Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
While we are watching the 21st episode of the Clowns on Parade series (COP21), we should remind the leading participants of a couple of facts that even a clown apprentice can understand. The US, Western Europe, Canada, and Australia (the only countries in the world that engage in the climate masochism) release less than one-third of the anthropogenic CO2, an even smaller part of other “greenhouse gases” (a misleading name), and almost no black soot. This fact is not in dispute, but the alarmists usually reply that these countries are “historically responsible” for the most CO2 emissions.
Well, this claim is incorrect, too, and not only because CO2 release is beneficial because of its large fertilization effect and small and slow warming effect. When the sinks are properly taken into account, only 33% of the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to the US and other Western countries. The rest is attributable to China and the rest of the world, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Surplus CO2 attribution by country or group of countries, 2012.
| Country or group of countries | Surplus CO2 attribution |
| USA | 20% |
| Western Europe | 10% |
| Canada + Australia | 3% |
| China | 15% |
| Rest of the World | 51% |
This analysis uses data and methodology from the most official IPCC aligned authors, including AR lead authors and heads of the Global Carbon Project. The data is known to be skewed against the US, Western Europe, Canada and Australia. The methodology is from Raupach et al, 2014. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the countries’ contributions to the surplus CO2 levels over time, since 1880.
Fig. 1. Anthropogenic CO2 accumulation in atmosphere, calculated using methodology from Raupach et al., 2014. To obtain the surplus CO2 concentration in ppm, divide GtC by 2.13.
This graph shows surprisingly low surplus CO2 levels from 1880 to 1940. This may be because the IPCC models are wrong. Nevertheless, I performed the same analysis using Halperin, 2015 (H2015), and arrived at the same attribution result (with the differences within 2%). The resulting graph of contributions over time is shown in Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Anthropogenic CO2 accumulation in atmosphere, calculated using H2015 and Comment #1 to H2015. To obtain the surplus CO2 concentration in ppm, divide GtC by 2.34.
This looks more reasonable, doesn’t it?
BTW, I updated the best estimate of the surplus atmospheric CO2 half-life to be 35 years (±5 years), based on my subjective corrections to the official data, made after the H2015 had been published (and announced on WUWT first). H2015 has not been retracted or corrected, because its main result is that surplus CO2 concentration drops exponentially, rather than the exact half-life in the exponential decay formula. Figure 2 shows the results obtained with the updated estimates (but not the corrected data).
Let me also say a few words about the carbon cycle for those who are not familiar with the topic. Carbon is one of the most prevalent elements in the Earth’s crust. In the atmosphere, almost all carbon exists in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2). There is a continuous exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and two other pools: ocean and land (biomass and detritus). The industrial revolution (1760-1840) brought about a sharp improvement in human conditions, starting in Europe and spreading to the rest of the world. Decreases in epidemics and child mortality rates caused a population increase from one billion in 1800 to more than seven billion today. By converting forests and other natural ecosystems into agricultural lands (land use change) and burning coal and other fossil fuels, humans started releasing growing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. In accordance with the La Chatelier’s principle and other laws of nature, the increased (over putative equilibrium) concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere caused its accelerated removal to other pools, which became known as sinks. IPCC went to extraordinary lengths to confuse both scientists and the broader public on this topic. But even using IPCC’s own models, one can conclude that only a small fraction of the extra CO2, released 100 years ago, is still in the air. The calculations take into account the dynamic nature of the exchange (e.g. if a molecule of CO2 entered the ocean but another one popped out from the ocean into the atmosphere, the net effect is zero). Figure 3 below shows how little impact old CO2 release has had on contemporary CO2 concentrations. For example, only 11% of the CO2 released in 1900 should be counted toward the atmospheric CO2 in 2012 (according to H2015 and H2015#1).
Fig. 3. Percentage of annual CO2 release remaining in the atmosphere. The solid line shows values according to H2015 and Comment #1 to H2015.
The “clowns” referenced at the beginning of this article are only the delegations of the western countries, and those who spend their own money and time on worries over CO2. Many other national delegations who are visiting COP21 in Paris are simply there to protect their nations from this progressive madness. On the other hand, a majority of NGOs and activists going there are simply profiteers and haters. Ultimately, we want to prevent an international conflict over hot air, foisted upon the world by IPCC, UNFCCC, UNEP, and their likes.
References and Supporting Information are available here.
How does one insert an Excel table or jpeg image without trashing the formatting?
Nicholas,
For a jpeg image simply give the full URL to where it resides on the net (I don’t think a direct insertion works). For an Excel table, make it an image by copying it into an image program and save it as an jpeg image…
Thanks, Ari Halperin, for a good article.
Since the vegetable world has no voice, let me thank world industry for the food on their behalf.
Now, if you are worried of global temperature rise, please look at ENSO, the El Niño/La NIña irregular cycling that, seems to me, control the Earth’s climate through water vapor abundance in our atmosphere. Water vapor turns to rain and a little additional “greenhouse” warming.
What’s not to like?
FE et. al.
I am basing the following comments on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1.
Before 1750 there is a net sink of -1.2 Pg C/y between atmosphere and earth.
In 2011 there is a net source of 2.8 Pg C/y for total difference of 4.0 Pg C/y.
8.9 total anthro – 4.9 newly sunk – 4.0 residual
You et. al. claim (if I understand correctly) that such an increase from natural variability is not reasonable therefore it must be anthropogenic.
My contention is that considering the magnitudes of the uncertainties as shown in Table 6.1 not only is such natural variability reasonable and possible no one has any way of knowing.
I need more than esoteric theoretical, hocus pocus, isotopes, proxies, models, etc. to convince me.
Nicholas,
The observed natural variability in the past 55+ years is not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv (+/- 3 GtC). Besides the extremes like the 1991 Pinatubo and 1998 super El Niño even not more than +/- 1 ppmv around a trend which is over 70 ppmv in the same period, while human emissions in the same period were over 130 ppmv.
Temperature can’t be the cause, as that gives not more than 10 ppmv extra since the LIA.
Vegetation can’t be the cause, as that is a proven sink for CO2, based on the oxygen balance.
The oceans can’t be the cause, as these have a too high 13C/12C ratio, while we see a firm drop in ratio.
Human emissions fit all observations. No other huge source is known and all other explanations violate one or more observations…
If you know of any huge natural source that fits all observations and at the same time explains the disappearing of all human emissions, you may have a good argument…
“It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.cG6WEl3r.dpbs
“One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
Mark Twain
Nicholas,
If the laws of solubility (Henry’s law, established in 1803) show not more than 16 ppmv/K for ocean waters, confirmed by over 3 million field seawater measurements, what the hell is someone saying that the 110 ppmv increase in the atmosphere is caused by warming oceans? Did the oceans warm by 8°C since the LIA? Did more that a third of land vegetation burn down – without regrowth? Did human emissions meanwhile disappear in space?
Some elementary thinking is lacking in several skeptics sites…
Further from that page: by taking the derivative, you effectively remove much of the trend, which is caused by human emissions which are all trend and little variability, while inflating the variability which is largely caused by the effect of temperature variability on vegetation: all variability and little trend (even negative over periods longer than 3 years)…
Sorry this is piece meal. Taking a break from shoveling climate change off the driveway.
“The observed natural variability in the past 55+ years is not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv (+/- 3 GtC).”
ppmv/y? How is this measurement possible? Data mining? Statistical hallucinations? This level of uncertainty contradicts Table 6.1. Net anthro is 1.8/y, 4 Gt. Same order of magnitude, could easily go either way.
Ice core sampling, which is key to the isotope analysis, is a bit iffy in my book. Lots of yet undetermined uncertainty, lot of known unknowns.
Sources of uncertainty in ice core data
A contribution to the Workshop on
Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, June 9 – 11, 2008
Eric J. Steig, University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
The natural variability ranges you cited above, I assume Pg C/y, are of the same magnitude as anthropogenic. And then there are the uncertainties.
Per IPCC AR5 Table 6.1, 1750- 2011, the uncertainty in the ocean-atmosphere flux is +/- 30 Pg C. Compare that to total anthropogenic source of 8.9 Pg C. FF & cement is also +/- 30. Net land use is +/- 80 PgC. Residual land sink is +/- 90.
In a sense you are telling me, with all the above uncertainties, that you know with precise certainty how many of the CO2 molecules dancing on a pin head are due to anthropogenic sources. I’m just not buying that.
Nicholas,
The variability is ppmv around the trend, no matter if you look at monthly or yearly data. Human emissions were according to WG1, AR5, chapter 6, Fig 6.1: 7.8 +/- 0.6 PgC/year. Except for a few extreme outliers, natural variability is +/- 1 ppmv or +/- 2.13 PgC around the trend. That is less than halve human emissions.
Land use changes are additional, but I never use them in calculations, as they are too uncertain. What the individual natural cycles do is not of the slightest interest: we know human emissions with reasonable accuracy, we know the increase in the atmosphere with high accuracy (+/- 0.1 ppmv or +/- 0.2 PgC). Thus the difference is known with reasonable accuracy, whatever the natural carbon cycles are or were of how they changed over the years…
The difference is the net sink rate: as long as the conservation of mass holds. That is around half human emissions +/- 2.13 PgC.
Only 0.003% is from man of the total CO2. To distinguish percent by country is to distinguish that percent of 0.003% them. At what point is it meaningless.
Can you show me where you got that figure? I’d like to use it myself
This earlier WUWT article by Erik Swenson is interesting. Figures 3 through 9 show CO2 concentrations throughout the year graphically.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/
In northern hemisphere winter there is a definite elevation in CO2 concentrations. In summer the excess disappears and all CO2 generated appears to be absorbed in situ. I would say that this indicates the residence time for anthropogenic CO2 is on the order of a year or less.
The definite elevation shouldn’t be happening either. CAGW went to great lengths to prove that co2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. .. I readily agreed with the 40 years on here because that’s a whole lot easier to prove. I thought it was 20 or under. One year is a maybe, I’m not discounting it. One thing for sure, it’s not a thousand years.
pochas94,
What you see over a year is the seasonal changes, which in the NH are dominated by the extra-tropical forests. The fluxes involved are huge: 60 GtC in and out for the biosphere, 50 GtC out and in the ocean surface, countercurrent of each other. That goes in both directions with temperature over the seasons. That has zero influence on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as long as ins and outs are equal.
Human emissions are one-way additional and influence the ins and outs of oceans and biosphere somewhat. That is a much slower process than the temperature influence: 35-40 years half life time to remove the extra CO2.
Two independent decay times, one is the reaction of nature to temperature, the other the reaction of nature to an extra pressure in the atmosphere…
I highly doubt it.
pochas94,
Human emissions are 90% in the NH, increase of CO2 is in the NH first:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg
Human emissions have a low 13C/12C ratio, decrease is in the NH first
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
Human emissions are about twice the residual increase in the atmosphere, overall change after a full cycle:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
No problem with any of that , Ferdinand. The question is, is the secular (decadal) rise in CO2 anthropogenic, natural, or other. The seasonal CO2 disappears so fast that something else must be involved in the secular rise.
pochas94,
The huge seasonal changes are temperature controlled. They end with about half human emissions after a full cycle. The smaller 1-3 years variability is temperature controlled, less than half human emissions and zero out in less than 3 years. And a small part of the increase (~10 ppmv per Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in ocean waters) is temperature controlled.
Human emissions are twice the increase in the atmosphere and fit all observations. If you can find a natural alternative that does increase a fourfold in the atmosphere, in the same time frame as human emissions did, without violating any observation, we can have a discussion about the origin of the increase. If you haven’t, a non-human origin of the increase is about the worst argument one can use in any debate with the other side as that is a lost case before you even start a debate…
Why is the sink today 150% larger than in 1965?
Well, to mention some possibilities, it could be the secular temperature trend, it could be acidification. are either of these considered?
Richard from above
“Period———-Length in Years————–Trend/Decade———-CO2 Emitted
1860-1880—————21———————–0.163ºC—————12 gigatonnes ”
In that 20 years is the same as the amount emitted in 1965. the rise in 1965 was 1.02 ppm which means that half of the 12 gigatons in 1965 was sunk. In 2014 the rise was 2.13 ppm, that year 38 gigatones with 19 gigatons sunk. I’m not mixing amounts or different carbon amounts up.
That’s a 3100% increase in sink from 1860 – 1880? and there was an increase in co2 during that time. the eco system couldn’t handle 12 in 20 years. ??
Pochas94 and Rishrac,
Have a look at the total emissions since 1900 and the increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
The red line is the measured increase in high resolution (~10 years) ice cores up to 1960 and the atmosphere at Mauna Loa (or any other station, they differ with only a few ppmv worldwide) thereafter.
According to Henry’s law the CO2 level in the liquid (in this case the oceans) is directly proportional to the partial CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above it. The sink rate therefore is directly proportional to the difference in CO2 pressure (pCO2) between atmosphere and oceans. The pCO2 in the atmosphere (~=ppmv, ppmv is in dry air, pCO2 is in wet air) shows a slightly quadratic increase over the years, thus the sink rate increases slightly quadratic too.
For the current average seawater temperature, the dynamic equilibrium (“steady state”) between atmosphere and oceans would be at 290 ppmv in the atmosphere. Between 1958 when the accurate measurements in the atmosphere started and today, the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the sea surface increased a fourfold. So did the sink rate: a fourfold increase in 55+ years. That is pure mechanical: a fourfold increase in pressure difference gives a fourfold uptake – if no other chains of events happens. In the case of CO2 in seawater, there are other (buffer) reactions involved, but these have no influence on the linear ratio between pressure difference and uptake.
Before 1900, the amounts were too small to have much influence, smaller than the “noise” caused by temperature variability. Since 1900 the trends are clear.
Why the increase remains around 50% of human emissions is just coincidence: human emissions increased slightly quadratic over time, so did the increase in the atmosphere and thus the net sink rate. If human emissions would stay the same, the atmospheric CO2 would rise and the sink rate would increase asymptotically until human emissions and sink rate were equal… at a new “steady state”.
Temperature plays a secondary role over time and is good for about 10% of the increase, but is responsible for over 60% of the variability around the increase.
The main point is not the momentary emissions in each year but what remains in the atmosphere as extra pressure difference and the speed at which the extra pressure in the atmosphere above steady state is removed: about 40 years half life time, which makes the removal rate too slow to remove all human emissions the year that they were released…
It will be interesting to see what correlations/models/conclusions will be drawn when all of these charts are modified to pull out the inappropriate “adjustments” made for political reasons.
This graph, for example, shows 2000 much higher than 1940. While that is now the accepted standard, there is good evidence to suspect that the actual temperatures for the two decades were about the same. They made the mid-century temperature drop go away; what if it were to be allowed to exist again?
The odd thing is that, once the models are “retrained” on more realistic temperature representations, they may actually get closer to reality. But some of this will simply come from the fact that once the variation de-adjusted and is no longer extreme, the models will be more correct en ensemble even if none of them get the actual events right.
And everyone will be on to the next issue to use to demand Global Governance.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I am away on travel but to put in an appearance, just let me say nothing has changed in the outlook. Atmospheric CO2 is not significantly affected by humans. Will have more analysis next time.
Hello Bart,
Missed your comments already…
See you next time.
Apologies for not responding to all comments, addressed to me – too busy these days.