Guest essay by Bevan Dockery
Here is 38 years of empirical data clearly showing a relationship between the satellite temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory.
Figure 1. Mauna Loa Observatory
Figure 1 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the annual change in CO2 concentration in red. The obvious correlation between the two raises the possibility that there may be some common causal factor whereby the temperature drives the rate of change of CO2 concentration. It is not possible for the rate of change of CO2 to cause the temperature level as a time rate of change does not define a base. For example a rate of 2 ppm per annum could be from 0 to 2 ppm in 12 months, 456 to 458 ppm in 12 months or any other pair of numbers that differ by 2.
Note that the satellite temperature data is supplied as a residual after removal of the estimated seasonal variation. This makes it comparable to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration as taking the annual rate eliminates the seasonal variation.
Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.65 from the 448 monthly data pairs. Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of 0.56 with 446 degrees of freedom. However the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 1.08 indicating positive autocorrelation which means that Ordinary Linear Regression is inapplicable. The autocorrelation was estimated to be 0.53. When applied to the transformed time series, that is, applying a First Order Autoregressive Model, it resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.25 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.38, implying an infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test.
Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the Tropics-Ocean component of the satellite temperature compared to the annual change in CO2 concentration gave a correlation coefficient of 0.14 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 3.06, implying a probability of 0.2% that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test.
It follows that this synthesis of empirical data conclusively reveals that CO2 has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years but that the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level. Note that it is not possible for a rise in CO2 concentration to cause the temperature to increase and for the temperature level to control the rate of change of CO2 concentration as this would mean that there was a positive feedback loop causing both CO2 concentration and temperature to rise continuously and the oceans would have evaporated long ago.
Support for this thesis is seen in a statistical analysis of the monthly CO2 concentration with respect to the lower tropospheric temperature for Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean at Latitude 54̊ 29ʹ South, Longitude 158̊ 58ʹ East. Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the various components of the temperature, Global, Southern Hemisphere, Tropics, and Southern Extension and their Land and Ocean components gave correlation coefficients ranging from a minimum of 0.01 for 284 degrees of freedom, t statistic 0.15, probability of zero correlation 88% for the Southern Hemisphere zone, 90̊S to 0̊, to a maximum of 0.55, 284 deg. of free., t statistic 10.97, infinitesimal probability of zero correlation for the Tropics temperature zone, 20̊S to 20̊N.
This explains the well known fact that CO2 change lags temperature change over a large time range. Ice core data has revealed that the cycle of ice ages and interglacial warm periods shows CO2 change lagging temperature change by several centuries to more than a millennium while modern CO2 and temperature data shows lags of 9 to 12 months, Humlum et el., 2013 [1]. Cross correlation of annual changes in each of CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa and satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature showed that CO2 change lagged temperature change by 5 months. As temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 concentration, local maxima in the CO2 rate must correspond to temperature maxima which, mathematically, must occur after the maxima in the rate of change of temperature. Likewise the CO2 concentration maxima must post-date the maxima in the CO2 rate and thus post-date the corresponding temperature maxima. Put simply, CO2 does not cause global warming.
The CO2 concentration data for the Mauna Loa Observatory is freely available from the Scripps Institute via the Web page:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2
The satellite temperature data for the Tropics zone is freely available from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, Dr Roy Spencer’s Web site at:
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5.txt
The CO2 concentration data for Macquarie Island is available at: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/mqa554s00.csiro.as.fl.co2.nl.mo.dat
The above conclusion is totally at odds with the statements from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Policymakers Summary from Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific Assessment, 1990, being the, then, final Report of Working Group 1 of the IPCC, opened with the statement, page XI:
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are certain of the following:
• there is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be
• emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.” – end quote.
After decades of research into the relationship between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature, the latest, Fifth Assessment Report, 2015, of the IPCC, the Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, page 8, made the claim:
“SPM 2.1 Key drivers of future climate
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. …….” – end quote.
Here again is 38 years of empirical data, this time showing a distinct lack of a relationship between the satellite temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 2. Mauna Loa Observatory
Figure 2 shows the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component in blue and the monthly CO2 concentration in red after removal of the seasonal variation so as to match the residual temperature series. The clear and obvious difference between the two raises the possibility that there may be no common causal factor whereby the CO2 concentration drives the temperature as claimed by the IPCC.
Calculation of the Ordinary Linear Regression between the two time series gave a correlation coefficient of 0.49 from the 454 monthly data pairs. This is a measure of the relationship between the background linear trend of each of the time series as shown by the almost identical correlation between the temperature and the time of 0.50. The correlation between the CO2 concentration and the time was 1.00, that is, the CO2 concentration time series was practically a linear trend as is the time. Any pair of linear trends, no matter what their source, will have a high correlation coefficient of about 1.0 which is necessarily of no causal significance as every time series has a background linear trend with respect to time.
Detrending of the time series in order to determine the statistical significance gave a correlation coefficient of 0.0015 with 452 degrees of freedom. However, the Durbin-Watson test of the time series gave a value of 2.40 which indicates negative autocorrelation. The autocorrelation was estimated to be -0.79. Applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the two transformed time series resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.002 with 451 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 0.047 implying a probability of 96% that the correlation coefficient is equal to zero from the two-sided t-test.
Once again the Macquarie Island data support this result. The Island is in the Southern Extension zone of the satellite lower tropospheric temperature data, latitudes 90̊ South to 20̊ South. Analysis of the temperature data for the complete zone and its Land and Ocean components with respect to the CO2 concentration showed that there was positive autoregression in each case requiring a First Order Autoregressive Model to be applied. The result for the whole zone was a correlation coefficient of -0.06, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -0.98, probability of zero correlation 33%. For the Land component, the correlation coefficient was -0.02, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -0.39, probability of zero correlation 70%. For the Ocean component, the correlation coefficient was -0.07, 296 deg. of free, t statistic -1.14, probability of zero correlation 26%.
The negative correlations imply that an increase in CO2 concentration caused a decrease in temperature, the complete opposite of the IPCC thesis. However as the probabilities were not statistically significant, this could not be supported and the conclusion must be that the correlation coefficients were zero in agreement with the Mauna Loa result.
In conclusion, this synthesis of empirical data reveals that increases in the CO2 concentration has not caused temperature change over the past 38 years across the Tropics-Land area of the Globe. However, the rate of change in CO2 concentration may have been influenced to a statistically significant degree by the temperature level. As the Tropics is the zone of greatest average temperature, it must consequently produce the greatest rate of increase in CO2 concentration causing that CO2 to spread North and South towards the Poles. This is supported by data from CO2 stations across the Globe whereby temperature events, such as El Nino, increasingly lead the matching CO2 event with increasing CO2 station latitude.
As the seasonal variation from photosynthesis can be as great as 20 ppm in amplitude, it is possible that the almost 2 ppm per annum increase in CO2 concentration over the past 38 years has arisen from biogenetic sources driven by the natural rise in temperature following the last ice age. The Tropics has the greatest profusion of life forms throughout the Globe, so this may be a feasible source for the increase in CO2 concentration for that period. That could include an increase in the population of soil microbes thereby increasing the fertility of the soil leading to the greening of the Earth as can now be seen in satellite imagery. This is supported by an extensive study of global soil carbon which, quote: “provides strong empirical support for the idea that rising temperatures will stimulate the net loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere” end quote, Crowther et el 2016 [2].
Note that, as a consequence, the CO2 concentration will not fall until after the temperature falls below a critical value. This is predicted to be a surface temperature of zero degrees Centigrade at which point water freezes and is no longer available to support the continued regeneration of the biogenetic sources that create CO2. This may explain the large time lag between the long term temperature changes and the corresponding later changes in CO2 concentration seen in ice core records.
[1] Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim, “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”, Global and Planetary Change 100 (2013) 51-69.
[2] T.W. Crowther, et el, “Quatifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming” Nature, Vol. 540, 104-108, 01
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.
formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,
Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It was good to hear from you again Bevin. I don’t think I read anything of yours on the subject since Astra Navigo’s “Intelligent Debate”? Was that it? I recall your name from a long time ago but my memories aren’t what they once were.
I most certainly appreciated your paper and the stimulating discussion it’s generated!
Bevan wrote: Note that it is not possible for a rise in CO2 concentration to cause the temperature to increase and for the temperature level to control the rate of change of CO2 concentration as this would mean that there was a positive feedback loop causing both CO2 concentration and temperature to rise continuously and the oceans would have evaporated long ago.”
This statement is grossly incorrect. Our planet has overall negative feedback mostly from “Plamck feedback”, the increase in thermal radiation with increasing temperature exhibited by all materials. Rising anthropogenic CO2 can make overall feedback less negative (causing warming) without producing positive feedback (a runaway GHE). So can outgassing of CO2 from the deep ocean over a period of a millennium or so.
Why restrict your analysis in Figure 2 to the the monthly lower tropospheric satellite temperature for the Tropics-Land component? Could it be you are cherry-picking the record with the greatest unforced variability and least overall warming? Surely you know that the troposphere warms twice as much as the surface during major El Ninos. The subject is GLOBAL WARMING, not tropospheric warming over land in the tropics. EVERY major GLOBAL temperature record shows statistically significant warming over the satellite era and since 1950 (when analyzed by linear AR1 models like you use).
Finally, unambiguous laboratory experiments tell us that CO2 must reduce the rate of radiative cooling to space and conservation of energy tells us that reduced radiative cooling must cause some warming – whether or NOT your statistical analysis is capable of DETECTING this warming in the presence of unforced variability (like ENSO) and other phenomena (such as PInatubo and the sun) that effect our climate. Our complicated planet is a lousy place for conducting experiments that clearly shows the effect of CO2 on our climate. Even the IPCC was unable to unambiguously attribute at least half of global surface warming to anthropogenic GHGs until AR4, and some climate scientists still disagree about that attribution statement. However, they all recognize the role of CO2 plays in the GHE and enhanced GHE.
“Note that the satellite temperature data is supplied as a residual after removal of the estimated seasonal variation.” I like what it says, but I don’t really know what it says. That’s because I don’t know how the seasonal variation was estimated. And so I have to discredit the whole thing. Nice try though.
If the whole point is to claim that T is driving dCO2 then why not use SST, that is the relevant physical variable.
This is clear evidence that Henry’s Law and the Oceans control atmospheric CO2, not man’s production of CO2. Man’s production is near linear, and a small fraction of the CO2 that is exchanged between the oceans and atmosphere. The oceans outgas CO2 on a scale that makes man’s production irrwelevant.
co2islife,
There is some influence on a carbon cycle which was more or less in dynamic equilibrium over the past 10,000 years (290 +/- 10 ppmv) by adding 200 ppmv from buried carbon to that cycle…
You need a temperature increase of ~7 K of the average total ocean surface to get the current 110 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, according to Henry’s law…
Look at the carbon cycle below. 40,000 gtn of CO2 is in the oceans, 800gtn is in the atmosphere. The oceans outgas and absorb 90gtn of CO2. Assuming that the 800gtn represents 400ppm. An increase from 300ppm to 400ppm would represent an increase of only 200gtn. 200gtn is an immaterial amount when compared to the 40,000gtns dissolved in the oceans. From the chart below, it is clear an El Niño can increase the atmospheric CO2 by 3 to 4 ppm. Once the water warms, the oceans release more and absorb less CO2. I’d like to see your calculation that a change in 7°C is required for the oceans to outgas 200/40,000 of its CO2.
CO2islife,
The problem is that the surface is in very fast exchange (half life less than a year) with the atmosphere, but the deep oceans are quite isolated and only have a limited exchange with the atmosphere with a half life time of ~35 years…
The surface contains ~1000 GtC, the atmosphere ~800 GtC. Moreover the oceans are a weak buffer and any 100% change in the atmosphere introduces only a 10% change of total carbon species in the ocean surface.
The equilibrium between a gas and a liquid has nothing to do with quantities, only with pressure: if the pressure of a gas in solution is higher than in the atmosphere, it will outflux that gas, until the pressure in gas and liquid are equal. No matter how much total volume water with the same concentration is in the reservoir.
Take a 0.5, 1 and 1.5 liter bottle of Coke filled from the same batch and shake them well (with the screw cap in place!). Measure the CO2 pressure under the scew cap: at the same temperature, you will measure about the same pressure, no matter the difference in mass.
An El Niño releases 3-4 ppmv during 1-2 years. Then the waters cool and oceans and vegetation absorb their continuous over 2 ppmv/year, while humans emit ~4.5 ppmv/year, each year again…
If you want to examine a correlation you have to keep it simple. If warming (rate of change of temperature) is related to CO2 concentration, then why always representing both as time series?.
With a direct look at a T=F(CO2) you get this graph and quite a poor correlation coefficient of r2 = 0,166
http://climate.mr-int.ch/images/graphs/RoCTa_CO2.png
In time of low CO2, temperature was bumping up and down; and now that CO2 is high, T is no more increasing!
and how does it look if you plot d/dt(CO2) = F(T) ?
Here is CO2 vs. integrated T anomaly:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tempco2_zps55644e9e.jpg
Bartemis,
Except that an integrated temperature is a parameter without physical substance. One can accumulate heat, CO2 in the atmosphere, emissions… but not temperature. That kind of relationship is entirely spurious.
For emissions and increase in the atmosphere, that is a plausible relationship, as emissions are about twice the increase in the atmosphere. With a sufficient long decay rate and increasing emissions over time, that gives a nice plot:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
“Except that an integrated temperature is a parameter without physical substance. One can accumulate heat, CO2 in the atmosphere, emissions… but not temperature. That kind of relationship is entirely spurious.”
Abject nonsense. When you put a pot of water on a hot stove, it starts heating up proportional to the integral of temperature of the eye. Eventually, as time approaches the thermal time constant of the water volume, it settles out. But, initially, there is an integral relationship.
Same deal here. The time constants associated with settling of CO2 throughout the oceans in response to a change in surface temperature are very long. In the near term, there is effectively an integral relationship.
This chart looks suspicious. There is a dramatic change in behavior right at 330, which is where the ice core data transitions to the atmospheric measuring. This is an apples and oranges data set analysis. Also, R^2 goes from 0 to 1, it never exceeds 1, or falls below 0 and is always positive. Correlation must be between -1 and +1. This chart looks like a rate of change ROC graph which is different from a correlation analysis. Anyway, anytime there is a dramatic and sudden behavior change of a parameter you should be suspicious. Clearly, the dramatic change post 330, which is where the Keeling Chart Begins
http://climate.mr-int.ch/images/graphs/RoCTa_CO2.png
CO2islife,
Mauna Loa starts at 315 ppmv. That was midst the small cooling period 1945-1975, thus with a negative correlation. 330 ppmv is the start of the warming 1976-1998 (365 ppmv) and after that no warming and it goes down again.
Here is the carbon cycle. Oceans outgas 10x the amount of anthropogenic production. Trees respire 7x the amount of anthropogenic production. The warm ocean surface holds 100 years of anthropogenic production. Also, Google Carbon Cycle. Each graphic uses different numbers. The variation demonstrated between “professional” organizations, Environmental Groups and the IPCC clearly demonstrates that they haven’t even reached a “consensus” on the most basic and fundamental aspect of this “settled science.” The variations in the carbon cycle research proves this science is a joke.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/images/carbon_cycle.jpg
co2islife December 18, 2016 at 8:29 am
Here is the carbon cycle. Oceans outgas 10x the amount of anthropogenic production. Trees respire 7x the amount of anthropogenic production. The warm ocean surface holds 100 years of anthropogenic production. Also, Google Carbon Cycle. Each graphic uses different numbers. The variation demonstrated between “professional” organizations, Environmental Groups and the IPCC clearly demonstrates that they haven’t even reached a “consensus” on the most basic and fundamental aspect of this “settled science.” The variations in the carbon cycle research proves this science is a joke.
A more blatant example of misrepresentation would be hard to find! The poster says “Oceans outgas 10x the amount of anthropogenic production” (90) while ignoring that the same graph shows the oceans absorbing almost the same amount (92) for a net sink of 2, what a liar!
He also says “Trees respire 7x the amount of anthropogenic production” (60) while ignoring microbial respiration (60) and 123 absorption during photosynthesis for a net uptake of 3. So the data in the graph shows human emissions of 9 offset by a net 5 absorption for a gain of 4. You’d never know that from co2islife’s lies, absolutely zero credibility after a display like this. If this is what he does when the data he’s discussing is in plain sight imagine what he does the rest of the time.
Indeed! The correct picture to have on one’s head is that CO2 exchanges rapidly between the atmosphere, biosphere and ocean (mixed layer). What we are doing is then taking carbon that has been locked away from these reservoirs and dumping it back in at a geologically-rapid rate. The CO2 that we dump into the atmosphere rapidly partitions between those three reservoirs but then it is essentially stuck there because the rate of going back into the deep ocean reservoirs or the Earth is very slow.
co2islife’s post is just an illustration of what you get when you make your scientific views slave to your ideology. It has no basis in reality.
The misrepresentation is that the ocean up-take is independent of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. There is a hiatus in the acceleration of CO2 rise along with the hiatus in temperatures, in the 21st C when emissions skyrocketed. Not something could happen if Gaia was so easily upset or human emissions were responsible for the rise in CO2 since 1958.
“Liar,” really? I make a statement and then post an easy to read graphic to prove myself wrong? What was my point I was making? CO2 increase by about 3 ppm/yr. If 800gtn represents 400ppm (according to the graphic), that means about 2gtn of additional CO2 is added to the atmosphere for each ppm, or 6gtn/yr for the 3ppm increase. There is about 40,000gtn of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and the oceans are warming. 6/40,000 is nothing, and I’m sure well withing the standard error of the calculations of ocean flux. The chart originally referenced shows that El Niños can increase the CO2 by 3 to 4 ppm alone. That was my point. Maybe I was expecting too much to expect the AGW Cult Members to understand basic scientific analysis. Additionally, warmer temperatures result in greater decomposition, respiration, and forest and grass fires. There are plenty of natural CO2 sinks that increase their production as the temperature increases, mainly the oceans. Given the huge amount of natural CO2, it only takes a small marginal change in natural production of CO2 to easily exceed anything man could ever hope to produce. Once again, an El Niño can increase atmospheric CO2 by 3 to 4 ppm, and that is 100% due to the oceans.
co2islife,
I will say it a little nicer:
How much C is in a reservoir is of zero interest, as long as it stays there.
How much C is exchanged between reservoirs is of zero interest, as long as inputs and outputs are equal.
What matters is the difference between the inputs and the outputs: that changes the amounts in the reservoirs.
Humans add one-way lots of CO2 to the atmosphere with (near) zero uptake by replantation.
That adds to the total CO2 content of the atmosphere.
Plants and oceans respond to the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere by an imbalance: more output from than input to the atmosphere.
That is not sufficient to remove all human input in the same year as emitted, thus the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase…
Really? From the graphic, the flux of CO2 between plants, land, water is 120+60+60+90 or 330gtn. Man produces around 6 to 9gtn depending on what graphic you choose. That represents about 2 to 3% of atmospheric CO2 flux. Given the keeling chart shows CO2 annual variation of about 6ppm between summer and winter, man’s CO2 production is less than the annual variation. The El Niños can alter the atmosphere by 4ppm. The oceans have been warming so they will be outgassing more than absorbing on a relative basis. Increased temperatures mean more decomposition, decay and respiration. The N Hemi has greened a great deal and forests are denser resulting in more intense fires and more decay and decomposition. We have tampered with the balance of nature with our fire prevention programs. For years our forests were recovering and growing, now they are in decay and having catastrophic fires. It took 100 years for the forests to get to where they are, and now a single fire can burn down 6 million acres of Yellowstone. How many years of man’s CO2 is the equivalent of burning 6 million acres of dense forest in a matter of weeks? Facts are warming temperatures results in Mother Nature producing more CO2, and a small marginal change to her huge CO2 output can easily exceed man’s production. The oceans are warming, the oceans hold 40,000gtn of CO2. Just how much warming do you think it takes for the oceans to outgas an additional 6/40,000 of their CO2? I seriously doubt much.
co2islife,
Your 330 GtC natural input is more than balanced by 334.5 GtC natural sinks.
A balance sheet is always showing the two sides. I don’t think your bookkeeper would agree to show only all expenses without showing all earnings, so that you make a loss on paper…
Likewise, the seasonal cycle balances out to near zero over a year.
El Niño and Pinatubo disturbances level off to near zero after 1-3 years.
The oceans have been warming with maximum 1 K since the LIA, that is good for maximum 16 ppmv increase in the atmosphere per Henry’s law. Not 110 ppmv. No matter how much CO2 is in the (deep) oceans. The pressure increase in the atmosphere makes that the oceans currently are mor sink than source (~3.5 GtC/year of which ~0.5 GtC/year in the surface layer).
Vegetation is a net sink for CO2, based on the oxygen balance, thus not the cause of the increase…
Static application of Henry’s law. Near term equlibration with the surface oceans is not the only effect of temperature change. The entire oceans have to equlibrate over many centuries time, which begets a near term sensitivity in ppmv/degC/unit-of-time.
Bartemis,
If the deep oceans need millenia to equilibrate, then they show little change on time scales of decennia to centuries. The 100 ppmv between a glacial and interglacial period needed 5,000 years for ~6 K global warming. The current increase is 110 ppmv in 165 years. It is impossible that the deep oceans increased that much in CO2 content in such a short time span…
“It is impossible that the deep oceans increased that much in CO2 content in such a short time span…”
They don’t have to increase at all. All that has to happen is to have the amount going back down be less than what is coming up.
Bartemis.
There is no reason for a permanent reduction of the sink rate (and observations show an increasing sink rate), see here…
Not permanent, just very long term. And, no, the sink rate has not been increasing. It has been holding steady, coincident with the “pause” in temperatures. You are evaluating sink rate based on your presumption that anthropogenic forcing is the dominant influence, and that presumption is incorrect.
Bartemis:
Not permanent, just very long term
Bart, the sink rate is directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and sinking waters. That is immediately, with zero delay. Its effect in the atmosphere will take some time (that is the overall decay rate of ~51 years), but an increase in the atmosphere of 16 ppmv is sufficient to fully compensate for the loss of sink rate caused by a temperature increase of 1 K.
The net sink rate (human emissions – increase in the atmosphere) increased a fourfold in the past 57 years. That is what is calculated on the base of fossil fuel sales and measured increase in the atmosphere.
Human emissions increased over the years – except the last few years – but the rate of change in the atmosphere stayed even, thus the net sink rate increased…
BTW, look at this graphic.CO2 ppm/yr has been INCREASING along with temperature. CO2 goes from less than 1ppm/yr in 2000 to over 4ppm/yr in 2015. 1ppm represents an additional 0.5gtn CO2 whereas 4ppm represents an additional 2gtn CO2. Man’s production of Co2 hasn’t increased by a factor of 4 since 2000. The main difference is that the oceans have warmed due to more incoming solar radiation reaching the oceans. Man’s CO2 production simply can’t explain the huge variation seen in the atmospheric CO2. Man’s CO2 production is near linear, atmospheric CO2 isn’t, and it follows the temperatures of the oceans.
” Man’s CO2 production simply can’t explain the huge variation seen in the atmospheric CO2. Man’s CO2 production is near linear, atmospheric CO2 isn’t, and it follows the temperatures of the oceans.”
All more or less true, if you mean d(CO2)/dt follows the temperature… What Man’s production does is keep the rate bouncing around 2 ppm/yr rather than zero.
Great article and statistical analysis.
To add;
1.) Since most of the planet’s CO2 is in the oceans, simple that some boils out like soda pop when temperatures rise or vise versa similar to the ice core data with a lag.
2.) There is a seasonal and hemispheric variation in CO2 and temperature, can not rely on long times series of Mauna Loa observations for whole planet, if using monthly data, need some sort of proxy for hemispheric seasonal CO2 differences and divide up for separate regressions for different latitudes similar to what you did for tropics where there is less of a variation blending North/South latitudes.
3.) Should add some sort of variable for volcanoes or time series for aerosols to take that out since can plainly see major volcanic events on graphs and redo statistical analysis. Similarly, need to wean out El Niño events from data.
4.) Why just run data just with tropospheric RSS temperatures? Could find something in upper atmosphere, but need to get specific altitude/hPA temperature data from RSS and not run just whole stratosphere.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg
JPinBalt:
Since most of the planet’s CO2 is in the oceans, simple that some boils out like soda pop
Small point: only the surface layer of the oceans is in direct contact with the atmosphere. That shows a rapid exchange with the atmosphere, but contains only ~1,000 GtC, compared to the atmosphere at ~800 GtC.
For the current average ocean surface temperature, the equilibrium (steady state) level is 290 ppmv, but as the atmosphere is at 400 ppmv, more CO2 is pressed into the ocean surface than reverse…
“…only the surface layer of the oceans is in direct contact with the atmosphere…”
Which is why it takes so long for the entire oceans to equilibrate to a change of temperature at the surface. That is what produces a near term sensitivity in units of ppmv/degC/unit-of-time.
“For the current average ocean surface temperature, the equilibrium (steady state) level is 290 ppmv…”
After decades of rising temperatures, it is probably more like 380 ppm or greater, with a very small, essentially negligible, contribution from anthropogenic forcing making up the difference.
Bart,
All available information from ice cores and proxies show that for the current average ocean surface temperature the steady state is around 290 ppmv, not 400 ppmv. That includes Henry’s law for seawater, confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples… The ocean surface, including the upwelling and sink places of the THC and other deep ocean circulation, is an increasing sink for CO2, not a source:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
As the deep oceans don’t change much over time, the fast equilibrium between surface and atmosphere has no problem to follow any long term deep ocean change: the ~100 ppmv change between a glacial and interglacial period needs some 5,000 years, while the current increase is 110 ppmv in 165 years. That can’t be caused by the deep oceans, as that means that these increased with ~30% in CO2 content… Neither reverse: all human emissions since 1850 represent ~1% of the deep ocean carbon content…
“All available information from ice cores and proxies show that for the current average ocean surface temperature the steady state is around 290 ppmv, not 400 ppmv.”
In 1900. Not now.
Ocean upwelling did not have to increase at all. All that is required is for temperature dependent downwelling transport of CO2 to be reduced.
Bartemis:
In 1900. Not now.
Ocean upwelling did not have to increase at all. All that is required is for temperature dependent downwelling transport of CO2 to be reduced.
800,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, in 1900 and in 1958 at the start of the South Pole and Mauna Loa meaurements and still today: the steady state between atmosphere and oceans is 290 ppmv for the current area weighted ocean surface temperature.
That is proven by the linear net sink rate in ratio to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above the theoretical steady state for the average ocean surface temperature…
There is zero reason to assume that there is any substantial suppression of the sink rate. The current atmosphere is at 400 ppmv (~400 μatm), the N.E. Atlantic Ocean at the main sink place of the THC is at ~250 μatm, a difference of 150 μatm.
At steady state some 40 GtC/year CO2 is transported via the atmosphere between upwelling and sink zones.
If the temperature at the sink zones increases with 1 K, the local pCO2 of the surface waters will increase to 266 μatm, thus the pCO2 difference is reduced to 134 μatm.
As the sink flux is directly proportional to the pCO2 difference, the 40 GtC/year sink flux get reduced to 35.8 GtC/year, that gives an increase of 4.2 GtC (~2.1 ppmv) in the first year in the atmosphere.
The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of ~2.1 μatm makes the pCO2 difference again larger, thus pushing again -slightly- more CO2 in the deep ocean sink. At 16 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, the original sink rate of 40 GtC/year is restored and the increase in temperature is fully compensated.
Not by coincidence the same 16 ppmv/K extra as seen over many millennia and fully compatible with Henry’s law, no matter if that is static from a lab sample or over the full dynamics of the oceans…
3-4 years of human emissions are already sufficient to compensate for the temperature increase…
“There is zero reason to assume that there is any substantial suppression of the sink rate.”
Nonsense. There is every reason in the world. This is a very temperature dependent process, and very long term, as the oceans are vast and the transport of CO2 throughout the entire volume very slow.
Would someone please explain this chart to me? It appears to show CO2 not impacting temperature until the Stratosphere. Also, what is the temperature on the Right Y axis?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg
It’s the rate of loss, units K/(day.cm-1)
That implies CO2 and O3 result in cooling of the stratosphere. Also, how does that chart jive with this chart?
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/graphics/vert_temp.gif
I assume you meant ‘jibe’ rather than ‘jive’? In that case since that appears to be the cross section of the standard atmosphere, nothing much. Absorption of UV in the stratosphere causes heating but to achieve a steady state there has to be cooling too. In the stratosphere the atmosphere is thin enough that emission rather than collision is the primary mechanism for deactivation, at that altitude ~half of the emission will be directly to space. As the concentration of the gases change so will their contribution to cooling, Clough et al. show warming by O3 below ~30km so a loss of O3 in the ‘Ozone layer’ will result in local cooling, CO2 has its peak cooling effect at about 50km so an increase in pCO2 will cause a decrease in temperature over time there.
RSS TLS shows the cooling below 30km and C14 the cooling between 35 and 50km where the trend over the last 20yrs is -0.76 K/decade.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Bevan Dockery:
As temperature controls the rate of change of CO2 concentration, local maxima in the CO2 rate must correspond to temperature maxima which, mathematically, must occur after the maxima in the rate of change of temperature. Likewise the CO2 concentration maxima must post-date the maxima in the CO2 rate and thus post-date the corresponding temperature maxima. Put simply, CO2 does not cause global warming.
–
Yaha.Go further, Cheers.
Take a look at this chart, how can you reach the conclusion that CO2 causes warming in the lower atmosphere…where all ground measurements are taken? CO2 doesn’t seem to have any impact at all until you get up to 10km, the level at which there is no more/little water vapor. More importantly, at that height, the air is already very cold, near the lowest temperature anywhere in the atmosphere. Also, if I’m reading that chart/Y Axis Right, CO2’s contribution is to cool the atmosphere, not warm it (assuming the higher the number means the greatest rate of temperature change). CO2 doesn’t seem to have any impact in the parts of the atmosphere where Conduction and Convection are present, and only seems to have an impact in the very very thin atmosphere, above where jets fly, and its main contribution seems to be radiation out to space, facilitating cooling of the stratosphere. Also, the stratosphere warms with height, and the colors for CO2 and O3 seem to follow that warming. It appears that what that chart is showing is CO2 and O3 trapping heat, resulting is the +40° increase in the stratosphere. If that isn’t the case, why does the stratosphere warm with altitude? Is that due to incoming radiation converting O2 to O3? Any insight would be appreciated.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg
Since the atmosphere is mostly warmed from below by the solar heated surface it should show a continuously decreasing temperature from the surface to space while the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equlibrium against gravity.
As your temp. profile shows we have two exceptions: the thermosphere and the stratosphere where the temperature increases with increasing distance from the surface
In the thermosphere the few molecules there are hit by just about everything the sun sends our way and thus very high temperatures are found. Because little mass is involved this doesn’t mean much.
In the stratosphere solar UV is intercepted by oxygen molecules, which break up in oxygen atoms.
When they recombine energy is released.
http://www.theozonehole.com/images/process.jpg
You’re misunderstanding the Clough et al. graph, I suggest you read the paper. As a help here is the caption for the graph you posted:
“Spectral cooling rate profile for H2O, CO2 (355 ppm), and O3 as a logarithmic function of pressure for the MLS atmosphere. The results are spectrally averaged over 25 cm-1. Color scale x 10^-3 is in units of K d^-1 (cm-1)^-1.
co2islife December 21, 2016 at 1:48 am
Take a look at this chart, how can you reach the conclusion that CO2 causes warming in the lower atmosphere…where all ground measurements are taken? CO2 doesn’t seem to have any impact at all until you get up to 10km, the level at which there is no more/little water vapor.
If you look at the region of the spectrum occupied by the CO2 band (~610-700 cm-1) in the troposphere you’ll see that the dark blue and magenta due to H2O has disappeared and is instead light blue. This is the effect of the CO2, the cooling effect of water which should occur there in the absence of CO2 of 4-6 K d-1 (cm-1)^-1 has been reduced to ~0.1 K d-1 (cm-1)^-1 by the presence of 355ppm CO2, (the earlier Clough paper, 1992, focussed entirely on water). That’s how the lower atmosphere is warmed up.
More importantly, at that height, the air is already very cold, near the lowest temperature anywhere in the atmosphere. Also, if I’m reading that chart/Y Axis Right, CO2’s contribution is to cool the atmosphere, not warm it (assuming the higher the number means the greatest rate of temperature change). CO2 doesn’t seem to have any impact in the parts of the atmosphere where Conduction and Convection are present,
No, see above.
and only seems to have an impact in the very very thin atmosphere, above where jets fly, and its main contribution seems to be radiation out to space, facilitating cooling of the stratosphere. Also, the stratosphere warms with height, and the colors for CO2 and O3 seem to follow that warming. It appears that what that chart is showing is CO2 and O3 trapping heat, resulting is the +40° increase in the stratosphere. If that isn’t the case, why does the stratosphere warm with altitude? Is that due to incoming radiation converting O2 to O3? Any insight would be appreciated.
The warming with altitude is due to UV absorption by O2 and O3, the role of O2 is to cool the stratosphere, at the altitude corresponding to 1 mb the cooling rate is ~100 K d-1 (cm-1)^-1.
It really would help big time if posters would make an explicit distinction between what the data (oberservations/measurements) show and what their model indicates is a possile explanation given the following assumptions, which must be stated. Ferdinand, as an example, tells us that “Thus any substantial release of CO2 from the ocean’s unbalance would increase the δ13C level of the atmosphere and the CO2 changes and δ13C changes would parallel each other.” Yes, I agree. But hang on a minute that’s exactly what the data show is what happens during a La Nina (I have posted the graph before). How can we discuss this rationally otherwise?
Jim Ross,
I have plotted the graph above, but here it is again:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
As far as I can see, CO2 changes and δ13C changes are near always opposite to each other, including the 1998 El Niño and 1999 La Niña at a near exact timing.
Thus my conclusion was that almost all of the CO2 rate of change variability is caused by the reaction of vegetation to temperature changes, not by the oceans… See e.g.:
https://usclivar.org/sites/default/files/meetings/bastos-ana.pdf
BTW, I don’t have a “model” for anything, I just look at the data and what is plausible as it need to fit all observations, without violating any one.
Ferdinand,
We are agreed I am sure that growth of atmospheric CO2 has been positive since direct measurements began (possibly with a few very minor exceptions). Given the plot of “d13C trends” that appears on your website, I assume that we are also agreed that δ13C has mostly been decreasing but that there have also been periods where it has been increasing. The consequence of these two observations is that there must have been times when both were increasing at the same time. We also know that there is a very strong correlation between ENSO and the short-term growth rate, with an increased rate during a strong El Niño and a reduced rate (compared to the average) during a strong La Niña. I do not think any of the above is particularly contentious.
Your plot shows derivatives, which actually makes it tricky to interpret. Following El Niño, the plot shows that the rate of change of CO2 drops dramatically but, and this is the key point, the CO2 growth remains positive. The growth rate is simply less positive. On the other hand, when the rate of change of δ13C is increasing, it includes periods when the actual atmospheric δ13C values are increasing. It is clear that there are periods when CO2 and δ13C are both increasing at the same time. All I have done is link one of these periods to ENSO, specifically to a strong La Niña.
The following plot shows the long-term trends, but you can also identify changes in gradient quite easily. The monthly data are from Scripps, using the seasonally adjusted values.
http://i67.tinypic.com/o9mvjb.jpg
Expanding on the area around the 1997-98 El Niño and subsequent La Niña …
http://i64.tinypic.com/2ykl6z4.jpg
We can argue about the specific values I have selected, but the point that I am making is that there appears to be strong evidence for the incremental CO2 to have a much higher δ13C during a strong La Niña than the long-term average (-13 per mil). Further, the δ13C of the incremental CO2 during an El Niño is consistent with a δ13C of -26 per mil (i.e. much lower than the long-term average). Note that I have calculated the average δ13C values by applying the Keeling equation to the CO2/δ13C pairs. Directionally, the values must surely be correct (greater and less than atmospheric δ13C), but I appreciate that they are certainly not precise.
Jim Ross,
There are three main players at work with different efefcts, which make it sometimes difficult to know what happens in reality…
Humans emit CO2 with a δ13C level of average -24 per mil.
Vegetation emits CO2 with a δ13C level of average -23 per mil when decaying or removes CO2 with -23 per mil out of the atmosphere with photosynthesis, thus leaving +23 per mil in the atmosphere.
The oceans emit/absorb CO2 with an average δ13C of -6.4 per mil at equilibrium between oceans and atmosphere. The current atmosphere is about -8 per mil, thus ocean CO2 gives about +1.6 per mil compared to the current atmosphere.
So far so good.
Human emissions are the main cause of the drop in δ13C since ~1850, but that doesn’t explain the variability, as there is little variability in human emissions.
The oceans do contribute to the variability: during an El Niño, less CO2 is absorbed (but still is, as the overall balance is more sink than source), thus giving a slight increase in δ13C in the atmosphere and a slight decrease during a La Niña. Thus not the cause of the (opposite) trends.
Vegetation does contribute a lot: during an El Niño, changed temperature and rain patterns dry out large parts of the Amazon, releasing more CO2 with very low δ13C than is absorbed. That makes that CO2 is rapidly increasing and the δ13C level is rapidly decreasing, that is what is noticed in the trends.
After an El Niño, La NIña comes in and temperature drops and rain patterns resume. That leads to a recovery of the Amazon with extra growth as can be seen in a drop in increase rate of CO2 and an increase of the δ13C level…
All together, the reaction of tropical vegetation on extreme temperatures (and drought) explains most of the temporary (1-3 years) behaviour of CO2 and δ13C in the atmosphere, but humans are responsible for the trend over longer periods…
Ferdinand,
You were doing fine up to the “so far so good”, but then you started referrring to models! I note your comment re less CO2 being absorbed by the oceans during an El Nino, but CDIAC’s model does not support that (even though it is clearly a physical possibility). That’s not to say that I agree with either hypothesis.
I have a family matter to deal with right now, so I’ll wish you a Happy Christmas and hope to continue our discussions in 2017.
Jim,
I didn’t use models, the uptake/release of CO2 by the biosphere is measured thanks to the oxygen balance: if CO2 is taken away by plants during photosynthesis, O2 is set free. Reverse if plants are decaying or eaten. The oceans close the gap between emissions and uptake (as there are no other huge, fast sinks).
The oxygen balance measurements are here:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Fig. 7 gives the uptake/release by the biosphere compared to the oceans and the overall balance…
Have a Happy Christmas and a very good New Year…
When climate models are built, I’d like to see them built by the information theoretic methods that were developed by Ron Christensen of Entropy Limited in the period between 1963 and 1980. As developed by Claude Shannon, information theory applies to telecommunications engineering. Christensen adapted Shannon’s information theory for application to systems control engineering. The two applications differ due to an asymmetry in the position in time of the outcomes of events with respect to the present. For telecommunications engineering, the outcomes lie in the past while for systems control engineering the outcomes lie in the future. Consequently, for systems control engineering but not telecommunications engineering, the signal power and noise power are nil. Thus, for example, the power of the so-called “anthropogenic” signal is nil and attempts at trying to “detect” this “signal” are bound to fail. To try to detect this non-existent “signal” is how modern global warming climatologists spend their grant money!
Also, as nature’s “encoder” does not use an error correcting code, for systems control engineering errors cannot be corrected; consequently a portion of the model builder’s job is to extract probability values from empirical data. The extraction process operates on a statistical population but global warming climatologists have not yet seen fit to identify this statistical population. Inevitably, therefore, the value is nil of the mutual information of the model and the climate cannot currently be controlled. Under these conditions, to conduct global warming research is a complete waste of money!
The earth’s climate system is not a system control engineering problem. You are committing a false analogy fallacy.
Keith Sketchely
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
In regard to commission by me of a false analogy fallacy, I’d like to see your argument. Before starting to compose an argument you should know that there have been dozens of successful applications of information theory to systems control. I led a project that achieved control over degradation with time of materials in the core of a nuclear power reactor.
Some of the applications have been to mid- to long range weather forecasting. If you’d like I’ll supply you with a bibliography.
For achievement of control over a physical system the model used in the control must predict. Today’s climate models “project” but do not “predict.” Many bloggers are unaware of the necessity for distinguishing between the two terms.
Terry Oldberg
You are comparing the climate system of the earth to a system where control over it is the basis of your model. You know full well that such a comparison is fruitless, because there is no way that humans can “control” the climate. We can “influence” the climate, for example the UHI effect or changes in land use/compostion (deforestation.) Humans cannot change the orbital characteristics of the earth (AKA Milankovitch cycles) nor can humans change the activity levels of the sun which would confound any attempt at “control.”
The above mentioned facts illustrate why your analogy fails.
Keith Sketchley
Thank you for sharing.
According to one dictionary, “influence” and “control” are synonyms. This is the use that I make of the term “control” in making my argument. In this sense of the word, that one cannot control Earth’s climate system regardless of the technology that is used in construction of the model remains to be proved. Use of information theoretic technology would give climatologists the best shot at achieving a degree of control
A degree of control can be attained over a physical system whenever the value is non-nil of the mutual information of the model of this system. The value is nil of the mutual information of today’s climate models hence the climate is out of control. The appearance of susceptibility to control of Earth’s climate using currently existing climate models. is created by propaganda to the contrary. Often this propaganda is based upon the false claim that a pseudoscientist is a scientist.
Your “proof” of my commission of a false analogy fallacy is based upon usage of a definition of “control” that is not the usage that is made by my argument. Thus it is your argument rather than mine that is logically flawed.
Look at this chart/graph. Nowhere does it offer evidence CO2 can cause “warming.” 1) H20 is clearly the dominant source of lower atmosphere heat-trapping/slowing of warming. 2) The only warmth comes from the warm earth, CO2 and H2O only slow the cooling.3) Given that CO2 and H2O can’t cause warming, the only way to warm the atmosphere would be too warm the earth. If that is the case, the only way to cause global warming is to warm the earth. If more sunlight is reaching the earth, it would also explain the oceans warming. If that is the case, more warming radiation is reaching the earth and that has nothing to do with CO2.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WD_Yh20cTis/VV9hGG9_O6I/AAAAAAAAHOk/ogIGLHCU0Fg/s1600/strato%2Bcool.jpg
“Given that CO2 and H2O can’t cause warming, the only way to warm the atmosphere would be too warm the earth.”
It’s a bit more complicated. Without atmosphere and an average surface temp. of ~290K the earth would radiate some 400 W/m^2. Since the sun only provides on average ~240W/m^2 the surface would cool down rapidly to something like our moon: ~200K average surface temp.
Since the atmosphere “traps” heat we only lose ~240W/m^2 and the temperature remains stable with the sun re-supplying this loss.
Big question is: how did the surface arrive at ~290K average temperature?
Answer: by cooling down. Some 85 million years ago the deep oceans were ~15-20K warmer then today. we have been cooling down ever since (with some up and downs). That is the reason we can have these high temperatures without the atmosphere WARMING the surface. But yes: without atmosphere it would be much colder on earth.
see https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
Not mentioned in this study is the exsolution of CO2 from warming oceans, which probably explains the evident correlation between satellite temperature and rate of CO2 addition to the atmosphere. Interestingly enough, I got a correlation coefficient of 0.54 between temperature anomaly and CO2 concentration (see my article on 10/10/2016), compared to 0.56 in this study. I also found that CO2 max had a 2 month lag from temperature max change (May to Mar), but CO2 max change had about a 4.5 month lag, about the same as in this study.
Does anyone know if you can break the data available on the RSS website into day and night temperatures? It strikes me that all we should need to show its that the diurnal change in temperature isn’t changing over time in Antarctica. If CO2 is causing the warming, nighttime should be warming relative to daytimes. The GHG effect mostly impacts the night when there is no incoming radiation. The CO2 signature should be warming nighttime relative to the day. The night can never be warmer than the day (unless convection brings in the heat). The atmosphere can never be warmer than the radiating body at night.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
RSS: “Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N”
..
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
…
You are out of luck in terms of Antarctica
PS: In significant portions of Antarctica, the day is 6 months long, and the night is also 6 months long
That is even better, it allows for the control of incoming radiation, and isolate the effect of outgoing radiation. Over the past 50 years you could break the data into 6 month periods of night temperatures and match them against CO2. It is the perfect controlled experiment for CO2 and Temperature. As CO2 increases, night temperatures over Antarctica could increase with CO2.
Lets not ignore the phase relationship with temperature and CO2 variances. The last time I reckoned the sea could be the driver a lot of people drove down on me. lol
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/mean:12/isolate:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/mean:12/isolate:12/normalise