselves. It is based on the opposite changes of δ13C and CO2 measurements taken in the same period. If you have another explanation that can show us that this is not caused by vegetation, I like to hear that.
The fact that vegetation is a net, growing absorber of CO2 over the past decades is also rock solid: that is based on O2 measurements, which are prone to larger errors, but already above the error band. Even so, confirmed by satellites: the earth is greening.
Thus whatever the correlation, it is proven that the variability is caused by the influence on vegetation and it is proven that the slopes are not caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation. Thus any connection between the variability and the slopes is pure coincidence, induced by the arbitrary offset and slope.
Sorry,
Thus any connection between the variability and the slopes is pure coincidence, induced by the arbitrary offset and slope.
should read:
Thus any connection between the variability and the slopes is pure coincidence, introduced by the arbitrary offset and factor.
No, I’m sorry Ferdinand, but there is no phase distortion. Whatever the mechanism is, it is uniform across the entire frequency band, and the trend in temperatures is the cause of the trend in the rate of change of CO2.
Bart, it is pretty clear we are never going to see eye to eye here, and you miss the point of my presenting this figure. The variations relative to a smooth increase have indeed been miniscule — that is the point of the curve — and hence it is reasonable to assume that it extrapolates backwards to 1850-ish to roughly match the CO_2 concentration of the time, allowing for a fairly substantial uncertainty pre-Mauna Loa. This was the assumption used to produce the fit to temperature as a function of time (and hence CO_2 concentration above) and I’m glad we agree that any variations that might have occurred relative to this smooth interpolation are going to be within that uncertainty and hence will not impact the high quality of the fit in any event.
As far as whether or not the source of the CO_2 is anthropogenic, your assertion that one should focus on the noise and short term variation makes little sense to me, and IMO the simple arithmetic of cumulated anthropogenic emissions plus the interpretation of the isotopic evidence make it simply much more likely that we are responsible for the atmospheric CO_2 increase than not. It isn’t that one can’t construct a capacitative system that reproduces at least the concentration increase without it, it is that secondary evidence including a fair number of independent measurements rather seem to contradict it, and require an increasing number of unverified assumptions — descent into Ockham’s Hell, as it were. The simplest way to interpret it IMO is Ferdinand’s way, not your way, where the observations of carbon residence times in the system strongly suggest that roughly half of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions have been sequestered but the other half are the increase in atmospheric CO_2 relative to what we might have had if man had never discovered fire, or if thermonuclear fusion and fission had completely replaced coal back in the early 60’s.
That’s the problem with your argument (if I recall your argument correctly, forgive me if I don’t) that the increase in atmospheric CO_2 is due to upwelling CO_2 rich deep water from the thermohaline circulation. There are three issues that make this less believable.
* We lack any direct evidence that this is happening at a rate that could explain the atmospheric increase. Sure it could — if things are the way you imagine them to be. But we simply do not have direct evidence — such as a CO_2 rich hot spot right above the sea surface at the well-known points of major upwelling south of Alaska, east of Greenland, and south of India. What we have from repeated measurements of the distribution of CO_2 concentration is that it is high in the northern hemisphere, concentrated well south of the first two upwellings and north of the third. The distribution is entirely compatible with anthropogenic origin, but very difficult to justify as evidence for your assertion.
* Whatever model you might build for this still has to account for the simple fact that there is easily quantifiable anthropogenic CO_2 being added every year as well. Whatever assertions you might want to make about how rapidly this CO_2 is supposedly sequestered apply equally well to the completely anonymous CO_2 that might be contributed by the upwelling. The bottom line is that the numbers for the increase as anthropogenic contribution minus update match the measured rate of uptake based on isotopic evidence. This simple fact alone makes it hard to motivate a more complicated model that somehow makes the anthropogenic contribution irrelevant while maintaining the right rate of isotopic uptake while resulting in an increase.
* Analyzing derivatives is numerically less reliable than analyzing the function itself. Analyzing the derivatives as a (marker for the) “cause” of the increase is an enterprise fraught with peril, as one one risks interpreting a natural cycle, like the tides, as being responsible for an ongoing increase, like sea level, that is caused by something entirely external and that has nothing to do with the tides. This is actually a very apropos example, as it has a very similar reservoir structure. Some part of the increase in SL comes from simple thermal expansion, just as some part of the increase in atmospheric CO_2 comes from Henry’s Law in the same warming ocean. However, if we were mining ice in Greenland the way we mine coal, and carrying it south to cool our drinks as it melts, and we find that the rate of sea level rise in excess of expectations based on thermal expansion can be explained pretty well by most of this additional water ending up in the ocean and not substantially returning to the Greenland ice pack or Antarctic ice pack or the capacity trivial or nontrivial of all other land based non-ocean reservoirs of water, it would make little sense to hypothesize that the sea is really rising because the ocean floor is suddenly heating and causing the sea to expand somewhere we can’t see it in the absence of direct data that this is happening and in the absence of any explanation for what happens to the meltwater we know we have “irreversibly” (on any short timescale) contributed to the system! Nor would one be able to infer any of these causes from looking at the average tidal data as it varies as the Earth swings in its elliptical orbit around the sun. The latter is just a red herring, irrelevant to any of the actual processes and timed with some of them (e.g. seasonal warming and expansion) merely by coincidence.
rgb
“The variations relative to a smooth increase have indeed been miniscule”
But, they would be miniscule with any low order polynomial fit. There is nothing special about your log function, except that, that is what the AGW hypothesis claims. But, assuming that it is THE fit, because of the hypothesis, is circular logic, and begging the question.
“We lack any direct evidence that this is happening at a rate that could explain the atmospheric increase.”
Of course we don’t. We’ve never looked for it. But, even as we speak, OCO2 has shown some rather striking departures from expectations.
“Whatever assertions you might want to make about how rapidly this CO_2 is supposedly sequestered apply equally well to the completely anonymous CO_2 that might be contributed by the upwelling.”
No, because they affect different reservoirs. One of these days, I am going to have to write this up, and submit it to Anthony.
But, in any case, the natural upwelling is effectively unbounded, and can easily produce significant output even when the human input is severely attenuated.
The isotopic evidence is blarney. There are many potential alternative explanations for it, which you can google at your leisure.
“Analyzing derivatives is numerically less reliable than analyzing the function itself.”
Nonsense. It is the same information, modulo an integration constant, just a little more susceptible to noise. But, the SNR is observably high, so noise is not a concern.
If you cannot match the derivative, then you cannot match the function itself.
Bart,
In this case you have two inputs which influence the CO2 levels, where one has near zero noise to signal and the other a high noise and some signal.
The total process shows little noise and a signal that is halve the signal of the first variable and hardly any influence of the signal of the second one.
The derivative shows all the noise of the second variable and a signal that may be attributed to one of them or a mix of both.
Based on the noise of the derivative you attribute all the signal to the second variable, thanks to an arbitrary factor and offset and you declare that the first variable has no influence at all.
But then you need to declare that all observations which are not matched by the second variable are of no interest…
Seems to me that looking at the derivative of a mix of signals to know the origin of a signal is a tricky business…
Thanks Bart – very nice graph you made at
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
This also shows clearly that CO2 is still following the temperature.
Allan,
Except that the graph is truncated due to using the satellite data and that if you take the longer temperature series the 1975-1995 and 2000-current periods show negative correlations if you align the slopes. That is for 35 years of the 55 years involved…
Which again proves that variability and slope of the trends have nothing to do with each other and the nice correlation with temperature is only for the variability, not for the trends…
Are we looking a the same graph Ferdinand? It looks pretty good to me from ~1979 to present.
Some volcanic effects may be apparent in the early 1990’s, etc.
Once you use the HadCrut ST data pre-1979 it gets a bit messy, but then the Hadcrut data is already messy.
Allan,
Have a look at the longer temperature trend of HadCRU4. I have added the trend lines which are matched as exact as possible (which Bart never does).
What shows up if you match both trends is that the amplitudes of the variability don’t match. That is so for every temperature trend you take and is the result of the fact that variability and trend have nothing to do with each other.
Then look at smaller parts, first the period 1975-1995: with the same factors as before, the slopes are crossing. If you want to match the slopes, the variability’s get opposite.
The same for the period 2000-current.
That are together 35 years of the 55 years that the trends are opposite to each other. That simply confirms that the CO2/dt variability is certainly caused by the temperature variations with a fixed factor from the integration of dT/dt (and not from T), but that the CO2/dt trend has nothing to do with the variability, that is caused by a different process…
What that different process is, is clear for me…
Ferdinand,
I was referring to this graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
As I said above:
Once you use the HadCrut ST data pre-1979 it gets a bit messy, but then the Hadcrut data is already messy.
Allan,
That doesn’t make any difference: if you plot the trend lines for the years 1979-1991 (just before the Pinatubo) and 2000-2015, that are 26 years of the 36 years in total where the trends of T and dCO2/dt are opposite to each other.
That simply means that while the variability’s are highly correlated, the match of the trends is entirely spurious and simply is caused by choosing the right begin- and endpoints (and the best fit factor and offset). T doesn’t cause the trend in dCO2/dt, it only causes the variability in CO2 (with a lag) and a small increase of CO2 of ~5 ppmv over the past 55 years.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-paper-finds-natural-ocean.html
The chart I meant to post .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
rgb and those of his opinion can not reconcile their stance with the data presented as this study shows.
Salvatore, that story says next to nothing about the cause of the CO2 increase in the past 160 years, where CO2 by far leads temperature…
No CO2 does not lead the temperature according to the data.
This shows clearly that CO2 is following the sea surface temperatures. No doubt.
Salvatore
Yes, CO2 does follow the SST, but SST is not the cause, ENSO is.
https://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2013/BRGT13/BastosJGR2013.pdf
Salvatore, the variability of CO2 follows the variability of T, but CO2 does lead T over the same time frame.
Thus even with 8 ppmv/K response of CO2 to T, that is hardly visible as a small variation around the trend with a small lag after temperature variation…
Igl,
Thanks for the link, I had a similar link to an investigation of the 1998 El Niño, with similar findings, but lost it…
Thanks you for the graph Fonzie. Aaaaay!,
To be clear, Ferdinand has been a gentleman in this debate, and that sets him apart from many others. Also, he is not a warmist, and he is no dummy.
Let’s see what the CO2 satellite data says – where the heck IS that data?.
Regards, Allan
Thanks lgl.
So the order of naturally-caused warming is ( -> means “followed by” ):
ENSO -> Sea Surface Temperature -> Land Surface Temperature -> Lower Troposphere?
Just a wild guess. 🙂
Best, Allan
Left out a step – how could I?
Thanks lgl.
So the order of naturally-caused warming is ( -> means “followed by” ):
Warm phase ENSO -> Warmer Sea Surface Temperatures -> Warmer Land Surface Temperatures -> Warmer Lower Tropospheric Temperatures…
… AND increased atmospheric CO2.
Just a wild guess. 🙂
What about the AMO?
Best, Allan
Allan
Yes what about the AMO? Do you find any “AMO-signal” in the CO2 concentration graph?
dbstealey says at June 14, 2015 at 5:03 pm
NASA uses the word ‘monitoring’ instead of measuring but here is NASA saying that “GRACE MONITORS the movement of water over the Earth’s surface with a level of detail never seen before.’
So yes Grace is measuring/monitoring water movement ” over the Earth’s surface”
From myNASAdata – larc.nasa.gov/docs/GRACE… (A document for the kiddies)
All this obsessive carping about the “Mass Balance Argument” (MBA) is a distraction to this discussion, and perhaps a deliberate one. How many times do I have to say that I am agnostic on the ” Mass Balance Argument “, because it is scientifically interesting but NOT critical to the key issue of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Can we set it aside? If you still need to obsess about it, kindly publish your own article on the subject. Better still, go do an MBA on the MBA. 🙂
Something is causing the ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 – it may be largely humanmade or it may be largely natural – we do not know, we only infer, based on incomplete data. I think the CO2 satellite data will soon tell the story – early satellite data suggests the CO2 increase may NOT be primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, but rather is related primarily to more terrestrial biological activity in a naturally warmer world. I am not sure, nor are any of you, so we should wait and see.
The key issue of alleged humanmade global warming is the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to CO2.
Based on the evidence, ECS is miniscule, if it exists at all in a practical sense at these CO2 concentrations. ECS is too small to measure or to matter. High values of ECS are inferred by attributing most or all of the warming from ~1975 to ~2000 to increased atmospheric CO2, and then ignoring the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975 and the Pause from ~2000 to present.
Again, we do not know. If ECS exists at all in a practical sense at these atmospheric CO2 concentrations, my guess (and all such estimates are guesses), is that ECS is less than 1C, and probably much less, such that the global warming crisis DOES NOT EXIST (as we stated in our PEGG article in 2002).
If global cooling resumes (as we also predicted in 2002, starting by 2020-2030), what will the atmospheric CO2 response will be – will it be a flattening of the increase in CO2 concentrations (yes), followed by a decline in CO2 (maybe, depends on how much cooling)?
Individuals are welcome to respond and to critique. When you are doing so, please try to be clear about what you mean and what you object to.
Please also state your predictive track record in detail, if you have one. One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. Warmists and the IPCC have a negative predictive track record, because ALL of their scary predictions of the past several decades have failed to materialize, so they have NO credibility (actually NEGATIVE credibility, to be mathematically correct).
My predictive track record on this subject is here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/#comment-1963244
Warmists and the IPCC have squandered over two trillion dollars of scarce global resources on a false crisis, money that could have provided clean water and sanitation systems for every village in the world. In the decades that these people have obsessed about their false global warming crisis, about 50 million kids below the age of five have died from bad water. This is the same number of people from all sides that died in WW2. Call me an old softie, but this bothers me.
BTW, I sincerely hope to be wrong about our 2002 prediction of imminent global cooling – I could live with that, much more than all of us can live in a colder world.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
Regards, Allan
What Allan says below can not be said better! Excellent and it makes so much sense.
Wait and see is what is needed as Allan said.
Something is causing the ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 – it may be largely humanmade or it may be largely natural – we do not know, we only infer, based on incomplete data. I think the CO2 satellite data will soon tell the story – early satellite data suggests the CO2 increase may NOT be primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, but rather is related primarily to more terrestrial biological activity in a naturally warmer world. I am not sure, nor are any of you, so we should wait and see.
The key issue of alleged humanmade global warming is the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to CO2.
Based on the evidence, ECS is miniscule, if it exists at all in a practical sense at these CO2 concentrations. ECS is too small to measure or to matter. High values of ECS are inferred by attributing most or all of the warming from ~1975 to ~2000 to increased atmospheric CO2, and then ignoring the cooling from ~1940 to ~1975 and the Pause from ~2000 to present.
Again, we do not know. If ECS exists at all in a practical sense at these atmospheric CO2 concentrations, my guess (and all such estimates are guesses), is that ECS is less than 1C, and probably much less, such that the global warming crisis DOES NOT EXIST (as we stated in our PEGG article in 2002).
Allan, i think the problem with ferdinand is that he (stubbornly) refuses to acknowledge the obvious effect of temperature on the rising trend of carbon growth. Without the temperature hikes of the late 70’s and the late 90’s we would still be at a growthrate of 1 ppm per year. If that were the case, the “trend” that he is attributing to human emissions WOULD NOT EXIST. Ferdi has a number of dumb arguments. I think this is his very dumbest AND the (very!) easiest to debunk. How he gets away with this one is beyond me…
THE TREND IS OBVIOUSLY CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE AND NOT BY HUMAN EMISSIONS !!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.10
Thanks for the data which shows clearly CO2 trends are being caused by the SLIGHEST of temperature. changes.
.
Salvatore, so many more thanks go from me to you. (my contributions are but a drop in the bucket in comparison) In fact i only learned about this fantastic guest post by Allan because YOU made mention of it over at Dr Spencer’s… Keep lighting the way Salvatore!
ALLAN, your comment sort of got lost up there, but i managed to read it any way. (some sort of odd convection going on here at wuwt?) Good to see you are familiar with “happy days”. I’m always curious (as i have no idea) about just how much american television makes it to other countries, even close by like canada. Fonzie is my real nick name (as i actually look like him). I’m getting a real treat this summer as a classic television station is playing reruns of the first couple seasons which were excellent. So, i get to brush up on my “fonics” (if you get my drift…)
No, hey, i’m a huge fan of ferdinand’s… To say he’s no dummy would be the understatement of the (new) millenium. He’s BRILLIANT!!! (ofcourse nobody really needs me to point that out, it’s self evident…) The danger of a ferdinand is that he so bright that he runs circles around everybody else. Therefor he can easily get away with spinmastering any version of the “truth” that he wants without any fear of ever being corrected. I think your argument is one argument where people can say, “the buck stops here, ferdi”. He is so obviously wrong on this one and this is one argument that i think is the chink in the engelbeen armor. Note below in his comment to me how he jumps right into the mass balance argument and yet i never said a word about the nature of the rise (anthropogenic vs natural). I merely stated the obvious, that temps drive carbon growth, whatever the reason may be. And he (stubbornly) will have none of it…
Yes, ferdinand is a gentleman loaded with european charm. And i have learned much from him as he makes things sooo clear. He’s even saved me from some “Jaworowski nonsense” as he likes to call it and i am exceedingly grateful for that. One thing he does seem to lack (or at least has somewhat of a weakness in) is the virtue of charity. Other people’s ideas should be respected, even nurtured. He seems to cut all corners while spinmastering his way to victory when ever it’s convenient for him. Now i realize that blog forums are an unnatural medium. So it is difficult, however, it’s not all that difficult. Personally, i think it makes him look foolish staking out a position that’s so obviously wrong as his counter argument to your argument that temperature drives carbon growth and human emissions does not. AH, but what do i know; i’m just a guy in a t-shirt and leather jacket… (WHOA!!!)
Allan, one last thing… (my comment above being addressed to salvatore was then subsequently addressed to you) Since it is temperature (and not emissions) that drives carbon growth, your theory has HUGE public policy implications. China can build as many factories as it wants. India can burn all the coal that it wants. Heck, we can even build the keystone pipeline! All that will have ZERO impact on carbon growth, thus ZERO impact on temperature. Your paradigm needs to be made well known so that policy makers can make the right decisions…
fonzarelli,
If you have some knowledge of physics, can you explain to me how temperature can drive more CO2 out of natural sources than it takes in, while human emissions are 4.5 ppmv/year, but the increase in the atmosphere is only 2 ppmv per year…
BTW, according to Henry’s law the CO2 level in the atmosphere at the current temperature should be 290 ppmv. We measure 400 ppmv. Thus according to the solubility of CO2 in seawater, the atmosphere is now pushing more CO2 into the oceans than is released. Same for the plants: they grow harder with more CO2.
Ferdinand, i don’t know how familiar you are with american television. “Fonzie” was a very popular character from the 70’s hit show “happy days”. He was a really “cool” hoodlum who often hung out with some “square” teenagers. I actually look like him (and oft get mistaken for him), so “fonzie” is a real nick name for me. AND like the character i may well have some good intuitive common sense, however, i’m not too particularly bright. (so your not going to get any physics out of me…) Yes, i actually do have a counter to your “mass balance argument”. I’ve read your 2010 piece on it and even stayed up into the wee hours of the morning reading every last comment. (poor richard found himself stuck in climate change purgatory, didn’t he?) I have found that the “mass balance argument” is a bit more difficult one to tackle than the “emissions drive carbon growth” one. What’s the point of jumping to a more difficult argument when the resolve to the easy one is yet still elusive? Besides, that carbon growth drives temps is not the end of the notion that the rise is anthropogenic. You seemed to think so in this comment addressed to bart on this very subject: 1/9/11 5:07am (wuwt) “if there is no connection between the rise of co2 and the emissions, then agw fails completely” However, there is an argument from the affirmer (as opposed to the denier) camp that acknowledges that temperature is driving carbon growth. Warmer temps cause an inefficiency in the sinks that lead to greater (anthropogenic) carbon growth. In other words, if temperature can drive the variability around the trend, then why can’t it drive the trend itself (as obviously is the case). I’ve only heard this argument and never seen the details worked out. One “proof” (or at least consistency) of this is that carbon growth in the mlo era has NEVER been greater than human emissions. So just because temps drive carbon growth does not necessarily mean that the rise isn’t anthropogenic. I’d be very interested in your take on this “affirmer” (warmist, alarmist, whatever…) argument, whether it’s even possible in your mind. So, no… i’m not trying to make the claim that the rise is natural with the “temps drive carbon growth” argument here. I’ll leave that for another argument (for another day)…
fonzarelli,
Indeed temperature drives CO2 levels up and down, as can be seen in ice cores over the past 800,000 years and currently in detail for seasonal and year by year variability.
The point is that temperature is only responsible for 4-5 ppmv/°C short term (seasonal, 1-3 years) up to maximum 8 ppmv/°C (multi-decade to multi-millennia).
That means that the ~0.8°C warming over the past 160 years (0.6°C over the past 55 years) is good for not more than 6 (5) ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
The main problem I see in this repeated discussion is that the origin of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is one of the most solid arguments of the AGW camp in the whole debate. It is the worst argument skeptics can use in any debate with “warmistas”, it is a lost argument and undermines the credibility of other arguments which are far more important: the lack of warming in the past decades, the failing of all climate models (at the 2% level) to follow the current temperature level, the underestimation of natural variability, etc…
Ferdinand, i can’t agree that the origion of the rise (natural vs anthro) is the worst argument… It’s just that i’ve never seen anybody competent enough to make the argument. Whether it’s jaworowski, salby, courtney or even my favorite bart here at watts, i see some really gross mistakes being made in some of their logic. I think at the very least a coherent argument for a natural rise should be assembled, but i just don’t imagine that there is anybody coherent enough to do it. Take allan’s theory here. Did it really take scientists until 2008 to even recognize it? (i noticed all on my own in 2009) So, before we shoot down the notion that the rise is natural, there ought first be developed a coherent theory…
Allan MacRae June 17, 2015 at 5:49 am
All this obsessive carping about the “Mass Balance Argument” (MBA) is a distraction to this discussion, and perhaps a deliberate one. How many times do I have to say that I am agnostic on the ” Mass Balance Argument “, because it is scientifically interesting but NOT critical to the key issue of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Can we set it aside? If you still need to obsess about it, kindly publish your own article on the subject. Better still, go do an MBA on the MBA. 🙂
If you want to set it aside you have to stop making statements like the following which are refuted by mass (species) balance considerations.
Something is causing the ~2ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 – it may be largely humanmade or it may be largely natural – we do not know, we only infer, based on incomplete data. I think the CO2 satellite data will soon tell the story – early satellite data suggests the CO2 increase may NOT be primarily due to fossil fuel combustion, but rather is related primarily to more terrestrial biological activity in a naturally warmer world. I am not sure, nor are any of you, so we should wait and see.
According to IPCC AR5 industrialized mankind’s share of the increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1750 and 2011 is somewhere between 10% and 200%, i.e. IPCC hasn’t got a clue. IPCC “adjusted” the assumptions, estimates and wags until they got the desired result. It’s all about man!
At 2 W/m^2 CO2’s contribution to the global heat balance is insignificant compared to the heat handling power of the oceans and clouds. CO2’s nothing but a bee fart in a hurricane.
The hiatus/pause/lull (IPPC acknowledges as fact) makes it pretty clear that IPCC’s GCM’s are useless trash.
Phil,
Sorry, I don’t quite follow that. I understand that C14 should have decayed (by 8-14% depending on how long it has been down there) but I don’t see why it should have decayed at a rate 45% faster than C12 after we doubled the concentration. Measurements of natural C14 show that it is taken out of the atmosphere fast and that its removal is almost the same as C12 (see Segalstad 1998) as would be expected as they are almost identical and each CO2 isotope adjusts at the same rate as the whole system. There are minor dissolution differences (C14 is 1.5% more soluble than C12) but these are considered negligible. Measurements of nuclear-C14 show a slightly longer residence time than natural C14 and C12 (of around 12-14 years) and this longer residence time could be explained on the basis that a large portion of the nuclear-C14 would have been ejected into the stratosphere due to the intense heat from the nuclear explosions where it then has a 5-8 year delay for its transfer to the troposhere thus giving the impression of a longer residence time and also as Salby points out the C14 from nuclear-plants could have contributed. C12 is taken out of the atmosphere fast which is clear based on the IPCC’s data for human emissions together with the current per mil value of -8.3 giving us a maximum amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere of 6% which is in agreement with a residence time of 5-6 years. The idea that C12 and C14 should behave significantly differently to one another is not true as far as I can see and flies in the face of the measurements all showing similar residence times for the different CO2 isotopes.
Richard,
It didn’t decay faster, what returns out of the oceans is 45% in concentration of the 100% which did go in at the height of the bomb spike in 1960, because the waters that are upwelling are 10% depleted by decay but were originally 50% of the bomb spike when these entered the deep oceans…
Thus the much faster decay of the 14C spike than of a 12C spike is a matter of delay between sinks and sources and the differences in concentrations between sinks and sources of the different isotopes.
Let’s try again. Prior to the tests the C14 in the atmosphere and ocean would be in approximate balance, therefore the flux from the ocean would be balanced with the flux from the atmosphere. The nuclear tests suddenly doubled the atmospheric concentration of C14, consequently the C14 flux from the atmosphere doubles but the flux from the ocean remains the same, however the total CO2 fluxes do not change. In addition upwelling deep ocean water is comprises water that was in equilibrium with the atmosphere about 1200 years before and any C14 will have decayed accordingly.
Unless you’re suggesting that C14 should be taken up by the ocean based on its own indivdual partial pressure but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that this definitively would be the case. If it is taken up according to is own indivdual partial pressure then that would also mean C12 is taken up according to its own indivdual partial pressure and given there is only 6% (maximum) human C12-CO2 in the atmosphere it would suggest that the equilibirum partitioning ratio for C12 is (like C14) very fast.
handbook,
All isotope variants of all molecules are according to their own partial pressure, but be careful: “human” CO2 still is near 99% 12CO2 and over 1% 13CO2, as good as natural CO2 is. The difference is in the hundredths of a percent change between the two isotopes. Thus the difference in partial pressure is of little help here, as the oceans are also at near the same ratio…
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The issue is CO2 dynamics are tied to the environment and not the other way around. This article is just more proof of this fact.
Thanks fonzarelli. Allan has presented his case well and makes me more confident that CO2 is still being governed by the temperature/environment . The data is still showing this to be the case.
Until I see CO2 actually leading the temperature trend as presented by the data which thus far the data fails to show one has to side against what Ferdinand is trying to convey.
Salvatore,
Why did the MWP-LIA cooling drive the CO2 levels only some 6 ppmv down (with ~50 years lag after the main temperature drop) and did the warming since the LIA, which is not higher than the MWP warming, did give 110 ppmv extra? Just by “coincidence” at the exact timing and ratio as human emissions?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/Image17.gif
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/08/2750191/petm-co2-levels-doubled-55-million-years-ago-global-temperatures-jumped/
Forget the graph I just sent in my previous post.
I am sending this article over not to show that CO2 increases causes the temperature to increase as this article wrongly assumes but to show how CO2 concentrations in the past were able to change in a dramatic fashion without the aid of human induced emissions. This leads one to believe the environment in totality not just the temperature can cause CO2 concentrations to change which suggest (as Allan has said) that something is causing the 2ppm increase in CO2 presently but we do not really know why. It is a wait and see situation because this increase in CO2 presently has happened before in the distant past.
Another point is the rate of increase in CO2 may not be related necessarily to the absolute temperature change but where the temperature changes occur and to what degree in certain areas. For example perhaps it is the Arctic Ocean which governs CO2 concentration changes more then say the tropical oceans due to the fact it has greater variability.
Hello Ferdinand,
Against my better judgment, let’s discuss your Mass Balance Argument.
As Richard Courtney says above:
“The hypothesis adopted by IPCC, Engelbeen and some others is that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is overloading the sinks for CO2 and, therefore, CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 emission is accumulating in the air.”
Richard has said for years that your Mass Balance Argument ASSUMES that the CO2 sinks are overloaded (saturated), but there is INsufficient evidence to suggest that this is true.
IF CO2 sinks are NOT saturated, it seems to me that your hypothesis fails.
After I wrote this, I noticed William Astley’s above post and scanned the Tom Quirk paper at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf
Interesting stuff – but let’s wait and see what the CO2 satellite data tells us.
For reasons stated earlier on this thread, I can remain an agnostic on your (and the IPCC’s) above “saturated sinks” hypothesis.
However, if I had to bet on the outcome of the satellite data, I would bet the CO2 sinks are NOT saturated, and the results will ultimately prove quite different from your hypothesis.
Best regards, Allan
Allan, it looks to me like you’ve just hit a bee hive with a baseball bat… Just to add clarity to the ensuing back and forth with ferdinand here i’d just like to make a short comment (and then get out of y’alls way). I hope this helps…
If we could cease all human emissions for a year and found that carbon growth was still at a rate of 2ppm per year, common sense would tell us that the rise is natural. It would also mean that the anthropogenic equilibrium sink rate is near 100%. What the mass balance argument tells us is that even if that were the case, the rise would still be anthropogenic. The natural imbalance adds 2ppm to the atmosphere while (natural) sinks are removing 4ppm of the anthropogenic source. 2ppm (natural source) minus 4ppm (natural sinks) equals -2ppm. Thus “nature” can’t possibly be adding ANYTHING to the atmosphere because it’s taking out more than it’s putting in…
I hope i’ve added clarity here to what the mass balance argument is. Not that you really need it, but maybe it will be a helpful start to the ensuing “mud fest”. Personally, i don’t see the point of debating ferdinand on this more challenging point. Your paradigm is so much easier to debate and yet somehow with ferdinand, well, he never seems to get it. Why should one expect better results with a more difficult argument?
As Richard Courtney says above:
“The hypothesis adopted by IPCC, Engelbeen and some others is that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is overloading the sinks for CO2 and, therefore, CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic CO2 emission is accumulating in the air.”
Richard has said for years that your Mass Balance Argument ASSUMES that the CO2 sinks are overloaded (saturated), but there is INsufficient evidence to suggest that this is true.
Repeating courtney’s nonsense is hardly ‘discussing the Mass Balance Argument’. There is no assumption that the sinks are saturated.
The Mass (Species) Balance equation is:
d[CO2]/dt = AnthroCO2 + natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T)
Over decades of monitoring pCO2 and FF emissions the annual value of (natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T)) has always been negative. As the FF emissions have increased over time so has the net sink capability, just never by enough to catch up.
“Over decades of monitoring pCO2 and FF emissions the annual value of (natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T)) has always been negative. “
A useless factoid in determining attribution. Basically an accounting legerdemain, whereby all sink activity is classified as “natural”, even when portions exist purely as a result of being stimulated into being by anthropogenic inputs.
Since the ambient level is determined by a dynamic balance, it is not enough to say that, because the natural contribution is overall negative, it cannot have produced the rise. A dynamic balance can be pushed to increase in two ways:
1) By adding additional input
2) By taking out less than otherwise would be
So, if nature is taking out less than it would if it were not the cause of the rise, then it is responsible for the rise. That is why it is important to determine if nature would be a net source or not in the complete absence of human inputs.
Consider this.
Suppose nature were putting in 100 units and taking out 99 per interval of time. Then, obviously, we would see a rise of 1 unit per time step.
Now, humans come along and put in 2 units. Nature responds the same as it does to the natural forcing, taking out 99%, and leaving 0.01*2 = 0.02 units.
So, now we are increasing at a rate of 1.02 units per time step. Natural sink activity is 99+1.98 = 100.98. Natural sources minus natural sinks is -0.98. It is negative. Yet, the rise here is clearly overwhelmingly natural.
Why? Because, if nature were not a net source by itself, natural sources minus natural sinks would have been -1.98. Because nature by itself is a net source, the disparity is less negative at -0.98 than it would have been at -1.98.
The “mass balance” argument is monumentally stupid, and indicates a complete ignorance of dynamic systems on the part of anyone proffering it. As I have just shown, the mere fact of nature being a “net sink” is insufficient to assign attribution.
Bart writes: “when portions exist purely as a result of being stimulated into being by anthropogenic inputs.”
…
Pure and unadulterated bovine excrement.
..
Name a sink that was stimulated into being
Bart,
As I said in previous discussions, the extra input by humans either is responsible for all the extra increase in the atmosphere and thus for all the extra sink rate as we think or, as you think, is negligible as cause of the increase and then it is also negligible as cause of the extra sink rate.
That gives you a dilemma: humans are only 6% of the total natural input in any given year, thus only 6% of the extra sink rate, as the sinks don’t make a differentiation between human and natural CO2, which is in total only half the human input as mass. That means that 97% of the human input remains in the atmosphere, or near twice the extra sink rate. Seems quite difficult to reconcile with the non-existence of the human influence on the increase in the atmosphere.
And Bart,
The mass balance in itself is not the only point in the debate. You need also to consider the rest of the points:
– There was a temperature controlled equilibrium in the past 800,000 years where CO2 follows T with ~8 ppmv/K. The temperature increase since the LIA is good for not more than 6 ppmv CO2 increase.
– The 13C/12C ratio decline excludes the oceans as main source. More ocean upwelling would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio, not decrease it.
– The oxygen balance excludes vegetation as main source. Vegetation is a net sink for CO2.
– The fourfold increase in the atmosphere compared to steady state for the ocean temperature induced a fourfold net sink rate. Human emissions increased a fourfold in the same period. If a natural source was the cause, that must have increased a fourfold too, for which is not the slightest indication.
Thus where is your proof from any observation that any natural in/out cycle increased over the past 55 years?
“Thus where is your proof from any observation that any natural in/out cycle increased over the past 55 years?”
Right here. It is conclusive.
The “mass balance” is symptomatic of the simplistic way in which you and others have approached this problem. It is a static analysis that leads to an incorrect conclusion for a dynamic system. Other assumptions you have made are equally mistaken, and on the same basis of lacking insight into the mathematics governing the evolution of dynamic systems.
Bart your “evidence” is not conclusive.
..
Your relationship is not seen in this dataset:
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/gistemp/from:1960/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
…
Nor is it seen in this dataset:
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
…
Nor in this dataset:
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/plot/best-upper/from:1960/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
..
So, effectively all you have done is cherry pick a correlation.
…
That is not good “evidence”
PS Bart,
..
The UAH data doesn’t measure ocean temperature, which is (according to your theory) the source of the increase in CO2.
..
Can you plot dCO2/dt vs ocean temp instead of lower troposphere temp which comes from UAH?
Bart June 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm
The “mass balance” is symptomatic of the simplistic way in which you and others have approached this problem. It is a static analysis that leads to an incorrect conclusion for a dynamic system.
Rubbish, the mass/species balance equation is fundamental to the analysis of dynamic systems, for example in fluid mechanical systems and chemical engineering descriptions of chemical kinetic processes.
E.g. http://faculty.washington.edu/markbenj/CEE483/MASS%20BALANCES.pdf
Examples 2.3 and 2.4
http://www.cee.mtu.edu/~reh/courses/ce251/251_notes_dir/node3.html
Other assumptions you have made are equally mistaken, and on the same basis of lacking insight into the mathematics governing the evolution of dynamic systems.
What is sadly lacking is your understanding of the fundamental physics and chemistry of dynamic systems.
Bart, I reformulate my question:
Do you have even one observation that shows that any or all natural CO2 cycles increased over the past 55 years, besides an arbitrary match of two straight slopes with an arbitrary offset and factor?
One arbitrary match doesn’t prove a theory. One mismatch would be enough to kill a theory. Your theory violates all known observations…
That’s like saying, do you have even one observation that shows that gravity pulls objects towards the ground, besides letting go of a brick and noting that falls to the ground?
Phil – take the time. Read what I have written. The “mass balance” argument, as proffered, is ridiculously bad.
Bart,
You are just evading the question:
The only way you can ignore the 4-fold increase in the atmosphere as not caused by the 4-fold increase of (twice the amount of) human emissions, is if the natural carbon cycle as a whole also was increasing a 4-fold.
In all other cases, there can’t be a 4-fold increase in the atmosphere, except for near zero increase in the natural cycles. That is the most elementary response of a linear feedback system.
If there is any appreciable increase in any natural cycle, that must be measurable in one or more observations. That none of the observations show a appreciable change simply shows that there is no such increase.
The additional downwelling of CO2 due to increased partial pressure. The greening of the planet. The increased weathering of minerals. The list is endless.
Were it not so, were nature not reactive to inputs, a balance would never have been achieved. That is how the universe works, David. Not by magic, but by physical principles, by cause and effect. Now, go away, and let serious people comment on serious matters.
Downwelling, greening and weathering all existed prior to anthropogenic inputs. Please name a sink that was stimulated into being”
…
PS Since you are talking about being “serious” has Salby found any employment, or is he still collecting unemployment compensation?
Just when I think you can’t say anything dumber, you go and say something dumberer. Have a good weekend Joel, or David, or whatever.
Can’t respond without a slur?
…
My condolences to you when you can’t reply better than a high school freshman.
Allan,
As Phil already said, nobody assumes that the sinks are “overloaded”. The saturation of the sinks (as is assumed in the Bern model of the IPCC) is only for the ocean surface, which is in very fast equilibrium with the atmosphere (~1 year), but due to ocean chemistry limited in uptake to about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.
The problem with the other main sinks: deep oceans and vegetation, is that the exchange is much slower than for the ocean surface.
Over the past 55 years, the sink rate changed quite linear with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: the increase in the atmosphere was about 25 ppmv above steady state (315 vs. 290 ppmv) for the ocean temperature. In 2013 we are at 110 ppmv above steady state. The net sink rate was 0.5 ppmv/year in 1960, 2.15 ppmv/year in 2013. Both give a half life time for the excess CO2 level of slightly over 50 years.
That means that the net sink rate, from all sinks on earth, react to the increased pressure quite linear but that the sink process is relative slow: slightly over 50 years e-fold time or a half life time of ~40 years.
That is too slow to remove any excess increase CO2 in the atmosphere (whatever its source) in short time.
Thus while not “saturated” in the strict sense of the word, the uptake rate of the sinks is not fast enough to remove the steady increasing human emissions within the same year or even years after the emissions.
That leaves us with the mass balance: if the sinks are simply too slow, there is no room for any extra addition from any other source, or the increase in the atmosphere would exceed the human emissions.
The only way, as Bart thinks, is that the sinks are extremely fast, but even then the “natural” emissions must increase in over the same time period in exact ratio with human emissions, that is a fourfold in the past 55 years, for which is not the slightest observation…
Whatever mathematical “possible” solution is invented, that must fulfill the same increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate as what is observed and it must match all other observations (mass balance, 13C/12C ratio, 14C decline, O2 balance, ocean pH, pCO2 and DIC). What I have seen until now is that all proposed alternatives violate one or more observations…
Phil – Instead of insulting Richard, who is highly intelligent and accomplished, consider this:
Important questions regarding your Mass Balance equation:
1. You apply it to a CO2 “mass” for the entire planet Earth, correct?
2. Within that “Earth mass” of CO2 there are innumerable “CO2 sub-masses” that have CO2 gradients between them, as evidenced in the atmosphere by the satellite data – that is, CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the planet, correct?
3. Furthermore, CO2 is a dynamic system, not a static system, and is always chasing equilibrium but never reaching it, correct?
4. IF in ANY or all of these CO2 sub-masses there are major CO2 sinks that are UNsaturated, the humanmade CO2 could be mostly captured and the current increase in atmospheric CO2 could be mostly natural.
5. There are significant counter-arguments and evidence that this is not only possible, but perhaps even probable. Those counter-arguments have never been adequately refuted, but have simply been shouted down in the bullying that has characterized this fractious debate since its onset decades ago.
I choose not to go into further detail because as I have said many times, I am an agnostic on the IPCC’s CO2 hypothesis based on the Mass Balance Argument, because I believe the satellite CO2 data will soon tell us much more about this subject, and I expect some significant surprises for the IPCC. Let’s wait and see…
The key point is that climate sensitivity to CO2 is miniscule, and the global warming crisis does NOT exist.
____________________________________________
Also, you forgot to include your predictive track record to establish your credibility, if you have one.
Mine is here:
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.
Regards to all, Allan
You can’t just claim agnosticism on the “mass balance” argument, because to proponents, it establishes unequivocally that the rise in CO2 is due to humans, and leaves no room for counterarguments.
So, you have to take a stand. The stand you are implicitly taking is that you do not believe it establishes what the proponents claim it does.
And, good for you. As I showed above, it is based on a complete non-sequitur. Nature being a “net sink”, by their definition, does not preclude it from being responsible for the rise.
Bart, don’t give up the fight! Growing up our family had the most wonderful little dog. Guess what her name was?
REGINA MARIA!!!
Gina tried that “teaching latin” thing, but gave up after a while. (she at last decided that i was too dumb to learn latin…)
For a little added clarity: What their doing with the mass balance argument is attaching the anthropogenic equilibrium sink to the nature source (which already has it’s own) just because that sink is “natural”. So they have the natural source with two sinks and the anthropogenic source with none…
Hi Bart,
Atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low. See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/14/matt-ridley-fossil-fuels-will-save-the-world-really/#comment-1883937
Whether the increase in atmospheric CO2 is mostly natural or mostly humanmade, it is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
The key issue is that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 at current concentrations is miniscule – too small to measure or to matter.
Also, I believe the answer will soon be clear when CO2 satellite data for several years becomes available.
That is why I can be an agnostic on this issue.
That doesn’t mean I have no opinions – but I’d like to have more data (and more time to study it).
Best, Allan
You don’t have to have an opinion on whether the CO2 rise is natural or artificial to reject the “mass balance” argument as a facile and erroneous argument, which has no bearing on the question of attribution.
Fac fortia et patere, Fonzie.
Allan,
Let me try to react on your questions about the mass balance:
1. The mass balance in discussion is for the atmosphere only. What goes in and out results in what remains.
2. There are a lot of exchanges at any moment of the day and night, over the seasons and over the years. Despite all those even huge exchanges (20% in and out over the seasons), in 95% of the atmosphere the CO2 levels are quite uniform all over the earth within +/- 2% of full scale, CO2 is well mixed.
The satellite looks specific for the sinks and sources in the 5% near-surface atmosphere.
3. Agreed, but that doesn’t make that a dynamic system is not subject to the same rules like Henry’s law as for a static system. That means that if the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is higher than the weighted average pCO2 in the oceans, CO2 is pushed into the oceans, not reverse.
4. Sorry, the observations show that only half the mass of what humans have added is absorbed over the past 55 years in linear ratio with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus all natural sources together are less than all natural sinks together. It is impossible for nature to be the main source of the increase with a relative slow response of the sinks as is observed.
5. There are no counter arguments I have heard of that don’t violate one or more observations. Human emissions fulfill all observations…
Phil – Instead of insulting Richard, who is highly intelligent and accomplished, consider this:
Yet to be determined, all we get when trying to discuss these matters with courtney are insults and abuse.
Important questions regarding your Mass Balance equation:
1. You apply it to a CO2 “mass” for the entire planet Earth, correct?
Yes that is the appropriate control volume
2. Within that “Earth mass” of CO2 there are innumerable “CO2 sub-masses” that have CO2 gradients between them, as evidenced in the atmosphere by the satellite data – that is, CO2 is NOT uniformly distributed across the planet, correct?
It is well mixed as indicated by the satellite data you refer to and mixed rapidly. See below:
https://www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2014/november/nasa-computer-model-provides-a-new-portrait-of-carbon-dioxide/#.VYSyR-sfcdI
3. Furthermore, CO2 is a dynamic system, not a static system, and is always chasing equilibrium but never reaching it, correct?
Which doesn’t preclude mass balance analysis, quite the contrary such analysis is routinely applied in reactor dynamic systems by chemical engineers.
4. IF in ANY or all of these CO2 sub-masses there are major CO2 sinks that are UNsaturated, the humanmade CO2 could be mostly captured and the current increase in atmospheric CO2 could be mostly natural.
Where are they then, they don’t show up on the satellite images?
5. There are significant counter-arguments and evidence that this is not only possible, but perhaps even probable. Those counter-arguments have never been adequately refuted, but have simply been shouted down in the bullying that has characterized this fractious debate since its onset decades ago.
On the contrary, the bullying and shouting down on this subject comes from the likes of courtney and bart, just look at some of the posts on this thread, Ferdinand patiently explains his points with no abuse, where is the equivalent from the other side?
To be clear, I have said (above) that Ferdinand is a gentleman and I have defended him on this thread.
Phil – I know you’re not a stupid guy, so stop covering your eyes and plugging your ears and acting… stupid. I showed in extensive detail above how this “mass balance” argument is a complete and total non-sequitur.
Such a pseudo-mass balance argument does not apply when there is a dynamic feedback involved. Merely having “nature” as a net sink is not sufficient to establish attribution, because a part of that natural sink activity is induced by the human activity, and that portion should thereby be moved to the artificial side of the ledger. We have
natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink([CO2],T) = natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_natSource([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_artSource([CO2],T)
So,
natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_natSource([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_artSource([CO2],T) is less than zero
which means
natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_natSource([CO2],T) is less than natSink_induced_by_artSource([CO2],T)
which means natSourceCO2([CO2],T) – natSink_induced_by_natSource([CO2],T) is quite easily positive, up to the level of natSink_induced_by_artSource([CO2],T).
If I have been abusive, I apologize. But, this fallacious argument is very widespread, and it is wrong on a very basic level, as is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of experience diagnosing and analyzing dynamic feedback systems.
Bart,
As you again are evading the question, here a repeat:
Either most of the increase is human or most of the increase is natural.
In the first case, as we think, most of the extra sinks is caused by the human emissions, past and momentary. No further discussion necessary.
In the second case, as you think, most of the extra sinks is caused by natural emissions, all of the past and most of the present.
In the second case, we have a net sink rate which is driven by the total increase in the atmosphere above dynamic equilibrium. That is currently 110 ppmv. The additional human contribution is about 4.5 ppmv. Thus the extra sink rate is about 4% of the 2.15 ppmv net sink in CO2. That is 0.09 ppmv. The rest of the 4.5 ppmv human emissions remains in the atmosphere. That is more than the observed increase for one year and repeated over the past 55 years, that is more than the observed increase over the full period.
Even if you assume that the increase in the atmosphere is simply following the temperature driven setpoint, thus 99% or so sinks in the same year as the total emissions are released, the human induced extra sink rate still is maximum 4% of the natural sink rate, less if the natural cycle increased over time.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225854148_The_influence_of_increased_temperature_and_carbon_dioxide_levels_on_the_benthicsea_ice_diatom_Navicula_directa
The Arctic Ocean plays a big part?
Just out of curiosity Ferdinand, what is your credible evidence that atmospheric CO2 was ~280ppm circa 1940, and NOT ~400ppm?
This is NOT an area I have studied, as you have, so I have NO opinion on this matter.
However, there is a large body of data that shows atmospheric CO2 readings of about 400ppm circa 1940, and I have yet to see any credible counter-arguments to refute that data.
I have seen lots of shouting-down of this data, but little or no credible evidence to refute it.
This is an honest question – please give it your best effort.
Regards, Allan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts
Allan ,I think this is one of the studies you are talking about.
To be even more clear Ferdinand, I sincerely hope that your hypo is correct.
As I said above, atmospheric CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low.
If you are correct, then humanity can, in theory, maintain atmospheric CO2 above dangerously low concentrations for a long time, perhaps even in perpetuity.
If CO2 is largely driven by natural causes including temperature, then one of the next major global cooling periods (ice ages) will be the end of carbon-based terrestrial life on Earth, and this will happen “in the blink of an eye” in geologic time.
As a member of this fascinating group of carbon-based terrestrial life forms, I feel that I have an obligation to encourage our survival on this beautiful blue-water planet, at least for a little while.
Best personal regards, Allan
Post script:
In 2002 I (we) predicted global cooling to commence by 2020-2030. I am now leaning towards 2020 or sooner. I expect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 to moderate as temperatures decline. How CO2 behaves will depend largely on the amount of cooling, of which I have no opinion at this time. Again, I hope to be wrong about this prediction – I can live with being wrong, much more than we all can live in even a slightly cooler world.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1959/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1900/scale:0.22/offset:0.10
Allan, if we extend the temperature data set back to the turn of the century, we see that carbon growth probably would have been steady going back from 1960 to 1940 at just less than 1 ppm per year. That would put co2 levels at about 300 ppm circa 1940. Going back even further growth would be even less. The beck co2 data shows a rise of about 10 ppm per year in the 1930s. That seems awfully steep… Note also that this may be an indicator that ice cores aren’t telling us the truth either.
Allan,
The main source of the “high” levels of CO2 with two peaks, one in the 19th and one in the 20th century around 1942 come from an enormous compilation of historical (over 90,000) data by the late Ernst Beck.
I had years of direct personal discussions with him. The problem is not (only) the individual accuracy of the historical measurements, the main problem is where was measured.
The accuracy of most chemical methods was relative good: +/- 10 ppmv was more or less standard. Just enough to have a hint of some increase over the decades, but not accurate enough to even see seasonal variability. Some methods were much worse (+/- 150 ppmv), as they were intended to measure CO2 in exhaled air (for health purposes…) which is no problem for 20,000-30,000 ppmv, but is a problem if you try to measure in ~300 ppmv air.
The main problem is in the place where was measured: many of the measurements were over land, in the fields, forests, long series in the middle of Paris and Philadelphia, for special agricultural purposes: over, in between and other leaves of growing crops, etc…
All these measurements don’s show you the values of CO2 of that time in the bulk (95%) of the atmosphere.
I have looked specifically to his compilation of the 1942 “peak”: 80 ppmv rise and drop in only 7 years time up and down. That is the equivalent of burning 30% of all land vegetation on earth and its regrowth, for which is not the slightest indication. Of the same for the oceans, which is only possible by a sudden acidification of the oceans, but then the drop in only 7 years still is unexplainable.
My findings: Beck lumped all findings together, without any quality control for place and equipment: the good, the bad and the ugly. After a lot of discussion, he dropped the ugly ones, but still the bad data dominate the 1942 “peak”.
There are two long series which make most of the 1942 “peak”: Poona (India) and Giessen (Germany). Poona was the agricultural station as described above. Giessen is more interesting: semi-rural, then and today and quite nice detail, it has a modern station that collects and measures CO2 (and other gases) every half our. Here some data from the modern station during summer days with inversion, compared to Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole, all raw data, including any outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
The historical measurements were three times a day, where two were at the flanks of the down and up going diurnal CO2 levels. That alone gives already a positive bias of ~40 ppmv from the sampling alone. Add to the sampling bias that the modern station in average shows a +40 ppmv bias compared to background.
The variability in the historical data of Giessen was 68 ppmv (1 sigma). Of the modern station ~30 ppmv and of Mauna Loa ~7 ppmv, the latter even including the seasonal swings…
Thus forget the “high” CO2 levels from Beck’s compilation, they are based on data from stations which are complete unreliable for “background” CO2 measurements and the “peak” is not visible in any other direct measurements (ice cores) or proxies (stomata data and coralline sponges). Moreover, data taken at better places: over the oceans and coastal with wind from the sea all are around the ice core data…
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/25/beck-on-co2-oceans-are-the-dominant-co2-store/
Here is the alternative data being swept under the rug.
With all the temperature adjustments constantly going on in the climate arena to promote AGW theory, I think the validity of CO2 concentration changes has to be questioned.
Salvatore,
The temperature adjustments for any station are necessary, because of changes in equipment, station siting, hour of sampling, surrounding urbanization, etc. But I agree, some organizations like recently NOAA profit from that situation to give a “push” to the trend.
In the case of CO2 measurements, the data are near the same from near the North Pole (Alert, Barrow) to the South Pole and are measured in the best circumstances with rigorous quality control. While NOAA has the overall responsibility (delivering the calibration mixtures), other organizations still use their own sampling (like Scripps at Mauna Loa) and calibrations. In general, that doesn’t differ more than 0.2 ppmv with the “official” figures.
See for the procedures:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
You have to be a fool to believe temperature adjustments as has been done by NOAA are necessary. They have been done for one reason and that is to further AGW theory.
I look at all of the data which is not agenda driven such as the U.S.A pristine temperature data which was put into operation in year 2008, satellite data, radiosonde data, companies like Weatherbell Inc., whose data shows a completely different story then NOAA’S data.
As far as CO2 data, given the agenda driven environment which is present I am suspect of the data that is being provided on CO2 concentrations. I think we need another independent source of measurements probably the way it was done in the past to see how close the results would be.
You say NOAA has the overall responsibility and that my friend is the problem. NOAA is proving to be manipulative and not responsible in the least when it comes to global temperatures so who is to say they are not using the same tactics with other data.
Salvatore,
The people which lead NOAA for the CO2 data are not the same which are responsible for the temperature data. The Scripps institute with Keeling Sr. was responsible for the calibration of all CO2 equipment in the world until about a decade ago. That was given to NOAA by the WMO. But still Scripps maintains its own sampling and calibration. As they were not very happy with the loss of their privilege, I am pretty sure they would give NOAA a bad day if they made up some data…
Besides that, also the Japanese have their own calibration sets and stations.
In this case it would be very difficult for NOAA to manipulate the CO2 trends. Pieter Tans of NOAA, responsible for the CO2 data at Mauna Loa is very open about what happens behind the scene:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
After simple request I received several days of 10-second raw voltage data from the Mauna Loa measurements, so that I could recalculate the methods used at Mauna Loa and what was stored in the database.
Thank you Ferdinand for your comments – I shall read your references later.
Small but interesting points:
Modern atmospheric CO2 data collection at Mauna Loa started in ~1958.
Annualized Mauna Loa dCO2/dt has “gone negative” a few times in the past (calculating dCO2/dt from monthly data, by taking CO2MonthX (year n+1) minus CO2MonthX (year n) to minimize the seasonal CO2 “sawtooth”.)
These 12-month periods when CO2 decreased are (Year and Month ending in):
1959-8
1963-9
1964-5
1965-1
1965-5
1965-6
1971-4
1974-6
1974-8
1974-9
Note especially 1974 – both Time and Newsweek had major stories on the global cooling threat circa 1975.
Allan,
One can’t give much weight to monthly data, as human emissions are only known for yearly averages. Even so, if there were years where the sinks were larger than the human input, that is natural variability which doesn’t change the average increase over the years of around half the human emissions in the past 55 years…
Thank you Ferdinand,
In a similar vein, perhaps we should not give much weight to the absolute (vs. relative) accuracy of ANY CO2 data prior to 1958.
All such claims of certainty require discarding the vast majority of the data – and then citing the rest.
🙂
After several decades of global warming that ended with the hot “dust bowl” years of the 1930’s in mid-USA, global cooling occurred from ~1940 to ~1975. As soon as people started to panic about global cooling, global warming resumed until ~2000. As soon as people started to panic about global warming, it stopped, and global temperature have remained essentially flat ever since.
So ladies and germs, it is absolutely clear that humanity controls the climate – every time we panic about global warming or global cooling, the temperature trend reverses. Atmospheric CO2 cannot be the cause of these changes, because according to all the data, fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 have been increasing for the past 150-200 years and temperature has gone up, down, up and sideways.
So clearly it must be the collective consciousness of humanity that is causing these global temperature swings – proof positive of a collective “Gaia Consciousness” that connects us all in a cerebral iCloud, a manifestation of “The Force” that is always with us…
[For the `30% of humanity that instinctively believes this sort of thing , and votes for the likes of Obama and young Trudeau, please note that I’M KIDDING!”] 🙂
Yours in Gaia Consciousness, Allan
Post Script:
All my future posts will be made via the cerebral iCloud – if you cannot read them, just close your eyes and try harder to log in.
Allan, I am interested in what your opinion is on what I have presented below. Do you think the old way of measuring CO2 should be brought back into play to see how it compares to the modern results? Do you think we need just some other independent results in general? THANKS.
In 1958 the modern NDIR spectroscopic method was introduced to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere [Beck 2007]. In the preceding period, these measurements were taken with the old wet chemical method. From this period, starting from 1857, more than 90,000 reliable CO2 measurements are available, with an accuracy within ± 3 %. They had been taken near ground level, sea surface and as high as the stratosphere, mostly in the northern hemisphere. Comparison of these measurements on the basis of old wet chemical methods with the new physical method (NDIR) on sea and land reveals a systematic analysis difference of about minus 10 ppm.
Salvatore,
The first point that Keeling Sr. did when searching for much better CO2 measurements is to make a calibration instrument that was much more accurate than anything available at that moment. He did make an instrument (he was a glassblower himself) based on a gravimetric method accurate to 1:40,000, which could be used to calibrate any other old and new equipment and to calibrate the necessary calibration gas mixtures.
That instrument was in use at Scripps for near five decades and only recently moved to the museum.
The difference between the methods: old chemical: accuracy +/- 10 ppmv (= +/- 3% full scale!), frequently calibrated NDIR +/- 0.2 ppmv. How can one say that there is a systematic difference between the two methods if one of them even hasn’t that accuracy?
And take the reliability of a lot of the historical measurements with a thick grain of salt: not (only) the equipment, the maintenance of the chemicals, the calibration, the skill of the operator or the methods themselves (within their accuracy) but the places where was measured: levels of 400 ppmv in one place and 250 ppmv in the same year at the other side of the globe. 300 ppmv near ground level and 450 ppmv in the high troposphere?
BTW, if you want to do your own measurements when visiting Hawaii (or the South Pole), there are modern hand-held CO2 (NDIR) monitors available for a few hundred euro’s with a reasonable repeatability. One need only to calibrate them with some known mixture…
Ferdinand, i think it’s worth pointing out that the beck data is inconsistent with allan’s own theory (that temps drive carbon growth). In the 1940’s after the peak, temps were still higher than in the 1930’s and yet co2 levels dropped. We’ve seen temperature drops recently (pinatubo…) that showed positive co2 growth, but at a slower rate; no actual drop in co2 levels…
Allan, thanx so much for your guest post here at wuwt… It seems that bart has ‘gone home’. Since he’s usually the life of the party, it may well mean the party’s over on this one. You did mention that your theory, after much travail, is now accepted science. Would you care to elaborate on that? (will we be seeing the ipcc embracing this any time soon?) Again, thanks so much, it was a personal thrill to read this one. And Salvatore, thanx again for pointing this post out over at the spencer blog…
Oh, and by the way… I represent being called a ‘germ’!
Don’t you mean “resent” there, fonz?
Hi Fonz,
I don’t use the term “settled science” – that is Al Gore’s department – and he and his IPCC friends have a negative predictive track record – the only thing that is truly settled is that every scary scenario the IPCC and Gore predicted has been a false alarm.
I suggest that the following concepts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. The rate of change (velocity) dCO2/dt is correlated ~contemporaneously with temperature and (as a result its integral) atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months in the modern data record.
2. CO2 also lags temperature in the ice core record by ~~800 years on a longer time scale.
3. CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
This does NOT mean that recent temperature changes are the only drivers of atmospheric CO2 – other drivers of CO2 could include humanmade sources such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. and natural sources such as increased biological activity, upwelling of deep CO2-laden ocean currents, etc., BUT the impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2 on Earth’s temperature are miniscule – too small to be measured or to matter – and increasing atmospheric CO2 is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Your next question is if the IPCC accepts the above statements.
Well I believe most competent scientists accept point 1, but the warmists suggest that point 1 is a “feedback effect” – which I suggest is a “cargo cult” argument embraced by those who have too much invested in global warming dogma.
I think most competent scientists accept point 2, but Gore did misrepresent this fact in his film, so he is (at best) mistaken.
I doubt the IPCC or Gore would embrace point 3 or point 4 – for the same reason as the point 1 – their excess affinity for the multi-trillion dollar global warming cargo cult.
How will this false global warming crisis finally end?
IF natural global cooling materializes (as I expect it will within a decade or less), warmists will be utterly discredited among those who are scientifically competent.
The scientifically illiterate will perhaps be deceived by warmist arguments such as “warming really means cooling” and so on.
If the Pause in global temperatures continues or IF global warming resumes, then global warming mania could last for many more decades.
One possibility is that better CO2 satellite data will show the location and magnitude of CO2 sources and sinks, and could lead to a very different understanding of what is really driving atmospheric CO2.
Just a few thoughts.
Happy Fathers’ Day to all the hardworking dads out there.
Best, Allan
Allan ii agree with your summary and conclusions 100%. Well done.
I am of the strong opinion that the global trend in temperature from this point on is down.
Thank you Salvatore for all your comments.
Best regards, Allan