From the UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA
Low growth in global carbon emissions continues for third successive year
Global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth, according to researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project.
The projected rise of only 0.2% for 2016 marks a clear break from the rapid emissions growth of 2.3% per year in the decade to 2013, with just 0.7 per cent growth seen in 2014.
The new data is published in the journal Earth System Science Data. It shows emissions growth remained below 1 per cent despite GDP growth exceeding 3 per cent.
Decreased use of coal in China is the main reason behind the 3-year slowdown.
Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre at UEA who led the data analysis, said: “This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. This is a great help for tackling climate change but it is not enough. Global emissions now need to decrease rapidly, not just stop growing.”
China – the biggest emitter of CO2 at 29 per cent – saw emissions decrease by 0.7 per cent in 2015, compared to growth of more than 5 percent per year the previous decade. A further reduction of 0.5 per cent is projected for 2016, though with large uncertainties.
The USA, the second biggest emitter of CO2 at 15 per cent, also reduced its coal use while increasing its oil and gas consumption and saw emissions decrease 2.6 per cent last year. USA emissions are projected to decrease by 1.7 per cent in 2016.
The EU’s 28 member states are the third largest emitter causing 10 per cent of emissions. The EU’s CO2 emissions went up 1.4 percent in 2015, in contrast with longer term decreases.
India contributed 6.3 per cent of all global CO2 emissions, with their emissions increasing 5.2 percent, in 2015 continuing a period of strong growth.
Although the break in emissions rise ties in with the pledges by countries to decrease emissions until 2030, it falls short of the reductions needed to limit climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius.
Prof Le Quéré said: “If climate negotiators in Marrakesh can build momentum for further cuts in emissions, we could be making a serious start to addressing climate change.”
The Global Carbon Budget analysis also shows that, in spite of a lack of growth in emissions, the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration was a record-high in 2015, and could be a record again in 2016 due to weak carbon sinks.
Prof Le Quéré said: “Part of the CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and by trees. With temperatures soaring in 2015 and 2016, less CO2 was absorbed by trees because of the hot and dry conditions related to the El Niño event. Atmospheric CO2 levels have exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) and will continue to rise and cause the planet to warm until emissions are cut down to near zero.”
The Global Carbon Project’s estimation of global CO2 emissions and their fate in the atmosphere, land and ocean is a major effort by the research community to bring together measurements, statistics on human activities, with analysis of model results.
Prof Le Quéré stressed the need for reporting such as the Global Carbon Budget to inform decisions and actions on how to respond to climate change.
Dr Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, who co-authored the analysis, said: “Emissions growth in the next few years will depend on whether energy and climate policies can lock in the new trends, and importantly, raise the ambition of emission pledges to be more consistent with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.”
###
WTF? How can so many presumably intelligent posters above not recognize that the article being discussed is NOT about a decrease in CO2 emissions, but about the decrease in the RATE of increase? Perhaps the decline of understanding among the newer visitors here is why we no longer get to read the thoughts of some truly informed commentators on the subject. rgb@duke comes to mind, and Leif seems also to have second thoughts about contributing. Please folks, pay attention to what is actually being said. Thanks!
I guess we’re dumber than you think.
Larry,
I fully agree that several very interesting posters don’t come back anymore because they think it is a waste of their time… I really miss RGB and hope he will come back soon…
Larry:
“How can so many presumably intelligent posters above not recognize that the article being discussed is NOT about a decrease in CO2 emissions, but about the decrease in the RATE of increase? ”
Perhaps it’s because of the title of the post ….
“Who needs the Paris climate agreement? CO2 emissions are declining on their own”
Note: “CO2 emissions” when it should have been “Rate of CO2 emissions”
It’s the usual “Dog-whistle” for the faithful.
Mind I suspect most would have misconstrued even that statement.
For someone who understands science, it is very depressing.
I try to point people in the right direction (have here further up).
But truth be told most don’t want to read/listen.
The Blog gets the posters it deserves.
I hate to think what threads about the Sun would come to without Leif.
And he’s one of the very few experts who can be bothered.
Pity about Arctic temperatures remaining so stubbornly high.
Skeptics seems to have moved from:
It’s not declining
to
Well it’s recovering
to
It’s all natural
to
Well it’s a good idea if it does disappear.
Like Brexit, they are supporting something with no idea of what the impact may be.
Remember, if this temperature trend continues, 2017 is likely to be the first mainly ice free summer in the Arctic. Maybe it’s a more important issue than a marginal slowdown in the rate of co2 increase?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Gareth,
DIfficult to say what happens with sea ice. as the satellite measurements are down for over half a year…
In general the sea ice was increasing around Antarctica at about the same speed as the Arctic was melting.
It is hard to find overall temperature data for Antarctica, but here for the relative “warm” Peninsula:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/20/antarctic-peninsula-temperatures-have-fallen-study-shows.
er… no… they just moved to another satellite which was up and running all year.
Here’s a link showing graphs of the current low extent.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/amsr2/index.html
And you might note the current low extent in the antarctic too.
and here’s the NSIDC update on it:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth.”
A) The data record is very short, but there are other years with large excursions in temperature even in that record.
B) The globe has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. Nobody disputes that. That is why they called it the end of the Little Ice Age.
The questions are, did it warm because of human activity, is warming bad, and is there anything we can do about it? The answers are no, no, and no.
But what we will find next is that global CO2 ppm continues to rise just as it has since measurements started….despite the stasis in emissions.
Now, how on earth could that be?
Now, how on earth could that be?”
Well unless you are alluding to conspiracy.
Surely not? (sarc) ….
It will be because we are talking of rate of increase of emissions.
And roughly half of human emissions are still accumulating in the atmosphere, the biosphere unable to sink them.
So ~half of that lovely stuff puthering out of your tailpipe, jet engines and powers stations etc is actually still accumulating, ergo, yes “global CO2 ppm continues to rise”.
Michel,
Because emissions still are above the net sink rate…
So the green things have grown as a result of CO2 fertilization and a new equilibrium has been reached.
They take care of year-to-year changes, yes. But the secular changes depend partly on what happened 800 years ago.
An ancient forest in Alaska has revealed itself. Carbon dating places it ~ 1000 years ago, I read other reports that some have dated back 2000 years ago. These dates fall right into the Medieval and Roman Warmth period respectively. What would be of interest if the stomata can be extracted and use as a proxy for CO2 concentrations at that time.
http://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html
The USA’s switch from coal to natural gas has undoubtedly had an effect too.
Which is why the renewables-promoting NGOs are so fanatically against shale gas, and spend so much of their efforts on obstructing it. It’s the competitor in the carbon stakes that actually delivers the reduction, whilst theirs does not.
“Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre at UEA who led the data analysis, said: “This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. This is a great help for tackling climate change but it is not enough. Global emissions now need to decrease rapidly, not just stop growing.””
Translation: We will not be happy until all human beings live in caves and eat dirt. No amount of effort short of this is worth even considering to be taking the situation seriously.
hum … very bad news.
To put down the whole scam we need CO2 human emission to go up and observe temperature go down, stall, or moderately up (the basic physics way, ~1K per CO2 x2).
If CO2 emissions stall (or even decrease !) we are fùcked: should future T go down, greentard will boast of their success, should T go up they will keep saying it would have been much worse with more CO2.
I congratulate Ferdinand Engelbeen on his patient, polite and clear responses to the posters here. Many would not have been required if the posters had read Ferdinand’s responses to previous posts.
+1
Yes thanks Ferdinand for informative responses. Lots to learn from his exchanges with commentors.
Nothing to learn but a pat narrative divorced from actual physics.
and lies…
Actually, it’s Ferdinand Engelbeen who needs to read posts more carefully.
leejack01 shows that, until recently, emissions were increasing the fastest ever. But for the last three years they ground to a halt. Emissions remained constant. As noted by Chris Hanley, Greg, Jurgen, and leejack01, the sharp change of emissions increase had no effect on CO2. CO2 continued to increase, as fast or faster then as when emissions were lower and rapidly increaaing.
Clearly, CO2 doesn’t depend on the increase or decrease of emissions. If it doesn’t depend on the increase or decrease of emissions, CO2 cannot depend on emissions.
Ian,
Emissions were increasing every year except for a few periods where some economic crisis happened. That can be clearly seen in the CO2 rate of change of emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate.
With ever increasing emissions the resulting increase in the atmosphere increases slighty quadratic over time and as the net sink rate is in direct ratio to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium, the sink rate increases slightly quadratic too. That gives in average a rather constant ratio between increase in the atmosphere and human emissions.
If the emissions remain constant for some period but the sink rate still is less than the emissions, CO2 still increases over time, but at more constant rate (see the period 2001-2013). Over longer periods that will lead to an increase in sink rate, thus what remains in the atmosphere gets smaller but still positive, until sinks and emissions are in equilibrium.
Temperature plays a huge role in the year by year and decade by decade variability but hardly over the full period of Mauna Loa measurements, as year by year variability in CO2 rate of change is mainly the effect of temperature variability on (tropical) vegetation, while vegetation over longer periods is a net sink for CO2, the earth is greening…
“the net sink rate is in direct ratio to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium” seems quite a strong assumption to me.
As far as biosphere is involved, and it is very much so, and as you pertinently pointed out above with actual data, the sink depends on temperature (and solar energy, and water availability, etc.), and don’t care about “equilibrium” (actually that’s even part of definition of life : out of equilibrium chemistry), nor about CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. When CO2 dropped too low, some mushrooms began processing lignin (previously untouched and eventually turning into coal), C4 photosynthesis developed, … Life always find some other way.
Obviously extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere will stimulate the net sink, but, still, “net sink” is a such a bizarre combination of many sources and sinks following their own different process… I see no reason why the ratio should be direct.
paqyfelyc,
The main sinks are the oceans, which simply react linear to the increased pressure above the dynamic equilibrium pressure (currently ~290 ppmv) for the current area weighted average ocean temperature per Henry’s law.
The reaction of the biosphere is slower, and is much more diversed with the circumstances: not only temperature, also rain/drought, minerals, fertilisers, sunshine, type of plants,… all have an impact on the CO2 uptake. That makes that before 1990 the biosphere was even a slight source of CO2, after 1990 a small, but increasing CO2 sink.
Increasing CO2 in greenhouses helps the growth of many plants, average ~50% faster for a CO2 doubling, but such ideal circumstances of water, temperature and nutrients are seldom found in nature…
That the reaction on the CO2 pressure above the oceans’ steady state is quite linear, at least since 1959 can be seen in the near constant pressure – sink ratio:
In 1959:
25 ppmv above equilibriom / 0.5 ppmv/year sink rate = 50 years e-fold decay rate or a half life time of 34.7 years.
In 1988:
60 ppmv, 1.13 ppmv/year, e-fold decay rate 53 years, half life time 36.8 years
In 2012:
110 ppmv, 2.15 ppmv/year, e-fold decay rate 51.2 years or a half life time of 35.5 years.
Looks surprisingly linear to me, widely within the borders of accuracy of the emission inventories and year by year natural sink capacity variability…
I am essentially saying that we don’t have enough knowledge (sound theory, sufficient data, etc.) to be sure that have to be the case in all instance. More probably this just another coincidence that will be short lived.
As far as i remember, it shouldn’t take so many years for equilibrium to be reached again, that is, for CO2 pressure to return ocean equilibrium value. We have ~50 GtC/year out and in the oceans, but per Henry’s law we could and should have ~55 GtC/year in and ~45 GtC/year out and voila, equilibrium is back if it wasn’t already. So my guess is, it IS indeed at equilibrium, or not far, at least as far as oceans are concerned (that is, CO2 may be not a so well mixed gas, or marine lifeforms are messing by turning CO2 into carbonate and sugar, …). But i confess not being the professional chemist here, so tell us …
paqyfelyc,
The main problem why it costs so much time to reduce the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is ocean chemistry and uptake speed.
The flux between upwelling and atmosphere is directly proportional to the CO2 partial pressure (pCO2) difference between ocean waters and the atmosphere. Wind speed also plays a huge role as diffusion of CO2 in water is very slow. The opposite happens at the sink side near the poles.
The mixed layer has a large interactive surface but its capacity is small due to its limited buffer capacity (still 10 times higher than what fresh water can absorb). That is limited to ~10% of the change in the atmosphere, both in % and quantity.
According to Feely e.a. the maximum pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere is ~350 μatm at the upwelling and ~250 μatm at the sink side of the (deep) oceans fluxes. At steady state, both endpoints added/removed ~40 GtC/year as CO2.
If you add 10 GtC as CO2 (~5 ppmv or ~5 μatm) in the atmosphere you decrease the pCO2 difference at the upwelling sites with 5 μatm, or a decrease in upwelling from 40 GtC/year to 39.4 GtC/year. At the sink side the opposite happens: 40.8 GtC gets removed. Or a total of ~1.2 GtC/year out of the additional 10 GtC CO2 gets removed.
Of course, the real emissions didn’t start at 10 GtC/year and meanwhile the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is already 110 μatm above steady state and the surface, including at the sink areas is already a lot more saturated with CO2,… All together the current net sink rate in the ocean surface is ~0.5 GtC/year and some 3 GtC/year sinks extra in the deep oceans than is released at the upwelling zones…
@ferdinand meeus
according to the NOAA link you provided, “The average pCO2 of the global ocean is about 7 µatm lower than the atmosphere”. If i trust NOAA (… no comment …), seems to me that oceans are globally pretty close to equilibrium, they just need to eat 7ppmv CO2 from atmosphere to be. Moreover, taking into account that surface marine life eats CO2 (*), i expect a lower pCO2 in water than in air.
(*) Forgive digression: this makes me wonder why there are no “floating trees”, living things floating , eating atmospheric CO2 and sunlight … I guess neither are limiting factor of marine life.
paqyfelyc,
Apologies if you were being sarcastic, but the floating trees are called phytoplankton.
paqyfelyc,
You need to make a differentiation between the ocean surface and the deep oceans.
The ocean surface layer (~1000 GtC, 800 GtC in the atmosphere), is following what happens in the atmosphere quite rapidly: half life time for any change in any of these two is less than a year.
The net effect is quite modest: due to ocean chemistry (limited buffer capacity), a 100% change in the atmosphere gives a 10% change in CO2 (and derivatives) in the ocean surface. That is 3% for the 30% increase in the atmosphere. That is from 1000 to 1030 GtC in the ocean’s surface.
The average 7 μatm difference in any year pushes some 0.25 ppmv/year extra into the ocean surface. Next year, humans add some 4.5 ppmv into the atmosphere, thus increasing the ppmv’s in the atmosphere more than the ocean surface can absorb. Less than half of that is absorbed by the deep oceans and vegetation (including organics in the oceans), That makes that the 7 μatm difference remains about the same, slightly increasing over the years…
The main sinks are the deep oceans, where the largest differences in pCO2 are seen: 350 μatm at the upwelling sites, 250 μatm at the sink sites. Both move ~40 GtC/year out and in, with ~3 GtC/year more sink than source and growing in direct ratio to the increase in the atmosphere…
Most of CO2 removed by sea plants (plankton), is eaten by other creatures and ultimately mostly again converted into CO2, the same as what happens on land. Some organics and inorganics drop out of the surface layer and enrich the deep oceans – or make layers of organics (-> oil) and inorganics (-> chalk).
There is a small CO2 sink by the total biosphere (both ocean and land), based on the oxygen balance…
jim, i envisioned things that were half atmospheric, like trees are on land. Phytoplankton is fully undersea. But that was digression.
Ferdinand, I simply observe that oceans are and remains more or less at equilibrium, globally. The fact that
the average difference is, and remains, only 7 μatm is a wonder. You have to take it into account.
hum … very bad news.
To properly debunk the whole scam we need CO2 human emission to go up and observe temperature go down, stall, or moderately up (the basic physics way, ~1K per CO2 x2).
If CO2 emissions stall (or even decrease !) we are fùcked: should future T go down, greentard will boast of their success, should T go up they will keep blaming CO2 and saying it would have been much worse with more CO2.
hum … very bad news.
To debunk warmistas we need CO2 human emission to go up and observe temperature go down, stall, or moderately up (the basic physics way, ~1K per CO2 x2).
If CO2 emissions stall (or even decrease !) we are ******: should future T go down, warmistas will boast of their success, should T go up they will keep saying it would have been much worse with more CO2.
Given global demographic trends and the subsequent impact of global economic activity, CO2 has no where to go but down. It is a lagging indicator of population, especially monied population. The adequately monied portion of the population is at or near replacement world wide and its fecundity is not increasing. Its fecundity is decreasing. Some point to the fact that the inadequately monied are not yet down to replacement but they eventually will be, also, they have higher mortality. Furthermore, the inadequately monied barely move the needle on CO2 output. Because they are poor.
So much misunderstanding in this thread. The article says CO2 emissions did not GROW, not that they STOPPED.
Think of a water tap, through industrialisation, we’ve been turning the handle to increase the flow, but recently taken our hand off the tap. BUT THE TAP IS STILL FLOWING. So of course the Mauna Loa measurements will keep going up, for a long time yet.
This analogy also dispels the “96% natural CO2” myth. Think of the bucket with the water in it naturally moving up and down a bit each day. But a constant increase from the tap, even if only 3% of the change each day, will add a huge amount over a year!
“But a constant increase from the tap, even if only 3% of the change each day, will add a huge amount over a year!”
Not when the bucket has a hole in it. And, this bucket does.
If you take a bucket with a hole in it, and you pump water into it through a garden hose, the water will rise to a level at which the pressure above the hole produces as much outflow as inflow, and then you have balance.
Add another source that is 3% of the inflow from the garden hose, and the water level will rise… wait for it.. 3%.
Therefore, if you find the level rose more than 3%, you must conclude that someone turned up the spigot to the garden hose.
“Clearly, CO2 doesn’t depend on the increase or decrease of emissions. If it doesn’t depend on the increase or decrease of emissions, CO2 cannot depend on emissions.”
Obviously the amount of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere MUST depend on emissions.
And has been explained by many above – the issue is one of RATE of INCREASE.
Please note that RATE is the derivative of increase.
Then you must consider how much the biosphere can sink.
It can only sink around half of that.
So we have half still accumulating.
The total emission would have to halve to allow some balance and even then there is still thermal inertia (oceans) acting so a temp respose will lag that.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html
“Then you must consider how much the biosphere can sink. It can only sink around half of that.”
Beware. There is no physical way biosphere can tune its CO2 eating to human emissions, since there is no difference between CO2 emitted by humans, volcanoes, ocean or whatever. Meaning this ~half ratio is just a contingent coincidence. It can and will be otherwise
paqyfelyc,
Agreed, the uptake of CO2 by the biosphere and mainly by the oceans depends of the total increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, not of the yearly emissions…
That it is in average about half the emissions is pure coincidence, as human emissions in general increased linear over time, leading to a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and a slightly quadratic increase in total CO2 absorbed by nature. If human emissions would go flat at about half the current emissions, the result would be zero increase in the atmosphere. In the unlikely case of a real danger from huge levels of extra CO2, all we have to do is halving – or sightly below – the emissions to stop the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
“It can only sink around half of that.”
There is no physical law that says it can only sink half of it. There is no limit at all.
if increase in [CO2] is not in pace with ‘human’ emissions
[never mind the variation in earth’s volcanic activity which also affect [CO2] in the atmosphere – can anyone really measure that?]
it means that earth is busy cooling
i.e. the oceans have started to dissolve the CO2
CO2 + 3H2O + cold => CO3 (2-) + 2H3O (1+)
exactly as I have told you
frankly, I don’t trust any of the ‘official’ data sets anymore
because
1) calibration problems
2) insistence on looking at means instead of min. and max.
3) fiddling with original data to make it look like it is still getting ‘warmer’ [politics]
The discussion here relates to points that are irrelevant since I find that CO2 is not causing any warming.To give a summary of all my investigations into climate change starting ca. 2009/2010
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa] I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, not just in winter months, but any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits which altogether must be much larger than the energy coming off from earth. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/14/who-needs-the-paris-climate-agreement-co2-emissions-are-declining-on-their-own/#comment-2343066
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, caused by CO2, at least not measurable.
there is something else missing from the comments here/
we can see from the weather reports that most weather systems originate from the oceans/
presumably most evaporation happening around the equator /
the subsequent wind and rain is caused by the T differential between the poles and the equator.
OK?
\so how does this evaporation happen? well, er, we all know that visible light does not heat the water – you can sit on top of a few drops of water with a light torch for as long as you like: it won’t evaporate.
So it must be the UV and IR that does it.
More so the UV, I think, as it carries the most energy…..
So, it is mostly the UV that heats the molecules of water lying on top of the surface to the state where it reaches evaporation [373K]. Now the CO2 is dissolved into the water at a certain pCO2. So as the H2O evaporates, so does some of the CO2, at a certain [predictable?] rate
Now, assuming the post is correct and the rate of increase in CO2 is decreasing, despite humans [growing populations] putting the same or more CO2 up in the atmosphere, it must be that the rate of UV coming through the atmosphere is declining……
That, IMHO, is exactly what is happening: as ozone increases so will the UV coming through the atmosphere begin to decline.
Jim Ross said November 20, 2016 at 4:14 am
Ferdinand,
I mentioned up-thread that I had obtained a much better match to the ice core δ13C data by assuming a constant value for the content of the incremental CO2. It took some time to get a decent(ish) plot, but here it is. The orange line was generated (by me) by applying the Keeling equation to the CO2 data with a starting point for the δ13C values of -6.5 per mil. All other δ13C vaues are calculated solely from the atmospheric CO2 data (every 10 years) by assuming a constant value for the incremental CO2 of -12.7 per mil. The scales for the orange line are shown at the top and to the right, demonstrating alignment of the two graphs.
Jim Ross siad November 20, 2016 at 6:37 am
It may seem like I am heading down a different road to the Bart/Ferdinand discussions, but I am not. I am just coming at it from a different direction. The key difference between Bart’s view and that of Ferdinand is (as far as I understand it) that Bart views the atmospheric CO2 data as being consistent with a single physical model, driven by termperature, whereas Ferdinand sees it as reflecting two independent processes: one (longer term growth) correponding to anthropogenic emissions, diluted by deep ocean exchanges, and the other (short term fluctuations) being due to temperature.
My position is that I find it difficult to reconcile a model that is based on two independent processes with the information provided by the δ13C data. I was (and still am) waiting to see numerically-based evidence that the dual-process model is consistent with the δ13C observations.
Jim Ross,
Very interesting that your fixed low-δ13C source shows a nice fit with the δ13C decline for the measured increase. I had expected more deviation, as the biosphere in the years before 1990 was probably a small source of low-δ13C, while a sink for low-δ13C thereafter. On the other side, there is a shift in δ13C of fossil fuels from mainly coal (-24 per mil) towards oil (~-25 per mil) and especially natural gas (-40 per mil and lower)… may compensate each other to a certain extent.
Have a detailed look at the short term variability of temperature, CO2 and δ13C changes, especially for the 1998-1999 El Niño / La Niña:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
The increase in temperature rate of change gives a lagged, strong increase in CO2 rate of change and a simultaneous drop in δ13C rate of change. That points to vegetation as the main reactant to the temperature variation. If it were the oceans, the δ13C changes would parallel the CO2 changes, because the oceans have a higher δ13C level than the current atmosphere, even taking into account the isotopic shift at the surface boundary.
Thus the short term reaction of vegetation to temperature changes is clearly the main cause of the CO2 rate of change variability. The problem for Bart’s theory is that vegetation, based on the oxygen balance (*) on longer (1-3 years) term is a proven sink for CO2, at least since 1990.
Thus while (near) all variability in CO2 and δ13C rate of change is caused by the influence of temperature variability on vegetation, vegetation is not the origin of the overall increase in CO2 or overall decline in δ13C.
The process that causes the overall changes still may have been caused by temperature, but that is certainly not by vegetation. Anyway, there are two separate processes at work: one that is mainly responsible for the variability in rate of change of both CO2 and δ13C and one that is reponsible for the total increase of CO2 and decline in δ13C.
Maybe the oceans, as Bart insists, but that has several problems:
– Its δ13C level is too high. Of course, together with human emissions, that may level off to the right δ13C level. That means that both human emissions and ocean emissions remain in the atmosphere in a ratio of about 1:15 (-24 per mil down for fossil fuels, +1.6 per mil up for the oceans, compared to curent atmospheric δ13C). That means a yearly increase of 144 GtC/year in the atmosphere, while the observed increase is only ~4.5 GtC/year wth ~9 GtC/year emissions. Thus all what the ocean fluxes do is “thinning” the human δ13C “fingerprint”.
– Bart’s alternative explanation is that the natural circulation and addition from the oceans is much larger than the human addition. That is theoretically possible, but has one huge problem: all three factors in play: human emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate increased a fourfold in the period 1960-2013, The sinks in a one-process-fits-all react the same on all CO2, whatever its origin. That is only possible if the natural circulation also increased a fourfold in the same period, for which is zero indication (in residence time or δ13C or bomb tests 14C decline).
As there are clearly two separate processes at work and neither vegetation nor the oceans can explain the drop in δ13C (neither most of the increase in CO2) human emissions fit the bill in all aspects…
(*) see: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Ferdinand,
Thanks for moving the comments down here – it certainly makes it easier to follow. I am not sure if anyone else is still following this, hopefully Bart is, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to discuss these points with you.
Before I respond directly to your comment above, I should make it clear that I am a firm believer in the data constraining the model(s), not the other way around. Consequently, I have focussed exclusively on extracting information from the data (observations/measurements), since these are the closest we have to “facts”, before I look to see if the “consensus” models really do fit these facts. This is why I prefer not to consider the implications of the oxygen balance model yet, as it may be wrong (as with any model) and that could lead to an incorrect interpretation of the data. I will make a reference to the oxygen balance model later in this comment. I consider the assertion that roughly half of all human CO2 emissions end up in the atmosphere is also a model, requiring validation by the data (not by other models).
So, your derivative plot. I have a somewhat different interpretation. The rate of change of CO2 clearly increases during the 97-98 El Niño. It then decreases as the subsequent La Niña develops. These rates are always positive and hence reflect the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2: CO2 is still increasing during La Niña, it is just increasing at a slower rate than during El Niño. Indeed, it is increasing at a slower rate than the average. In contrast, the rate of decline of δ13C increases during El Niño. This is consistent with the δ13C content of the incremental CO2 decreasing from the average of -13 per mil to circa -26 per mil. However, during La Niña, the rate of decrease of δ13C reduces to the point of becoming positive. At this point, we have a situation where both CO2 growth and δ13C growth are positive, i.e. they are changing in parallel. This relationship shows up in the “raw” seasonally-adjusted data: CO2 growth kicks in at the beginning of 1998 and then from mid-late 1998 through to around the beginning of 2000, it increases at a much lower rate. During this latter period the atmospheric δ13C is increasing, demonstrating a source with a δ13C content higher than atmospheric CO2. The probability that these two sources are independent of each other seems to me to be fairly small, given the linear Keeling plot with an average value half way between the two extremes, but that is why I want to see the numerical basis (in terms of δ13C) for the proposed explanation.
http://i65.tinypic.com/15i5c0p.jpg
The oxygen balance model seems to be widely accepted. However, I feel uneasy, to say the least, when I see a combination of five independent or partially-independent parameters, all known to vary over the relevant timescale, being used in combination to explain a beautiful linear relationship. I immediately wonder if it is not more likely that the correct model is a simpler one. (The variables are: the estimated size of emissions, increasing annually at least until recently; the exchange rate with oxygen, assumed constant, but which must have changed with the balance of fossil fuels; the estimated proportion of emissions absorbed by the oceans, the estimated proportion absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere; and, the “minor adjustment” for assumed oxygen outgassing.) Here is the beautiful linear relationship, R squared of 0.9975:
http://i66.tinypic.com/d9ov5.jpg
” However, I feel uneasy, to say the least, when I see a combination of five independent or partially-independent parameters, all known to vary over the relevant timescale, being used in combination to explain a beautiful linear relationship.”
Yes, it is a clear violation of Occam’s Razor. It is drawing epicyles to make circles into ellipses, when simply admitting ellipses into the realm of acceptable answers both simplifies the math, and clarifies the cause.
true
the equation is simply
[certain] energy in = [certain] CO2 out.
Vary the energy in and you also vary the amount of CO2 coming out of the ocean.
the only factor that is added is the CO2 from burned fossil fuels released into the atmosphere.
Since the rate of CO2 is declining – whilst ‘human’ CO2 is more or less the same,
it follows that earth must be cooling – somewhat –
[I think] there is still more cooling to come
don’t let anyone fool you
go south young man
go south
Jim Ross,
I have the same (practical) man: looking at the data and if they fit the theory, accepting the theory as long as it isn’t contradicted by new data…
That was my viewpoint when I saw the Keeling curve, maybe already 30 years ago and the emissions data: the increase in the atmosphere was only half the emissions. Thus nature was (and still is) a net sink for human CO2 (as mass, not the original molecules!). Step by step that was confirmed by other observations: the drop in δ13C in exact ratio with human emissions, the drop in 14C from the bomb tests, the increase in DIC and decrease in pH of the ocean surface. Every observation fits in the human origin of the increase…
Every alternative I have read conflicts with one or more observations. Bart’s alternative even violates every single observation…
About the oxygen balance, the main input is fossil fuel use. That is based on fuel sales, which is quite strictly followed, due to the large influence on income taxes. Reasonably accurate, maybe somewhat underestimated due to under the counter sales… For each type of fuel the oxygen use when burned is known. Eventual semi-burned fuel (hydrocarbons, CO) are rapidly oxydised in the atmosphere to CO2.
O2 degassing / absorption by the oceans is a matter of solubility with temperature and largely known. The absorption of CO2 and release of O2 by vegetation is in a fixed ratio (1.1:1). With all these elements, one can calculate the CO2 uptake or release by vegetation based on the difference between the measured oxygen use and calculated oxygen use by fossil fuel use, with reasonable accuracy.
Anyway, that the biosphere is currently a net sink for CO2 is independently confirmed by satellites measuring chlorophyl from space: the earth is greening…
The δ13C changes opposite to the CO2 changes during the 1998-2000 episode is clearly the result of the influence of temperature on vegetation. Further investigation (the reference I had doesn’t work anymore) has shown that it was mainly in the Amazon where the largest changes were seen: large parts were drying out with forest fires on many places during the 1998 El Niño. In that year not only there was the ~3 ppmv (6 GtC) release by humans of -24 per mil δ13C, but also some 1.5 ppmv (3 GtC) release from decaying vegetation also around -24 per mil δ13C and near zero net sink, but still ~20 ppmv (~40 GtC) ocean CO2 transfer in and out at average -6.4 per mil…
The opposite happened in the following year(s) with the Amazon recovering from too high temperatures and drought, thus taking in more CO2, preferentially 12CO2 (at ~ -25.6 per mil in the current atmosphere of -8 per mil) leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere (at +10.2 per mil…) and releasing more O2…
If I have more time available than right now, I will try to make an as complete model as possible for the CO2 changes and δ13C changes together. The 1990-2003 period seems the most interesting part, as that contains the 1992 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño…
Bart,
You haven’t understood that Jim’s graph of a constant decline in δ13C simply makes it impossible that your favorite theory: the oceans as source is true…
Occam still has some work to do before his razor is sharp enough…
It is more likely, Ferdinand, that there is a lack of imagination. There are any number of reasons that could explain why the decline is occurring. Further investigation is stymied due to a comfortable conclusion having been reached, and a resultant lack of further curiosity. As such, the conclusion becomes an ad hoc fallacy of the Just So Story genre.
Bart,
For the record, I do not agree with Ferdinand that my graph rules out your theory. It simply sets a framework of “facts” which any explanatory model must honour absolutely. So, I shall await Ferdinand’s model as and when he has the chance to prepare it (I am well aware that we all have other things to do).
Ferdinand,
A key reason for me investigating these issues in the first place was reading statements like yours that: “Step by step that was confirmed by other observations: the drop in δ13C in exact ratio with human emissions … ”.
No. What I thought I had demonstrated clearly was that the drop in δ13C is unequivocally NOT “in exact ratio with human emissions”. The average drop in δ13C is roughly half of the value that would be attributable to human emissions alone (or, for that matter, to the biosphere alone).
Jim Ross:
the drop in δ13C is unequivocally NOT “in exact ratio with human emissions”
In my opinion, a drop in δ13C which starts in about 1850, when humans starts to use fossil fuels in large quantities and follows human emissions at roughly 1/3 for its δ13C, if these would all remain in the atmosphere and roughly half human emissions as CO2 mass increase, is in (more or less) exact ratio with human emissions…
Anyway, the oceans can’t be the cause of the drop. They can be (and are) the cause of the fact that the drop is only 1/3 of theoretical.
The biosphere can’t be the cause, as that is a growing sink for CO2, based on the oxygen balance and the earth is greening, based on satellite observations…
Ferdinand,please forgive my ignorance
on what exactly do you base your assertion again that d13C is due to human fossil fuel consumption?
I mean, how does that work out in theory?
Henry,
Most carbon in the world is 12C, atomic weight 12, some 1% is 13C, atomic weight 13. And a very tiny amount is the radioactive variant 14C.
Most inorganic carbon has a 13C/12C ratio which is “neutral” according to a standard. Most organic carbon has a (much) lower 13C/12C ratio. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9413C
Organic carbon has passed a few biological processes when CO2 is absorbed. Biologiocal processes are quite importantly influenced by even small changes in shape, volume and weight of the reactants. That makes that the uptake of CO2 by plants prefers 12C before 13C and what is ultimately built into the plants is depleted in 13C compared to the standard
In that way it is possible to know the origin of the CO2 which is entering the atmosphere: the atmosphere is slightly depleted in 13C/12C ratio. If CO2 enters from the oceans, that would somewhat increase the ratio. If the CO2 increase is from organic material, that would firmly decrease the 13C/12C ratio… As most fossil fuels were original (land and ocean) plant rests, these have a low 13C/12C ratio too.
The 13C/12C ratio decline effectively excludes the oceans as main origin of the CO2 increase, but you can’t make a separation between fossil organics and recent organics (like wood decay), based on their 13C/12C ratio. There is an alternative way: the oxygen balance. The use of fossil fuels is known with reasonable accuracy and the oxygen use for each fuel when burned is known too. Thus the overall oxygen decline in the atmosphere from fossil fuel use can be calculated. The oxygen measurements give a slightly lower decline than calculated, thus the biosphere as a whole (land and sea plants, bacteria, molds, insects, animals…) produce more oxygen than they use. Thus the biosphere is a (small but increasing) sink for CO2 and preferentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere and thus not the cause of the 13C/12C ratio decline… The earth is greening, thanks ot more CO2 in the atmosphere and higher temperatures…
Rests human induced CO2 from fossil fuel burning as main cause of the CO2 increase and 13C/12C ratio decline…
hi Ferdinand
I don’t think you can use the depletion of oxygen as a factor in your deliberations as it is involved in a number of reactions TOA, protecting us from the sun’s most harmful rays, which is now more prevalent [during a period of lower solar activity].
If you did not know this: there never was an ozone hole. {I think} Above the oceans peroxides are formed more preferentially to ozone, doing exactly the same thing: protecting [human] life. Look at the absorption spectra of both components.
As the lower activity of the sun continues, it spews more of the most energetic particles [because of the lower polar magnetic fields] and therefore ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides will continue to increase [to protect us]. I can prove this {e.g. that ozone is increasing}. That process [of protecting us] is taking away more oxygen from the atmosphere. Unfortunately it also reduces the amount of UV coming through, reducing big T on earth, as can be seen from Tmin and Tmax if anyone would care to look at it.
Anyway, at least we do agree on your final sentence:The oceans sink more CO2 than they release…
that means it is getting cooler.
that process will continue.
winter is coming.
count back exactly 86.5 years, and know where we are, when looking at the sun: 1930.
Go south, young man. Go south.
How long are we going to continue wasting resources on a bogus theory about the climate which was invented to serve ideological purposes and not scientific. We do know however that asteroids and comets will hit the earth and cause severe extinctions; and we should spend money to research how to effectively negate these threats. This is how you prove the existence of phenomena that occur over long periods and then determine the real threat associated with them.