Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

My new scientific paper Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2 further validates the conclusion that surplus CO2 in the air decays exponentially. The half-life is re-estimated down to 30-35 years. Further, if the CO2 sink rate has changed in the last 100 years, it has increased rather than decreased (i.e., the half-life has decreased). The paper uses pre-1958 concentrations, which were obtained by C.D. Keeling by re-analyzing certain 19th century instrumental measurements and merging them with the ice core measurements.

This pre-1958 data indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations steadily increased from 288 ppm in 1860 to 315 ppm in 1958. Thus, the IPCC opinion on atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1860 is in a good agreement with the empirical data. I do not agree with criticism pointing to some pre-1958 measurements showing significantly higher concentrations. Such high readings were likely caused by local sources of CO2, such as industry, buildings, or even scientists’ own breath. The IPCC’s distortion of the carbon cycle was addressed in a recent article on WUWT.

A summary of the new paper and two relevant graphs appear below.

Surplus CO2 is naturally removed from the atmosphere by natural sinks at a rate proportional to the surplus CO2 concentration, on the multi-decadal scale. This result, analytically derived in (Halperin, Simple Equation of Multi-Decadal Atmospheric Carbon Concentration Change, 2015) is verified here by applying it to the pre-1958 data, which was not used in the original paper. The excellent match confirms the validity of the theoretical result. This paper also presents a more accurate estimate of the half-life of the surplus CO2 concentration: 30-35 years. The correspondent equilibrium concentration is estimated to be in the range of 267-285 ppm (larger equilibrium concentrations correspond to lower half-lives). Also, the paper finds that if the natural sink rate did change in the past 150 years, it increased at least during the period prior to 1958. The paper uses CO2 emissions data, corrected for some inaccuracies, introduced since 1992.

clip_image002

Fig. 1. Comparison of the measured concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Keeling curve) to that computed using formula (2) with the same constant half-life from 1860-2013. From Halperin, Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2

clip_image004

Fig. 2. Comparison of the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on historic measurements from 1872-1882 (Keeling & From, 1986) and computed using formula (2) with the same constant half-life, from 1860-1957. From Halperin, Empirical Validation of the Exponential Decay for Surplus CO2

Thus, the natural exponential decay of the surplus (over ~280 ppm) CO2 concentration with a half-life of about 30-35 years is established now for a multi-decadal timescale. The significance of this result is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration is unlikely to exceed 550 ppm in the 21st century, despite current exponential growth in the use of the fossil fuels. In the unlikely case that elevated atmospheric CO2 becomes undesirable, it will be possible to lower it significantly by decreasing emissions, although the exponential decay formula should be used in such a case with great caution, because this scenario has not been encountered before.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

175 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johann Wundersamer
March 26, 2016 10:21 pm

Problem with that elongated discussions is –
– loose of control.
________
at the supermarket waiting in line 2 minutes before the cashier everybody gets hyperventilating.
out on the parking place, stowing the purchased into the car, the men 20 minutes expert discuss the last baseball scores;
the woman talk ‘engagemant ships’ – everybody is IN CONTROL of HIS time.
everyone relaxed, no adherence to ‘the world outside’.
I’m in control – ‘real world’ can wait unending.

dai davies
March 26, 2016 10:31 pm

The ocean biosphere is assessed as 90% of the total biosphere by the Census of Marine Life. I have yet to see any representation of the carbon cycle that includes this. Of the remaining 10%, about 7.5% is in soils which makes the above ground contribution about 2.5%.
We really don’t understand the carbon cycle, but the closer I look, the more insignificant our contribution becomes.

Reply to  dai davies
March 27, 2016 4:45 am

dai davies
See IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1. Google Bing images “global CO2 balance” for an assortment.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
March 27, 2016 6:52 am

BTW that’s Working Group 1’s voluminous publication.

dai davies
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
March 27, 2016 5:17 pm

Did you look yourself?
Fig 6.1 gives 3Gt for marine biota as in other similar diags. This is just what I was commenting on.
It is wildly wrong.
If land vegetation is ~500Gt and soils ~2000 Gt as in IPCC diag. then ocean biota is about 25,000Gt not 3Gt as in IPCC.
This is highly significant once you are looking at fluxes. It is a volatile component and may (who knows?) be increasing at the rate of terrestrial vegetation – ie 12-20% pa or more.
Also: It can impact UV penetration causing near surface heating. It will be emitting cloud seeding molecules. Changes in equatorial Pacific surface biota map well with El Nino heat. Cloud seeding as it dies of for La Nina???
IPCC is floundering in the dark on this issue – as most elsewhere.
d

dai davies
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
March 27, 2016 9:18 pm

Nicholas
I’m reluctant to express my thinking on this any further because it’s held together by excessive amounts of handwavium, but the 13PgC in figure 6.1 for marine biota to deep sea might be much higher – possibly 200X our emissions – potentially a big sink.
btw, I agree in general with your analysis above.

Stas peterson
March 27, 2016 9:46 am

FERD’s whole thesis boils down to “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!’
To which I say Baloney. We all do die, but not from CAGW. There has been no net problem only beneficial effects, from very slowly rising CO2 levels and if due to anthropogenic reasons, not yet proven. Then they will begin to plunge within 50 years. Transport is being electrified and more efficient, as well. Electric generation becomes less CO2 emission dependent, and more efficient, too. (Pick your solution dreaming about Wind, or Solar; burning clathrates CH4, or my choice, Fusion.)
Indeed the entire result of this blather is that by 2050 we will have some people calling for a program of emitting CO2 to save the Plants and the Planet. They will say that Humanity will need to protect the dumb plants from eating all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

kim
Reply to  Stas peterson
March 27, 2016 10:50 am

Yup, the sun and the biome conspire, yes, they do, to almost irreversibly sequester carbon. We must forgive them, they can’t help themselves, it’s in their nature.
==============

Reply to  Stas peterson
March 27, 2016 12:33 pm

Stas Peterson,
I have made it clear many times that I am sure that humans are the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on all available evidence.
I have made it also clear many times that in my opinion the effect of that increase is small and more beneficial than harmful…
So where is your opinion based on?

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
March 28, 2016 7:32 pm

FE
“I have made it also clear many times that in my opinion the effect of that increase is small and more beneficial than harmful…”
Could have and did fool me.

March 27, 2016 12:09 pm

Stas peterson:FERD’s whole thesis boils down to “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!’
Your comment is absurd. Ferdinand Englebeen said very clearly that the increase in CO2 since 0industrialization began is due to human fossil fuel use. He did not say that the increase in CO2 concentration was harmful.

Pauly
March 27, 2016 3:04 pm

Ari, you quote that:
“The paper uses pre-1958 concentrations, which were obtained by C.D. Keeling by re-analyzing certain 19th century instrumental measurements and merging them with the ice core measurements.”
Others have reviewed these pre-1958 concentrations (some 180 odd technical papers on atmospheric CO2 measurements from 1812 to 1961) and have come to very different conclusions to Keeling. The following paper indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentration has fluctuated coonsiderably over the period, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/180_yrs_Atmos_CO2_Analysis_by_chemical_methods_Beck_2007.pdf
Would you consider using the data from this paper to evaluate how well your method works in situations where CO2 concentrations have both risen and fallen?

March 27, 2016 7:52 pm

There is another carbon-14 observation that enlightens this debate. Each year, cosmic rays create roughly 8 kg of carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere, and has done so for millions of years. One in eight thousand carbon-14 atoms decays into nitrogen every year. For equilibrium, there must be 64,000 kg of carbon-14 on Earth (so it will decay at the same rate it is being created). But there is only 800 kg of carbon-14 in the atmosphere (I’m rounding to one significant figure). Where is the rest of it? And how does a net transfer of 8 kg of carbon-14 take place into this reservoir each year? You will find more details at the posts starting with the one below.
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/carbon-14-origins-and-reservoir.html
So far as I can tell, the remaining 63,200 kg must be in the deep ocean, where the concentration of carbon-14 is 80% of that in the atmosphere. We have something like 40 Pg (petagrams) of carbon moving into the deep ocean each year, and 40 Pg coming back, so a net flow of 8 kg takes place into the deep ocean. We can write down analytical equations for the resulting two-reservoir system, and solve them directly or numerically.
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/10/carbon-14-analytic-solution-to.html
We also note that absorption by the ocean, and emission, are governed by Henry’s Law. Absorption by the oceans increases in proportion to concentration in the atmosphere. According to this model, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 17 years. According to the bomb test data, its about 15 years. If we consider how long it will take humans to double the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the answer is: roughly 6000 years, because we have to double the concentration in the oceans too.
http://homeclimateanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/carbon-cycle-with-ten-petagrams-per-year.html
Or so it seems to me, anyways.

Mike M. (period)
March 28, 2016 9:56 am