About spurious correlations and causation of the CO2 increase…

Guest essay by Ferdinand Engelbeen

Both Bart Bartemis and Dr. Murray Salby are confident that temperature is the only/main cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that human emissions are to blame. With this contribution I hope to give a definitive answer…

1. Introduction.

Some of you may remember the lively discussions of already 5 years ago about the reasons why I am pretty sure that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the past 57 years (direct atmospheric measurements) and 165 years (ice cores and proxies) is manmade. That did provoke hundreds of reactions from a lot of people pro and anti.

Since then I have made a comprehensive overview of all the points made in that series of discussions at:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

There still is one unresolved recurring discussion between mainly Bart/Bartemis and me about one – and only one – alternative natural explanation: if the natural carbon cycle is extremely huge and the sinks are extremely fast, it is -theoretically- possible that the natural cycle dwarfs the human input. That is only possible if the natural cycle increased a fourfold in the same time frame as human emissions (for which is not the slightest indication) and it violates about all known observations. Nevertheless, Bart’s (and Dr. Salby’s) reasoning is based on a remarkable correlation between temperature variability and the CO2 rate of change variability with similar slopes:

clip_image002

Capture: Fig.1: Bart’s combination of T and dCO2/dt from WoodForTrees.org

Source: http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2-long.jpg_zpsszsfkb5h.png

Bart (and Dr. Salby) thinks that the match between variability and slopes (thanks to an arbitrary factor and offset) proves beyond doubt that temperature causes both the variability and slope of the CO2 rate of change. The following will show that variability and slope have nothing in common and temperature is not the cause of the slope in the CO2 rate of change.

2. The theory.

2.1 Transient response of CO2 to a step change in temperature.

To make it clear we need to show what happens with CO2 if one varies temperature in different ways. CO2 fluxes react immediately on a temperature change, but the reaction on CO2 levels needs time, no matter if that is by rotting vegetation or the ocean surfaces. Moreover, increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduce the CO2 pressure difference between ocean surface and the atmosphere, thereby reducing the average in/out flux, until a certain CO2 level in the atmosphere is reached where in and out fluxes again are equal.

In algebraic form:

dCO2/dt = k2*(k*(T-T0) – ΔpCO2)

Where T0 is the temperature at the start of the change and ΔpCO2 the change in CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere since the start of the temperature change, where pCO2(atm) was in equilibrium with pCO2(aq) at T0. The transient response in rate of change is directly proportional to the CO2 pressure difference between the pCO2 change in water (caused by a change in temperature) and the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.

When the new equilibrium is reached, dCO2/dt = 0 and:

k*(T-T0) = ΔpCO2

Where k = ~16 ppmv/°C which is the value that Henry’s law gives for the equilibrium between seawater and the atmosphere.

In the next plot we assume the response is from vegetation, mainly in the tropics, as that is a short living response as will be clear from measurements in the real world in chapter 3:

clip_image004

Caption: Fig. 2: Response of bio-CO2 on a step change of temperature

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_step.jpg

As one can see, a step response in temperature gives an initial peak in dCO2/dt rate of change which goes back to zero when CO2 is again in equilibrium with temperature. That equilibrium can be static (for an open bottle of Coke) or dynamic (for the oceans). In the latter case one speaks of a “steady state” equilibrium or a “dynamic equilibrium”: still huge exchanges are going on, but the net result is that no CO2 changes are measurable in the atmosphere, as the incoming CO2 fluxes equal the outgoing CO2 fluxes.

Taking into account Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater, any in/decrease of 1°C has the same effect if you take a closed sample of seawater and let it equilibrate with the above air (static) or have the same in/decrease in (weighted) average global ocean temperature with global air at steady state (dynamic): about 16 ppmv/°C.

2.2 Transient response of CO2 to an increasing temperature trend.

If the temperature has a slope, CO2 will follow the slope with some delay.

clip_image006

Caption: Fig. 3: Response of bio-CO2 on a continuous increase of temperature

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_slope.jpg

A continuous increase of temperature will induce a continuous increase of CO2 with an increasing dCO2/dt until both increases parallel each other and dCO2/dt remains constant. This ends when the “fuel” (like vegetation debris) gets exhausted or the temperature slope ends. In fact, this type of reaction is more applicable to the oceans than on vegetation, but this all is more about the form of the reaction than what causes it…

A typical example is the warming from the depth of a glacial period to an interglacial: it takes about 5,000 years to reach the new maximum temperature and CO2 lags the temperature increase with some 800 +/- 600 years.

2.3 Transient response of CO2 to a sinusoid.

Many changes in nature are random up and down, besides step changes and slopes. Let’s first see what happens if the temperature changes with a nice sinus change (a sinusoid):

clip_image008

Caption: Fig. 4: Response of bio-CO2 on a continuous sinusoidal change in temperature

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_sin.jpg

It can be mathematically explained that the lag of the CO2 response is maximum pi/2 or 90° after a sinusoidal temperature change [1]. Another mathematical law is that by taking the derivatives, one shifts the sinusoid forms 90° back in time. The remarkable result in that case is that changes in T synchronize with changes in dCO2/dt, that will be clear if we plot T and dCO2/dt together in next item.

2.4 Transient response of CO2 to a double sinusoid.

To make the temperature changes and their result on CO2 changes a little more realistic, we show here the result of a double sinusoid for sinusoids with different periods. After all natural changes are not that smooth…:

clip_image010

Caption: Fig. 5: Response of bio-CO2 on a continuous double sinusoidal change in temperature

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_2sin.jpg

As one can see, the change in CO2 still follows the same form of the double sinusoid in temperature with a lag. Plotting temperature and dCO2/dt together shows a near 100% fit without lag, which implies that T changes directly cause immediate dCO2/dt changes, but that still says nothing about any influence on a trend. In fact still T changes lead CO2 changes and dT/dt changes lead dCO2/dt changes, but that will be clear in next plot…

2.4 Transient response of CO2 to a double sinusoid plus a slope.

Now we are getting even more realistic, not only we introduced a lot of variability, we also have added a slight linear increase in temperature. The influence of the latter is not on CO2 from the biosphere (that is an increasing sink with temperature over longer term), but from the oceans with its own amplitude:

clip_image012

Caption: Fig. 6: Response of Natural CO2 on a continuous double sinusoidal plus slope change in temperature

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_2sin_slope.jpg

As one can see, again CO2 follows temperature as well for the sinusoids as for the slope. So does dCO2/dt with a lag after dT/dt, but with a zero slope, as the derivative of a linear trend is a flat line with only some offset from zero.

This proves that the trend in T is not the cause of any trend in dCO2/dt, as the latter is a flat line without a slope. No arbitrary factor can match these two lines, except (near) zero for the temperature trend to match the dCO2/dt trend, but then you erase the amplitudes of the variability…

Thus while the variability in temperature matches the variability in CO2 rate of change, there is no influence at all from the slope in temperature on the slope in CO2 rate of change.

Conclusion: A linear increase in temperature doesn’t introduce a slope in the CO2 rate of change at any level.

2.4 Transient response of CO2 to a double sinusoid, a slope and emissions.

All previous plots were about the effect of temperature on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Volcanoes and human emissions are additions which are independent of temperature and introduce an extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above the temperature dictated dynamic equilibrium. That has its own decay rate. If that is slow enough, CO2 builds up above the equilibrium and if the increase is slightly quadratic, as the human emissions are, that introduces a linear slope in the derivatives.

clip_image014

Caption: Fig. 7: Response of CO2 on a continuous double sinusoidal + slope change in temperature + emissions

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/trans_2sin_slope_em.jpg

Several important points to be noticed:

– The variability of CO2 in the atmosphere still lags the temperature changes, no matter if taken alone or together with the result of the emissions. No distortion of amplitudes or lag times. Only simple addition of independent results of temperature and emissions.

– The slope of the natural CO2 rate of change still is zero.

– The relative amplitude of the variability is a small factor compared to the huge effect of the emissions.

– The slope and variability of temperature and CO2 rate of change is a near perfect match, despite the fact that the slope is entirely from the slightly quadratic increase of the emissions and the effect of temperature on the slope of the CO2 rate of change is zero

Conclusion: The “match” between the slopes in temperature and CO2 rate of change is entirely spurious.

 

3. The real world.

3.1 The variability.

Most of the variability in CO2 rate of change is a response of (tropical) vegetation on (ocean) temperatures, mainly the Amazon. That it is from vegetation is easily distinguished from the ocean influences, as a change in CO2 releases from the oceans gives a small increase in 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) in atmospheric CO2, while a similar change of CO2 release from vegetation gives a huge, opposite change in δ13C. Here for the period 1991-2012 (regular δ13C measurements at Mauna Loa and other stations started later than CO2 measurements):

clip_image016

Caption: Fig. 8: 12 month averaged derivatives from temperature and CO2/ δ13C measurements at Mauna Loa [9].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg

Almost all the year by year variability in CO2 rate of change is a response of (tropical) vegetation on the variability of temperature (and rain patterns). That levels off in 1-3 years either by lack of fuel (organic debris) or by an opposite temperature/moisture change [2]. Over periods longer than 3 years, it is proven from the oxygen balance that the overall biosphere is a net, increasing sink of CO2, the earth is greening [3], [4].

Not only is the net effect of the biological CO2 rate of change completely flat as result of a linear increasing temperature, it is even slightly negative in offset…

The oceans show a CO2 increase in ratio to the temperature increase: per Henry’s law about 16 ppmv/°C. That means that the ~0.6°C increase over the past 57 years is good for ~10 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere that is a flat line with an offset of 0.18 ppmv/year or 0.015 ppmv/month in the above graph.

There is a non-linear component in the ocean surface equilibrium with the atmosphere for a temperature increase, but that gives not more than a 3% error on a change of 1°C at the end of the flat trend or a maximum “trend” of 0.00045 ppmv/month after 57 years. That is the only “slope” you get from the influence of temperature on CO2 levels. Almost all of the slope in CO2 rate of change is from the emissions…

3.2 The slopes.

Human emissions show a slightly quadratic increase over the past 115 years. In the early days more guessed than calculated, in recent decades more and more accurate, based on standardized inventories of fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency. Maybe more underestimated than overestimated, because of the human nature to avoid paying taxes, but rather accurate +/- 0.5 GtC/year or +/- 0.25 ppmv/year.

The increase in the atmosphere was measured in ice cores with an accuracy of 0.12 ppmv (1 sigma) and a resolution (smoothing) of less than a decade over the period 1850-1980 (Law Dome DE-08 cores). CO2 measurements in the atmosphere are better than 0.1 ppmv since 1958 and there is a ~20 year overlap (1960 – 1980) between the ice cores and the atmospheric measurements at Mauna Loa. That gives the following graph for the temperature – emissions – increase in the atmosphere:

clip_image018

Caption: Fig. 9: Temperature, CO2 emissions and increase in the atmosphere [9].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg

While the variability in temperature is high, that is hardly visible in the CO2 variability around the trend, as the amplitudes are not more than 4-5 ppmv/°C (maximum +/- 1 ppmv) around the trend of more than 90 ppmv. To give a better impression, here a plot of the effect of temperature on the CO2 variability in the period 1990-2002, where two large temperature and CO2 changes can be noticed: the 1991/2 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 super El Niño:

clip_image020

Caption: Fig. 10: Influence of temperature variability on CO2 variability around the CO2 trend [9].

Source: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1990/to:2002/mean:12/scale:5/offset:360/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/to:2002/mean:12

It is easy to recognize the 90° lag after temperature changes, but the influence of temperature on the variability is small, here calculated with 4 ppmv/°C. For the trend, the CO2 increase caused by the 0.2°C ocean surface temperature increase in that period is around 3 ppmv of the 17 ppmv measured…

3.3 The response to temperature variability and human emissions:

With the theoretical transient response of CO2 to temperature in mind, we can calculate the response of vegetation and oceans to the increased temperature and its variability:

clip_image022

Caption: Fig. 11: Transient response of bio and ocean CO2 to temperature [9][11].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_nat.jpg

The bio-response to temperature changes is very fast and zeroes out after a few years [6], the response to the temperature amplitude is about 4-5 ppmv/°C, based on the response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño.

The response of the ocean surface is slower, but stronger in effect. The 16 ppmv /°C is based on the long-term response in ice cores and Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in ocean waters (4-17 ppmv /°C in the literature).

In reality, both oceans and the biosphere are net sinks for CO2, due to the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and the biosphere also a net sink due to increased temperature on periods of more than 3 years. That is not taken into account here, but is used in the calculation of the net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere with the introduction of human emissions.

If we introduce human emissions , that gives a quite different picture of the relative dimensions involved:

clip_image024

Caption: Fig. 12: Human emissions + calculated and measured CO2 increase + transient response of bio and ocean CO2 to temperature [9][11].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_emiss.jpg

The influence of temperature both in variability and increase rate is minimal, compared to the effect of human emissions, based on the transient response of oceans and biosphere and the calculated decay rate of human emissions.

The long tau (e-fold decay rate) of human emissions is based on the calculated sink rate (human emissions – increase in the atmosphere) and the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above dynamic equilibrium (“steady state”), which is ~290 ppmv for the current weighted average ocean surface temperature. That is thus ~110 ppmv above steady state and that gives ~2.15 ppmv net sink rate per year. For a linear response, the e-fold decay rate can be calculated:

disturbance / response = decay rate

or for 2012:

110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years or 614 months.

That the sink process is quite linear can be seen in the similar calculation by Peter Dietze with the figures of 27 years ago [12]:

1988: 60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, 53 years

Or from earliest accurate CO2 measurements:

1959: 25 ppmv, 0.5 ppmv/year, 50 years

Conclusion: Within the accuracy of the CO2 emission  inventories and the natural variability, the decay rate of any extra CO2 above the dynamic equilibrium (whatever the cause) behaves like a linear process…

3.4 The derivatives.

What does that show in the derivatives? First the transient response of the biosphere and oceans to temperature variability:

clip_image026

Caption: Fig. 13: RSS temperature compared to CO2 increase and transient response of natural CO2 (biosphere+oceans) rate of change [9][11].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_nat_deriv.jpg

It seems that the amplitude of the natural variability is overblown, but for the rest both the temperature and the transient response of CO2 are equally synchronized with the observed CO2 rate of change with hardly any slope in the transient response. Thus while all the variability is from the transient response, there is hardly any contribution of oceans or biosphere to the slope in CO2 rate of change.

The overdone amplitude of the natural variability may be a matter of CO2/temperature ratio or a too short transient response time, but that is not that important. The form and timing are the important parts.

Now we can add human emissions into the rate of change:

clip_image028

Fig. 14: RSS temperature compared to CO2 increase and transient response of natural CO2 + emissions rate of change [9][11].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_emiss_deriv.jpg

For an exact match of the slopes of RSS temperature and CO2 rate of change one need to multiply the temperature curve with a factor and add an offset. The match of the slopes of the observed CO2 rate of change and the calculated rate of change from the emissions plus the small slope of the natural transient response needed no offset at all: it was a perfect match. Only the amplitude of the variability was reduced, but that has no effect on the small natural CO2 rate of change slope.

As can be seen in that graph, both temperature rate of change and CO2 rate of change from humans + natural transient response show the same variability in timing and form. That is clear if we enlarge the graph for the period 1987-2002, encompassing the largest temperature changes of the whole period:

clip_image030

Fig. 15: RSS temperature compared to CO2 increase and transient response of natural CO2 + emissions rate of change in the period 1987-2002 [9][11].

Source: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/rss_co2_emiss_deriv_1987-2002.jpg

As is very clear in this graph, there is an exact match in timing and form between temperature and the transient response of the CO2 rate of change, as was the case in the theoretical calculations. Where there is a discrepancy between the observed and calculated rates of change of CO2 , temperature shows the same discrepancy, like the 1991 Pinatubo eruption which increased photosynthesis by scattering incoming sunlight.

Conclusion: it is entirely possible to match the slopes and variability by temperature only or by the effect of human emissions + natural variability.

4. Conclusion.

Which of the two possible solutions is right is quite easy to know, by looking which of the two matches the observations.

The straight forward result:

– The temperature-only match violates all known observations, not at least Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater, the oxygen balance – the greening of the earth, the 13C/12C ratio, the 14C decline,… Together with the lack of a slope in the derivatives for a transient response from oceans and vegetation to a linear increase in temperature.

– The emissions + natural variability matches all observations. See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

Most of the variability in the rate of change of CO2 is caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation. While the influence on the rate of change seems huge, the net effect is not more than about +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend and zeroes out after 1-3 years.

Most of the slope in the rate of change of CO2 is caused by human emissions. That is about 110 ppmv from the 120 ppmv over the full 165 years (about 70 from the 80 ppmv over the past 57 years). The remainder is from warming oceans which changes CO2 in the atmosphere with about 16 ppmv/°C, per Henry’s law, no matter if the exchanges are static or dynamic.

Yearly human emissions quadrupled from over 1 ppmv/year in 1958 to 4.5 ppmv/year in 2013. The same quadrupling happened in the increase rate of the atmospheric CO2 (at average around 50% of human emissions) and in the difference, the net sink rate.

There is not the slightest indication in any direct measurements or proxy that the natural carbon cycle or any part thereof increased to give a similar fourfold increase in exactly the same time span, which was capable to dwarf human emissions…

Conclusion: Most of the CO2 increase is caused by human emissions. Most of the variability is natural variability. The match between temperature and CO2 rate of change is entirely spurious.

5. References.

[1] Why the CO2 increase is man made (part 1)

[2] Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 2)

[3] Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 3)

[4] Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 4).

[5] http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/21/diary-date-murry-salby.html?currentPage=2#comments

Fourth comment by Paul_K, and further on in that discussion, gives a nice overview of the effect of a transient response of CO2 to temperature. Ignore the warning about the “dangerous” website if you open the referenced image.

[6] Lecture of Pieter Tans at the festivities of 50 years of Mauna Loa measurements, from slide 11 on:

http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

[7] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short full text free after registration.

[8] http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

[9] temperature trend of HadCRUT4 and CO2 trend and derivatives from Wood for trees.

CO2 and δ13C trends from the carbon tracker of NOAA: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/

CO2 emissions until 2008 from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

CO2 emissions from 2009 on from: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8

[10] The spreadsheet can be downloaded from: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/CO2_lags.xlsx

[11] The spreadsheet can be downloaded from:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/RSS_Had_transient_response.xlsx

[12] http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Leo Smith

a change in CO2 releases from the oceans gives a small increase in 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) in atmospheric CO2, while a similar change of CO2 release from vegetation gives a huge, opposite change in δ13C.
Please explain why this is so.
I would have thought that recently ‘fixed’ organic Carbon would be rather derived from new atmospheric CO2 which is fairly rich in C13,. whereas any old sinks that are now realsesiong it – like fossil or the sea, would be low in C13.
It sees to me you have this exactly the wrong way around.

Leo Smith,
Inorganic carbon has a 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) level around zero per mil. That is the case for the oceans, where the deep oceans are around 0-1 per mil, the oceans surface at 1-5 per mil, due to organics dropping out of the surface into the deep. That is also the case for most carbonate deposits all over the world and most volcanic emissions.
Organic carbon has (much) lower ratios: C4 plants around -10 per mil, C3 plants -24 per mil, coal (mostly from C3 plants) – 24 per mil, oil a whole range around -25 per mil and natural gas at -40 per mil and (far) below…
The atmosphere was at average -6.4 per mil over the whole Holocene, mainly due to the fractionation that happens at the water-air border (-10 per mil) and the opposite fractionation at the air-water border (+2 per mil), average -8 per mil coming from the surface waters which are 1-5 per mil. The -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil in the atmosphere is largely due to this cycle.
The biosphere is rather δ13C neutral, depending of the balance between uptake and decay/feed/food. Currently it is slightly more sink than source, thus using relative more 12CO2 and thus increasing the δ13C level in the atmosphere, but over periods of longer than 3 years.
Due to human emissions, the atmospheric δ13C level dropped from about -6.4 per mil to below -8 per mil since ~1850, as can be measured in ice cores, firn and direct measurements. The same change can be seen in the ocean surface in coralline sponges, which incorporate bicarbonates of the surrounding waters without changing the δ13C level:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
On short term, any release of CO2 from the biosphere would give a firm decrease of atmospheric δ13C (-24 vs. -8 per mil), while the same amount of CO2 from the oceans would give a small increase in δ13C (-6.4 vs. -8 per mil)…
Thus if you see opposite changes of CO2 and δ13C, you can be sure it is from vegetation (or of course humans), if you see a small parallel change, it is mainly form the oceans…

Joseph Murphy

With CO2 being a well mixed gas, a new source of CO2 at a different C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere will affect the overall ratio of the atmosphere. That is not evidence for that new source affecting the net balance of overall CO2 in the atmosphere but it is certainly not inconsistent with it either. Haven’t had a chance to fully read your post but, I am looking forward to it. Thank you!

Ferdinand
Very interesting. Adding large amounts of emissions means partial pressure dominates and Henry’s law does not contribute. Conversely don’t add a lot and variation in temperature can be caught by variation in CO2.
Even if volcanoes add in some 600 Mt per year (as recent estimates have shown) the residence time of CO2 means that the resulting ppm in the atmosphere saturated a long time ago.
So in saying that your graph of d13 is very interesting. Before large scale emissions it appears to show a variation of 10 ppmv of the centuries (I’m using 0.0035 to 0.00362 as an eyeball estimate). This translates to just over 0.5 degrees C.
From 1850 to now we have 120 ppm more yet temperatures have varied by 0.6 or so.
10 ppmv versus 120ppmv yet with similar magnitude effect. And that’s not even accounting for temperature adjustments.
Very interesting and a great post.

halftiderock

“With CO2 being a well mixed gas, a new source of CO2 at a different C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere will affect the overall ratio of the atmosphere.”
NASA CO2 Satellite data released last December sure makes the assertion of well mixed gas questionable. It also brings into question a host of other assertions about relative natural contribution and residency based upon the assertion of the calculable anthropogenic contribution as the direct cause of increasing CO2 levels.
Think the operative assertions should be reexamined because of this recent information that estimates of volcanic contributions are hugely underestimated.

I wonder if NOAA will have to fix previous co2 levels. They got big problems with this leg of global warming mantra.

Of which mil do you refer? If that is short for “million” then ppm or ppmv is a better way to express yourself. OTOH if mil refers to “milli” you should use something else.

halftiderock,
Averaged over a year, the differences between Barrow near the North Pole and the South Pole are less than 5 ppmv, despite that some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 from other reservoirs over the seasons. Seems very good mixed to me.
The remaining difference is mostly due to the NH-SH lag and the cause: 90% of the emissions are in the NH…
M Simon,
Per mil is generally used for the 13C/12C ratio compared to a standard ratio, thus not directly 1/1000th of any direct measuring unit. Per mille or per thousand maybe better, but nobody uses that…
Formula for the ratio expressed as δ13C:

           (13C/12C)sampled – (13C/12C)standard
δ13C   =  ----------------------------------------  x 1.000
               (13C/12C)standard 

Vegetation does not passively use the atmospheric isotope ratio. It actively filters, selectively absorbing 12C and leaving 13C in the atmosphere.

I have read in several articles that the amount of 12C and 13C taken in by plants varies with the type of plant yet I see this assumption over and over again that 13C is not affected by plants.
There are lots of articles. 13C is NOT left in the atmosphere. There may be preferential absorption of 12C but the preference varies considerably. Just search it and you will find hundreds of articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC366516/

There is definitely considerable variation in 12C preference between individual species of plants, and between metabolic classifications of plants, C3, C4, CAM; but they all filter or fractionate to some degree, both during photosynthesis when they are absorbing C and during their respiration when they preferentially exhaust 13C.
Not only plants…

seaice1

“whereas any old sinks that are now realsesiong it – like fossil or the sea, would be low in C13.”
Are you sure you are not mixing C13 (a stable isotope) with C14 (a radioactive isotope)? C14 decays in material that is no longer exchanging C with the atmosphere.

Leo Smith

oops. you are of course correct!
No wonder it sounded back to front.

Julian Flood

Leo,
(I’ve seen your correction below…)
Ferdinand does not allow for the sheer power and scale of biology, nor for the ways in which we can alter absorbtion by the biosphere. As for correlation = causation…
Oceanic oil and surfactant pollution (look as an intriguing example at the oil discharge from the Mississippi river just from road run-off) will correlate with oil use which will roughly correlate with fossil fuel use. The Haber process will correlate with industrialisation which will correlate with fossil fuel. So will dissolved silica pollution as farming powered by fossil fuel increases run-off — industrial farming will correlate….
More oil and surfactant pollution: smoother seas, smaller breaking waves, fewer salt CCNs, less cloud, more warming; smooth surface, lower sea albedo,more warming; smaller waves, less mixing, starved phytoplankton, less DMS, fewer CCNs, lower pull-down of CO2, more warming; more dissolved silica, longer domination of spring bloom by diatoms, less pull down, fewer CCNs, more warming; no idea what excess fixed nitrogen run-off is doing.
Starved calcareous phytos can change to C4 metabolism which is less discriminatory against C13, or C4 populations can replace obligate C3 forms, so export to deep water of organic matter will contain relatively more C13. Diatoms use a C4-like system for fixing carbon dioxide. Relatively greater C13 pull-down will leave a light C signal in the atmosphere. Reduced pull down will leave more CO2 in the atmosphere.
My bet is a combination of increased human output and damaged sinks, but emissions should be a minor player — our damage to biology will dwarf our burning efforts.
JF

Julian Flood,
The influence of the biosphere as a whole (land + sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals,…) is fairly accurately known, thanks to the oxygen balance: the uptake of CO2 by plants releases O2, the decay/feed/food needs oxygen.
Since ~1990 the biosphere as a whole is a small, increasing net producer of O2, thus a net sink for CO2 and doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere, despite all the damage (slash/burn, oil spills) human do to the environment. The earth is greening, especially in the semi-arid areas, thanks to the extra CO2…

Marcus

. . It’s the Sun S.T.U.P.I.D. !!

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010
Human emissions are fairly well known and the atmospheric increase is very well known. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere despite the temperature increase. This is mainly because atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium with CO2 concentration in the upper levels of the oceans.

Here is an alternative:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GT-GMF1.gif
Note presence of THE PAUSE !

CC Reader

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Short and Sweet
Many scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory because of “basic physics”, or rather its application to climate, the basic climate model. Other scientists are skeptical, because of the considerable contrary empirical evidence.
Dating back to 1896, the basic climate model contains serious architectural errors. Keeping the physics but fixing the architecture, and using modern climate data, shows that warming due to carbon dioxide is a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide

CC Reader

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Notch-Delay Solar Theory Predicts Cooling from 2017
Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).
So, what does 0.3C mean in relarive terms? It means that we return to the temperatures experienced in the late 70s.

Agree with most of your comments, including temperatures decline to the 1970’s levels. I did this two or three years ago, I hope I got it wrong.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.gif

Ghost

vukcevic, why hasn’t anyone written up a paper on this?

There is no money in it unless someone can show that the Earth’s magnetic field from nine years ago was changed by today’s CO2 concentration, even NOAA’s data adjusters aren’t that smart.

CC Reader

Dr David Evans is the author of Sciencespeak. He is currently updating the “Notch Delay Documentation” which will be posted here http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html. You will find the following documentation on this site now. My earlier comments are taken directly from Dr. Evans posts, I should have used quotes!
“Documents
Example Tweets:
CO2 alarm entirely due to bad modeling assumption from 1896. Overestimated 5 to 10 times. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Climate Fear caused by nineteeth century accounting error — new findings show. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
New Climate model says man not to blame! http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Media Release (1 page)
Essays. A few introductory essays will be posted here soon.
Summary (13 pages).
Synopsis (22 pages).
Spreadsheet (Excel, 250 KB). Contains the alternative basic climate model, as applied to recent decades. Also contains the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) model, and a computation of the Planck sensitivity/feedback.”
Both Dr. Evans and Vukcevic agree that there is a delay. The Notch Delay proposed by Dr. Evans is being updated because of comments provided by readers of his blog. He discusses the reason for the change in one of the documents listed above. For a non-math challenged person, I recommend the 22 page synopsis.

RoHa

“For a non-math challenged person…”
Do you mean a person who is not challenged by maths?

And on BB(s)C the WMO declared 2015 the warmest ever and the period from 2011 -2015 the warmest 5 year period ever.

tetris

As before, they are claiming this without pointing out to readers that the new “record” is measured in values that fall well within the generally accepted margin of error – by an order of magnitude. Which of course means that the “record” means nothing other than being warmist propaganda.

I like your graph. Since they started keeping records of the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, sometime in 1840s, it has declined 10%. The effect would be on energies that are below light. The atmosphere has little to no effect on microwave. Magnetic fields do. (You can melt ice in your microwave while not raising the air temperature or very little, try it, ice is water the key component in cooking in a microwave) As a point, satellites use it extensively for measuring. Additionally, due to the cross sectional areas near the poles where the lines of force are concentrated, the effect would be more pronounced.
I think climate is a lot more complex than just one variable, like co2.

I wonder if the author has seen the lecture Dr Salby delivered in Hamburg? I think not.

Frederick Colbourne,
Even have been in London last year (2014) where he lectured in the Parliament buildings. And have seen the recorded lecture in Hamburg and London this year.
Dr. Salby is wrong where he integrates temperature: by doing that, he attributes variability + slope to temperature, while temperature is responsible for almost all the variability, but causes hardly a slope in the transient CO2 response derivative, while human emissions are twice the observed slope…

It looks to my lay eyes like Salby says that CO2 varies with the integral of temps, while you say that temps vary with the derivative of CO2. Is there a difference other than “it’s about the size, where you put your eyes”?

Bob Shapiro,
By integrating temperature, Dr. Salby attributes all the CO2 increase to temperature. My stake is that temperature is responsible for all the variability, while human emissions are the cause of the slope (a fourfold increase in CO2 rate of change per year since 1958)…

Ferdinand Engelbeen says, November 26, 2015 at 8:59 am:

My stake is that temperature is responsible for all the variability, while human emissions are the cause of the slope (a fourfold increase in CO2 rate of change per year since 1958)…

Much more interesting in the end, though: Is the upward slope in atmospheric CO2 responsible for the upward slope in global temps?

Kristian:
Is the upward slope in atmospheric CO2 responsible for the upward slope in global temps?
Hardly, as CO2 is going up unabated and temperature is flat over the past 18.5 years…
Theoretically it should go up with ~1°C for 2xCO2, based on physics. 1.5-4.5°C according to failing climate models, 1-1.5°C according to the empirical data…
Anyway less than the IPCC range…

Alan Robertson

F.C.- I’ve observed F.E. make comments in these WUWT pages numerous times, during discussions involving your linked video.

William Astley

There are dozens of observations (paradoxes and anomalies) that support the assertion that the majority of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase is due to changes in deep core release of CH4 and due to the increases in planetary temperature not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The process used in a court room forces the prosecution to list all of the ‘evidence’ and forces the prosecution to attempt to explain evidence that disproves their hypothesis. You have ignored the paradoxes and anomalies which are created by the Bern model. The pathetic Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources was created to push CAGW.
Solving scientific problems is analogous to solving a physical puzzle. The paradoxes and anomalies go away when the observations are viewed from the correct theory and its mechanisms.
There are dozens of different peer reviewed papers which all support the assertion that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 75 years is due to warming of the oceans and a mechanism that increases low C13 emission from the deep earth (CH4, ‘natural gas’ has C13 levels three to four times lower than atmospheric CO2 and CO2 in biological sequestered material.
There is no biological mechanism to explain where the super low C13 CH4 comes from based on the late veneer theory of the atmosphere. The explanation for the super low C13 CH4 is that the CH4 is extruded from the core of the earth when it solidifies. The super high pressure liquid CH4 breaks the mantel and is the cause of tectonic plate movement on the earth. The deep CH4 hypothesis explains why there was a sudden increase in life on the earth a billion years ago which is also the time that liquid core of the earth started to solidify. When the liquid core solidifies the CH4 is extruded out of the solid core. The liquid core is saturated with CH4 so the extra CH4 is extruded at very, very, very, high pressure from the core.
Comment: There are two theories to explain why the planet is 70% covered with water and why hydrocarbon deposits on the surface of the planet have gradually increased in time. Late in the formation history of the earth a large Mars size object struck the earth. The impact of this impact created the moon and removed the majority of the light volatile elements and light molecules (including water) from the mantel. The late veneer theory hypotheses that a bombard of comets created a super atmosphere immediately following the big splat. The super atmosphere would require roughly 50 times more pressure than the current atmosphere. The noble gases in the current atmosphere do not match that of comets and there is no evidence in the geological record of the unique chemical bonds that would form in a super high pressure atmosphere. Those pushing the late veneer theory hand wave the noble gas paradox away by assuming an ancient source of comets that has different noble gas concentration than current comets.
The geological record shows a gradual increase in surface hydrocarbons overtime which does not support the late veneer theory.
An observation to support the core extruded CH4 hypothesis is the fact that there is helium associated with oil fields. Oil fields are the source of commercial helium. The earth’s helium is produced by radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium. Helium gas cannot break the mantel. The super high pressure liquid CH4 dissolves heavy metals which creates concentration of heavy metals higher in the mantel when the liquid CH4 can no longer carry the heavy metals. The; heavy metals are dropped out of solution below the oil and gas fields.
The liquid CH4 breaks the mantel and provides a pathway for the helium to reach the oil fields. The deep core liquid CH4 is also the source of the oil in the oil fields as well as the source for CH4 natural gas fields and black coal. The late Nobel prize winning astrophysicist Thomas Gold provided more than 50 independent observations to support the assertion that fossil fuel is a myth in his peer published peer reviewed papers and his book The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuel. The helium connection with oil fields is one of the observations.
The movement of CH4 from the deep earth to the crust explains why there are enrichments of 100,000 times of metals in the crust.
The specific pressure at which the metals in question drop out of solution in the liquid CH4 explains why there are high concentrations of pairs of metals such as zinc and copper in the crust.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil/dp/0387952535
There is in the paleo record unexplained cyclic changes in C13. There are also massive deposits of ultra low C13 in the geological record. Both of these observations support the assertion that there is an enormous deep earth source of low C13. A large continual input of new CH4 into the biosphere requires there to be large continual sinks of CO2.
Recent C13 Paradox
Changes in atmospheric C13 levels in the southern hemisphere do not support the assertion that the rise recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is due anthropogenic CO2 emission. C13 in the Southern Hemisphere remains the same for long periods (5 or 6 years) and then suddenly increases. As anthropogenic CO2 emission is constant C13 should if anthropogenic CO2 emission was the cause of the increase in atmospheric C2 increases gradually. That is not what is observed.
Sources and sinks of CO2 Tom Quirk
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf

ABSTRACT
… The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels. ….

Figure 3. Monthly variations in 13C at the South Pole from SIO14
The correlation of changes in δ13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in δ13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.

How is one going to get liquid methane deep inside the earth when the critical temperature of methane is -82 degrees C?

MCourtney

Pressure means the critical temperature of methane is different.
Not that I am endorsing the idea of abiotic methane. Let’s say I’m sceptical.
But not because of that reason.

I saw MCourtney saying that pressure affects the critical temperature. However, above the critical temperature (-82 C for methane), a gas cannot be liquified at any pressure no matter how high.

William Astley

The critical temperature at which methane liquefies is -82C at atmospheric pressure.
The pressure is higher in the earth than on the surface of the earth, due to the weight of the above rock, so the pressure at which methane liquefies is lower.
Does that make sense?
Do you understand why it is paradox that Helium is found in oil reservoirs and ‘natural’ gas reservoirs from the perspective of the late veneer theory. The Helium is created when Uranium and Thorium decay.
There are two paradoxes. There needs to be some mechanism that concentrates Uranium and Thorium in the vicinity of oil and gas reservoirs (below the oil and gas reservoirs as gas rises in the crust rather than falls) and there needs to a mechanism to break the mantel to provide a path way for the Helium from the decaying Uranium and Thorium to move.
The liquid CH4 that is extruded from the liquid core of the earth as it solidifies has metal in solution. At a specific pressure that differs for the metal in question that metal drops out.
As the CH4 continues to be pushed out of the core this process concentrates metals in the crust and breaks the mantel to provide a pathway for the helium gas to flow.
The deep CH4 earth hypothesis explains why the is layering of petroleum reservoirs. ‘Natural’ gas at the lowest level, followed by liquid petroleum, and then black coal.
In many locations in the earth the very,very deep liquid CH4 reservoirs is still connected to the surface reservoir which explains why some surface reservoirs natural gas and oil refill.
This phenomena also explains why there is massive amounts of natural gas in some black coal deposits. There is now drilling in the coal reservoirs to remove the natural gas.

bones

Astley probably used the term ‘liquid’ rather than ‘high-density’. At the pressures below the earth mantle, the density would be closer to that normally associated with a liquid state. The liquid and gas phases lose their ability to be distinguished by a density discontinuity above the critical temperature.

VikingExplorer

Donald, “liquid” and “gas” are terms which don’t apply to single atoms.

Menicholas

Phase diagram for methane:
http://images.tutorvista.com/cms/images/101/phase-diagram-for-methane.png
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/undergrad/classes/spring2011/Hubbard_206/Lectures4/combo_phase_diag.png
Methane can exist as a liquid above the triple point if the pressure is high, just like most substances.

Menicholas

Aah, I see Donald was referring to critical point, rather than triple point. But the critical point is a pressure and temp at which well defined phases disappear…but such substances are still referred to as “fluids” in that supercritical state:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Phase-diag2.svg

Re William Astley’s response that the critical temperature of methane is -82 C at atmospheric pressure: But it is a gas at any higher temperature at any pressure. The critical temperature of a substance is not a function of pressure like boiling point is. The critical temperature is the maximum possible boiling point.

William,
Tom Quirk wrote:
The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted.
In which he was completely wrong: he looked at the seasonal lags, but forgot that you have the same (non) lags for 0, 12, 24, 36 months… We (a companion and me) replied in E&E on his E&E article. Here the real lags:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
It is clear that the source of low-13C is at near ground level in the NH, as good as the increase of CO2 is…

William Astley

Your above graph is not correct. There are periods of five to six years when there is no increase in C13 which invalidates the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis.
There is no point in ‘discussion’ if you ignore data that disproves your hypothesis.

William,
Please… even if there are periods where there is a natural supply of low-13C, that doesn’t invalidate the anthropogenic CO2 “hypothesis”, as the natural source is followed by a natural sink and the decrease is in exact ratio with human emissions over the past 165 years…

Ferdiand, no the ratios don’t match and neither does the ratio of co2 produced match the amount that finds its way into the atmosphere. . The are no negative numbers in the co2 levels in the last 165 years. Last year the sink of co2 was 19 bmt, exceeding the total co2 produced in 1965, ( I have a good number for that year) by 7 bmt. Your going to tell me that the planet couldn’t sink 12 bmt in 1965, but now all of a sudden can, and more? In the last 5 years 100 bmt have been sunk. Is the sinking even or mismatched on an isotopic level? That 100 bmt is more co2 than was produced in all of the 1960s.

rishrac,
You forgot to take into account the process dynamics: the sink rate is directly proportional to the difference in pressure between atmosphere and ocean dynamic equilibrium per Henry’s law. The increase in the atmosphere thus gives and increase of the sink rate, independent of momentary human emissions or other sources (volcanoes…).
Yearly emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate 1959-2012:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
All items: emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate increased a fourfold in the past 57 years, which proves that the reaction of the sinks is a rather linear response to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above dynamic equilibrium (“steady state”).
δ13C increase in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa in function of the “thinning” of the 13C/12C ratio by different deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
The discrepancies in the years before 1970 are probably from vegetation which changed from a small net source to a small increasing sink at least after 1990, when oxygen measurements were accurate enough.
The ~40 GtC/year deep ocean – atmosphere exchange was confirmed by the 14C bomb spike decay…

I didn’t forget at all. You’re saying that the sink is dependent on pressure co2 weighs more and is absorbed in the ocean. Or in plants. Ridges of high pressure didn’t exist during the 1960s? Has the incidences of high pressure cells reached all time highs? (Low pressure would be storms) . During a storm, the low pressure makes the ocean boil. Wouldn’t that release large amounts of co2 in the process? ( a pilot plant was built to try to produce power in this way) I over weighted the air on purpose to be sure, that would have brought the current levels in line with what’s being observed. Less atmosphere and the same amount of co2 would result in a higher amount per volume of co2. I feel confident that anyone (in good conscience ) will get the same or close to results. I said your number was wrong on ppm being released is not 5 its close to 7.
I think there is a natural process that is occurring. Again, I’m showing a 10 to 23% amount of missing co2. Do you think it is really reasonable to have a year like 2009 or 2011 where the level of co2 increased by 1.88 ppm? 2008 was worse at 1.60ppm. That’s 3 years in the last 6 where ppm didn’t get above 2.
The point of this discussion is whether co2 stays in the atmosphere a thousand years or more. I think there is more than enough evidence to support that ( some say 40 years) it has a fairly quick lifespan. Which opens up a whole new can of worms.
In my view the sink is so large, it is alarming.

tetris

You appear in part to base your reasoning on the assumption that CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Recent global satellite observations -covered at WUWT- demonstrate that this is not at all the case, with very significant differences in concentrations in different locations around the globe.
Also, there is the issue of CO2 residence time, where there is some interesting new evidence that suggests it is measured in decades rather than centuries.
Then there is the reality that 1] approximately 30% of all human CO2 emissions since 1750 have occurred over the past 20 years, and 2] that it is during this very period that we have independently sourced satellite and radio sond data that show what amounts to a flat lining of global land surface temperatures.
How do propose to reconcile your argument re: CO2/temperature with those observations?
I thought I would ask because if against the background of the above observations, one of my students were to state as categorically as you do that anthropogenic CO2 is the determinant cause of whatever increases in global temperatures we are told by the climate establishment we are observing, I would insist that he/she take a refresher course in elementary science before being re-admitted to my course [ for what it’s worth, I used to teach at the 400 level in Applied Sciences].

tertris,
Most of the variability in local CO2 levels is seasonal and averaged over a year it is less than 5 ppmv difference from near the North Pole (Barrow) to the South Pole, mostly due to the NH-SH lag.
Also, there is the issue of CO2 residence time, where there is some interesting new evidence that suggests it is measured in decades rather than centuries.
I do agree with that: I used ~51 year e-fold time or ~40 year half life time. But be careful with “residence” time, which is something different and for CO2 only ~5 years. Better use “adjustment time” or e-fold decay rate for any excess CO2 above steady state.
How do propose to reconcile your argument re: CO2/temperature with those observations?
Sorry, I didn’t allude anywhere to the influence of CO2 on temperature. The whole essay is about the influence of temperature (and humans) on CO2 levels, not reverse…
I am very confident that humans are the cause of most of the CO2 increase over the past 150+ years, but I don’t think that will have much influence on temperatures…

Samuel C. Cogar

as the natural source is followed by a natural sink and the decrease is in exact ratio with human emissions over the past 165 years…

Ferdinand,
You don’t have a frigging clue what the human emissions of CO2 were during the past 65 years, let alone the past 165 years.
Anyone that professes to believe that microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere is at it maximum during the dry, cool, cold and/or freezing Fall and Winter months …. and is at its minimum during the damp, wet, warm and/or hot Spring and Summer months ….. is either utterly ignorant of the Biology of the planet, ….. not playing with a “full-deck-of-cards” ….. or is blinded by a “desire” of self-preservation of their current social status.
As the “believer”, ….. refresh your memory by re-reading this post, to wit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/25/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment/#comment-1847864

I do not believe there is very much practical difference between deep ocean and mixed layer atmospheric exchanges, except that deep ocean exchanges are far less common spatially and at lower partial pressure in the cold water.
Average PDB in the mixed layer is maybe 1 and the deep ocean somewhere between zero and .5 so little difference in the reservoir values. The atmospheric effect from both reservoirs is dominated by a poorly understood but pretty well measured fractionation through the surface film. This fractionation is -10 to the atmosphere +10 to the ocean in the ocean to atmosphere direction and +2 to the atmosphere -2 to the ocean in reverse.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1hNCkza_JAhVW8mMKHQOuC44QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdge.stanford.edu%2FSCOPE%2FSCOPE_16%2FSCOPE_16_1.5.05_Siegenthaler_249-257.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGy3iI6oH5xPVTFqeDjUo_nu-0W5Q
The net effect for some 160GT back and forth between the atmosphere, and the mixed and deep ocean, is -8 to the atmosphere, which happens to be about the current atmospheric reservoir value.
Ocean atmospheric exchange is thus neutral to atmospheric isotopic change.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
I disagree that at zero ocean/atmospheric exchange the atmosphere would go strongly negative as shown in this graphic. The ocean is a 150 Gt negative influence on atmospheric 13C to the tune of about -8 PDB. What keeps the atmosphere from going crazy negative is vegetation. Vegetation fractionates both ways with maybe 110 Gt photosynthesis leaving about +18 residual in the air and plant respiration blowing off 13CO2 at something like +5.

rishrac,
The uptake of CO2 in the oceans per Henry’s law doesn’t depend of the total air pressure, it depends of the partial pressure of CO2 alone, no matter if that is in 99% air, 1% water or full vacuum (as far as water isn’t boiling then). Thus with a 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, you will have 30% more CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and ~30% more sink flux…
That is not alarming at all, as if we should stop all emissions today, the levels above dynamic equilibrium will drop and so do the net sink fluxes in ratio to the extra pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium for the temperature of the moment, until equilibrium is reached and then it stops. Half life time of the extra CO2 ~40 years. Dynamic equilibrium for the current average ocean surface temperature: ~290 ppmv.

Samuel C. Cogar,
We do know the amounts of CO2 released by humans over a long period, thanks to the different administrations that did collect taxes on fossil fuel sales… Maybe underestimated, due to the human nature to avoid taxes, but reasonably well.
And my compost heap does shrink all winter to less than halve it was originally, even when it is freezing all winter (seldom here). Measurements in Alaska at -20°C still show a lot of bacterial life under a snow deck and a lot of CO2 emissions…

gymnosperm
May I disagree with your calculations:
Most of the ocean-atmosphere exchange is seasonal between the mixed layer and the atmosphere. The mixed layer is at 1-5 per mil, depending of the drop out of organics out of the mixed layer into the deep oceans. Thus bio-life increases the per mil of the ocean surface. At Bermuda, the coralline sponges were at +4.95 +/- 0.2 per mil during the pre-industrial period for hundreds of years, reflecting the ocean surface per mil over that period.
The land biosphere is at near equilibrium: the back and forth seasonal exchanges have the same, opposite isotopic signature, thus at neutral mass balance, there is a neutral isotopic balance. Any long term storage in more permanent form (humus, peat,…) would increase the per mil, but as that kind of storage is very small without extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, rather small in effect.
Over long (non-human) periods, huge changes in ocean and vegetation like over a glacial – interglacial transition only shows a change of a few tenths of a per mil. The same over the whole Holocene: fairly constant at +/- 0.2 per mil. Both show that the change in the ocean releases/uptake was the dominant change, not vegetation.
In my opinion, the -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil in the pre-industrial atmosphere was mainly maintained by the mixed layer – atmosphere exchanges…

Samuel C. Cogar

November 27, 2015 at 12:12 am
And my compost heap does shrink all winter to less than halve it was originally, even when it is freezing all winter (seldom here). Measurements in Alaska at -20°C still show a lot of bacterial life under a snow deck and a lot of CO2 emissions…

YUP, ….. shur nuff, …… Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Iffen you want to know why your compost heap shrinks during the wintertime …. it would serve you well to read-up on the “effects of gravity”.
And since Amsterdam’s January average temperature is 3°C (37°F) ….. you could “hang meat” outside for days n’ days without fear of it spoiling.
And Ferdinand, am I to assume the ONLY two (2) reasons that you own a refrigerator-freezer is to keep your stash of beer and wine cold ….. and to make “ice-cubes” for your whiskey laden mixed-drinks, … RIGHT.
Apparently you don’t know that pickled herring, smoked fish, sugar-cured hams and corned beef were the staples before refrigeration was invented.
Read my writing, Ferdinand Engelbeen, …. it is a biological impossibility for the “wintertime” (October to March) microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere to outgas (emit) enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause an average 6 (8) ppm increase.
If the dead biomass in the Arctic tundra is not currently outgassing copious amounts of CO2 ….. then the dead biomass in the US, Canada, Europe and Russia IS NOT outgassing copious amounts of CO2 during the wintertime months of October thru March.
Thus the accepted belief in/of the explanation of the Keeling Curve graph (Mauna Loa data) is therefore FALSE …… which “knocks-the-props” out from under most all the other CAGW claims. Which also pretty much NEGATES all the fuzzy math calculations and pretty colored graphs that are being generated via highly questionable data.

Ferdinand, you may certainly disagree with my calculations. Above all, we need to get them right.
But I am concerned that you treat the PDB of sponges as if it reflects the ambient water. Certainly sponges fractionate…and besides, the average reservoir value of the mixed layer is small (even if the sponges are right) compared with the fractionation of -10 through the surface film according to http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi1hNCkza_JAhVW8mMKHQOuC44QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdge.stanford.edu%2FSCOPE%2FSCOPE_16%2FSCOPE_16_1.5.05_Siegenthaler_249-257.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGy3iI6oH5xPVTFqeDjUo_nu-0W5Q
We are working with very large uncertainties. My work with integrating isotope ratios into the Carbon cycle shows a very delicate balance to keep the atmosphere from going negative much faster than what is observed. Fractionation with positive residuals to the atmosphere by land plants (and directly from the atmosphere by phytoplankton?) seems the only way to accomplish this balance.
In this regard the positive excursions in the atmosphere during ENSO nino events is very peculiar (one of a large number of peculiarities). Increased pCO2 from large expanses of anomalously warm surface water should push fractionation at -10 to the atmosphere according to Seigenthaler and Munnich above, skewing the atmosphere negative.
Likewise, drought stress in the tropics reducing plant fractionation and its positive residual should also push the atmosphere negative…

Janice Moore

Dr. Murry Salby re: Carbon 13 and also Methane
In his Hamburg, 2013, lecture, (video linked by F. Colbourne here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/#comment-2079594):
[35:41] AGWers claim that human CO2 dilutes atmospheric Carbon 13; for this to be true, native sources of CO2 must NOT dilute C13;
[36:34] Native Source of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
[37:01] Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources – net CO2
*Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
[native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human]
[37:34] Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”
– What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks [33:47]
[39:14] CO2 being conserved in the atmosphere, it is homogenized, i.e., evenly distributed, over long time periods (as observed, for land levels only, via satellites).
[39:40] High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites) are big CO2 sources – Note: they are not in industrialized nor highly populated regions (they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia)
[41:20] Observed deviations of global mean (natural) CO2 deviate widely, sometimes more than 100% from year to year, decade to decade – they are INcoherent with human CO2 emission rate, i.e, net global natural emission evolves independently of human emission.
[42:35] Observed global (land or ocean measurements) CO2 emission has strong sensitivity (.93 correlation [43:41]) to surface properties (mostly temperature, c = .8, and also soil moisture), i.e., increase in either increases CO2 native emissions.
[44:28] C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up = C13 down.
[45:15] Opposite changes of C13 and CO2 are the same ones seen in the ice proxy.
[45:22] Satellite record shows that the emissions are clearly NOT human, unless human emissions cause volcanic eruptions and El Nino.
[45:37] Re: Methane, CH4, record suffers from the same limitations as that of human CO2, but it’s even shorter. Note: human methane sources are independent of human sources of CO2. — Observed global CH4 emission has strong sensitivity (.94 correlation) to surface properties (mostly temperature, and also soil moisture), i.e., as with CO2, increase in either increases CH4 native emissions (this is what was seen in the proxy record).
[52:25] IPCC Claimed in 2007: “All of the increases [in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity.” Given the observed sensitivity of native emission of CO2 and C13,
the IPCC’s claim is IMPOSSIBLE.

Janice,
What Dr. Salby doesn’t realize that it is easy to know what the main source/sink of low 13 C – the biosphere – does. That is the oxygen balance.
CO2 uptake by plants releases O2. CO2 decay/feed/food uses O2. One can calculate the oxygen use of humans which burning a lot of old carbon. The difference with what is measured in the atmosphere is what the biosphere released or did use.
Currently, the biosphere is a net producer of O2, thus a net sink of CO2. About 1 GtC (~0.5 ppmv) per year. And preferentially of 12CO2. Thus not the cause of the 12CO2 decline.
Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2
Yes, but the imbalance over the past 57 years is not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv while human emissions now are about 4.5 ppmv/year, thus less than the human emissions…
C13 has strong coherence with temp. and soil moisture, but inversely, temp. up = C13 down.
Coherence in the 1-3 years variability = vegetation, but vegetation is a net sink at least since 1990.
Coherence in the longer term change = human emissions…

VikingExplorer

William,
Whereas short hydrocarbons like Methane and Ethane exist naturally (hence the name ‘Natural Gas’), abiotic oil has no real explanation for how long hydrocarbons could be created without lifeforms.
We’re talking about molecules with up to 40 carbon atoms. Occam’s razor says the simplest answer is usually correct. In this case, biogenic origin makes it very simple to imagine. Only life creates these kinds of complex molecules.

Khwarizmi

Only if you doin’t mind violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long
Not that fossil enthusiasts care about such things.
===========
Titan, Saturn’s largest moon, is a mysterious place. Its thick atmosphere is rich in organic compounds.
Some of them would be signs of life if they were on our planet.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEM696HHZTD_0.html
===========
Oil shale on tiny Comet Haley alone is equivalent to approximately 500 years of OPEC output.
Is it fit for life in your opinion?

paqyfelyc

“Oil shale on tiny Comet Haley alone is equivalent to approximately 500 years of OPEC output.”
Can you document that please ? searching internet didn’t help

Khwarizmi

Can you document that please ?
======
No problem…
===============================================
Some comets contain “massive amounts of an organic material almost identical to high grade oil shale,” the equivalent of cubic kilometers of such mixed with other material;[91] for instance, corresponding hydrocarbons were detected in a probe fly-by through the tail of Comet Halley during 1986.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Extraterrestrial_oil_shale
===============================================
See document under reference 91 (Zuppero: “Water Ice Nearly Everywhere”) pages 9 & 10.
► “Its hydrocarbon content may exceed 500 years of OPEC output”

VikingExplorer

Khwarizmi, these are natural hydrocarbons, and has the energy equivalent of 500 years of opec output. I know it’s confusing because the word “organic” implies life to the layman, but actually refers to any molecule that contains carbon. Also, the words oil and petroleum are considered synonyms, but often oil is loosely used to cover natural compounds as well.

Khwarizmi

“…these are natural hydrocarbons,
Just like the hydrocarbons on Earth are entirely “natural”, regardless of how you think they were formed. I’ll pretend you didn’t imply otherwise.
…”and has the energy equivalent of 500 years of opec output.“…
Changing Zuperro’s 500 year Opec output content estimate into an “energy equivalent” doesn’t get rid of that huge volume of “natural” hydrocarbons present in the “organic material almost identical to high grade oil shale.”
…”I know it’s confusing because the word “organic” implies life to the layman, but actually refers to any molecule that contains carbon.“…
The word “organic” is often used even by professional scientists to refer to carbon-based molecules not derived from a biological source. (Ferdinand does so, for example, several times on this page, cntr+F “inorganic” to see.) I know it seems a bit confusing to you, but don’t project that confusion onto me: I well understand that “organic” in reference to the oil shale or kerogen on Comet Halley not only means “carbon-based molecules,” but large hydrocarbons in particular.
My correct understanding should have been evident to you, given that I mentioned the extraterrestrial oil shale to contradict your false notion that only “short hydrocarbons” can be produced by non-biological processes.
Thanks for ignoring (a) thermodynamic constraints imposed on the evolution of heavy hydrocarbons from dead stuff, and (b) the non-biological organics on Titan that would be “signs of life [biomarkers] if they were on our planet.”

VikingExplorer

Khwarizmi, to claim that there is a 2nd law problem going from high energy lifeforms to relatively low energy long chain hydrocarbons identifies you as an agenda oriented quack. Petroleum in the ground is at a low energy state. It only becomes energetic when we bring it up to the surface and introduce it to an oxygen atmosphere.

Eliza

One of the most important postings made at J curry site climatologist. It really shows the REAL state of earth temperatures, apparently even the met office people acknowledge.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/

Bruce Cobb

Well, I’d like to think that man is at least partly to “blame” for increasing the level of life-giving CO2, which was getting dangerously low.

Agreed!
Greenhouse owners inject 1000 ppmv and more in their greenhouses to increase plant growth…
Semi-arid areas on earth are greening, thanks to less water loss because they need less stomata…
Etc…

Mickey Reno

Ferdinand, you agree with that, so why do you disagree that the biosphere (over land and maybe at the oceans’ surface, too) can almost instantly suck up all of the human emitted CO2, either adding it back into annual, decadal, and longer growth/decomposition cycles or sequestering some portion of it’s carbon quasi-permanently? That certainly seems to match the few pictures of CO2 concentrations that we’ve seen from the new satellite. What if your 1.5 ppm calculation is actually much closer to 4.5 ppm, or has some, even higher limit that has not yet been reached? Do you really think you can calculate that number accurately? I’m not convinced it’s possible, yet.

Mickey Reno,
The biosphere has one very fast cycle (months): the seasonal cycle, which cycles ~60 GtC each way within a year. That is quite constant over the past 55 years with a small rise in amplitude in later decades. Human emissions only add to that cycle if the local CO2 level is increased due to human emissions during photosynthesis, in all other cases it replaces the capturing of a natural CO2, which then stays in the atmosphere, thus increasing the total mass.
The longer term sequestering is not more than ~1 GtC/year of the 9 GtC yearly addition by humans (as total mass, not the original human molecules). That has been deduced from the oxygen balance. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Duster

Not just “dangerously low.” Potentially atmospheric CO2 is at catastrophically low levels. Atmospheric CO2 has not been this low for roughly 250 My when it achieved a similar levels in the Permian. The coal-forming epochs that preceded the Permian created a massive draw-down in available carbon. There was a significant rebound immediately following the Permian Extinction, but the trend reversed in the early mid- Mesozoic and has been steadily declining since that time. Geological and biological processes conspire to withdraw carbon from circulation as “fixed” carbon is buried and ceases to circulate in the carbon “spiral” – it really is not a cycle. Some life forms such as reef-forming invertebrates like coral and invertebrates that create shells (molluscs) fix carbon into very permanent forms that only return to circulation very slowly. The only significant carbon resupply mechanism is volcanism. and now to an extent, human industry.

Bob Burban

When we see firey spectacles of nocturnal volcanic eruptions, we might ask ourselves: what is burning to produce such light? What gas is pulverizing such stupendous tonnages of rock before ejecting it high into the atmosphere?

David A

I have no opinion on this controversy as it is irrelevant to the political football of CAGW, however I also like to thing that mankind deserves some credit for the benefit which are real and increasing, which leads me to ask…
How do we assume that even if the atmosphere was magically stable at a given CO2 concentration, that there is not a lag in the planets ability to absorb more, IE, due to a previous increase trees and foliage continue to increase, thus creating a non linear growing sink etc… until that balance is established?

Alan

Duster, – The coal forming environments continued well into the Permian and probably form the majority of Paleozoic coal by mass. The majority of Gondwanan coal formed between 295-275 Ma, dominantly in cool-cold climates

William Astley

CAGW is a non issue, no need for carbon dioxide emission limits or carbon dioxide limit trading if the Bern model assumptions are not correct.
Mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean explains why the lifetime for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere based on the bomb test analysis is 5 to 7 years where the IPCC Bern ‘model’ assumes it is 200 years and a portion forever. I repeat the Bern model assumes a portion of the anthropogenic CO2 remains in the atmosphere forever which is silly, goofy.
Lead/lag analysis of how atmospheric CO2 has change in the last 30 years unequivocally supports the assertion that the majority of the recent CO2 rise is from the increase in planetary temperature which cause more CO2 to be released from the ocean and from an increase in low C13 CH4 emissions from the core of the planet rather than from anthropogenic emissions (see Humlum et al’s linked to paper.)
The Bern model assumes there is almost no mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean. This assumption is required to push the CAGW hypothesis. If there is significant mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean, the anthropogenic CO2 is lost in the very large deep ocean sink. If there is mixing of the deep ocean with the surface ocean an increase in surface temperature will cause there to be a continual increase in atmospheric CO2 which is what is observed.
Atmospheric CO2 tracks changes in the surface temperature rather than anthropogenic CO2 emission.
If there is significant mixing of deep ocean water with surface water (this what the heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis requires) then the majority of the anthropogenic CO2 will be transferred into the deep ocean carbon reservoir which is more than 50 times greater than the atmospheric CO2 reservoir. The key logical point is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very, very, small compared to the super enormous, deep ocean carbon reservoir.
Surface storms cause massive, complex, deep waves in the ocean and hence cause complex deep mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean. Storms partially explain why there is no discrete ocean conveyor.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjvtbeH-qvJAhWMfogKHc_6ADUQFggzMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F18208928%2F233408642%2Fname%2Fphase%2Brelation%2Bbetween%2Batmospheric%2Bcarbon%2Band%2Bglobal%2Btemperature.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE7aftGf2urfSqBKz3dASOeUko2bg&sig2=-GDohOEhwnYdUisrUEYhFA

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature by Humlum et al, August, 2012.
“Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyses suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”

William,
Do you have any objection to what I wrote in my contribution above? Or didn’t you even read it?

bones

Ferdinand, I would guess that there is a good chance that he didn’t understand it. He does not seem to understand that the helium in oil and gas reservoirs occurs is found in sedimentary rocks in which uranium and thorium were deposited as part of the sediment. His elaborate scenarios seem very confused to me.

Gary Pearse

Williams remarks on coal may be a guide to the hyperbolic nature of his diatribe. Does he know there are mighty tree fossils in many coal deposits. Apparently the theory is that of an astrophysicist. The hubris of such a lofty fellow would likely make him disinterested in the masses of data collected by mere geologists. The linear thinking in it is telling.

halftiderock

“With CO2 being a well mixed gas, a new source of CO2 at a different C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere will affect the overall ratio of the atmosphere.”
NASA CO2 Satellite data released last December sure makes the assertion of well mixed gas questionable. It also brings into question a host of other assertions about relative natural contribution and residency based upon the assertion of the calculable anthropogenic contribution as the direct cause of increasing CO2 levels.
Think the operative assertions should be reexamined because of this recent information that estimates of volcanic contributions are hugely underestimated.

Why would mineral methane be depleted in 13C? Current thinking is that the depletion is biogenic. The Archaea, for whatever reason, are fastidious filterers for 12C. Their efforts at shallow depths in bogs are measured at -60 PDB. Coal gas has been measured at over -100.
Biogenic methane is produced anaerobically, but its conversion to CO2 in the atmosphere with some lag obviously affects the O2 balance.
The real problem is we measure methane in the atmosphere and it essentially isn’t there, ppb…

The bomb test data indicates the atmospheric lifetime of an individual molecule of CO2. But moving CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean changes the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere, and increases the rate of CO2 molecules gassing out from the ocean to the atmosphere. CO2 is moving in both directions between the oceans and the atmosphere, although the net is from atmosphere to the oceans. This April 19 2015 article in WUWT by Willis Eschenbach shows that the half life of a disturbance of atmospheric concentration is 41 years and the time constant for exponential decay is 59 years, to the extent exponential decay can be used to describe atmospheric lifetime of an out-of-equilibrium concentration of CO2.

William Astley

Willis’ analysis is incorrect.
The assumption for the Bern model are necessary to justify CAWG.
There are three legs to the CAGW stool.
1) CO2 is rising in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This leg requires that the only new CO2 input into the biosphere is from volcanic eruptions. A very small input of CO2 into the biosphere forces there to be no mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water and limits the suspension of organic solids.
2) The source of Hydrocarbon deposits on the earth are from fossil conversion of plants and marine animals. This hypothesis is directly connected with late veneer hypothesis where the early earth hydrocarbons are from a late bombardment of comets which created a super atmosphere. Note there are multiple observations that support the assertion that the late veneer hypothesis is incorrect.
If the source of the hydrocarbons on the surface of the earth are from the core as it solidifies The then there is are massive natural gas reservoirs that will for all practical purposes will never be used up by humans. The deep earth hypothesis explains why there is now super deep drilling for natural gas and the discover of massive natural gas reservoirs at 20,000 feet.
Comment:
The super high pressure liquid CH4 that is extruded from the earth’s liquid core as it solidifies is the power that causes the tectonic plate movement, is the reason why the oldest ocean floor is less than 200 million years.
The super high pressure extrude liquid CH4 pushes the ocean floor underneath the continental crust. When the ocean floor moves under the continents a portion of the CH4 remains at the continental edge. This explains why there are bands of mountains on the continental edges and explains why the bands of mountains are hundreds of miles wide. i.e. The competing theory is that hot rising liquid core material moves the crust and that mountains are formed by sticking of the ocean floor as it moves under the continents. There is however no evidence of sticking of the ocean crust and the sticking would only create a small narrow band of mountains not a mountain range that is many hundred of miles wide. (Think of the mountainous region in the Himalayas or the Rocky Mountain range in North America).
The CH4 deep core hypothesis also explains the super high plains that are found in certain locations of the planet such as the Denver region or the Tibetan plain.
3) The cult of CAGW assert that the earth has warmed in the last 50 years due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. The leg for this CAGW pillar is created by comparing the earth’s surface temperature with a vacuum to the earth’s surface temperature with an atmosphere with the assertion that the difference in the surface temperature is due to ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere.
The reason the surface temperature of a planet is higher with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere is primarily due to the physics of gas temperature changes with altitude. If the earth’s atmosphere has only nitrogen the earth’s temperature would be higher than current.
The long wave radiation emitted at the top of the atmosphere is the same with or without an atmosphere. The atmosphere increases the temperature at the surface of the planet.
The cult of CAGW needs to be forced to explain what would the surface temperature of the earth be with an atmosphere that contains only nitrogen to the current atmosphere.
Back to the pathetic Bern model assumptions.
As noted below as suspended organic solids in the ocean sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year we do not wait more than a 1000 years for anthropogenic CO2 to disappear into the deep ocean.
Also it is interesting that fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has decreased from roughly 50% at the time Segalstad wrote this brief to 40%. i.e. The fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere indicates the Bern model is bogus, not correct.
Does everyone understand that amount of CO2 that ‘sinks’ in the Bern model cannot ‘increase’?
Carbon cycle modeling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. By Tom V. Segalstad
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf

“Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. By Tom V. Segalstad
At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir
(some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse
Effect”, because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).
7.
Boost for the dogma – the evasion “buffer” factor Bacastow & Keeling (1973) elaborate further on Bolin & Eriksson’s ocean “buffer” factor, calling it an “evasion factor” (also called the “Revelle factor”; Keeling &
Bacastow, 1977), because the “buffer” factor is not related to a buffer in the chemical sense. A real buffer can namely be defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). The carbonate system in the sea will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid
(CaCO3). The concentration of CO2 (g) in the atmosphere and of Ca (aq) in the ocean 2+ will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3 at a given temperature (Segalstad, 1996).”

What is the missing sink of CO2? Why is the missing sink growing in size?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.

So why is the correct estimate of the atmospheric residence time of CO2 so important? The IPCC has constructed an artificial model where they claim that the natural CO2 input/output is in static balance, and that all CO2 additions from anthropogenic carbon combustion being added to the atmospheric pool will stay there almost indefinitely. This means that with an anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 residence time of 50 – 200 years (Houghton, 1990) or near infinite (Solomon et al., 2009), there is still a 50% error (nicknamed the “missing sink”) in the IPCC’s model, because the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of anthropogenic CO2 supplied to the atmosphere; and carbon isotope measurements invalidate the IPCC’s model (Segalstad, 1992; Segalstad, 1998).

Alan

Think you need to read up on plate tectonics William

MCourtney

We have no way of determining the changes to the sinks.
For example, increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased vegetation…
That leads to increased weathering of the rocks…
That leads to increased nutrients in the ocean…
That leads to increased take-up of CO2…
That leads to more science fiction speculation…
We have no way of determining the changes to the sinks. The mass balance argument assumes we know the residence times of all the sinks, what they are and how they change. We do know with confidence that the sinks dwarf man’s emissions in scale.
Even so, I’m happy to admit that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is probably due to man’s actions as we are emitting CO2.
But I’m still not convinced it’s proven – just probable.

Marcus

And good for all the life on Earth !!!

MCourtney,
In the case of vegetation, there is a way out: the oxygen balance. Ocean releases and sinks don’t move oxygen, except for its solubility with temperature… That makes a balance of about 1 GtC/year more sink than source.
But that is not a problem: human emissions are known from sales inventories and burning efficiency. The increase in the atmosphere is accurately measured. The difference is what nature did take away, wherever that may be.
The net variability in sink rate is +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend, which is ~4.5 ppmv/year nowadays.
While the total sinks are huge: +/- 50 GtC from the ocean surface, +/- 60 GtC from the biosphere over the seasons, that is all temperature driven. Human caused sinks are pressure dependent and near independent of temperature. That process is quite linear over the past 57 years: around 40 year half life time for the extra CO2 above dynamic equilibrium…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You say;

While the total sinks are huge: +/- 50 GtC from the ocean surface, +/- 60 GtC from the biosphere over the seasons, that is all temperature driven. Human caused sinks are pressure dependent and near independent of temperature. That process is quite linear over the past 57 years: around 40 year half life time for the extra CO2 above dynamic equilibrium…

I really, really wish it were that simple but – sadly – it is not.
This is the reality which is far, far too complex for quantitative understanding of the poorly quantified effects.
Mechanisms of the carbon cycle
The IPCC reports provide simplified descriptions of the carbon cycle. In our paper, Rörsch et al. (2005), we considered the most important processes in the carbon cycle to be:
Short-term processes
1. Consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis that takes place in green plants on land. CO2 from the air and water from the soil are coupled to form carbohydrates. Oxygen is liberated. This process takes place mostly in spring and summer. A rough distinction can be made:
1a. The formation of leaves that are short lived (less than a year).
1b. The formation of tree branches and trunks, that are long lived (decades).
2. Production of CO2 by the metabolism of animals, and by the decomposition of vegetable matter by micro-organisms including those in the intestines of animals, whereby oxygen is consumed and water and CO2 (and some carbon monoxide and methane that will eventually be oxidised to CO2) are liberated. Again distinctions can be made:
2a. The decomposition of leaves, that takes place in autumn and continues well into the next winter, spring and summer.
2b. The decomposition of branches, trunks, etc. that typically has a delay of some decades after their formation.
2c. The metabolism of animals that goes on throughout the year.
3. Consumption of CO2 by absorption in cold ocean waters. Part of this is consumed by marine vegetation through photosynthesis.
4. Production of CO2 by desorption from warm ocean waters. Part of this may be the result of decomposition of organic debris.
5. Circulation of ocean waters from warm to cold zones, and vice versa, thus promoting processes 3 and 4.
Longer-term process
6. Formation of peat from dead leaves and branches (eventually leading to lignite and coal).
7. Erosion of silicate rocks, whereby carbonates are formed and silica is liberated.
8. Precipitation of calcium carbonate in the ocean, that sinks to the bottom, together with formation of corals and shells.
Natural processes that add CO2 to the system:
9. Production of CO2 from volcanoes (by eruption and gas leakage).
10. Natural forest fires, coal seam fires and peat fires.
Anthropogenic processes that add CO2 to the system:
11. Production of CO2 by burning of vegetation (“biomass”).
12. Production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels (and by lime kilns).
Several of these processes are rate dependant and several of them interact.
At higher air temperatures, the rates of processes 1, 2, 4 and 5 will increase and the rate of process 3 will decrease. Process 1 is strongly dependent on temperature, so its rate will vary strongly (maybe by a factor of 10) throughout the changing seasons.
The rates of processes 1, 3 and 4 are dependent on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rates of processes 1 and 3 will increase with higher CO2 concentration, but the rate of process 4 will decrease.
The rate of process 1 has a complicated dependence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations at first there will be an increase that will probably be less than linear (with an “order” <1). But after some time, when more vegetation (more biomass) has been formed, the capacity for photosynthesis will have increased, resulting in a progressive increase of the consumption rate.
Processes 1 to 5 are obviously coupled by mass balances. Our paper assessed the steady-state situation to be an oversimplification because there are two factors that will never be “steady”:
I. The removal of CO2 from the system, or its addition to the system.
II. External factors that are not constant and may influence the process rates, such as varying solar activity.
Modeling this system is a difficult because so little is known concerning the rate equations. However, some things can be stated from the empirical data.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940 (there was an estimated average rise of 0.5°C in average surface temperature).
And that 0.5°C can easily explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration (which, of course, does not demonstrate that it is the cause of the increase).
Richard

Richard Courtney,
It doesn’t make much sense to explain the whole C cycle to the readers here, most know that already.
Where you go wrong is in following points:
This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production
You are comparing the regular change in a natural cycle, which is repeated every year in both directions by temperature, without much variation with the increase rate of the increase in human production. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Human production is currently ~4.5 ppmv/year, increase in the atmosphere ~2.35 ppmv/year, net sink rate ~2.15 ppmv/year.
Year by year natural variability over a full seasonal cycle is +/- 3 ppmv/year:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
That shows that despite the huge amounts of CO2 cycling in and out the atmosphere, the sinks can’t cope with human emissions.
What you still don’t understand is that the seasonal cycle and the year-by-year variability both are (opposite) temperature dependent, while removing the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium is pressure dependent. All different processes, working near independent of each other.
So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions accumulate.
I find it remarkable that in this kind of discussions, one always forgets the sink side…
In: 150 natural, 9 human (6%)
Out: 154.5 natural, 0 human (0%)
Accumulation: 4.5 human (100%)
Of course overblown, as there is a small increase due to temperature and one can attribute the extra sink to 100% human, but that doesn’t change much in the fact that near all the accumulation (in mass) is human.
And that 0.5°C can easily explain the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration
Which violates Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater… Maximum 10 ppmv of the 120 ppmv increase since 1850…

Gary Pearse

RichardC: your #12 kiln source, much of the CO2 evolved is recaptured in ageing concrete and lime. This source is improperly accounted for in emissions by atmospheric scientists.

richardscourtney

Gary Pearse:
You say to me

RichardC: your #12 kiln source, much of the CO2 evolved is recaptured in ageing concrete and lime. This source is improperly accounted for in emissions by atmospheric scientists.

Yes, I know. Almost all the carbon cycle is not adequately understood for it to be properly “accounted”. Indeed, my description of the carbon cycle that you comment was written because as I said

This is the reality which is far, far too complex for quantitative understanding of the poorly quantified effects.

Richard

richardscourtney

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
You say to me

It doesn’t make much sense to explain the whole C cycle to the readers here, most know that already.

It makes a lot of sense to explain that the carbon cycle is much, much more complicated than you asserted and, therefore, the simplistic explanation you presented is merely unsubstantiated assertion.
As I said of your simplistic explanation

I really, really wish it were that simple but – sadly – it is not.

and then I introduced the reality saying

This is the reality which is far, far too complex for quantitative understanding of the poorly quantified effects.

And your reply obfuscates with silly excuses.
You say to me

You are comparing the regular change in a natural cycle, which is repeated every year in both directions by temperature, without much variation with the increase rate of the increase in human production. That doesn’t make any sense at all.

It makes much “sense” to everybody who is trying to understand what is happening. It “doesn’t make any sense at all” to you because you are trying to promote your narrative.
The “human production” is one small source of CO2 emitted to the air. At issue is whether the CO2 emission is overloading the sinks of CO2 from the air so that CO2 equivalent to half the human emission is accumulating in the air. The dynamics of the seasonal cycle demonstrate that the sinks are not being overloaded.
The annual rise of atmospheric CO2 is the residual of the seasonal variation each year. You say

Human production is currently ~4.5 ppmv/year, increase in the atmosphere ~2.35 ppmv/year, net sink rate ~2.15 ppmv/year.
Year by year natural variability over a full seasonal cycle is +/- 3 ppmv/year:
That shows that despite the huge amounts of CO2 cycling in and out the atmosphere, the sinks can’t cope with human emissions.

NO! That is another unsubstantiated assertion.
It only shows that the rise is less than the human emission.
This has repeatedly been explained to you by me and many others. For example, recently on Jo Nova’s blog Gregory Lawn wrote to you saying

Please stop the bank account analogy. The argument is bankrupt.
A business receives payment from Tom Dick and Harry, 1,000 1,200 and 30,000 respectively.
Payments are made to attorneys Duey Cheatum and Howe, 900, 1,100, and 29,900 respectively.
$300 is left in the account.
Ferdinand says 300 is left from Tom because if tom had contributed only 700 there would be nothing.
Richard says we don’t know because Tom Dick and Harry all contributed. This is true.
I don’t care, cash is fungible.

And the possible temperature effect only violates YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING of Henry’s Law.
Richard

Wim Röst

Ferdinand,
“While the total sinks are huge: +/- 50 GtC from the ocean surface, +/- 60 GtC from the biosphere over the seasons, that is all temperature driven. Human caused sinks are pressure dependent and near independent of temperature. That process is quite linear over the past 57 years: around 40 year half life time for the extra CO2 above dynamic equilibrium…”
“Human production is currently ~4.5 ppmv/year, increase in the atmosphere ~2.35 ppmv/year, net sink rate ~2.15 ppmv/year.”
WR: “human caused sinks are pressure dependent”. Is the biosphere taking up “extra CO2” because of “extra pressure” in the atmosphere or is the yearly extra uptake (net sink rate ~2.15 ppmv/year”) totally physical (ocean driven). Extra emissions cause extra sink, I understand from your graph.
Could there be a physical mechanism (pressure?) which does stimulate plant uptake of CO2? Could this biological phenomenon of extra uptake by plants be a purely physical process?
And in that case: what will future biological activity look like? An interesting question because of its consequences which could be geographical also. We have already seen a “greening” of the semi-arid regions which is changing the albedo of that regions.

Wim Röst,
Is the biosphere taking up “extra CO2” because of “extra pressure”
I didn’t search that topic in depth, but what I have read is that the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases the CO2 flux into the stomata and thus the momentary level there. That increases the CO2 level in the water phase and therefore the rest of the reaction chain…
The uptake by the biosphere is calculated from the oxygen balance: besides oxygen use from burning fossil fuels, the biosphere can be an oxygen source or sink or neutral. Since at least 1990 it is a net, increasing O2 source, thus a net CO2 sink of ~1 GtC/year.
I suppose that this will increase together with more CO2 in the atmosphere, but if that is linear or limited, that is a good question…

Richard Courtney,
I have no intention to repeat all the same arguments again and again to no avail.
In short: most natural carbon cycles are temperature dependent, while the removal of any extra CO2 injection in the atmosphere, whatever the cause, is pressure dependent, largely independent of temperature.
If you don’t understand the difference, so be it.
Back to the subject of interest: temperature only or human emissions + temperature variability…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
You say

Back to the subject of interest: temperature only or human emissions + temperature variability…

NO! That is NOT “the subject of interest”: that is promotion of your mistaken narrative.
The “subject of interest” is identification of the possible cause(s) of the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2.
And you say to me

I have no intention to repeat all the same arguments again and again to no avail.
In short: most natural carbon cycles are temperature dependent, while the removal of any extra CO2 injection in the atmosphere, whatever the cause, is pressure dependent, largely independent of temperature.

I confidently predict that you WILL “repeat all the same arguments again and again” ad nauseum, and it will continue to be “to no avail” because your arguments are wrong.
As example, you provide one of your wrong arguments saying “most natural carbon cycles are temperature dependent, while the removal of any extra CO2 injection in the atmosphere, whatever the cause, is pressure dependent, largely independent of temperature”. So what!? And what is “extra CO2 injection” when in this thread you say it is not CO2 from a volcanic eruption and is not the ‘pulse’ of 9.3Gt of CO2 from oceanic biota in the three years 1989-1991?
That example is more of your meaningless twaddle that has no relevance to anything under discussion. And you use it to try to pretend you know more about this subject than me. But I know that nobody knows everything about this subject while you pretend you do know everything.
Richard

Samuel C. Cogar

@ Ferdinand Engelbeen – November 26, 2015 at 11:06 am

In short: most natural carbon cycles are temperature dependent, ………..
….. while the removal of any extra CO2 injection in the atmosphere, whatever the cause,
….. is pressure dependent, largely independent of temperature.

Ferdinand Engelbeen,
That was the weirdest statement that I have read in a long, long time ….. and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry in response to your posting of it.
The natural carbon (CO2) cycle, in/out of the atmosphere, is 100% temperature (land, water, air) driven.
And that …. “extra CO2 injection” …. you mentioned above is nothing more than “a figment of your imagination” that you were forced to create to justify your “junk science” rhetoric.

Richard Courtney,
The “subject of interest” is identification of the possible cause(s) of the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2.
hat is not the topic here. The topic is if either temperature is the sole cause of the increase, As Bart and Dr. Salby say, or a mix of human emissions and temperature variability, as I say. Your theories were already refuted many times, as they all violate one or more observations
If you want discussion of any theory that proves a non-human cause of the increase, write a guest blog yourself…
And what is “extra CO2 injection” when in this thread you say it is not CO2 from a volcanic eruption and is not the ‘pulse’ of 9.3Gt of CO2 from oceanic biota in the three years 1989-1991?
The 9.3 Gt is CO2, that is 2.5 GtC in three years or 0.8 GtC/year. In the same years, humans released 6 GtC/year. Thus overloading the sink capacity of the oceans (and vegetation) with about 3 GtC/year.
The sink rate is a function of the pressure difference between atmosphere and mainly oceans. Temperature modulates that a bit, but that is less than 3% of the sink rate.
The main temperature dependent variable is vegetation: +/- 3 GtC up and down in 1-2 years (Pinatubo – El Niño), but that zeroes out after 3 years. Largely independent of any extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
That is temperature induced natural variability and has nothing to do with overloading the sink capacity of the (mainly ocean) sinks.

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
I know you want to close out consideration of all the evidence and all the arguments that refute the narrative you promote, but you go much too far when you dispute my true comment that says

The “subject of interest” is identification of the possible cause(s) of the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2.

by writing

hat is not the topic here. The topic is if either temperature is the sole cause of the increase, As Bart and Dr. Salby say, or a mix of human emissions and temperature variability, as I say. Your theories were already refuted many times, as they all violate one or more observations

No, Ferdinand.
Firstly, your narrative is refuted by several observations; e.g. the isotope ratio change is wrong by 300% for the rise in atmospheric CO2 to have been caused by the anthropogenic CO2 emission, and pulses of excess CO2 into the atmosphere are sequestered within three years which demonstrates that the CO2 sinks are NOT overloaded, and etc..
Secondly, the explanation we provided in our 2005 paper has not been refuted by evidence or argument and was later confirmed by Salby who added an analysis of soil behaviour which – he claims – indicates temperature change has caused the alteration to equilibria of the carbon cycle which is causing the observed rise of atmospheric CO2.
And that is why you repeatedly misrepresent the views of others as you have again here and as you did in your above essay’ I refuted your misrepresentation in this thread here.
If you had an argument then you would put it instead of making untrue assertions about others. And that is why in that linked post I wrote but you have not addressed

(a) I fail to understand how you can have forgotten our work (i.e. Rorsch et al.) in light of recent discussions you and I have had on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
and
(b) I fail to understand how you can assert that the theories of Bart and Salby are the same.
and
(c) I fail to understand how you can assert that any of the three alternives (i.e. Rorsch et al., Bart and Salby) is “that the natural cycle dwarfs the human input”.
You are entitled to advocate your arguments – as you do at every opportunity – but misrepresenting others is unacceptable behaviour.

Not only did you fail to address that complaint, but you have repeated misrepresenting others but with different falsehood: in your above essay you falsely said that Bart and Salby claim “that the natural cycle dwarfs the human input” but you have now say Bart and Salby claim “temperature is the sole cause of the increase”.
Not only have you repeated that unacceptable behaviour, you have added to your misbehaviour by writing this abusive false implication of me which is beyond acceptability

If you want discussion of any theory that proves a non-human cause of the increase, write a guest blog yourself…

YOU claim to know what is causing the rise: I don’t.
I know there is insufficient data for anybody to know the cause(s).
I don’t need write a blog post to explain that the cause is not known. I only need to provide evidence and/or argument which shows the errors in the assertions of those who demonstrate hubris by claiming they do know. In this thread (and also elsewhere) I and others have provided ample evidence to show that your narrative is plain wrong.
You expend much time and effort promoting your beloved narrative, and I appreciate that it must hurt to have your narrative refuted. But that does NOT excuse your misrepresentations of others.
Richard

Samuel C. Cogar

@ richardscourtney – November 27, 2015 at 11:43 am

Ferdinand:
I know you want to close out consideration of all the evidence and all the arguments that refute the narrative you promote

+10,000
IMHO, a truer statement has never been posted on WUWT.

Bartemis

“– The temperature-only match violates all known observations, not at least Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater, the oxygen balance – the greening of the earth, the 13C/12C ratio, the 14C decline…”
Nonsense. Henry’s law is for a static system in equilibrium. In a dynamic system, with mismatched influx and outflux, Henry’s law in fact naturally leads to a time dependent sensitivity in ppmv/degC/unit-of-time.
“Most of the variability in the rate of change of CO2 is caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation.”
Annually, yes. Over multi-year spans, no.
I suspect the fatal flaw in Ferdinand’s analysis is he has very fast removal of natural CO2 induced by the ΔpCO2 factor in
dCO2/dt = k2*(k*(T-T0) – ΔpCO2)
yet, he doesn’t apply the same fast removal to anthropogenic CO2.
These two inputs must be treated on an equal footing – nature does not distinguish between them.
It is Thanksgiving – a very inconvenient time for this – and I must go. Will check back in when and if I am able over the next few days.

Bart,
Nonsense. Henry’s law is for a static system in equilibrium.
Bart, we have been there before: Henry’s law gives for 1°C increase a CO2 increase of around 16 ppmv. That is the same for the sink places and for the upwelling places. That increases the influx and reduces the outflux, thus increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere. That is a transient response, as the CO2 increase in the atmosphere has an opposite effect. At 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, the original fluxes are restored at a new steady state level. That is as dynamic as can be.
I suspect the fatal flaw in Ferdinand’s analysis is he has very fast removal of natural CO2 induced by the ΔpCO2 factor in dCO2/dt = k2*(k*(T-T0) – ΔpCO2).
k2 is not the removal rate, is the response rate of the transient response of CO2 to the increase or decrease in temperature, which reduces with the increase/decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere until equilibrium by Henry’s law is reached. The response factor k and response rate k2 are different for oceans and vegetation.
The decay rate of any extra CO2 injection (whatever the source) above steady state has nothing to do with that, as that is a pressure dependent process, where the sink rate is hardly temperature dependent.

sergeiMK

co2 and o2 rise and fall in step (anti phase) the yearly cycle is mainly plant respiration O2 out in light co2 out in dark. If this is the case then the respiration is from land / sea outside the tropics, It is not from growth and decay since decay is too slow to give the rapid increase in co2 in NH autumn when temperatures fall decay rate is low.
a plot of CO2 and O2 is here:
If CO2 in ocean solution was cause of dips and slopes then O2 would not be inverse.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bCvtAJzSBMY/T9ptnRzSP9I/AAAAAAAAAYc/1NYuolWUs_w/s1600/co2+-+02+all.jpg

sergeiMK,
You are right for the seasonal cycle:
Temperature/light up – CO2 down – O2 up – δ13C up.
Temperature/light down – CO2 up – O2 down – δ13C down.
Full cycle: diurnal 1 day – seasonal 1 year.
Quantities involved: ~60 GtC in/out diurnal, ~60 GtC in/out seasonal.
Opposite ~50 GtC out/in from the ocean surface layer over the seasons.
Variations in the atmosphere globally: ~5 ppmv over the seasons for ~1°C global temperature change.
NH extra-tropical vegetation is dominant in the seasonal cycle.
There are short-term variations which last 1-3 years and then zero out:
Temperature up: CO2 up – O2 down – δ13C down.
Temperature down: CO2 down – O2 up – δ13C up.
Quantities involved: max 3 GtC in and out.
Variations in the atmosphere globally: +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend
Tropical vegetation is dominant in these short cycles (mainly El Niño – La Niña)
There are long term variations of multi-decades to multi-millennia:
Temperature up: CO2 up – O2 very small up – δ13C very small up.
Temperature down: CO2 down – O2 very small down – δ13C very small down.
Quantities involved: ~33 GtC/°C
Atmosphere globally: ~16 ppmv/°C
The (deep) oceans are dominant in these long-term cases…

Pat Smith

Ferdinand, as a complete novice in this, can I check that I understand one point. The net contribution of man is 2.35 ppmv/year after the sinks are taken into account. Does this mean that for man-alone to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would take something like 400/2.35 = 170 years (approximately, leaving aside growth and other variables)? If so, are these figures generally agreed across ‘both sides’ of the argument?

Pat Smith,
It is a bit more complicated than that. The constant sink rate means a constant increase in CO2 emissions, or the sink rate would decrease over time.
Human emissions even increase slightly quadratic over time. That gives that the increase in the atmosphere also is slightly quadratic and so is the sink rate.
That makes that the doubling under “business as usual” will be reached earlier: around 2100, if nothing happens due to climate conferences…
If that has much effect on climate is another question…

Bartemis

We have been there before, Ferdinand, and you are still wrong. When I finish looking through the comments, I will repeat the toy model I presented last time. It shows how the model dCO2/dt = k*(T – T0) is fully compatible with Henry’s Law.
“The response factor k and response rate k2 are different for oceans and vegetation.”
You seem just not to get it. You are engaging in magical thinking, separating your dynamics for different sources, treating them differently, and then magically combining them together at the end. It is not physically viable. If natural inputs are removed in 40 years, then anthropogenic inputs have to be removed in that time, too.

Bart,
You still don’t get it: the response of vegetation and oceans to a temperature change is a transient response: it goes form one steady state to another steady state with temperature. The change in steady state is 16 ppmv/°C and then it stops. That is what Henry’s law says, as applicable to a static equilibrium as to a dynamic equilibrium.
There is no magically piling up of CO2 until eternity in the oceans due to a small, sustained temperature step, as good as there is no piling up of the ocean waters at the upwelling sites…
The removal of any extra CO2 above the steady state has a half life of ~40 years. That is a pressure (difference) dependent process. That has nothing to do with the transient response of oceans and vegetation to temperature changes. These are all (near) completely independent of each other…

Bartemis

Ridiculous, Ferdinand. Laughable. Magical. Once the CO2 goes into the system, it goes out the same way, no matter the source.

Bart,
The response of oceans and vegetation to temperature changes and pressure changes are near independent of each other and between each other. Vegetation is very sensitive to temperature changes, far less to pressure changes. Oceans are less sensitive to temperature changes and more to pressure changes than vegetation.
That means 3 different rate-of-change constants (uptake of plants under pressure is included in the total pressure related sink rate) for the two sources/sinks. In all cases the (momentary and long-term) sinks take CO2 out of the atmosphere for natural and human CO2 alike.
The difference is in the different process speeds, not in what is processed.
Your one-process-fits-all doesn’t take into account the differences in processes involved…

Ferdinand Engelbeen November 28, 2015 at 3:43 am
No, Ferdinand. This is magical thinking. It exists only in your imagination.
Every parcel of CO2 in the atmosphere gets removed from the atmosphere in the same way. You cannot segregate them into separate responses. You can claim different responses, but they have to react to a given parcel in precisely the same way. The sinks have no means of differentiating between natural and anthropogenic inputs.

Bart:
Every parcel of CO2 in the atmosphere gets removed from the atmosphere in the same way. You cannot segregate them into separate responses.
Of course I can: take the response of vegetation to the seasonal changes: T up: ~30 ppmv out of the atmosphere by vegetation, ~25 GtC into the atmosphere by the ocean surface and reverse with T down… Does that mean that vegetation can gobble a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere if the CO2 pressure increases? Hardly: ~0.5 ppmv/year at 110 ppmv extra pressure. Oceans do better with ~2 ppmv/year.
Thus every air parcel in the atmosphere is treated the same way as every other parcel, but there are four different responses of the two processes themselves to changes in temperature and pressure.
The sinks have no means of differentiating between natural and anthropogenic inputs.
They don’t. Where did I say or imply or hope that any of the four responses differentiates between natural and anthropogenic inputs?

Bart, it seems that WordPress has some strange behavior these days, my last response is up here, while should have been below your last response…

“Of course I can: take …”
No, Ferdinand, you are not getting it. If you have natural CO2 being removed with a time constant of 40 years, then anthropogenic CO2 also has to be removed with a time constant of 40 years.

Bart:
No, Ferdinand, you are not getting it. If you have natural CO2 being removed with a time constant of 40 years, then anthropogenic CO2 also has to be removed with a time constant of 40 years.
Bart have a look at the time constants that I used: decay rate for any extra pressure over the oceans: 614 months or 51.3 years or a half life time of less than 40 years. That is the response of the oceans to any extra pressure in the atmosphere above steady state, no matter what caused it.
But I agree, the name is misleading: I named it “emiss_tau”, to make a differentiation with the ocean_tau which was already used for the transient response of ocean CO2 to temperature changes. As indeed in my opinion the extra CO2 pressure is mostly caused by human emissions…
I will make an update with “ocean_T_tau” and “ocean-P-tau” to make the difference clear.
In all calculations there was and is not the slightest difference in uptake speed for any extra CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever its source. In reality, as human emissions overload the sink speed, practically all increase is from human emissions – but that is my theory…
I hope that with this clarification the misunderstanding is laid to rest…

As I read it, you have treated the human emissions and the temperature related terms very differently. In figure 13, you filter the temperature related term through what you call a transient response, but what I would call a low pass filter. Then, in Figure 14, you just add the emissions in, without any transient response. Your emissions build, but your temperature related term does not. This is entirely nonphysical.
Perhaps we could make some headway if you wrote out your equations explicitly, leaving no parameter undefined.

Bart:
Perhaps we could make some headway if you wrote out your equations explicitly, leaving no parameter undefined.
1. Bio-response to temperature anomaly:
Bio-CO2(t) = Bio_alpha * (RSS_T(t) * Bio_factor – Bio-CO2(t-1) ) + Bio-CO2(t-1)
Bio-CO2(t) = CO2 response of the biosphere to all temperature changes up to time t.
Bio-CO2(0) = 0 at 1979.0
Bio_alpha = 1 – e^(-1/Bio_tau)
Bio_tau = currently 12 months.
Bio_factor = full CO2 response of the biosphere to a temperature change, currently 4 ppmv/°C.
RSS_T(t) = RSS temperature at time t.
RSS_T(t) * Bio_factor: full CO2 response of the biosphere for temperature RSS_T(t).
Bio_alpha * (RSS_T(t) * Bio_factor – Bio-CO2(t-1) ) : transient response for the difference between the previous CO2 level and the full CO2 response = ΔBio-CO2.
Bio_alpha * (RSS_T(t) * Bio_factor – Bio-CO2(t-1) ) + Bio-CO2(t-1) : value for Bio-CO2(t)
Note that Bio-CO2(t) is NOT the sink capacity of the biosphere due to enhanced temperatures, only the 1-3 years short time response of CO2 from the biosphere to rapid temperature changes.
2. Ocean response to temperature anomaly:
Ocean-CO2(t) = Ocean_alpha * (RSS_T(t) * Ocean_factor – Ocean-CO2(t-1) ) + Ocean-CO2(t-1)
Ocean_tau = currently 48 months
Ocean_factor = currently 16 ppmv/°C.
3. Natural response to temperature anomaly
Nat-CO2(t) = Bio-CO2(t) + Ocean-CO2(t)
Nat-CO2 is the CO2 level which temperature dictates if there were no human emissions and no initial increase in the atmosphere. Dominated by vegetation on short term (seasons, 1-3 years), dominated by the oceans on longer periods.
4. Ocean CO2 response to the pressure difference between observed and dynamic equilibrium pressure
Sink-CO2(t) = Ocean_P_alpha*((Atm-CO2(t-1) + Emiss(t)) – (CO2_base + Nat-CO2(t)))
Where
Ocean_P_alpha = was Emiss_alpha
Ocean_P_tau = was Emiss_tau currently 614 months
Atm-CO2(t-1) = observed CO2 level at time t-1
Emiss(t) = emissions at time t
CO2_base = steady state CO2 level at t(0) for RSS(0)
Nat-CO2(t) = natural CO2 response to temperature changes
Natural emissions caused by temperature here are added to the CO2 base: that reduces the sink rate from human emissions. If other natural emissions are present (volcanoes…) that can be added to the emissions side. Here not added as negligible (~1% of human emissions).
Other temperature related changes like seasonal changes, although huge in quantity, level off to low amounts over a full seasonal cycle. The differences after a full cycle are largely included in Nat-CO2.
Other natural effects on CO2 levels (drought, forest fires, Pinatubo increase of photosynthesis by light scattering,… not included…).
5. Residual CO2 due to human emissions minus sink rate
Emiss-CO2(t) = Emiss-CO2(t-1) + Emiss(t) – Sink-CO2(t)
6. Miscellaneous
RSS_fact = factor needed to align the slopes of RSS_T and dCO2/dt(observed)
RSS_offset = offset needed to align the slopes of RSS_T and dCO2/dt(observed)
Nat_fact = factor needed to reduce the amplitude of Nat_CO2 to the amplitude of dCO2/dt(observed)
Good that you asked, I had to rethink what I had done and write it up, now added to the spreadsheet…

Bartemis

So, you have dissipation factors (for a given alpha, the associated time constant is tau = -log(alpha)/Ts, where Ts is the step interval and log is the natural log) of Bio_alpha and Ocean_alpha applied to the natural, temperature driven inputs, but not to the anthropogenic input.
You cannot do this. These dissipation factors must also apply to the anthropogenic input as well. You cannot dissipate the inputs independently. Once in the atmosphere, all CO2 dissipates in the same way. Your model is nonphysical.
What is Atm-CO2(t-1) composed of, anyway? Are you actually dissipating your Emiss-CO2(t) at all?

Pardon me, I had the inverse, and the way you have the alpha’s defined, the associated time constants are tau = -Ts/log(1-alpha). I needn’t have bothered with that – I originally was going to talk time constants, but changed and went with dissipation factors instead. Same conclusion. Ignore this and the reference to time constants above.

See comment below for a system model which consistently incorporates the effect you are trying to reproduce into a physically realistic configuration, and shows why it is not the temperature sensitivity we are looking for.

Bart,
What is Atm-CO2(t-1) composed of, anyway? Are you actually dissipating your Emiss-CO2(t) at all?
Atm-CO2(t-1) is the observed atmospheric CO2 at time t-1
The pressure difference between observed CO2 + momentary human emissions at one side and the basic CO2 level at temperature T(0) per Henry’s law + the extra CO2 caused by temperature changes is the base for the sink rate calculation, with its own tau of over 50 years.
So, you have dissipation factors … of Bio_alpha and Ocean_alpha applied to the natural, temperature driven inputs
No, these factors are the speed at which a new steady state is reached: they are outputs to the system, not how natural inputs are dissipated. They control the “setpoint” of the system. The difference between CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and that setpoint controls the speed at which any extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, natural and human alike, is dissipated.
If there were no human emissions and no initial increase in the atmosphere, the CO2 levels would go up and down exactly the same way as with human inputs, as that are fast, but limited responses of oceans and vegetation to temperature changes.

You are looking at the wrong temperature related process. See linked discussion below for further details.

All,
There is a serious error in the description of what I have done at point 4:
Sink-CO2(t) = Ocean_P_alpha*((Atm-CO2(t-1) + Emiss(t)) – (CO2_base + Nat-CO2(t)))
Where:
Atm-CO2(t-1) = observed CO2 level at time t-1
Which isn’t what was used in the calculations: the calculated CO2 level in the atmosphere at time t-1 was used, not the observed one, as was emerging from further discussions…
The formula then gets:
Sink-CO2(t) = Ocean_P_alpha*((Calc-CO2(t-1) + Emiss(t)) – (CO2_base + Nat-CO2(t)))
Where:
Calc-CO2(t-1) = calculated atmospheric CO2 level at time t-1
The observed atmospheric CO2 levels were only used in the plots for comparison, nowhere used in the calculations…
Sorry for the inconvenience caused by that error…

All,
Also the title needs to be changed…
4. Ocean CO2 response to the pressure difference between observed and dynamic equilibrium pressure
should be:
4. Ocean CO2 response to the pressure difference between calculated and dynamic equilibrium pressure

Mike M. (period)

There are some periods of poor correlation in Bart’s graph (early 60’s, mid-to-late 70’s, early 90’s). How do Bart and Salby explain those? They are inconsistent with a direct influence of temperature on dCO2/dt.

It is a data quality issue. The lousy surface data do not match nearly as well as the better satellite data:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/temp-CO2_zpsnp6z3jnq.jpg
Except for some slight discrepancies during brief intervals associated with major volcanic eruptions, the satellite data matches very well, indeed.
I use the Southern Hemisphere data for the longer term view, since it goes back to the start of the MLO CO2 record, just to show that the relationship has been clear for at least that long – the Northern Hemisphere data have been subject to the most revision, and are questionable, in my view. As can be seen here, the SH data match the satellite record, even to the present day, while the NH data are all out of sorts.

Mike M. (period)

Bartemis,
The discrepancies circa 1985, 1993, 1997, 2000,2004, 2007, and 2010 are not “slight”. And they are not associated with volcanic eruptions which should not have any effect anyway. So you have a theory that is based entirely on a correlation which does not hold up to close inspection. So the theory has no basis.

1993 is assuredly due to Mt. Pinatubo, and of course such massive eruptions have a transient effect on CO2. The other “discrepancies” are very slight. As can be observed quite easily, the discrepancies are much larger with the less accurate land-based temperatures. Better data = better correlation. It is very clear that this is a measurement limitation, and not a model limitation.
This is as good as it gets in the real world. I do not know why you are quibbling. If you cannot see this, then I can only conclude that you have very little experience working with stochastic data, and are demanding a level of perfection which is seldom attainable in the real world.

David L. Hagen

Ferdinand Engelbeen
Thanks for your careful working through models. On Salby, I think you have dismissed him to quickly. As I recall he attributed changes not just to temperature but also to moisture/water. Secondly he addresses the 13C bomb evidence. Furthermore, he shows natural sinks and sources as being enormous by comparison to anthropogenic. Thus small changes in the rate of those changes can swamp all anthropogenic changes. e.g., half the primary biomass production is from the ocean with corresponding biomass and CO2 sequestration. Thermal changes to the ocean can correspondingly change the primary biomass production. How do you quantitatively address each of Salby’s arguments beyond temperature?

David,
I have listened to Dr. Salby’s different speeches and was present in London 2014, where I had several remarks, which were more or less evaded and there was not enough time to go in depth…
Where he was certainly wrong is that he assumed a lot of diffusion of CO2 in ice cores, which couldn’t be right, as if that was true, the peaks in original CO2 levels during interglacials would be higher and higher the further in the past and impossible: the CO2 levels during glacial periods would have been (much) lower to accept the diffused CO2 from the peaks. That means levels below survival of C3 plants, even negative…
In his 2015 speech in London that point was dropped.
The 14C atomic bomb tests spike is a mix of decay rate of extra mass, which is for 12CO2 and 14CO2 alike, but the problem is the transfer via the deep oceans: what goes into the deep oceans is the 14C level of the momentary bomb spike, what comes out is the 14C level of ~1000 years ago minus the nuclear activity decay. That makes that the decay of the 14CO2 spike is at least 3 times faster than for the 12CO2 increase…
Most of what Dr. Salby said about temperature and moisture is right, but that is mainly for the variability, which is around +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend (see reference [6]). Most of the trend is not caused by temperature and/or moisture.
Indeed natural fluxes over the seasons are huge, but are all temperature related and don’t differ much from year to year, while the sink rate is pressure related, hardly influenced by temperature…
In the oxygen balance all biological oxygen sources and sinks are included, thus also ocean life. That shows a net, growing sink rate of currently ~1 GtC/year, mainly in land plants, as CO2 is not a limiting factor in the oceans…

David L. Hagen

Ferdinand
Diffusion can be a function of densification/age.
Others also find more diffusion. e.g.

When calculated using the “classical” isotope thermometer and assuming a constant sensitivity of 0.67 hK−1 , the magnitudes of these oscillations are underestimated by almost a factor of two

Water isotope diffusion rates from the NorthGRIP ice core for the last 16,000 years – glaciological and paleoclimatic implications
I don’t follow your argument on land sink rate> ocean sink rate. Half biomass production is in the ocean. Dead biomass sinks. Ocean CO2 is also sequestered as calcium carbonate.

David L. Hagen,
Diffusion in Antarctic ice cores were theoretically estimated from the relative “warm” coastal Siple Dome ice core by measuring the increase of CO2 at the edge of a melt layer.
The theoretical migration did give a broadening of the resolution for middle depth from ~20 to ~22 years at full depth (~70,000 years) to ~40 years. No big deal and far from the theoretical migration (a factor 10 underestimation of peak CO2 levels!) that Dr. Salby did put forward.
In much colder inland ice cores (Vostok, Dome C), there is no change in T-CO2 ratio over 8 interglacial-glacial intervals, each some 100,000 years back in time. If there was the slightest migration, the ratio would fade over time…
CO2 production is not the point, the increase in net sink rate is mainly via land plants, as CO2 over land is a limiting factor, all other influences like water, nutrients, equal. In the oceans, water is no problem,. bicarbonates are abundant present but nutrients (iron) are the limiting factors. Any increase of CO2 has a measurable effect on land vegetation growth, but hardly on ocean plants…

David,
Sorry forgot to include the reference:
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250

afonzarelli

Ferdinand, diffusion in ice cores can happen over a long period of time and then shut down due to increased pressure. That way the ratio of carbon to temperature is maintained from interglacial to interglacial. (thus the numbers could be smoothed/suppressed whilst still maintaining that ratio…)

Fonzie,
That is theoretically possible, but not probable, as overlapping ice cores with different accumulation rates (and temperatures) would show large differences in steepness in the transition from glacial to interglacial periods and back ànd large differences in ratio between the two periods. With high accumulation, the cut-off pressure is reached faster than with low accumulation…

Frank

Ferdinand: Fig.1: Bart’s combination of T and dCO2/dt from WoodForTrees.org show that the rate of INCREASE in CO2 is modulated by changes in surface temperature. CO2 has not gone down when the temperature fell. During the 97/98 El Nino (when temperature rose), CO2 increased by 3 ppm/yr rather than the recent average of 2 ppm/yr. During the subsequent La Nina (when temperature fell almost as much as it had risen), CO2 only rose 1 ppm/yr. The mixed layer of the ocean certainly releases a small amount of CO2 when it warms and takes up the same amount when it falls. Based on this cycle of ENSO, one can roughly say that 0.1 degC of warming of the ocean mixed layer releases about 1 ppm of CO2. Extrapolating the 20th-century warming of the ocean would released a somewhat less than 10 ppm of CO2 from the mixed layer from temperature, but about 60 ppm of CO2 has been driven into the ocean by the higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere

Trev

Thanks for the thought provoking article. I would still like clarification though: If the change in temperature causes an immediate change in the rate of change of carbon dioxide “CO2 fluxes react immediately on a temperature change” (2.1) Do you know how quickly equilibrium is reached? If it takes a very long time to reach equilibrium (perhaps several decades) the match in slopes could be significant for a long time. You note in 2.2 that CO2 lags temperature by some 600-800 years. If it took 100 years to reach equilibrium, wouldn’t the graphs of dCO2 and T look similar over several decades? . Thanks for enduring the trolls and I hope you can take the time to answer me 🙂

Trev,
Depends of the nature of the process: Besides the seasonal cycle (months…) for plants, the response is fast (1-3 years), mainly in the tropical forests which suffer drought during El Niño episodes. The ocean surface may take somewhat longer (my estimate was 4 years e-fold transient response rate), but that seems too short, as the amplitude of the variability is too high). For the deep oceans, that takes many centuries and a long lag…
For the short term variability that doesn’t make much difference, but the T increase is physically impossible: for a linear increase in T there is zero slope of the transient response by vegetation or oceans. The only difference of a prolonged response time is that the dCO2/dt offset from zero is smaller.
Take e.g. the T-CO2 changes over a glacial – interglacial transition: 100 ppmv change with an about linear (global) temperature change of ~6°C. That needed an offset of 0.02 ppmv/year in the CO2 rate of change over a period of 5000 years. The same, but opposite change in T and CO2, needs over 10,000 years…
Of course, you can match even such small changes with temperature, but that means that for every period in earth’s life you need another arbitrary factor and offset, while the simple application of Henry’s law gives you the direct end result in all pre-industrial periods over the past few million years…

I have done quite a lot of work on this topic, and while I have used different equations to Ferdinand and approached it a bit differently, the results are very similar. I have looked only at the satellite age, so cannot comment on longer timescales. Like Ferdinand, I find that anthropogenic CO2 is the major cause of the observed atmospheric CO2 increase. I also find that over multi-year periods the oceans are the dominant natural factor, and that the half-life of ocean-air CO2 imbalance is ~13 years.
Ferdinand : Thanks for a well reasoned and supported analysis.

I should add that studying recent years tells us nothing about the 800-year time lag in the temperature/CO2 records. Assuming the lag is genuine, then I would think it has to do with the deep oceans. The deep oceans surely operate on too long a timescale to show up in a few decades. Eric Harpham (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/#comment-2079800) points out that today is about 800-years after the MWP and asks whether today’s CO2 levels come from back then. I think not, for the same basic reason given by Willis Eschenbach (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/#comment-2079798).

In my opinion the CO2 issue stands or falls on the macro level, not micro. Ice cores, sediments, leaf stomata, tree rings, isotopes are like arguing the number of angels on the head of pin, entertaining parlor games, but useless for accurately quantifying reality. Nobody really knows, and the uncertainties and co-confounders are substantial.
According to IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 and many similar carbon (not CO2) balances about 589 GT of C were in the atmosphere prior to 1750. Anthropogenic sources added about 555 Gt with a split of 57% sunk and 43 % retained.
Prior to 1750 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was supposedly on an even keel, sinks/sources balanced, stable, harmonious. Anthropogenic sources, i.e. fossil fuel, cement production, land use changes (why do we hear only about coal?), disrupted this balance. However the full anthro amount added, 555 Gt, is about twice the total increase between 1750 and 2011. This is a problem. So never before existing natural sinks had to be assumed out of oceans and vegetation with an assumed partition of anthro that coincidentally exactly matched the 1750 to 2011 increase. IMO this is, as we would say in college chemistry, dry labbed, the data was manipulated to prove a known or desired result.
IMO the 45,000 Gt of carbon reservoirs, the hundreds of Gt/y of fluxes, and the uncertainties in the data make any assignation of natural and anthropogenic responsibilities for the 1750 to 2011 increase pretty much impossible. (Gt = Pg)
How much CO2 is in the atmosphere?
Atmospheric mass = 5.1E18 kg
CO2 ppm molar, 44/28.96 = 400
CO2 mass = 3.099 E15 kg, 3.099 Gt, 3.099 Pg
Where does it come from?
IPCC AR5 Chapter 6 Figure 6.1…………..uncertainties table 6.1
………………………………………PgC…….+/-……..…+/-
Anthropogenic sources…………….555…….85……….15.3%
FF & Cement (8)……………..……375…….30……….8.0%
Land Use……………….…………180……..80……..44.4%
Atmos Residual (43%) …………….240…….10……..4.2%

Nicholas,
How is it possible that since human emissions are more less emerging that CO2 levels in the atmosphere started to increase in (and δ13C levels started to decrease) exact ratio to human emissions, not seen in any ice core or other proxy in the past 800,000 years?
Human emissions increased a fourfold in the past 55+ years, increase rate in the atmosphere increased a fourfold in the same period, the net sink rate increased a fourfold. If all CO2 is equal for the sinks, any natural cause must have increased a fourfold in the same time span to dwarf human emissions, for which is not the slightest indication…
Reservoirs are not important, as long as there is no change in in/out fluxes
Flux heights are not important as long as there is no difference between influxes and outfluxes.
Only the difference between influxes and outfluxes is important: 9 Pg human emissions in, 4.5 Pg increase in the atmosphere, 4.5 Pg net sink rate somewhere in nature…

“9 Pg human emissions in, 4.5 Pg increase in the atmosphere, 4.5 Pg net sink rate somewhere in nature…”
This is an assumed partition to make the numbers work. Where did the 4.5 Pg sink suddenly come from? Some kind of spontaneous response to anthro C only? Kind of mysterious.

Nicholas Schroeder,
I agree completely, and any reasonable observer would as well. How is it possible for Mother Nature to have been in “balance” for 800,000 years or more, than out of the blue a new source (us) comes into being, and then at the EXACT SAME TIME a new sink (?) comes into being?
Who would believe such a thing? If I tried something like that at my job, I would be unemployed in seconds…

Nicholas Schroeder,
Something as the mass balance. Before 1850:
change in the atmosphere = natural emissions – natural sinks
change in the atmosphere = X – Y
Over the past 800,000 years the only disturbance was temperature, which changed CO2 levels with ~16 ppmv/°C at a very slow rate (0.02 ppmv/year!) that is all.
Human emissions start around 1750, in 1850 there is some effect visible in the CO2 levels and since ~1900 the increase rate is about halve human emissions.
change in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
4.5 GtC/year = 9 GtC/year + X – Y
or
X – Y = -4.5 GtC/year no matter what X and Y are.
CO2 is in equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere for the current average ocean surface temperature at ~290 ppmv in the atmosphere, but that is a dynamic equilibrium: what goes in goes out, as well as over the seasons as between the upwelling at the equator and the sinks near the poles.
If you increase the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, either from volcanoes or from humans, that changes the pressure difference between atmosphere and oceans: the input from the oceans (at the equator) is reduced and the output into the oceans (at the poles) is increased. Thus the initial increase is in part redistributed from the atmosphere into the oceans. How much, that depends of the sink rate.
Anyway, the sink rate is in direct ratio to the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the ocean surface. The higher the increase in the atmosphere, the higher the sink rate.
Thus that sink existed already for millions/billions of years, at least removing volcanic emissions and now human emissions…

Stupid pseudo-mass balance argument again, highlighting your blind spot in the analysis of dynamic systems.

Bart,
As often proved before:
The mass balance must be obeyed at all moments of time.
That can be with human emissions alone or with one and only one alternative: a natural carbon cycle which exactly mimics the fourfold increase in the atmosphere (and net sink rate) in the past 55+ years. Not threefold or fivefold.
For which is not the slightest sign in any observation…

Stupid, Ferdinand. Just stupid. You are not qualified to analyze this system. Anyone who falls for this jejune argument should not be opining on the subject.
What you are doing is not a “mass balance”. It is a pseudo-mass balance.
It does not matter that the pseudo-balance is negative. What matters is if the natural/artificial balance would be negative if there were no human input. There are, in fact, artificial sinks. They are artificial because they are induced by human forcing. You have to put them on the proper side of the ledger to do a true mass balance.

Bart,
As proven to you to no avail:
The sink rate of CO2 is directly proportional to the partial pressure difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans. That is a quite linear process over the past 57 years, If human emissions were ceased today, the pressure in the atmosphere still would remain the same, inducing the same sink rate as just before the end of human emissions.
That will reduce together with the extra pressure in the atmosphere above steady state.
The steady state for the current area weighted average ocean surface temperature is ~290 ppmv per Henry’s law, not 400 ppmv…

Bart,
The only way that the natural cycle can dwarf human emissions is by increasing in exactly the same ratio as human emissions: a fourfold in the same time frame, or you can’t have a fourfold increase in the atmosphere and in net sink rate.
I have repeatedly provided the calculations. If you don’t understand that, you are the one who isn’t qualified to analyze this system.
And as shown many times: as long as the pressure in the atmosphere is above steady state for the average ocean surface temperature per Henry’s law, the sinks will remain in ratio to the difference in pCO2.
The steady state equilibrium is exactly the same for a static sample as for the dynamic equilibrium of the whole ocean area with the atmosphere…

“The only way that the natural cycle can dwarf human emissions is by increasing in exactly the same ratio as human emissions: a fourfold in the same time frame, or you can’t have a fourfold increase in the atmosphere and in net sink rate.”
A) you are incorrect
B) so what?
“The steady state equilibrium is exactly the same for a static sample as for the dynamic equilibrium of the whole ocean area with the atmosphere…”
Were that true, the same dynamic would limit your anthropogenic inputs. You are off in a realm of magic, arbitrarily extruding and torturing the data into what you want it to say.
If you do not understand why the pseudo-mass balance argument is wrong on an incredibly elementary level, then you have no business opining on this subject. You are in way over your head.

Bart:
A) you are incorrect
B) so what?

A) You can’t show a fourfold increase in the atmosphere with a threefold or fivefold increased natural circulation, without violating the equality of the sinks for any CO2, whatever the origin as human emissions increased a fourfold and so did the sinks.
B) A fourfold increase in natural circulation means a fourfold decrease in residence time, an increase in 13C/12C ratio and an accelerating in the 14C bomb spike decay, for which all is no indication…
Were that true, the same dynamic would limit your anthropogenic inputs.
It works for the anthropogenic inputs: these are removed in exact ratio to the increased pressure in the atmosphere over the steady state level per Henry’s law: 290 ppmv for the current temperature. Temperature modulates the momentary sink rate somewhat, that is a complete separate process at about +/- 4-5 ppmv/°C and is practically limited to +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend and levels off to (below) zero over periods of 1-3 years.

Bartemis

I show below a model in which the data are perfectly consistent with a model of natural forcing. And, that model is physically consistent, while your model is not.

A new sink is not required. An unsatisfied old one will do. We live in an ice age. During ice ages cold ocean water sequesters CO2 that all manner of photosynthesizing creatures would be happy to use, particularly 12CO2. The biosphere is currently Carbon limited.

Congratulations on this post Ferdinand

Thanks Hans!

Congratulations on this post Ferdinand
add my congrats.. good job

Dave in Canmore

Ferdinand Says “Currently it is slightly more sink than source, thus using relative more 12CO2 and thus increasing the δ13C level in the atmosphere, but over periods of longer than 3 years”
First, thanks for all your contributions in this subject area. Regarding the above quote, what are the measured uncertainties in this assertion regarding the values of the sinks and sources? Aren’t these no better than guesses? Doesn’t the uncertainties in these measurements affect the discussion to a significant degree? Thanks for whatever time you may devote to my curiosity!

Dave in Canmore,
The CO2 measurements at fixed stations are better than 0.1 ppmv, but local disturbances (volcanic vents, wind from land side – vegetation – and other local problems may interfere + relative huge seasonal changes. For yearly averages that hardly makes a difference between the stations, only the NH-SH lag gives that there is a maximum difference of ~5 ppmv.
“Global” CO2 levels are by definition the average of several stations at ground level (thus excluding Mauna Loa!). In fact it doesn’t make much difference if you take any single station as base: the increase over the years is practically the same.
CO2 emissions are based on obliged inventories of fuel sales and calculated with each fuel’s burning efficiency. probably more underestimated than overestimated, because of the human nature to avoid taxes and political influence (China…)… Official estimate +/- 0.5 GtC on yearly inventories
The oxygen measurements need to be extremely accurate (less than 1 ppmv on 210,000 ppmv), but even that small error can give a rather large error in the CO2 sink rate in vegetation:
1.4 ± 0.8 GtC 1991-1997: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
Confirmed by the δ13C ratio changes over the same period.
1.0 ± 0.6 GtC 1994-2002: http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Which includes the 1998 El Niño with reduced uptake…
δ13C changes are measured by mass spectrometer, I suppose that these results are very accurate, with the same caveats for sampling as for CO2.

Dave in Canmore

I notice no answer about measurement of natural sinks and sources which is my question. But thanks anyway! No one seems to know this which to my mind, makes much of this discussion wash out in the error bars! I’m not trying to be snarky, I was just hoping someone well-versed could parse through the topic and tell me what the uncertainties are. So far, I see some huge assumptions and a big hole where some key data ought to be.

Sorry, if I misunderstood your question:
Most natural fluxes are rough estimates, be it based on CO2, O2 and δ13C changes, as well as over the seasons as over longer periods.
Some are known with reasonable accuracy: the seasonal cycle of the biosphere (mainly plants). That is based on O2 and δ13C changes and estimated around 60 GtC out and in within a year. The opposite changes caused by the ocean surface are ~50 GtC in and out within a year, as the residual (measured) change in the atmosphere is ~10 GtC out and in over the seasons.
There is a near continuous flux of ~40 GtC between upwelling water near the equator and the polar sinks, mainly the NE Atlantic. That is based on the dilution of the 14C bomb spike and the dilution of the δ13C drop caused by human emissions.
Thus while not much is known of individual fluxes, the overall movements are more or less known. To what accuracy? I don’t know.
The only items known with reasonable accuracy are human emissions (non-land use changes), the increase in the atmosphere and the resulting net sink rate…

David Ramsay Steele

Thanks for an excellent essay. I am not yet completely convinced but the argument is cogent and well-marshaled. However, the extremely poor English grammar is distracting. Couldn’t you get a native English speaking colleague to go through your stuff and fix up the grammar before you publish it?

richardscourtney

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
In your above essay you say

There still is one unresolved recurring discussion between mainly Bart/Bartemis and me about one – and only one – alternative natural explanation: if the natural carbon cycle is extremely huge and the sinks are extremely fast, it is -theoretically- possible that the natural cycle dwarfs the human input.

You know that is a falsehood!
As your essay again makes clear, you claim the sinks for CO2 cannot sequester all the anthropogenic (i.e. human provided) CO2 emission so about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air to cause the observed rise of atmospheric CO2.
Bart claims the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 is directly induced by temperature change.
One of our 2005 papers suggests the observed rise of atmospheric CO2 is a result of altered equilibria of the carbon cycle that may be a result of the anthropogenic CO2 emission or some natural cause.
(ref. Ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005))
Salby later reached the same conclusion as our paper but added an analysis of soil behaviour which – he claims – indicates that temperature change has caused the alteration to equilibria of the carbon cycle which is causing the observed rise of atmospheric CO2.
Those are three different explanations of alternative possibilities to the narrative you promote and there is not sufficient data to resolve which – if any – of them is correct.
(a) I fail to understand how you can have forgotten our work (i.e. Rorsch et al.) in light of recent discussions you and I have had on WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog.
and
(b) I fail to understand how you can assert that the theories of Bart and Salby are the same.
and
(c) I fail to understand how you can assert that any of the three alternives (i.e. Rorsch et al., Bart and Salby) is “that the natural cycle dwarfs the human input ”.
You are entitled to advocate your arguments – as you do at every opportunity – but misrepresenting others is unacceptable behaviour.
Richard

Richard Courtney,
If an alternative explanation fails even only one observation, that alternative explanation is wrong.
Take the possibility that the equilibrium changed to explain the increase. That fails:
– Henry’s law which gives 290 ppmv at steady state for the current average ocean temperature.
– The linearity of the sink rate: if the equilibrium changed from 290 to 345 ppmv, the net sink rate wouldn’t be 2.15 ppmv/year as is currently observed but only half that, as the pCO2 difference between observed (400 ppmv) and equilibrium pCO2 halved.
Thus sorry Richard, besides the human cause, there is no explanation I have heard of that doesn’t fail one or more observations.
But don’t feel disappointed, Bart’s temperature-only explanations fails not one but all observations…
Further, while Dr. Salby’s explanation of temperature and moisture is right for the variability in CO2 rate of change, he then makes the same error as Bart by integrating the whole temperature curve, variability + slope, thus attributing the whole CO2 increase to temperature only.
For (c):
Either a natural CO2 increase is additional, but that is not possible, as the increase in the atmosphere would exceed human emissions, while the observed increase is about halve the emissions.
Or the total natural C cycle (or any part of it) increased over time, in such an amount that it dwarfs the human emissions. That means very large sources and extreme fast sinks, that is what Bart says.
If that is right, the natural C cycle must have increased a fourfold in lockstep with human emissions over the past 57 years, for which is not the slightest indication…

The equilibrium level of the oceans did not change from 290 to 345 PPMV while atmospheric CO2 was 400 PPMV. If this change is what the oceans did, then that must have happened gradually over many years while atmospheric CO2 grew to 400 PPMV from something much less, like around 320 PPMV in the first few years of the Mauna Loa CO2 record having annual numbers. And during this time the ocean sink increased from around 1.4 to around 2.5 gigatons of carbon annually, likely to be around 2.7 gigatons in 2017.

“If that is right, the natural C cycle must have increased a fourfold in lockstep with human emissions over the past 57 years, for which is not the slightest indication…”
Unlikely to be sure, but not impossible. One can look at the evolution of our conception of the Carbon cycle over the last 30 years and find easily a tripling of its supposed magnitude/rate.

Gymnosperm,
There are of course lots of unknowns and surprises within the natural carbon cycle. But a fourfold increase would be visible as a fourfold decrease in the residence time. There are lots of estimates around the residence time: if you sort them by date and average the first and second halve, there is a small increase in residence time, consistent with a rather stable carbon cycle in an increasing CO2 mass. Certainly not a fourfold decrease…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
In attempt to deflect attention from your misrepresentations of other people, you make yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions.
You say of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration

Thus sorry Richard, besides the human cause, there is no explanation I have heard of that doesn’t fail one or more observations.

Clearly, you have not been listening.
Your “human cause” fails several observations.
For example, the 13C/12C isotope ratio change is wrong – indeed, it is wrong by 300% – for the cause to be the human emission.

It is possible that this discrepancy may be an effect of dilution, but that possibility does NOT allow you to use a bad fit of changes in the 13C/12C ratio to reject one hypothesis and not another; ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’. However, you claim

As vegetation is a net sink for CO2, the only alternative (relative) fast natural source/sink is the deep oceans. But that would violate the observed 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, if there was a substantial increase in deep ocean – atmosphere exchange: a fourfold increase in carbon cycle over the past 57 years to mask the fourfold increasing human contribution over that period.

Their bad fits to 13C/12C ratio changes indicate that either
(a) vegetation, oceanic degassing and human emission are each possible causes of the rise
OR
(b) vegetation, oceanic degassing and human emission are each not possible causes of the rise.
Ferdinand, your mistaken narrative does NOT give you justification for making misleading and untrue assertions.
Richard

Richard,
If you don’t understand that the 13C/12C ratio decline is solely from human emissions and that the observed decline is diluted by a 40 GtC cycle between the deep oceans and the atmosphere, then further discussion has little sense. The match is perfect since about 1970:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
vegetation, oceanic degassing and human emission are each possible causes of the rise
Vegetation is a proven sink for CO2 by the oxygen balance.
To dwarf human emissions, the increase in deep ocean – atmosphere cycle must increase from ~40 GtC (1960) to 290 GtC (2000). Such an increase in cycle would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
And the oceans are a proven sink for CO2:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

Ferdinand, decay of vegetation in soils is thought to be about 60GT/year compared to the human~10. It has nearly identical isotopic signature of at least -20PDB. Like human combustion, it is essentially a one way input to the atmosphere. It is also to a considerable (but unknown) extent anaerobic, exempting it from Oxygen balance considerations.
A 15% increase in this equals human input and it is highly temperature dependent.
An 8% increase in photosynthesis absorbs all human input (and it luuvs that -22 we are serving).
Increasing human CO2 promotes photosynthesis, not only by reducing water loss (open stomata) but also by increasing the light saturation point. For most crops measured in greenhouses a 50% increase in photosynthesis is observed when CO2 is increased from ambient to 1000 ppm and it is a negative exponential response with much of the increase early.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to suppose an 8% increase in photosynthesis from 280 to 400ppm.
It is true that land vegetation is also a huge source to the atmosphere with strongly bilateral flows, but vegetation also has huge (>100GT) flows back and forth with soils.
And so we come full circle. Vegetation is a net sink ~5% from both atmospheric and soil flows. In other words “we’re greening’.This greening produces more litter…
It still is not clear to me how 2nd derivatives help.

Gymnosperm,
The seasonal C-cycle of the biosphere is ~60 GtC in and out of the atmosphere. That is ~60 GtC photosynthesis and ~60 GtC soil respiration and decay/feed/food…
In theory a relative small change in that cycle can dwarf the human emissions, but the seasonal cycle is remarkably stable: only a small increase over the decades.
Most variability is 1-3 years variability in tropical vegetation due to temperature and drought / rain patterns by El Niño / La NIña. That is about 3 GtC up and down. That is all.
Based on the oxygen balance, the whole biosphere is a small, increasing sink for CO2 since ~1990 of currently 1 GtC/year. The rest of the difference between emissions and increase in the atmosphere sinks in the oceans…

richardscourtney

gymnosperm:
You are right, but don’t anticipate that Ferdinand will address your points: he always evades, obfuscates and arm-waves when shown to be mistaken. Indeed, you made your points because I wrote

Your “human cause” fails several observations.
For example, the 13C/12C isotope ratio change is wrong – indeed, it is wrong by 300% – for the cause to be the human emission.

It is possible that this discrepancy may be an effect of dilution, but that possibility does NOT allow you to use a bad fit of changes in the 13C/12C ratio to reject one hypothesis and not another; ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’.
{snip}

And Ferdinand replied

If you don’t understand that the 13C/12C ratio decline is solely from human emissions and that the observed decline is diluted by a 40 GtC cycle between the deep oceans and the atmosphere, then further discussion has little sense.
{snip}

That is classic ‘argument by assertion’ which completely ignores that “the 13C/12C isotope ratio change is wrong – indeed, it is wrong by 300% – for the cause to be the human emission”: as I said, “It is possible that this discrepancy may be an effect of dilution” but Ferdinand proclaims that the possible effect of dilution is FACT and NOT POSSIBILITY.
If you don’t understand that Ferdinand ignores everything which refutes his narrative, then discussion with him has little sense.
Richard

Richard Courtney,
The reduction of the human “fingerprint” is a measured fact.
It is helped in part by vegetation, as that is a small sink for CO2 (~10% of human emissions), but the rest must come from the ocean exchanges. All other possible sources are too small or too slow.
It can’t be simple addition from the oceans, as that would increase the CO2 level more than human emissions alone. Thus it must be deep ocean circulation, as the ocean surface C exchange is near neutral in isotope exchange after taking into account the shift at the ocean-atmosphere border.
We can calculate the change in δ13C for different deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges. That shows that ~40 GtC gives the best fit. The ~40 GtC exchange rate was independently confirmed by the 14C bomb spike decay rate.
Thus the dilution is calculated and independently confirmed. Affirmative.
If you have an alternative explanation of how 2/3rd of the effect of human emissions on the δ13C level disappears, I like to hear that…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
You make yet another of your unsubstantiated assertions when you write

The reduction of the human “fingerprint” is a measured fact.

Bollocks! The reality is as I said; i.e.

Your “human cause” fails several observations.
For example, the 13C/12C isotope ratio change is wrong – indeed, it is wrong by 300% – for the cause to be the human emission.

It is possible that this discrepancy may be an effect of dilution, but that possibility does NOT allow you to use a bad fit of changes in the 13C/12C ratio to reject one hypothesis and not another; ‘What is good for the goose is good for the gander’.

And as gymnosperm told you, the impossibility of identifying the “human fingerprint” is increased by decay of vegetation. gymnosperm wrote

Ferdinand, decay of vegetation in soils is thought to be about 60GT/year compared to the human~10. It has nearly identical isotopic signature of at least -20PDB. Like human combustion, it is essentially a one way input to the atmosphere. It is also to a considerable (but unknown) extent anaerobic, exempting it from Oxygen balance considerations.
A 15% increase in this equals human input and it is highly temperature dependent.
An 8% increase in photosynthesis absorbs all human input (and it luuvs that -22 we are serving).

So gymnosperm told you of decay of vegetation, “It is also to a considerable (but unknown) extent anaerobic, exempting it from Oxygen balance considerations” and you replied

Based on the oxygen balance, the whole biosphere is a small, increasing sink for CO2 since ~1990 of currently 1 GtC/year. The rest of the difference between emissions and increase in the atmosphere sinks in the oceans…

I then said to gymnosperm

You are right, but don’t anticipate that Ferdinand will address your points: he always evades, obfuscates and arm-waves when shown to be mistaken.

Your post I am answering is additional – but not needed – confirmation that you evade, obfuscate and arm-wave when shown to be mistaken.
Richard

Richard,
As usual, you are reaching to any straw which passes by…
Gymnosperm said that the 60 GtC/year soil release + decay is one way, but that is not the case: it is two-way, as ~60 GtC/year is taken away by photosynthesis.
Most of the soil respiration and vegetation decay is aerobic, part may be methane that – as far as not oxidized by bacteria – is rapidly oxidized in the atmosphere with a half life time of ~10 years.
If that CH4 is not oxidized at all, it is not visible in the 13C/12C ratio of CO2. The rest of the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2, preferentially of 12CO2 thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere.
Thus vegetation is not the cause of the δ13C decline.
The oceans are not the cause of the δ13C decline.
If you have an alternative source than human emissions, I like to hear it…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
I am NOT clutching at straws. I have no need to when refuting your blather.
The “fingerprint” is NOT “a measured fact”.
The facts are as I said in response to your first assertion of that falsehood in this thread.
That is classic ‘argument by assertion’ which completely ignores that “the 13C/12C isotope ratio change is wrong – indeed, it is wrong by 300% – for the cause to be the human emission”: as I said, “It is possible that this discrepancy may be an effect of dilution” but Ferdinand proclaims that the possible effect of dilution is FACT and NOT POSSIBILITY.

Richard,
It is clear that you have not an alternative source than human emissions for the observed δ13C decline, because it doesn’t exist…
Further you always repeat your “is wrong by 300%”, while the observed decline is about 33% of the decline if all human emissions would stay in the atmosphere. That is a 67% deviation of the human contribution, not 300%.
As about 20% of all CO2, whatever its source, is exchanged with CO2 of other reservoirs, not all human CO2 stays in the atmosphere and is mixed with CO2 of other reservoirs. The human contribution to the δ13C decline thus is diluted in the atmosphere by the exchange with other reservoirs and the distribution of human CO2 over all reservoirs. The latter is measured in the δ13C decline of leaves and wood and the oceans surface layer.
Seems difficult to understand for you…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
Is it really so difficult for you to apologise for your unacceptable behaviour?
Your bluster to avoid apologising does you no credit.
Your narrative may be right, but the available evidence refutes it.
You say to me

It is clear that you have not an alternative source than human emissions for the observed δ13C decline, because it doesn’t exist…

Rubbish!
You follow that falsehood with YOUR CLAIM that the major reason for the “observed δ13C decline” is NOT “human emissions” when you write

Further you always repeat your “is wrong by 300%”, while the observed decline is about 33% of the decline if all human emissions would stay in the atmosphere. That is a 67% deviation of the human contribution, not 300%.
As about 20% of all CO2, whatever its source, is exchanged with CO2 of other reservoirs, not all human CO2 stays in the atmosphere and is mixed with CO2 of other reservoirs. The human contribution to the δ13C decline thus is diluted in the atmosphere by the exchange with other reservoirs and the distribution of human CO2 over all reservoirs. The latter is measured in the δ13C decline of leaves and wood and the oceans surface layer.
Seems difficult to understand for you…

Many things seem impossible for you to understand. For example, using your language, “67% deviation of the human contribution” is a statement that only a third of the observed change in the δ13C can be caused by the human emission.
You don’t like “wrong by 300%”? OK, then use “wrong by a factor of 3”.
And your “measurements” of “the δ13C decline of leaves and wood and the oceans surface layer” don’t exist with sufficient accuracy to support your assertion. The changes to leaves, wood and etc. plus the ocean surface layer may not be causing a 67% misfit of the δ13C change: the changes to leaves, wood and etc. plus the ocean surface layer may be causing ALL of the misfit of the δ13C change.
Ferdinand, the lack of adequate quantification enables the possibility that your narrative may be right, but the direct indication is that your narrative is wrong.
‘Being possible’ is NOT the same as ‘known to be true’.
But you assert that any possibility is known to be true when it suites your narrative but – as with your claim of need for an “alternative source” – you say the same possibility is not true when it suites your purpose.
Furthermore, your evasion of an apology ignored the point that your narrative is directly refuted by a pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere. I am not surprised that your deflection from the need need for your apology forgot that point because you were demolished in our recent debate of that matter which starts on Jo Nova’s blog here.
Tom Quirk had analysed a ‘pulse’ of 9.3Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere and said

Plotting the residual differences of measurements from the straight line fit shows that as the world cooled in the 1960s excess CO2 accumulated at low annual rates. During the 1970s and 1980s CO2 was accruing at about 1.5 ppm per year, the average rate of the last 55 years. Then suddenly in 1989 – 1991 large amounts of CO2 were added to and withdrawn from the atmosphere.

He used isotope analysis to determine that the ‘pulse’ of 9.3Gt of CO2 into the air derived from increased emission by oceanic plant material (n.b. it was not a result of sink rate variation).
The sinks sequestered the ‘pulse’ (i.e. the ‘pulse was “withdrawn from the atmosphere”) in less than three years.
That observation indicates that the half-life (or e-folding time) of an addition to atmospheric CO2 is less than a year. And if half-life is less than a year then the sinks are NOT overloaded. This observation is a direct refutation of your narrative which is that the sinks are overloaded so human emissions of CO2 are accumulating in the air.

Your response to this is to say that of the four suggested causes of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration your narrative alone is not refuted by observations. In reality, the narrative you promote is the ONLY suggested cause of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration which IS refuted by observations.
The human emissions may or may not be a significant contributor to the cause(s) of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration but if they are then it is NOT because they are overloading the sinks as you assert.
Richard

Richard,
Your answer only shows that you have no answer at all…
There are only two sources of low-13C on earth: recent organics and fossil organics. All other carbon on earth is (much) higher in 13C. Recent organics (the biosphere) is a net sink of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio. Human emissions thus is the only possible source of the 13C/12C ratio decline.
What part of “if all human emissions would stay in the atmosphere.” don’t you understand? The 33% only means that still humans are 100% responsible for the decline in 13C/12C ratio (and 90% of the increase in mass), but that 67% of the original human emitted CO2 molecules are redistributed over other reservoirs. That is all.
That observation indicates that the half-life (or e-folding time) of an addition to atmospheric CO2 is less than a year.
That is exactly what I used in my calculations and which is visible in Fig. 11 and following figures: an e-folding time of 12 months as “bio-tau” at the bottom of the figures.
What you don’t understand is that such a change is a transient response of the biosphere to temperature: once the temperature drop stops or reverses, the bio reaction to temperature stops or reverses, with a lag, at a maximum of 4-5 ppmv/°C. As good as for the seasons as for the 1-3 years response. That is independent of the bio reaction to any increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is much smaller, but a lot higher in the oceans.
Again: different processes, different responses to temperature and pressure. In all cases human emissions exceeded the pressure sensitive sinks and even all sinks together every year of the past 57 years…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
Your latest post is bizarre. My having explained how
(a) everything you wrote is wrong
and
(b) you had ignored that YOUR narrative is the only explanation refuted by observations
you begin your response saying to me

Your answer only shows that you have no answer at all…

Ferdinand, that only fools yourself.
You then provide another of your unsubstantiated assertions saying

There are only two sources of low-13C on earth: recent organics and fossil organics. All other carbon on earth is (much) higher in 13C. Recent organics (the biosphere) is a net sink of CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio. Human emissions thus is the only possible source of the 13C/12C ratio decline.

Nonsense!
Salby points out that the “recent organics” include biological activity in soil and he calculates that ALL the change could be from that source. As I said in the “answer” you claim I don’t have and which you have responded

And your “measurements” of “the δ13C decline of leaves and wood and the oceans surface layer” don’t exist with sufficient accuracy to support your assertion. The changes to “leaves, wood and the oceans surface layer” don’t exist with sufficient accuracy to support your assertion. The changes to leaves, wood and etc. plus the ocean surface layer may not be causing a 67% misfit of the δ13C change: the changes to leaves, wood and etc. plus the ocean surface layer may be causing ALL of the misfit of the δ13C change.
Ferdinand, the lack of adequate quantification enables the possibility that your narrative may be right, but the direct indication is that your narrative is wrong.
‘Being possible’ is NOT the same as ‘known to be true’.
But you assert that any possibility is known to be true when it suites your narrative but – as with your claim of need for an “alternative source” – you say the same possibility is not true when it suites your purpose.

You ask me

What part of “if all human emissions would stay in the atmosphere.” don’t you understand? The 33% only means that still humans are 100% responsible for the decline in 13C/12C ratio (and 90% of the increase in mass), but that 67% of the original human emitted CO2 molecules are redistributed over other reservoirs. That is all.

I completely understand it, and that is why I said, “the lack of adequate quantification enables the possibility that your narrative may be right”, but you have ignored my also writing, “but the direct indication is that your narrative is wrong”.
Therefore, I ask you
What part of “if NONE OF THE human emissions would stay in the atmosphere.” don’t you understand? The 33% only means that the biological activity is 100% responsible for the decline in 13C/12C ratio (and 90% of the increase in mass), but that 100% of the original human emitted CO2 molecules are sequestered in other reservoirs. That is all.
My question is as valid as yours because both questions include an unjustifiable assumption that relies on lack of the same adequate data.
And your excuse for the removal of the ‘pulse’ is a rejection of all reason!
You say

That observation indicates that the half-life (or e-folding time) of an addition to atmospheric CO2 is less than a year.

That is exactly what I used in my calculations and which is visible in Fig. 11 and following figures: an e-folding time of 12 months as “bio-tau” at the bottom of the figures.
What you don’t understand is that such a change is a transient response of the biosphere to temperature: once the temperature drop stops or reverses, the bio reaction to temperature stops or reverses, with a lag, at a maximum of 4-5 ppmv/°C. As good as for the seasons as for the 1-3 years response. That is independent of the bio reaction to any increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which is much smaller, but a lot higher in the oceans.
Again: different processes, different responses to temperature and pressure. In all cases human emissions exceeded the pressure sensitive sinks and even all sinks together every year of the past 57 years…

NO, Ferdinand, NO! NO! NO!
The sinks do NOT know if a molecule of CO2 originated from a human source or elsewhere.
The sequestration processes are THE SAME for CO2 from each and every source.
You admit that your narrative is disproved by the evidence of the ‘pulse’ that I stated so you claim the sinks make a magical distinction between CO2 molecules from human sources and other sources such that processes with long e-folding time sequester human CO2 emissions but processes with short e-folding time sequester natural CO2 emissions.
Ferdinand, your claim is the most ridiculous excuse imaginable: by comparison it makes epicycles seem sensible.

Richard

Richard,
As told to you many times: the biosphere as a whole: that is land and sea vegetation, bacteria, molds, insects, animals and every other creature that uses carbon to survive is a net sink for CO2.
That is based on the oxygen balance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
That proves that the biosphere does not decrease the δ13C level in the atmosphere to the contrary.
Thus all the talk of Dr. Salby on that point is completely outdated by the fact that the sum of all recent organic production and decay, including feed and food, is a net sink for preferentially 12CO2 and thus a relative source of 13CO2, while we see a firm δ13C decline.
Thus Richard, without knowing anything about the decline of δ13C in the oceans or vegetation, we know that the biosphere doesn’t cause any decline of δ13C in the atmosphere.
Thus Richard, the δ13C decline is solely from human emissions which are 100% emitted into the atmosphere. As only 1/3rd or the total human release of low δ13C is measured, 2/3rd is redistributed over other reservoirs. It is that simple. Except if you have another source of low-13C than human emissions and the biosphere…
The sinks do NOT know if a molecule of CO2 originated from a human source or elsewhere.
The sequestration processes are THE SAME for CO2 from each and every source.

Richard, are you willfully ignorant? I made a distinction between oceans and vegetation related processes and a distinction between pressure related and temperature related processes. Both oceans and vegetation pick up any extra CO2, whatever its source, in the case of a temperature drop or a pressure increase. Where did I make a distinction between natural and human CO2?
In all cases human emissions were way higher than all the sinks of all the processes together…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
In attempt to conceal your deliberate idiocy from your self, you ask me

Richard, are you willfully ignorant? I made a distinction between oceans and vegetation related processes and a distinction between pressure related and temperature related processes. Both oceans and vegetation pick up any extra CO2, whatever its source, in the case of a temperature drop or a pressure increase. Where did I make a distinction between natural and human CO2?

That falsehood is the most silly obfuscation possible!
You here wrote

Again: different processes, different responses to temperature and pressure. In all cases human emissions exceeded the pressure sensitive sinks and even all sinks together every year of the past 57 years…

And I pointed out that is nonsense.The PROCESSES of the sinks are NOT RELEVANT.
The issue is that the sequestration of the pulse demonstrates the sinks are NOT OVERLOADED.

If the sinks are overloaded because “human emissions exceeded the pressure sensitive sinks and even all sinks together every year of the past 57 years” then ANY addition to the CO2 in the air is sequestered by THE SAME OVERLOADED SINKS that sequester the human emission.
The ‘pulse’ was an additional 9.3Gt of CO2 to the air and you admit it had a half-life of less than a year. Therefore, and contrary to your daft assertion, the human CO2 emissions have a half-life of less than a year because the sinks don’t know what is ‘natural’ and what is ‘human’ emission.
A half-life of less than a year demonstrates the sinks are NOT overloaded and therefore, your narrative is falsified. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

As I have also explained, your claims about the change to δ13C:δ12C are also wrong. In that case, you pretend (to yourself?) that one of several possibilities is fact because it fits your narrative, but other possibilities are also provided by the same inadequate data.
You choose one possibility and Salby chooses another while I point out that neither of those possibilities can be rejected by existing information.
Richard

Richard Courtney,
For the last time, I will try to show you where you are wrong:
One process is fast but limited and highly temperature dependent: 4-5 ppmv/°C, response speed: less than 12 months half life time (mostly tropical vegetation).
Another process is slow, near unlimited and highly pressure dependent (mostly deep oceans): 2.15 ppmv/year from 110 ppmv extra pressure in the atmosphere above steady state, response speed: ~40 years half life time.
The first process, or any other natural process, suddenly releases 1.2 ppmv CO2 extra in 3 years and removes that again in 2 years.
The second process was already overloaded with ~60 ppmv in 1988 compared to steady state, which did give a sink rate of ~1 ppmv/year.
In the period 1988-1991, the second process had additional:
1.2 ppmv CO2 extra addition from the sudden release of CO2 from some natural cause.
8 ppmv CO2 extra addition from human emissions in the same years.
The sink rate caused from these combined extra CO2 + what was already extra in the atmosphere is:
(60 + 8 + 1.2) * 2.15 / 110 = 1.35 ppmv/year net sink (the sink rate 2.15 / 110 remains the same over the full period for a linear process). Not enough to remove all human emissions: + 5 ppmv in three years.
If there were no human releases:
(60 + 1.2) * 2.15 / 110 = 1.2 ppmv/year or all extra natural emissions over three years already removed in one year…
If there was no prior overloading at all:
1.2 * 2.15 / 110 = 0.023 ppmv/year at a half life of 40 years or ~200 years to remove 99% of the extra CO2.
In the period 1991-1992 the extra sink did give for the second process:
1.2 ppmv extra sink by the first process (helped by the Pinatubo light scattering).
6 ppmv extra addition from human emissions
The sink rate then gets:
(65 + 6 – 1.2) * 2.15 / 110 = 1.35 ppmv/year. Again not enough to remove all human emissions: + 3.3 ppmv in two years.
Thus regardless of the sudden extra sink by the first process, in all years human emissions overloaded the second process more than the sink rate of both processes combined.
QED
You choose one possibility and Salby chooses another while I point out that neither of those possibilities can be rejected by existing information.
Richard, I didn’t choose “one possibility”, I did choose the overall balance, which includes what Salby did choose. Salby’s presentation is what causes most of the year-by-year variability. The overall balance includes everything in the biosphere: all sources and all sinks wherever and how large they may be.
That definitively rejects the whole biosphere as the cause of the δ13C decline.
QED

Richard,
Small calculation error for the second period: the remaining CO2 increase due to human emissions is:
6 – 1.2 – 2*1.35 = 2.1 ppmv residual increase, despite the extra natural sink of 1.2 ppmv over two years…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
For the last time, I will yet again show you where you are wrong and are spouting nonsense.
You say

One process is fast but limited and highly temperature dependent: 4-5 ppmv/°C, response speed: less than 12 months half life time (mostly tropical vegetation).
Another process is slow, near unlimited and highly pressure dependent (mostly deep oceans): 2.15 ppmv/year from 110 ppmv extra pressure in the atmosphere above steady state, response speed: ~40 years half life time.

The actual processes and their individual rates are NOT relevant because the SAME processes act in the SAME ways on any additional CO2 emission whether its source is ‘natural’ or ‘human’.
The additional pulse of ‘natural’ CO2 into the air in 1989 was sequestered by the sinks within three years. You admit that this demonstrates the ‘pulse’ had a half-life of less than a year and this demonstrates the sinks are NOT OVERLOADED, but you assert that it would have had a half-life of decades if it were a ‘human’ pulse because in that case the sinks would have been overloaded.
No, Ferdinand, your doublethink is ridiculous nonsense.
The sinks do not know whether additional CO2 is ‘natural’ or ‘human’ and they sequester all additional CO2 in the same ways and at the same rates. The sequestration of the 1989-1991 ‘pulse’ demonstrates that THE SINKS ARE NOT OVERLOADED.
And your armwaving does not alter the fact that the uncertainties in the data enable both your and Salby’s interpretations of the isotope ratio changes. Salby is not wrong and you are not right merely because you assert that, and vice versa .
Richard

Richard Courtnay:
The actual processes and their individual rates are NOT relevant because the SAME processes act in the SAME ways on any additional CO2 emission whether its source is ‘natural’ or ‘human’.
As I showed, but you obviously didn’t read it: the combined processes did remove a part of human and all of natural emissions in total mass. Thus human emissions still overloaded the total sink rate in the years of the extra sink…
About the overall balance of the biosphere: that is based on oxygen measurements not δ13C measurements. That is definitive proof (the margins of error don’t include zero) that the biosphere as a whole is a net source of O2, thus a net sink for CO2, thus preferentially for 12CO2 and not the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, neither of the δ13C decline. The earth is greening….
The only “uncertainties in the data” are in your head…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand;
Your doublethink is astonishing. You quote then completely ignore my explanation of your schoolboy error when you write

The actual processes and their individual rates are NOT relevant because the SAME processes act in the SAME ways on any additional CO2 emission whether its source is ‘natural’ or ‘human’.

As I showed, but you obviously didn’t read it: the combined processes did remove a part of human and all of natural emissions in total mass. Thus human emissions still overloaded the total sink rate in the years of the extra sink…

Oh, I read that nonsense which “showed” no such thing!
You asserted – and you have again asserted – that the sinks magically know the sources of CO2 molecules and treat them differently depending on whether their sources are ‘natural’ or ‘human’.
You say
(a) the sinks sequester “part of human” emissions
but
(b) the sinks sequester “all of natural emissions”.
Ferdinand, your belief in magic is not science whatever you may think.
I repeat in hope that you will read and understand that
The actual processes and their individual rates are NOT relevant because the SAME processes act in the SAME ways on any additional CO2 emission whether its source is ‘natural’ or ‘human’.
Therefore, the fact that the sinks sequestered ALL the ‘natural’ CO2 pulse of an additional 9.3Gt of CO2 within 3 years demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 residence time has a half-life and, therefore, the sinks are NOT saturated.
Richard

richardscourtney

Ooops:
My final paragraph should have been
Therefore, the fact that the sinks sequestered ALL the ‘natural’ CO2 pulse of an additional 9.3Gt of CO2 within 3 years demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 residence time has a half-life of less than a year and, therefore, the sinks are NOT saturated.
Sorry for the misprint. Such mistakes are common when frustrated by the need to repeatedly refute deliberate idiocy.
Richard

Richard Courtney,
You say
(a) the sinks sequester “part of human” emissions
but
(b) the sinks sequester “all of natural emissions”.

You deliberately falsify what I wrote by omitting the words in total mass. The sinks remove any CO2 in their neighborhood, natural and human alike, but as they sink more CO2 in total mass than the natural emissions alone, the sinks still are overloaded by human emissions…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I wrote to you

You say
(a) the sinks sequester “part of human” emissions
but
(b) the sinks sequester “all of natural emissions”.

You have replied

You deliberately falsify what I wrote by omitting the words in total mass. The sinks remove any CO2 in their neighborhood, natural and human alike, but as they sink more CO2 in total mass than the natural emissions alone, the sinks still are overloaded by human emissions…

Nonsense!
I quoted your words and the phrase “in total mass” is irrelevant.
If the sinks treated all CO2 molecules in the same way then the sinks would have sequestered the same proportion of “human emissions” as their sequestered proportion of “natural emissions”.
The issue is that your claim requires the sinks to magically determine the sources of CO2 molecules and to magically treat molecules from different sources differently such that as you claim
(a) the sinks sequester “part of human” emissions
but
(b) the sinks sequester “all of natural emissions”.
And that difference is why you claim “human emissions” have a half-life in the atmosphere of decades while “natural emissions” have a half-life in the atmosphere of months.
I don’t believe in magic but you proclaim it.
Richard

Without writing a book, in condensed form, years ago the argument put forth was that the co2 in the atmosphere was knowable by the ratio of isotopes. Now I have to wade though all this to arrive at another concussion that tries to explain the current history of co2. So are we at the same point with isotopic ratios of so much anthropogenic co2 and so much natural?
If the IPCC is calculating the production backwards, then they have no idea how much is man made and how much is natural. Whether the oceans are releasing and when makes no difference in the current record. The absolute result is that the current sink is enormous and expanding. That is a fact. Do the MATH! The information on yearly increase in both ppm and the total tonnage each year is available at the NOAA website.
How do they explain this sink when according to the IPCC the oceans are warmer and more acidic, and tropical forests are considerable less today, and oceans cooler in the 1960s? The sink should have been greater in 1960s. And yet there were increases in co2. In fact, in light of this information, the co2 ppm levels should have been negative. Let me state this, in the record there are no negative ppm years. Is all that co2 hiding somewhere along with heat?
What happened in 1999? The ppm was recorded at 0.93ppm co2 increase. Did we suddenly revert back to producing at a 1965 level? Or let’s look at 2004 at 1.56 ppm. Do you have any idea how far off that is? Want to look at more? Keep in mind production of co2 increased steady during this time. 2014? 2.13 ppm.. 2013? 2.05 ppm….. 2012? 2.65ppm .. oh boy! 2011? 1.88 ppm. 2010? 2.42ppm… and 2009.. clocks in at 1.89 ppm, one more 2008, 1.60 ppm.. Oh, oh your saying the downturn was in 2008, ok 2007, 2.22 ppm. 2006 1.76 ppm.. those numbers are impossible. And yet there they are.
The amount of co2 production for the year 1998, providing half was sunk (also according to NOAA), then the 2.93 ppm is correct for that year. Every year after that is not just wrong, it shouldn’t be. We are taking about 17 years of growth in the production of co2 and none in the rate of increase in co2 ppm, even a decline.

richardscourtney

rishrac:
I am pleased that you have seen one of the larger ‘elephants in the room’.
The IPCC, Ferdinand Engelbeen, and others claim the anthropogenic(i.e. man-made) CO2 is overloading the ‘sinks’ so about half of the anthropogenic CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. But – as you observe – the direct data does not agree with that claim and, therefore, they use ‘5-year smoothing’ to obtain agreement. This is a ‘fiddle factor’ because there is no justification for more than ‘3-year smoothing’ but more smoothing is needed for the required agreement.
Much more such analysis is needed to determine the cause(s) of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. I say this because of findings published in one of our 2005 papers:
Ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Our paper reported attribution studies that used three different models to emulate the causes of the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century. These numerical exercises are a caution to estimates of future changes to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The three basic models we used in these exercises each emulate different physical processes and each agrees with the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. They were used to each demonstrate the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of natural effects, for example, desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it; i.e. they were a total of six models where three assumed the rise was caused entirely by the anthropogenic emission and three assumed variation in natural effects.
Extrapolation using these models gives very different predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentration whatever the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Each of the models in our paper matches the empirical data for annual atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ferdinand Engelbeen use to get their models to agree with the empirical data.
So, if one of the six models of our paper is adopted then there is a 5:1 probability that the choice is wrong. And other models are probably also possible. And the six models each give a different indication of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same future anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide.
Data that fits all the possible causes is not evidence for the true cause. Data that only fits the true cause would be evidence of the true cause. But our findings demonstrate that there is no data which only fits either an anthropogenic or a natural cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Hence, the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
(a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
but
(b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.
Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration. This finding agrees with the statement in Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) that says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios” that has never been retracted.
Richard

I don’t even see how a 5 year smoothed average would not even come close to explaining this. The sink of co2 in the the last 5 years exceeds all of the co2 produced in the decade of the 1960s, possibly all of the 70s. What can they possibly say, 100 bmt has been sunk in the last 5 years? My calculation show that NOAA is under stating the amount being sunk. Take the year 2011, where the rise in co2 was 1.88 ppm. If 17.377 bmt were sunk, which is half of 34.75 bmt produced, there is a missing 7.46 bmt that went somewhere. It didn’t end up in the atmosphere. All years that I calculated show a missing 10 to 23% of all co2 produced on top of 50% that NOAA acknowledges. (26% oceans, 24% land). (Ranging each year between 10 and 23 % is my meaning) it may be more since I tried to overweight the atmosphere to be on the safe side.
If you can get a print out of the co2 ppm for each year going back at least to 1950, there is a relationship, a strong relationship, notably in 1960s, between increases in co2, sunspot activity, and cosmic rays. You can actually see how there was a small blip in solar activity and cosmic rays that made an influence. There is a definite pattern. You can see the pattern before you overlay it with solar activity.
The other thing that shouldn’t be there, is the saw tooth on yearly co2 levels. The atmosphere is finite. Allegedly the co2 gas is well mixed. The difference between the low and high amounts in one year are too large. At the low recently it was 397 ppm, the high will be around 402 ppm or more. That swing on a planet wide basis is almost twice the production in 6 months. The southern oceans uptake is summer, much larger in expanse, and absorbs 2% more makes that saw tooth suspect.

richardscourtney

rishrac:
Thankyou for your continued interest in this subject that I think is important.
You say

The sink of co2 in the the last 5 years exceeds all of the co2 produced in the decade of the 1960s, possibly all of the 70s. What can they possibly say, 100 bmt has been sunk in the last 5 years?

Yes, the sinks are expanding in response to more CO2 in the air. For example, plants are growing more (the so-called ‘greening’ of the Earth) and, thus, are sequestering more CO2.
And you provide an hypothesis of solar effects altering the carbon cycle. This is a possibility because the Sun provides the energy for biological activity, but I am not aware of any mechanism that would do it.
What can be said is – as I tried to explain in this thread here – is that there is much lack of understanding of the carbon cycle which the IPCC, Ferdinand Engelbeen and others choose to ignore.
Richard

Sinks are increasing, in part because the world is getting greener in part from more CO2 and in part from global warming making droughts less severe in the Sahel region of Africa. As for annual growth of atmospheric CO2: This is unsteady on a year-to-year basis largely because ocean surface temperature variations due mostly to El Nino and La Nina cause unsteadiness of ocean and other sinking of CO2. Warmups of the ocean surface reduce ocean sinking of CO2, and cooldowns of the ocean surface increase ocean sinking of CO2. 1998 was a big atmospheric growth year for CO2 because of a big dip in natural sinking due to the El Nino of 1997-1998, apparently including a major dip in the usual annual net land sinking due to serious weather disruptions caused by that El Nino.

If you overlay the co2 levels with solar activity you will discover an inverse relationship. As the sun during this cycle quiets down, I expect to see the level of atmospheric co2 increase.
As more co2 makes it way into the atmosphere more co2 is directly converted to C and o2. There is research that supports that.
I think that over time it has proved that the sinks are not finite, nor are they linear. If the sinks were not variable, we would have depleted all of the atmospheric co2 a long time ago. Looking back at 1965 the sink was about 6 bmt, now it is 19 bmt plus. The record of atmospheric co2 also has trend that for the last 17 years the growth rate has not increased. And that is through a solar cycle and an el nino. In fact it is declining. How else would you describe increasing production of co2 and a flat or declining co2 ppm/ year? We are currently dumping at least 10 bmt more a year than in 1998. And it’s still sitting at 2.5 ppm? Some years since 1998 would have had to have given a true reading of 7 to 9 ppm, climatic conditions not withstanding.

Ferdinand,
Congratulations on a very thorough presentation. I think there are two very basic graphs which establish the cause of CO2 rise. One is just the mass of carbon (via ppm CO2) in the air vs our cumulative emissions:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/ghg/m.png
They sure look related. In fact, it looks like they are proportional, offsetting the preindustrial CO2 level. And yes, if you graph one against the other, you get:
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/misc/ghg/m2.png

Hugs

Can you derive the 44% since it appears constant?

Kind of. The constancy is actually connected with the near exponential rise in emissions. If you apply any impulse response function to an exponential, you’ll get another exponential, same time constant, with constant multiplier. The constant is just a point on the Laplace transform of the response. However, there is no simple derivation of what that is. I show here how the Bern model, which is an impulse response, gives such a rise.

Hugs

Thanks, Nick for the link. As the AF is very central to AGW, I wonder how overlooked topic this is.

The fit with integrated temperature is better.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tempco2_zps55644e9e.jpg
Not just for the long term accumulation, but much, much better when comparing the rate of change.

Bart,
The correlation is as good for human emissions + the transient response of CO2 from oceans and vegetation over all periods in the past 800,000 years. Your “fit” is just curve fitting and fails already if you take the period 1900-1960 (even with a fixed increase rate for human emissions):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2005.jpg
Your take of ppmv/°C/unit of time needs a different factor for each period, extremely low during glacial-interglacial transitions and back, while the simple application of Henry’s law (16 ppmv/°C) + sink rate of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium fits all periods in time…

Your fit is just curve fitting, and it does not match in the rate domain. Unless you cheat, and use aphysical relationships. You cannot remove naturally induced CO2 at a faster rate than anthropogenically produced CO2. The sinks do not know the difference.
I show a viable system model below which treats natural and anthropogenic CO2 on the same level. Most of both end up initially in the oceans. But, the natural forcing is so much larger than the anthropogenic that it dominates. This model satisfies Henry’s Law, and a true mass balance. Your model, on the other hand, is internally inconsistent.

Bartemis, when you’re breathing you can tell the difference? You’re going to take in what ever is around you. Now if you’re going to go down the path that anthropogenic co2 is not as well mixed as claimed, then that changes how co2 is measured. The one where natural co2 is heavier via more isotopic being exposed to external envirnoment.
Your curve fitting skews the ratio between natural and fossil fuel co2. How do you determine the proportional amount that gets absorbed and at what temperature/pressure? Essentially, your saying that over the last 50 years and the sink is definitely 3 times what is was, there should be little or no natural isotopic co2.
Remember you were just talking to me about pressure? Can we calculate how more pressure per square centimeter has increased with increase of co2 at standard temperature and pressure? Of course. Since the gasses are well mixed, and the pressure is increased, other gasses will also be diffused in ocean water as well. Now, that’s not the only thing to take into consideration. The composition of the ocean water itself. While several studies have been given on the acidification of the ocean, there are several large fresh water lakes that should have been very easy to measure and/or a bunch of smaller lakes. Upstate NY where the drinking water comes from for NYC, Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire (it’s large enough that it has a light house on it) and many others. I have seen no studies on them. There should be historical data on them. Detailed historical data.
Tell me the changes in those. You would think that the Round Valley reservoir in NJ would show changes, Passaic Valley Water Authority in North Jersey, or the Delaware river where Elizabeth Town Water gets its water from. (ETW may have been sold) . Futhermore, it would be easy to see how much dissolved co2 and the isotope ratio. Or even look at the alge in the Ratian Delaware Canal. We can look at the aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria as well. That canal was built in 1817 I think.

Bart:
You cannot remove naturally induced CO2 at a faster rate than anthropogenically produced CO2. The sinks do not know the difference.
I didn’t either. I used different rate of change constants for different processes, that is all: the uptake/release of CO2 caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation is (nearly) independent of the uptake by the same plants from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and independent of what the ocean’s response is to temperature changes and pressure changes.
In all cases, human or natural CO2 are treated the same way, only the processes are different.
Your one-(temperature)-process-fits-all ignores the difference in responses…

rishrac November 27, 2015 at 7:52 am
The ratio is subject to diffusion processes with very long tails. The time constant for relative isotopic concentration does not have to match the time constant for the overall concentration. Indeed, the champions of dominant anthropogenic forcing quite explicitly make a distinction between residence time and e-fold time. They just do not realize the process is even more complicated than they apprehend.
Ferdinand Engelbeen November 28, 2015 at 2:55 am
Yes, you do. You have anthropogenic inputs being removed at one rate, and temperature related inputs being removed at another. That is not allowed. Your removal process must act on both inputs the same way.

Bart,
Come on: different rate constants for different processes doesn’t say anything about what is processed. If a temperature related process takes CO2 out of the atmosphere, it grabs any CO2 that is passing by, whatever its origin. The same for a pressure related process. There is not the slightest separation in uptake between natural and human CO2, only a separation in fast and slow processes.

I cannot even begin to parse that.

Bart:
I cannot even begin to parse that.
Yes, I know, that is your problem: you are the man of one process fits all. Difficult to understand that in nature several processes work independent of each other at the same time. Thus parse the short term variability and the long term trend as independent processes and it works fine…

But, it is nonphysical.

kennethrichards

Textbook: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
http://www.atmosfera.unam.mx/jzavala/OceanoAtmosfera/Physics%20of%20the%20Atmosphere%20and%20Climate%20-%20Murry%20Salby.pdf
“Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

“Revealed by natural perturbations to the Earth-atmosphere system, the sensitivity accounts for much of the observed variation of CO2 emission on interannual time scales (Fig. 1.43). It establishes that GMT [global mean temperature] cannot increase without simultaneously increasing CO2 emission – from natural sources.” pg. 253

“The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253

“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.” pg. 546
—-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023027/full
There is clear similarity between Figures 1b and 1c, with the positive CO2 growth rate anomalies corresponding to El Niño events, and the negative growth rate anomalies corresponding to La Niña events. The largest positive CO2 growth rate anomalies are coincident with large Niño3 values in 1973, 1988 and 1998. By contrast, the 2003 CO2 growth rate anomaly follows a small Niño3 value suggesting a weak El Niño, and the Niño3 preceding the 2002 CO2 rise is actually slightly negative.
We have shown that the 2003 ΔCO2 was anomalously large given the size of the preceding El Niño, and that 2002 was larger than expected but not significantly so. It is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions. Most interannual variability in the CO2 growth rate is attributable to variations in land-atmosphere CO2 exchange with climate (e.g., associated with ENSO or volcanic perturbations)
—-
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/9045/2010/acpd-10-9045-2010.html
The ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity, the airborne fraction (AF), is central to predict changes in earth’s surface temperature due to greenhouse gas induced warming. This ratio has remained remarkably constant in the past five decades
—-
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040613/full
Abstract: [T]he trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
—-
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281111296_RESPONSIVENESS_OF_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE
A statistically significant correlation between annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the annual rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere over a 53-year sample period from 1959-2011 is likely to be spurious because it vanishes when the two series are detrended. The results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
—-
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r
[T]he analytical results also then support the IPCC analysis and data on the longer “adjustment time” (∼100 years) governing the long-term rising “quasi-equilibrium” concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For principal verification of the adopted PSR model, the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years, in accordance with the (unsteady-state) prediction from and jointly providing validation for the PSR analysis. With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.

The 5-15 year quasi-equilibrium and the similarly short atmospheric lifetime of an individual CO2 molecule as indicated by the bomb tests is not the atmospheric lifetime of an injection of CO2 into the atmosphere. When the ocean absorbs molecules of CO2 injected into the atmosphere, this increases the ocean’s gassing-out molecules of CO2. There is 2-way transport of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean even when there is lack of equilibrium as we have now. Willis Eschenbach has shown the half-life of an injection of CO2 into the atmosphere (my wording) to be 41 years, to the extent exponential decay describes removal from the atmosphere of an injection of CO2, in his April 19 2015 article in WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/19/the-secret-life-of-half-life/

Javier

Ferdinand Engelbeen,
I have agreed with you on this issue since I looked at it with some detail after watching one of Murray Salbys’ conferences. Furthermore this phenomenon was discovered in the early 70’s and correctly assigned to temperature induced vegetation changes by R.B. Bacastow, one of Keeling’s frequent collaborators.
I have two remaining questions if you would be so kind:
1) The changes in CO2 concentration due to vegetation seasonality appear to be at least twice as large as the amount that we put into the atmosphere every year and are very rapid as they take place in about 3 months. Does this contradict the belief by some climatologists that elevated CO2 levels will persist for thousands of years? It looks to me that if the biosphere can produce such rapid changes and increase its sink capacity it could very well take care of elevated CO2 levels in a few decades if no more CO2 is emitted. Am I wrong in your opinion?
2) The transient response of CO2 changes around the mean to temperature changes has been described as the carbon dioxide thermometer, as it provides an independent measure of temperature changes that agrees quite well with other measures (your figure 1). How good is that carbon dioxide thermometer in your opinion and is it capable of discriminating between satellite and land measurements as to which one constitutes a better fit to it? This has been argued, but not convincingly in my opinion.
Thank you.

Javier,
Thanks for the support…
About 1):
The fast growth and decay of leaves over the seasons, which absorbs a lot of CO2, but releases a lot of CO2 when the fallen leaves decay in the next year(s). That is about 60 GtC in and out each in a few months time over a year, but that doesn’t change much over the years.
The longer term uptake in more permanent storage (humus, peat, lignite, coal,…) is much smaller: currently about 1 GtC/year (~0.5 ppmv) for 110 ppmv increase in the atmosphere. That gives an e-fold time of ~220 years or a half life time of ~160 years. If I remember well, the IPCC gives an e-fold time of ~170 years for vegetation in its Bern model or a half life of ~125 years.
If the deep oceans were saturated (for which is no sign), vegetation should do all the work. That means that if we stop all emissions today, the decay to near equilibrium (5 half life times) would be over 600 years…
About 2):
Reverse engineering is a rather tricky business…
The high resolution ice cores show a drop of ~6 ppmv between MWP and LIA, corresponding to a global drop of ~0.4°C (at 16 ppmv/°C ocean surface equilibrium), half way Mann’s reconstruction (MBH’99) and others (Esper, Moberg,…). In current times, one sees a short time variability of 4-5 ppmv/°C (Pinatubo, El Niño), but in a rising CO2 rate of change, which makes it quite difficult…
I shouldn’t give it not too much weight…

prjindigo

So what you’re saying is that if mankind somehow created an increase in the acidity of the water cycle beyond the naturally buffered state that carbon dioxide exists in and started burning an ever increasing amount of flora and delayed flora which then released carbon dioxide into this no-longer buffered environmental cycle – it would explain the increases in environmental carbon dioxide suspended in the atmosphere.
Well then, its a good thing nobody on Earth causes acid rain anymore then, isn’t it?

Willis Eschenbach

It’s easy to show that Murray Salby is wrong in claiming that the CO2 increase is due to temperature rise. We use Henry’s Law, as Ferdinand points out:

When the new equilibrium is reached, dCO2/dt = 0 and:
k*(T-T0) = ΔpCO2
Where k = ~16 ppmv/°C which is the value that Henry’s law gives for the equilibrium between seawater and the atmosphere.

This means that for every degree the globe warms, we expect the atmospheric CO2 levels to increase by about 16 ppmv.
We don’t have just theoretical calculations, however. We also have the Vostok ice core data for both temperature and CO2. This gives us a value of a change in CO2 due to temperature rise of ~ 16.5 ppmv/°C, in very good agreement with theory.
Now, since 1900 the CO2 levels went up by about 100 ppmv. For that CO2 increase to be due to warmer temperatures, it would require a temperature increase of 100 / 16 ≈ 6°C … and in fact the change in global temperature over that time was about 0.6°C.
In other words, the temperature change over the 20th century was a full order of magnitude too small to cause the corresponding increase in CO2.
Q. E. D.
w.

William Astley

Willis,
Your above calculation is incorrect as you do not know the magnitude of the sinks and do not know what is the mixing of the deep ocean water with the surface ocean water. Also the entire ocean does not warm 1C, that is goofy. Your toy model calculation is silly.

Willis Eschenbach

William Astley November 25, 2015 at 12:29 pm

Willis,
Your above calculation is incorrect as you do not know the magnitude of the sinks and do not know what is the mixing of the deep ocean water with the surface ocean water.

Thanks, William. Fortunately, we can estimate the magnitude of the sinks. We can calculate them on an annual basis. They are equal to the amount of CO2 emitted minus the change in CO2 in the air (both expressed in gigatonnes).
And while this assumes little change in natural sinks/sources, this assumption is strongly confirmed by the graphic above, which shows that observations and theoretical calculations agree very well, particularly post-1959 when we have good data on both emissions and CO2 levels. If there were significant natural variation in sinks and sources we’d see it in the graphic … but we don’t.
Also fortunately, the mixing of the deep and shallow oceans is what it is, but it doesn’t affect the above calculation.

Also the entire ocean does not warm 1C, that is goofy.

I see I was not clear, my bad. I assumed that people would know that I meant the surface temperature of the ocean, which is the only temperature of interest in relation to the oceanic CO2 uptake/outgassing.

Your toy model calculation is silly.

Subjective value judgements are not all that useful in a scientific discussion …
Best regards,
w.

William Astley

Willis,
See my response and linked to paper below.

afonzarelli

So, willis, your saying that bart’s graph is just a “coinkidink”? (maybe something is wrong with your analysis, not the data…)

1sky1

The Vostok data are scarcely applicable to 20th century developments. The data are not proper (equi-spaced) time-series, with T and CO2 seldom shown concurrently. Under those circumstances the best that can be done is correlate total CHANGES in both variables over roughly matched time intervals. That R^2 is only ~0.1. This hardly provides any reasonable basis for causal attribution or for statistical reliance upon any regressional slope, especially when CO2 levels have risen well beyond those prevailing over most of the Vostok record.

sabretruthtiger

The relationship is applicable surely, CO2 lags temperature.

1sky1

sabretruthtiger:
The relationship in question is Willis’ claim of CONSTANT regressional dependence of 16ppmv CO2 per degree Celsius, which is scarcely validated by any phase-lagging of the CO2 signal in the Vostok data. On the contrary, any phase shifting invariably reduces the regressional slope, ultimately reaching zero for 90-degree phase shift. The 20th century CO2 levels, however, cannot be explained reasonably by any temperature-induced outgassing, as assumed by Salby.

Willis Eschenbach

1sky1 November 25, 2015 at 3:18 pm

The Vostok data are scarcely applicable to 20th century developments. The data are not proper (equi-spaced) time-series, with T and CO2 seldom shown concurrently. Under those circumstances the best that can be done is correlate total CHANGES in both variables over roughly matched time intervals.

Thanks, 1sky1, but that analysis is not all that is possible. A reasonable estimate of the relationship between the two can be done by interpolating the values of the more-sampled variable to match the less-sampled variable. Although this invariably reduces the peaks/valleys in the interpolated values, the amount is small for our purposes. I’m looking for an order-of-magnitude estimate, not three digit precision.

That R^2 is only ~0.1. This hardly provides any reasonable basis for causal attribution or for statistical reliance upon any regressional slope, especially when CO2 levels have risen well beyond those prevailing over most of the Vostok record.

I don’t understand this claim. Why would the relationship between temperature and CO2 (confirmed by Henry’s Law) suddenly stop working just because CO2 levels have marginally increased?
1sky1 November 27, 2015 at 1:21 pm Edit

sabretruthtiger:
The relationship in question is Willis’ claim of CONSTANT regressional dependence of 16ppmv CO2 per degree Celsius, which is scarcely validated by any phase-lagging of the CO2 signal in the Vostok data. On the contrary, any phase shifting invariably reduces the regressional slope, ultimately reaching zero for 90-degree phase shift.

The calculation that I did was indeed the phase-lagged value, not the value at time zero. Since this is the real outcome, it reflects the something like the true strength of the actual change.

The 20th century CO2 levels, however, cannot be explained reasonably by any temperature-induced outgassing, as assumed by Salby.

We are in total agreement about that. The effect of temperature on CO2 levels is an order of magnitude too small to explain recent changes in CO2 levels.
w.

1sky1

Willis:
Henry’s law expresses the linear relationship between the partial pressure of a gas in the atmosphere and its equilibrium concentration in a liquid at FIXED temperature. This is a static law, not a dynamic prescription, such as required for establishing time-series relationships in non-equilibrium conditions. The very low correlation between roughly concurrent, quasi-millenial changes in T and in CO2 evident in the Vostok data, while partially the result of phase lag, shows us that such changes cannot provide a reliable empirical prescription through linear regression. The two variables simply are not very directly related. It is only at much longer time-scales, such as those of the Milankovitch cyles, that a very strong correlation, suggesting outgassing from oceans, can be found.
Hope this helps.

1sky1,
I plotted the Vostok data which gives:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
Which shows a rather linear ratio, which need to be doubled, as the temperature scale is at polar (snow) temperature changes.
I do find an R^2 of 0.75, not bad for a natural process, without taking into account the lags (~800 years with warming, several thousand years at cooling). Shifting the CO2 data back with lag times would make the correlation even better…
Further, the previous interglacial was ~2°C warmer than today: 290 ppmv CO2, according to the Vostok ice core…

1sky1

Ferdinand:
Since CO2 and T are seldom given concurrently in the Vostok data, it is far from clear what was done to obtain your scattergram. It seems that you show the relationship between CO2 levels and long-term temperature anomalies for the fraction of data points that are nearly concurrent. This effectively compares well-correlated LEVELS at multi-millenial scales, over which equilibrium outgassing might have been achieved in conformance with Henry’s law, rather than comparing virtually uncorrelated, quasi-millennial CHANGES, which is the non-equilibrium issue at hand that I was referring to.

Peter Sable

There’s a lot of discussion about Henry’s law above, but AFAICT there’s hardly anybody really challenging the formula for k for seawater, especially in the presence of a buffered system.
I can’t find a good graph for the ocean, but here’s a graph for human blood that suggests things aren’t so simple in the presence of soluble buffers:
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/section_20/bf32c2157f7a9bce626717bd607a1244.jpg
from: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s20-06-buffers.html
I suspect the 16 ppmv/degC is something someone measured in a lab with seawater but no buffer – much like the many ocean pH experiments.
Does anyone have a definitive description of how that value was determined?
Peter

Peter Sable

reading further, noted in a blockquote in the text:

“Gases that react with water do not obey Henry’s law.”

The graph of blood plasma implies that the C02 is reacting with the solvent, and Henry’s law thus is not a simple constant. I suspect the same about the ocean.
Peter
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/s17-solutions.html#averill_1.0-ch13_s04

Peter Sable

Might have to buy this book if you really want to understand, it’s making my head explode already:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yRMgYc-8mTIC&pg=PA535&lpg=PA535&dq=henry%27s+law+in+a+buffered+system&source=bl&ots=OEJe7Bx2PB&sig=YAIdxH6Vg5VQgOnkayd41jVwuEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihvsKXrK3JAhWCVYgKHU0oDZg4ChDoAQgcMAA#v=onepage&q=henry%27s%20law%20in%20a%20buffered%20system&f=false
I’d say one big assumption missing on that page already is the deep ocean mixing…. much of the ocean is actually shallow. (time to google that and find out the depth distribution vs. surface area of the ocean…)
Peter

Human blood has at least an order of magnitude more buffering agents than seawater has. For one thing, human blood in a healthy human body has around/over two orders of magnitude more organic compounds including amino, fatty and uric acids as well as biomass than seawater has, and at least an order of magnitude more bicarbonate and dissolved CO2.

Peter Sable

Human blood has at least an order of magnitude more buffering agents than seawater has. For one thing, human blood in a healthy human body has around/over two orders of magnitude more organic compounds including amino, fatty and uric acids as well as biomass than seawater has, and at least an order of magnitude more bicarbonate and dissolved CO2.

Presumably you mean per unit volume. Are you sure? There’s an awful large amount of dissovable carbonate minerals on the ocean floor. Biomass, yes, I can see how the human has more biomass per unit volume of C02 than ocean. I was only referring to the available carbonates… both IMHO are equivalent to an open system, as much as you need, you can get. Generally when you have an open system on one side of a buffer and a closed system (C02 in the atmosphere) on the other side, thinks get… interesting. The metric that tends to vary is not the open system, it’s the closed system…
I was also just showing an example of blood plasma because I can’t find one for the ocean. All the textbooks I can find are “this is so”, not “here’s the data to prove it’s so”… silly textbook writers, they aren’t writing science, just factoids…
I’d like to see an equivalent curve for the ocean. Of course, since most of the pH experiments have been done incorrectly, good luck with that in a laboratory.
Yet again, another “we possibly don’t know”… though one could estimate from the Vostok cores, assuming there aren’t a pile of assumptions built into that one. Really need a prospective study…
Really I’m just challenging this hear to learn more about how Henry’s law deals with buffered systems where the availability of the dissovable buffer far exceeds the gas in question. I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as people think, but I’d love to see an experiment that proves it is.
Peter

Peter Sable,
Does anyone have a definitive description of how that value was determined?
With over three million measurements both in laboratories and underway ships via samples and automated equipment…
Seawater is a weak buffer itself, carbonate deposits don’t play a role at the surface, only on (very) long term with the deep oceans and coastal or in shallow seas.
The formula used to compensate for the temperature difference between the measurement device and the seawater at hull (in situ) temperature is:
(pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]
More background at:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/LMG06_8_data_report.doc
More brain breakers about the dissociation constants at:
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf
Contains at page 7 tables for the different dissociation constants for different temperatures and salinity and graphs at the next page…
At page 20, Fig. 9.10 gives the solubility of CO2 at different temperatures
At last the Bjerrum plot gives the relative abundance of the three C species at different pH’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot

Peter Sable

Ferdinand, thanks for the links to the Bjerrum plot.
The very first sentence in the wikipedia is part of the same problem I and others are having with laboratory experiments concerning decreasing ocean pH.

A Bjerrum plot is a graph of the concentrations of the different species of a polyprotic acid in a solution, as functions of the solution’s pH,[1] when the solution is at equilibrium.

The solution called the ocean isn’t at equilibrium – it’s not a closed system on the bottom end. About 15% of the earth’s surface is shallow ocean water with plenty of carbonate deposits and life to spread or absorb more carbonates to/from the other 55% of the earth’s surface and plenty of mixing to have this happen in a short time period. This is not being replicated in the lab.
I’d like to see a plot where the assumption of non-equilibrium (an open system on both the atmosphere and the ocean bottom/sealife) is characterized.
Peter

Peter Sable

Figure 9.10 seems to be more what I was referring to: An open system on both ends, though I think one of the problems is really the atmospheric concentration is NOT an open system, as the amount of carbonates far exceeds the amount of C02 in the air (by mass).
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/global_cycle/vol%20I/cht_i_09.pdf

Schematic representation of an open system , consisting of a water m ass in exchange with an infinite CO2 reserve oir and with carbonate rock . The alkalinities are calculated for 4 different temperatures. The corresponding pH values are indicated in the graph as well as the atmospheric C O 2 partial pressure (P CO2).

The problem is in order to make this 4 variable 4 equation system easier to solve, they chose the wrong variable to fix:

Instead of choosing the CO2 pressure, the calculation procedure is the easiest if we depart from the final pH the water will obtain. The alkalinity is defined by the electroneutrality requirement:

This makes interpretation hard, but I’ll try.
If you peer closely at the log plot (log on X axis), at a pH of 8, the partial pressure of C02 changes slightly with temperature, with a resulting increase in the concentration of metals. The change, however (given 4 points close on a graph) is not linear. I’ll note this is a log scale, which means there’s a dramatic change in soluability with temperature if we’re talking ppm on a linear scale, which is how most of us refer to C02 concentrations. This will also increase any nonlinearities as can be (barely) seen by those 4 points plotted at pH of 8.
I’ll note that this plot (figure 9.10) is NOT replicated in the lab, and especially not in ocean buckets off of ships, because those are closed systems on one end – there’s no carbonate deposits on the bottom of the bucket (unless they let the barnacles grow…). So those 3M measurements are just repeating the possibly bad assumption of the linearity of Henry’s Law.
So figure 9.10 helps confirm my suspicion that the assumption of closed systems in Henry’s law is suspect. However, I’m still learning here, so please point out where I’m wrong. I think what I need is another several dozen data points around a pH of 8 for this plot. I’ll dig through the equations and see if I can do it myself. Time to find that open source algrebra solver, I’m not doing this by hand…
Peter

Peter Sable

As for this:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/CO2/carbondioxide/text/LMG06_8_data_report.doc
Interesting reading especially with my background in metrology, but doesn’t address Henry’s law issues:
(1) they didn’t measure pH, and that’s pretty important. AFAICT they didn’t measure ion concentrations either.
(2) they did measure different levels of pC02 in the air and water and one at first glance might think that’s enough to draw a curve, but there can also be different unrelated changes in pH and ion concentration, the ocean isn’t instantaneously that well mixed and their measurements are from a whole ocean standpoint instantaneous measurements in time and space. We here are trying to use Henry’s law to estimate the entire ocean’s behavior over decades. Completely different scale.
So again I remain somewhat skeptical that Henry’s law is linear with respect to temperature and pC02 for the entire ocean on decadal time scales, because Henry’s law as commonly used makes lots of assumptions about how closed the system is. In fact the system is somewhat closed on the wrong end of the assumptions (the atmopshere) and open on the other end (the shallow ocean floor).
Eagerly look forward to someone proving me wrong here, because I’ll learn something.
Peter

Willis, the sink is not the same over time. In 1965, the sink was 6 bmt, today that sink is 19 bmt (NOAA). If it wasn’t that large, there would be some serious problems with co2 levels. The ppm would be 5.5 ppm not 2.5. As it is the total should be about 7 total divided by the sink and making its way into the atmosphere. In other words, the sink is larger than the amount making its way into the atmosphere.
Out of the 38 bmt, 4.5 ppm was absorbed, and 2.5 ppm in the atmosphere… more or less.. on the high side 8, low side would be 6.
I’ve seen using a different method that also had the temperature an order too large.

I provide a more accurate toy model somewhere below which refutes this argument. I am currently working my way down there to see what silly objections have been raised in my absence.

This is circular reasoning, Willis. You assume a model. You parameterize the model based on observations. And, then you conclude that the model matches observations.

Eric Harpham

Nobody appears to have thought the obvious. All the Ice Core studies I have read show that CO2 increases 800 years (+/- a few) AFTER temperature rises. Go back 800 years and what do you find but the Medieval Warm Period. Could this be the real reason for the increase in CO2?

Jim G1

Spurious correlations are extremely common in all areas of research. I never did stop eating butter or bacon, but that research was beyond spurious and simply false information like most of agw supporting studies.

jono1066

Best article ever, the technical content of the article and the ensuing comments makes my head hurt trying to learn and figure both (Many) side of the argument, rather than the normal rumbling comments, I even need a pencil and paper.
The main effect of this good read was eluding the bliss of domestic evening chores.
long may we argue

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

First of all thanks for such a thorough article.
There’s still a lot I don’t understand but one detail stands out: why would the net sink increase in the same proportion as man-made emissions?
You’ve made this point a few times in the comments: emissions have more or less quadrupled since 1950s. But why, if the yearly natural sink is 100ppmv and the net was only 0.5 back then, would the net grow four-fold to just over 2ppm now? I assume that with global greening natural sink (and therefore net) would grow, but a net growing to 2ppmv would imply that natural sink grew from 100 to 101.5ppm or so (I know, I know, rough numbers).
Now, there’s nothing strange about natural sinks growing a little bit, but growing enough to offset half of man-made emissions, over this 60-year period, seems weird. Isn’t that a massive coincidence? Some process nobody has figured out yet? Or perhaps the numbers just aren’t so accurate and I’m reading too much into this ‘proportion’?

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

I just wanted to make clear that where I say ‘natural sink was is 100ppm’, or whatever other value, it’s just for reference. I know that the exact value isn’t known with such detail. The thing is that variations in this natural sink rate seem to have offset about half of man-made emissions, and I have no idea why that could be.
OTOH, if this net natural sink continued, stabilizing ppm would require FAR less drastic emission reductions than the UN and carbon budgeters have argued for. Meaning, if net sink is just over 2ppm, then cutting emissions in half (from 4.5ppm to 2.25ppm) would effectively leave us with stable concentrations. Crisis averted!
Of course cutting emissions in half is probably impossible in the next decades, but it’s far, far easier than cutting them by 80% or whatever other number the loons come up with. Now I see why this wouldn’t fit the ‘alarmist’ narrative – we can simply implement emissions cuts at a later date, if CO2 happens to be that dangerous.

Alberto Zaragoza Comendador,
In fact, the near linear increase in sink rate is the result of a slightly quadratic increase of human emissions over time. That leads to a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and that gives a slightly quadratic net sink rate.
Any quadratic increase gives a linear slope in the derivatives. Thus a quadrupling in the yearly emissions or the past 57 years gives a quadrupling of yearly increase in the atmosphere and a quadrupling of the net sink rate per year.
That is a question of pressure difference between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans (vegetation helps too, but oceans are the main sinks). If the atmospheric pressure increases, the release of CO2 at the equatorial upwelling is decreased and at the polar sink places the sink rate is increased. The net sink rate is in rather linear ratio to the pressure difference between atmosphere and oceans; if that doubles, the sink rate doubles…
And you are right: if we could reduce human emissions to equal the sink rate, CO2 levels would stay at the current level. If necessary at all…

Net sink is proportion to how away-from-equilibrium the atmosphere is with the sum of the hydrosphere and biosphere.

Mike

Thus while the variability in temperature matches the variability in CO2 rate of change, there is no influence at all from the slope in temperature on the slope in CO2 rate of change.
Conclusion: A linear increase in temperature doesn’t introduce a slope in the CO2 rate of change at any level.

Sorry Ferdinand, you are drawing incorrect generalised conclusions by looking at very special cases: pure sinusoids and constant linear increase.
The linear relaxation response that you are using has a frequency dependent amplitude. It will be less for inter-decadal variation that it is for inter-annual variation.
Values for this at two time-scales are estimated from HadSST3 and Mauna Loa CO2 here:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=233comment image
Centennial scale will be smaller again, I’d guess about 2 ppm/year/kelvin from those values.
If we takes 0.7K/century rise as the centennial scale temperature variation that gives about 140 ppmv increase due to out-gassing which is about the rise since pre-industrial levels.
Now that 2 ppm/year/kelvin was a pretty crude estimation so maybe we should say 2+/-1 ppm/year/kelvin. It still mean a significant part of CO2 rise could be outgassing.

Mike,
Sorry, but you make the same mistake as Bart: the response of oceans and vegetation to a temperature change is in ppmv/K not ppmv/K/period. A fixed temperature change of the ocean surface gives a fixed CO2 change in the atmosphere, per Henry’s law, no matter if that is static (of a closed sample) or dynamic (all over the ocean ins and outs). It is a transient response at ~16 ppmv/K, not a continuous fixed or accelerating increase in the atmosphere for a fixed temperature step.
I have focused on the simple sinusoids (+ “emissions”), because the theory proves that a linear increase in temperature gives hardly any slope in the derivatives of the transient response of CO2 in oceans and vegetation. If one then applies the same rules to the real temperature data, a slight slope is visible, just enough to match the observed slope of total CO2 rate of change together with the calculated increase rate due to human emissions.
Your 2 ppm/year/kelvin includes both the small rise by the transient response and the rise due to human emissions. In that way, you attribute human emissions to the temperature rise…
What I did show is that the variability is entirely natural and mostly temperature variability induced. The slope of the rise may be temperature induced or human induced, but the latter fits all observations, the former none, except a similar fit of the variability and the slope of the graphs…

So many words, graphs, “conclusions” (convincing only those who make them)…
All this in the face of one undeniable fact: in reality, there was no statistically significant increase in temperature since 1940 if we remove all the falsification (“adjustments”) from the temperature data. Your arguments, gentlemen, are about a wisp of imagination, and play into the hands of the data torturers and ignorant, corrupt politicians.

CC Reader

The following satellite data contained in the document below displays a “pause” in CO2 starting around 2005. Please look at the graph of the ACOS data As supports Dr. David Evans “Notch Theory” research which predicted a decrease in temprature starting around 2005.
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/featured-items/airs_acos_co2_satellite_observations
Figure 6. Time-series of globally averaged CO2 mixing ratios from AIRS Version 5 (2002-2012) and ACOS Version 2.9 (2009-2012). A subset of the ground observations record at Mauna Loa Observatory (1982-2012) (Tans and Keeling, 2012) is given for reference.
Figure 2. The mid-infrared spectrum of clean air in a 24 m cell. Main absorption bands of target gases CO2, carbon monoxide (CO), and water vapor (H2O) are shown. [After Howard (1959) and Goody and Robinson (1951)].

William Astley

Oddly or paradoxically the reason why there was a 80 ppm to 100 pm drop in atmospheric CO2 during the recent glacial/interglacial cycles is not known. The calculation of CO2 pluses and minuses during the glacial cycle can only account for a lower of 8.5 ppm.
This fact indicates that there are multiple incorrect assumptions concerning the sinks and sources of CO2.
A back of the envelop calculation of the CO2 variance divided by the temperature change for the glacial/interglacial cycle has therefore zero relevance concerning Salby’s assertions.
http://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/readings/Sigman_Boyle-Glacial_CO2_Review-Na00.pdf

Glacial/interglacial variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide
Taking the estimated temperature and salinity effects together, we would expect the atmospheric CO2 concentration of the ice age world to have been 23.5 p.p.m.v. lower. Folding in the effect of a 500 Pg C transfer from the continents to the ocean/atmosphere system, we are left with an 8.5 p.p.m.v. decrease in CO2 (Table 1).
(William: Detailed calculations can only account for 8.5 ppm of the 80 ppm to 100 ppm drop in CO2 during the recent glacial phase.)
There are uncertainties in each of these effects, but it seems that most of the 80±100 p.p.m.v. CO2 change across the last glacial/interglacial transition must be explained by other processes. We must move on to the more complex aspects of the ocean carbon cycle.
…A reasonable estimate for ice age ocean cooling of 2.5 8C in the polar surface and 5 8C in the low-latitude surface leads to a CO2 decrease of 30 p.p.m.v., with the low-latitude and polar temperature changes playing roughly equivalent roles in this decrease. It has recently been noted that ocean general circulation models predict a greater sensitivity of CO2 to low-latitude surface conditions than do simple ocean box models like CYCLOPS17.However, the significance of this observation is a matter of intense debate.
..An opposing effect on atmospheric CO2 to that of glacial/interglacial temperature change is provided by the increased salinity of the glacial ocean, due to the storage of fresh water on land in extensive Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. Based on the approximately 120m depression of sea level during the last ice age18, the whole ocean was about 3% saltier than it is today. All else being constant, this increase would have reduced the solubility of CO2 in sea water and raised atmospheric CO2 by 6.5 p.p.m.v.

Mike

“A back of the envelop calculation of the CO2 variance divided by the temperature change for the glacial/interglacial cycle has therefore zero relevance concerning Salby’s assertions.”
Any comparison of what happens during a switch from one quasi-stable climate state to another has no relevance to short term change during stable conditions of an interglacial.
With massive changes to both the biosphere and crypsphere it is foolish to try to infer anything about present variation and causation by looking at de-glaciation transitions.

The ice age glaciations had so much temperature drop that according to the Henry’s Law rules, atmospheric CO2 concentration would have dropped a lot. And glaciations that caused dying-off of vegetation would have trapped some of that dead vegetation under ice/snow, so that would have become CO2 the next time the situation thawed out. From over 400,000 years ago to less than 150 years ago, CO2 did lag temperature by (on average and not constantly) 800 years, while the sum of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was largely constant, and CO2’s role as a greenhouse gas was to contribute to positive feedback of climate changes initiated by other causes. Warmer temperatures caused CO2 to shift to the atmosphere to cause positive feedback for warming, and likewise the inverse for cooling. Within the past 150 years, there has been a new activity of transferring carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere – human combustion of fossil fuels.

Mike M. (period)

William Astley,
“the reason why there was a 80 ppm to 100 pm drop in atmospheric CO2 during the recent glacial/interglacial cycles is not known”
It is not know for certain, but from the papers I’ve read the general opinion among scientists working in the field is that it is due to changes in ocean circulation. There is a constant flux of carbon from the surface ocean to the deep ocean in the form of dead organisms. They decompose in the deep ocean and the CO2 is returned to the surface and atmosphere by upwelling. A reduction in upwelling means less return of CO2, resulting in a drop of atmospheric CO2. There seems to be little, if any, agreement on the cause of changes in ocean circulation.

Marcus

All these comments prove one thing very clearly….THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED !!!

Chris

What is the exact definition of your statement “THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED !!!”?

Mike

Nick Stokes:

They sure look related. In fact, it looks like they are proportional, offsetting the preindustrial CO2 level. And yes, if you graph one against the other, you get:

Hey, if you integrate everything into straight lines; add arbitrary scaling and an offset you can make anything match. That last graph means nothing.
Having filtered out the annual seasonal cycle, it is quite clear from the differential what the relationship is between T and CO2 on an decadal scale. Sadly we don’t have reliable CO2 data back before Keeling started his work, so it’s not possible to accurately scale the relationship on longer time scales but we can estimate it.
Temperature since 1957 is not a straight line so Ferdinand’s attempt to draw conclusions by pretending it is is invalid.
Here is another graph estimating the inter-decadal scaling at about 3 ppm/year/kelvin and clearly showing it to be much stronger on inter-annual scales.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223comment image
Neither temp nor CO2 can be reasonably called a straight line.
In this graph we see, apart from the scaled CO2 / T relationship, a rise of 1 ppm/year around 1960 and twice that now. This could be a response to long term warming, residual anthropogenic emissions or a mixture of both.
I don’t think that there is enough data to extact any more information than that.

Mike,
Where did I use straight lines besides Fig. 3?
I did use several different theoretical variants, including a double sinusoid with and without a slope.
The latter shows that “temperature” and dCO2/dt from a transient response show an exact match in timing and form of the variability. So do the real values. But temperature has a slope and dCO2/dt has no slope in the theory and only a very slight slope in real data.
That means that most of the slope in the real life CO2 rate of change is not caused by temperature but by human emissions…

Mike

Here’s another view of the data:comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=223
Sorry Ferdi, No straight lines anywhere.

TomRude

Looking forward to Dr. Salby’s reply…

TomRude,
Already waiting over a year to have any of my objections answered…

James at 48

The increase in CO2 is mostly due to man made emissions. Of course, we are talking about CO2 levels below 1000 PPM and very unlikely to ever exceed that. Such levels are low versus geological history.

The last 500 million years of substantial atmospheric CO2 with no sustained temperature change is compelling evidence CO2 has no effect on climate. This is documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845 and also in http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com which also discloses the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable). The match between calculated and measured is 97% since before 1900.

This is exactly what every popular Internet forum degenerates into as it ages: a posturing ground of a few shrill peacocks proving to each other their obsolete points of view and dressing down anybody who reminds them of reality.
Reality being that nothing, absolutely nothing happened with the climate or with the Earth’s temperature during the last few decades of observation that is not deep within the range of natural variation.
For every single reasonable human being on this planet there are hundreds of Ferdinands and Willises, for whom their little smarting egos are more important than truth, dignity, and anything else. Disgusting.

afonzarelli

Amen, alexander, (unfortunately) well said…

Alexander Feht:
For every single reasonable human being on this planet
Where Alexander Feht is the last man standing?
I didn’t say one word about the influence of CO2 on climate and used the satellite temps as most reliable (if not, write your complaints to the RSS people).
Any real scientific objection against what I wrote about the cause of the CO2 increase?

If there is no influence of CO2 on climate, then the whole conversation about it is moot. If there is, your not saying a word about it makes the whole conversation moot.

eyesonu

The discussion/debate on this thread is very interesting. I am exhausted just following it all and will likely return for an encore reading again when time allows.
I hope that this discussion/debate will be recognized by some true unbiased academic professors and will be required reading for their students.
This is WUWT University in action. No other place offers such an exchange of ideas from the level of participants as is being offered here and now! This is absolute brain candy! Please continue.
Thanks to all commenters. And as noted in an earlier comment by Richard Courtney …”Those are three different explanations of alternative possibilities to the narrative you promote and there is not sufficient data to resolve which – if any – of them is correct. …. ”
It’s not quite as simple as we were told by the so-called “climate science” establishment 10 years ago.

Michael Hammer

The use of Henry’s law in this context is not valid because Henry’s law only refers to the equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in seawater. However most (ie: about 97%) of the CO2 in seawater is in the form of carbonate and bicarbonate ion. These ions have no impact on Henry’s law at all yet CO2 can migrate rapidly and readily between CO2, HCO3- and CO3= . If the ocean warms and some of the dissolved CO2 goes back into the atmosphere that will increase the pH of the ocean – make it more basic (reduce the carbonic acid level) and the feedback response will be for more carbonate to move to bicarbonate and more bicarbonate to move to dissolved CO2. Thus the 16 ppmv/C is not correct, the sensitivity is actually much higher.

Peter Sable

interesting hypothesis. data?

The ocean-atmosphere chemistry is reasonably stable. Climate sensitivity to manmade increase of CO2 is looking low enough for increase of atmospheric CO2 to increase ocean concentration of bicarbonate and H+ ions (slightly reduced pH, slightly more acid). The pH change to less-alkaline is associated with the move to more bicarbonate. Ocean biologists and especially many of the mainstream news media reports of this are concerned with the move to more bicarbonate with decrease of pH being at the expense of carbonate. I have yet to do chemical calculations as for whether the increase of H+ ions outruns the increase of bicarbonate, or the other way around. If bicarbonate increase outruns the H+ ion increase, then carbonate increases, and the opposite means that carbonate decreases – in the likely event I know this chemistry well enough. This is of great concern to calcifying invertebrate animals in the seas, which apparently benefit from carbonate because they build shells that are mainly calcium carbonate.

I am a little curious about calcifying invertebrate animals having any ability to build shells from bicarbonate. It seems to me that the “CO2 alarmists” think that they can’t. Some of them even cite a chemical reaction equation where CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 ==>2*Ca(HCO3)2.
Which is at expense of CaCO3 due to increase of CO2. Yet, I think this is not the whole story. I suspect increased ocean acidity (decreased ocean alkalinity) could have an equilibrium reaction response where the increase of H+ ions is outrun by the increase of bicarbonate ions, which leads to more carbonate rather than less. I invite anyone who can beat me to timely chemical equation work to do so, whether to show more CO2 means more or less carbonate or carbonate staying about the same. I think carbonate would stay about the same or slightly increase as a result of CO2 increase.

Donald,
Some calcifying organisms use bicarbonate as building bloc, incorporating carbonate in their shells and setting CO2 free. See the very interesting Ehux pages at:
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/
and the chemistry at:
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/biogeochemistry.html
The relative abundance of the three C forms with pH can be seen in the Bjerrum plot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot

Michael Hammer,
Henry’s law is obeyed in fresh water as good as in seawater, independent of further reactions: it is only for free CO2 (/H2CO3) in water.
A 30% increase in the atmosphere will give a 30% increase in free CO2 as well as in fresh water as in seawater. In fresh water then it stops as free CO2 is ~99% of all C-forms. In seawater free CO2 is only 1% of all C forms, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate.
The 30% more free CO2 pushes the equilibrium towards more bicarbonate and carbonate, but also more H+. The latter pushes the equilibrium the other way out. The net result at the new equilibrium is a ~3% increase in DIC (CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in the ocean surface, about 10 times more CO2 absorbed than what was absorbed in fresh water. That is the Revelle factor.
The 16 ppmv/°C is valid, as that is the change in pCO2 – thus free CO2 – per Henry’s law, independent of what the other C species do or don’t. The only difference is that the new dynamic equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere will be reached easier than from fresh water, as the C reserve is much higher.

Michael Hammer

Ferdinand; below is an essay I wrote some time ago on interactions between CO2 and seawater. Sorry for the length but maybe it is of some interest to some readers.
When CO2 dissolves in fresh water, it forms a weak acid, carbonic acid. So given all the atmospheric CO2 available to dissolve into seawater one might expect that the oceans would be acidic, but they are not, they are alkaline; why is that? How does CO2 interact with sea water and what determines the amount of CO2 the oceans can absorb? Answering these and similar questions is the subject of this essay.
Most gases dissolve to some degree in water. Oxygen dissolved in water allows fish to live. Nitrogen dissolving in water (or blood plasma) can cause the bends in divers. CO2 dissolving in water gives us fizzy drinks and allows oceans plants to photosynthesize. The way gases dissolve in water is described by Henry’s law which states that the concentration of the gas in solution is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas