Questions on the rate of global carbon dioxide increase

Guest essay by Robert Balic

A summary of a problem with estimates of the average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and questioning of how it is possible that the rate of increase correlates well with global temperature anomalies.

I saw an interesting plot in the comments of of WUWT a while ago. It was based on the work of Murray Salby who pointed out the strong correlation between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (NOAA ESRL CO2 at Mauna Loa) and the integral of mean global temperature anomalies. How well the CO2 levels correlate with various temperature anomalies can be seen in this plot of the derivative of CO2 levels with respect to time (rate of CO2 level increase) alongside some estimates of global temperature anomalies – HadSSTv3 SH (southern hemisphere sea-surface temperatures) and RSS (lower troposphere temperatures from satellite observations).

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:3/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/offset:0.3/plot/rss/offset:0.2/from:1990

The first time that I saw this, I thought that what was meant by “derivative” was an estimate from differences between consecutive months but in ppm per year (as time is in years) so I was twelve times as confident that something was amiss as I should have been. Even after realizing that the results were in ppm per month, I thought that the results were still implausible. That changes in sea surface temperature would have an effect on CO2 levels is plausible but to correlate so well and then to be measured so precisely in order to be able to see the correlation did not seem possible.

In the above plot, the CO2 levels in ppm per month were scaled by 3 to compare with temperature anomalies. If I were to use ppm per year, then I would divide by 4 to do the same comparison iehey are not the same dimensions so the scaling is irrelevant. The data clearly needs to be scaled and also offset to fit each other well so by good correlation I am referring to the way they differ from a line of best fit after scaling to have the same slope.

I have put this out there in comments on blogs and received few replies. One that I need to mention is the claim that the derivative values are some sort of concoction and are so small that they are negligible, about 0.03% of CO2 levels. I don’t know why I need to point this out but an average of 0.125 ppm per month is the rate of change of CO2 estimated using the same method since even Newton was a boy and is equal to 90 ppm per 60 years. Its not negligible but there is the question of whether the uncertainty in measurements are too large to see fine trends over a period of a few years (and you should never multiply the quotient of two values of different dimensions by 100 and call it a percent).

Eyeballing the graph, it appears that the data needs to be very precise in order to see a correlation and a little bit of math makes things clearer. Rather than using the above derivative of smoothed data (12 month moving mean), I took the CO2 levels from woodfortrees.org and the difference between values 13 months apart. Essentially the same with the results being in ppm per year.

There is a good fit to the global temperature anomalies, especially RSS lower troposphere after 1990 (and to HadSSTv3SH before 1990) when the rate of change of CO2 levels is scaled by 0.26 and offset by -0.30. The mean absolute differences between the two is 0.13 and the standard deviation (SD) is 0.17 but varies from 0.08 to 0.2 for blocks of 1 year .

Using the lower value, this is consistent with an uncertainty in GTA of 0.1 K and in monthly CO2 levels as low as 0.34 ppm as calculated using

0.26^2 x 2ΔCO2^2 + ΔT^2 = (2 x 0.08)^2 where ΔCO2^2 and ΔT is the random error of CO2 levels and GTA which would be 2SD of repeat measurements.

This assumes that when differences are at a minimum that it is solely due to random error in the two measurements but its worth remembering that HadSSTv3NH differs much more than this from the rate of CO2 change so there are obviously other errors. Its also a stretch to assume perfect correlation of the real values, especially since its claimed that CO2 levels have increased due to human emissions and the latter have been at a steady rate for the last three years. There is also the question of why such a good correlation with SH sea-surface temperatures and not NH, and why should the correlation be so perfect when things like changes in ocean currents should have a large effect on how much is sequestered into the depths of the oceans.

So unlike I first thought, the precision didn’t need to be ridiculously good to see the correlation but this is still to good to be true.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

Does it make a difference if you consider that Mauna Loa is slap bang in the middle of the biggest ocean on the planet?

If anywhere should show a correlation it’s there.

“But how about gas from the volcano? It is true that volcanoes blow out CO2 from time to time and that this can interfere with the readings. Most of the time, though, the prevailing winds blow the volcanic gasses away from the observatory. But when the winds do sometimes blow from active vents towards the observatory, the influence from the volcano is obvious on the normally consistent records and any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out (Ryan, 1995).”

if one can believe that “any dubious readings can be easily spotted and edited out”

I know Steve Ryan very well. He became well known for his sulfur dioxide research at Mauna Loa, and the presence of that gas suggests the presence of volcanic CO2. So, yes, they do remove that data as being spurious. The real question is does temperature correlate well with CO2? The answer is no.

afonzarelli

“…CO2 measurements at other sites, with no possibility of contamination, corraborated that the rate of rise seen in the Mauna Loa record was global”

Charles Keeling

afonzarelli

Aphan

“From time to time”?? If CO2 is a well mixed gas, then they can’t just “subtract out” what Mauna Loa does when it vents “from time to time”. They have to consider what every other volcano, vent etc. on land or in the oceans produce “from time to time” as well as 24 hours a day, seven days a week as well. And they simply have NO IDEA how much that is.

2013 article at Live Science.com:

“In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don’t mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.
Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.”

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Until we can monitor and measure not only every land volcano, and every land vent, AND accurately map, monitor and measure the CO2 outgassing from every active submarine volcano and vent, it is scientifically impossible and completely idiotic to presume that any scientist could possibly know, or even accurately estimate, what (let alone IF) the NATURAL atmospheric CO2 cycle amounts to, much less if it is a steady, unchanging exchange upon which a “human contribution” can be measured. The entire contribution of human CO2 from emissions fits within the “estimated margin” of how much CO2 nature exchanges every year on it’s own several times and this is without even accurate measurements, let alone estimates, of how much CO2 is actually being vented by this planet thru volcanic activity.

2hotel9

It has been my experience that no one on the Human Caused Globall Warmining band wagon wants to speak of volcanic out-gassing at all. Period. Full stop. And they go absolutely apoplectic at the mention of active volcanic vents under West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Its fun watching the flecks of spittle spew forth like magma!

I’ll write another post on a comparison of different sites because a quick check shows large differences between ML and Cape Grim that drops by factor of 40 after smoothing.

Paul Aubrin

“The real question is does temperature correlate well with CO2? The answer is no.”
The real answer is yes. Variations of CO2 concentrations mimic variations of temperatures with a few months delay.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/mean:17/normalise/plot/hadsst3sh/derivative/mean:12/mean:14/from:1959/mean:17/normalise

Aphan,

It doesn’t make much difference if you use all available data at Mauna Loa, or only the “cleaned” data. The difference over a year is less than 0.1 ppmv, only shows a nicer daily/monthly curve if you plot only the cleaned data.

They have a simple detection of volcanic vents intrusion in the mix: when they measure high variability (>0.25 ppmv, 1 sigma) for hourly averages of the 10-second snapshots then there is a high probability of volcanic CO2 mixing in. The opposite happens in the afternoon, when slightly depleted CO2 is coming in from the valeys with upwind conditions. Both are marked and not used for daily to yearly plots. But still available if you want to see the difference. Here the plots for Mauna Loa and the South Pole, where far less disturbances are present (but mind the scale!):

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg

For the procedures to reject or include data in the averages, see:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

Volcanic emissions in general are far too low to have much influence on global CO2 levels. Continuous measurements around mount Etna (Sicily, Italy) show about 1/200 of human emissions. You need 200 as very active volcanoes like mount Etna to reach what humans emit. Subsea volcano CO2 probably doesn’t reach the surface under the high static pressure and undersaturated CO2 levels in the deep oceans…

Jaakko Kateenkorva

“Volcanic emissions in general are far too low to have much influence on global CO2 levels.”

How many active volcanos Earth has?

“Subsea volcano CO2 probably doesn’t reach the surface under the high static pressure and undersaturated CO2 levels in the deep oceans…”

Compared to human activities, ring of fire is nothing? Starts sounding a bit like the sun.

http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/Images_specific/ocean_age.gif

Greg Goodman

A quick read up about MLO observations will reveal the considerable care which is taken to monitor wind direction and ensure readings are not contaminated by the volcano’s output.

I looked at this several years ago. Some fitlering is required to remove the fuzz and see how the datasets compare.comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/ddtco2_sst_15mlanc/

One can also take further derivatives and see the strong similarity :comment image

I did not look at SH only, that would be worth doing in a similar way.

Globally the relationship is not 1:1 but is striking. What should be noticed is the offset: all this is happening on top of a d/dt(CO2) which was around 1.2 ppm/year in 1970 and has been a steady 2ppm/year since 2000.

Jaakko,

Here the measurements around Mount Etna:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html

There are not that many volcanoes on earth as active as mount Etna is an deep magma volcanoes (Iceland, Hawaii) emit 10 times less.

Deep ocean volcanoes emit in enormous water pressure in undersaturated conditions of the waters for CO2. It seldom reaches the surface and mainly when the top gets near the surface. Or you may have found the origin of all ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle…

Further, most volcanoes have a 13C/12C ratio above the ratio found in the atmosphere, 13C/12C levels are firmly decreasing in the atmosphere, thanks to human emissions…

Last but not least, it would be a hell of a coincidence that all volcanoes on earth all get more active in lockstep with human emissions: a fourfold since 1959…

Greg

Ferdi, there you go with this unscientific and poorly defined “lockstep” claim again. The fact that two variables are generally rising over time does not mean they are in “lockstep” . The variability : up down , or left-right-left shows CO2 is not in “lockstep” with temperature. It would be more accurate to say that dCO2 is in “lockstep” with temperature while there is an increase in the underlying CO2 level that may be attributable to human emissions.

Greg,

The increase in the atmosphere is quite smooth, hardly any variability visible, slightly quadratic increasing over time in absolute lockstep with human emissions in the period of accurate measurements (and reasonable accurate human emissions inventories):

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1960_cur.jpg

Thus any natural cause of the CO2 increase must mimic the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere (and the opposite δ13C decrease in atmosphere and ocean surface) in exact the same way as human emissions did: slightly quadratic over time, a quadrupling since 1958, or you can’t have the same CO2 increase curve in the atmosphere.

Temperature obviously is not a good candidate: cooling 1958-1975, cooling 1997-2012, while CO2 goes smoothly up. Neither is there any sign that volcanic activity/releases quadrupled over the same period, after the Pinatubo it gets even very quiet. Neither is there any sign that the oceanic carbon cycle increased a fourfold in the same period, or the biosphere carbon cycle.

The problem with this article and many before it (Bart, Salby,…) is that one is overfocused on the +/- 1.5 ppmv noise around the trend, which indeed is temperature related, but has no connection whatever with the 90 ppmv trend since 1958…

Ferdinand,

You appear to be relying on two questionable assumptions:

i) That the ice core record is an accurate reflection of short term CO2 variability in the atmosphere and

ii) That the organic content of the oceans has no effect on the isotope characteristc of CO2 emitted by the oceans.

Stephen,

I was talking over the 1960-current period of accurate measurements, not the period before. But even so, the graph doesn’t change in any way if you add the ice core CO2, which includes an overlap of 20 years (1960-1980) with direct measurements at the South Pole:

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

1. Ice cores don’t reflect short term variability of CO2, they reflect CO2 variability averaged over the resolution period, which depends of the local snow accumulation rate of where the core is drilled. That gives a resolution of less than 10 years over the history of the past 150 years up to 560 years over the past 800,000 years.
The repeatability of the Law Dome records over the past 150 years is 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma), good enough to detect a one-year peak of 20 ppmv or a sustained change of 2 ppmv over 10 years. As the measurements since 1958 show, the maximum variability from temperature variability is +/- 1.5 ppmv leveling off to zero after 1-3 years.

2. The organic activity, mainly in the top layer of the oceans, is included in the total biosphere O2 and δ13C balances, as there is a fast exchange for O2 and CO2 between the ocean surface and the atmosphere with a half life time of less than a year…

TimTheToolMan

Ferdinand writes

Subsea volcano CO2 probably doesn’t reach the surface under the high static pressure and undersaturated CO2 levels in the deep oceans…

It would eventually at areas of upwelling.

“I took the CO2 levels from woodfortrees.org and the difference between values 13 months apart

I understand that a 13 month average is common, and I understand the reasoning. Still, I’d like to point out the downside. In series with specific annual cycles, it reintroduces the an annual effect into the smoothing process when you’re trying to minimize that type of effect.

First your moving average has 2 Jans, then 2 Febs, … , then 2 Decs, so you’re giving the repeating month double weight. If you still want to center on a specific month, just weight the first repeating month and the last repeating month at half value.

TimTheToolMan ,

You are right if the upwelling stream has passed undersea volcanic vents with relative huge emissions. On average, the CO2 is absorbed in already 38,000 GtC of the deep oceans. Even all human emissions since 1850 are a mere 1% of that amount when these are ultimately mixed into the deep oceans…

The point is that it would be quite remarkable that all volcanoes of the world start to get more active at the same moment that humans start to emit increasing quantities of CO2…

Isn’t there an active sea mount over the Hawain ‘hotspot’ on its way up from the abyss to become the next Hawaian Island? Hot high pressure CO2-rich water plume rising… 2+2= a bunch of non-Anthropogenic CO2 goosing the Mauna Loa record perhaps?

afonzarelli

Global satellite data is a better fit with SH than NH SSTs (where they overlap from ’79 onwards)…

george e. smith

When you have the CO2 abundance, being anything but well mixed from pole to pole, and any other way you want to go, and you are going to differentiate that function, and try to relate it to temperature anomalies for a Temperature function that has a total extreme global range (at any time) of as much as 150 deg. C, I suspect you might be able to show there is a Haydn Symphony in there also.

This is just a different level of numerical origami, but that is all that it is.

G

Its not origami. Its the just the rate of change of what NOAA supplies for global levels. Don’t twist it from impossible to observe to nothing to worry about. Its there because its part of the calculations but done properly, there would be no correlation.

Robert B

I’ll just elaborate here because I don’t know if some of the following comments are unicorns, deliberate misreading or unintentional.
Global temperature anomalies must have been an input for calculations of CO2 levels. Nothing wrong with local temperatures being used but the better fit of SH than NH is strange and done properly, there would be no correlation observed.
I’m not pointing out any physical reason for it but rather there is nothing that would have such a fine effect on global CO2 levels that wouldn’t be muffled by others.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:3/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1958/offset:0.3/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1958/offset:0.2

Thanks George. Sounds about right. Just to add: outside air CO2 content globally behaves similarly, except it varies between practically unmeasurable and zero. Confirmed by OCO-2 silence.

Robert B: I suspect the better correlation with SH temperature anomaly than with NH temperature anomaly has to do with most of the world’s ocean being in the SH.

Robert B

@DLK – The NH has the largest effect on the readings. Remember that its after 12 month smoothing or difference between the same month in consecutive years. The 7-9 ppm seasonal signal is due to the NH.

george e. smith

Well Robert B you will just have to point out to me, just where in my post, I said …” nothing to worry about. “…
Because I can’t find that anywhere in my post.

I’m familiar with what NOAA USED to supply for global CO2; but as I have noted elsewhere, they seem to have disappeared that three dimensioned plot of about ten years of CO2 from pole to pole.

And I have no idea what NOAA supplies as to global Temperatures; or Temperature anomalies either.

Remember that anomalies are just difference functions; which is another name for differentiation, so when you take the derivative of anomalies, you are taking the second derivative of Temperature values; all of which amplifies the random noise something fierce.

But more importantly it is an algorithmic process for which there is no underlying physical theory or explanation, and that makes it the very essence of Origami.

So long as you simply keep on employing the same algorithm; no matter what the original raw data is, you can compare it to what you got the last time you did it, and eventually generate what looks like a history.

That’s exactly what GISSTemp is; except they keep changing 100 year old measurements to something lower than what they were 100 years ago when they were actually observed and measured.

But in the end; what you have is simply GISSTemp; which is entirely a mathematical algorithmic construct.

There isn’t any underlying physical world reality that it measures, and it certainly isn’t any global mean Temperature. After all Temperatures only go down to zero; there are no negative Temperatures.

They use different algorithms from those that HADCRUd uses, so naturally HADCRud and GISSTemp are different things; perhaps one is a jumping frog, and the other is a dancing crane; but both are plain origami.

G

Robert B

I might have misunderstood George, but the CO2 levels aren’t a second derivative. It just seemed as if you were diverting from what I wanted to point out.

@G
“numerical origami”..
Lovely turn of phrase!

Robert Balic.

You are asking the right question, more or less.

My 2008 paper on this very subject predates Salby, Humlum et al and others.

It is time that climate scientists stopped arguing “by how much can the future cause the past?”

Regards, Allan 🙂

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/24/apocalypse-cancelled-sorry-no-ticket-refunds/comment-page-1/#comment-2406538

[excerpts]

I have stated since January 2008 that:
“Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record and also by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.”
{In my shorthand, ~ means approximately and ~~ means very approximately, or ~squared).

It is possible that the causative mechanisms for this “TemperatureLead-CO2Lag” relationship are largely similar or largely different, although I suspect that both physical processes (ocean solution/exsolution) and biological processes (photosynthesis/decay and other biological processes) play a greater or lesser role at different time scales.

All that really matters is that CO2 lags temperature at ALL measured times scales and does not lead it, which is what I understand the modern data records indicate on the multi-decadal time scale and the ice core records indicate on a much longer time scale.

This does NOT mean that temperature is the only (or even the primary) driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. Other drivers of CO2 could include deforestation, fossil fuel combustion, etc. but that does not matter for this analysis, because the ONLY signal that is apparent in the data is the LAG of CO2 after temperature.

It also does not mean that increasing atmospheric CO2 has no impact on global temperature; rather it means that this impact is quite small.

I conclude that temperature, at ALL measured time scales, drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.

Precedence studies are commonly employed in other fields, including science, technology and economics.

Does climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 (“ECS” and similar parameters) actually exist in reality, and if so, how can we estimate it? The problem as I see it is that precedence analyses prove that CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales*. Therefore, the impact of CO2 changes on Earth temperature (ECS) is LESS THAN the impact of temperature change on CO2 (ECO2S).

What we see in the modern data record is the Net Effect = (ECO2S minus ECS). I suspect that we have enough information to make a rational estimate to bound these numbers, and ECS will be very low. My guess is that ECS is so small as to be practically insignificant.

Regards, Allan

*References:

1. MacRae, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf

Fig. 1
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1200189820058578&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

Fig. 3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1200190153391878&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater

2. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

3. Humlum et al, January 2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

pochas94

The correlation between two straight lines is always 1 or -1 (perfect) regardless of the slopes of the lines. When two quantities are going in the same direction there will always be an indicated correlation, whether there is a causal relationship or not. To be meaningful, the data must include all of the variability, and in the case of CO2 vs temperature, that would require thousands of years of data. That said, I believe there is such a relationship, when appropriate time lags are considered.

george e. smith

The various routinely published ” anomalies ” gathered by sundry world wide organizations, are single exactly known numbers, at each time of publication.

In that sense, they qualify as INSTANTANEOUS samples, and are mathematically equivalent to an impulse function. And being sequentially “sampled” one at a time, they carry NO future trend information whatsoever.

It is impossible to tell from any length sequence of samples, whether the next one (to be obtained) tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, whatever, will be the same as the current one, or will be higher, or will be lower. So the next segment of the piece wise linear graph obtained from connecting the sampled dots, will have a totally unpredictable slope.

So your derivative function can be nothing but random noise.

Perhaps a real physical model of the whole earth climate physics, that makes sense would seem like a prerequisite, to wasting time and paper playing with the numbers to construct some apparent correlation.

G

See - owe to Rich

George, Robert B:

I think the correlation is really quite simple. We know that CO2 follows temperature of the SH oceans, becuase of the yearly up-lesser down-bigger up pattern of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. We also know that CO2 levels are generally rising, at a fairly constant rate. When you differentiate the function, you remove that trend part, and so you remove the anthropogenic component, leaving the change-in-temperature component, which does indeed have a visible effect and reflects the oceans emitting and absorbing CO2 as they warm and cool.

Rich.

Joe - The climate scientist

There is near perfect correlation of the last 30 or so years (as compared to the last 100 years, 200 years, last 1,000 years, etc)

Therefore it proves co2 is the primary driver of AGW. (do pay any mind to the lack of correlation in the prior 1,000 years, they are ot relevant)

Joe-tell me you are being snarky….

Bartemis

Wouldn’t be the case anyway, because the correlation is with the rate of change, not the absolute level.

Bartemis

The equivalent of covering your eyes, and plugging your ears, and shouting “nah, nah, nah!”

Javert Chip

Joe – The climate scientist

So, Joe, which temperature numbers does your correlation use – the real (unadjusted x times) number, or the temperatures that have been “homogenized” to respond to rising CO2?

Said another way: If the actual temperature numbers have been manipulated to better track rising CO2, THEN OF COURSE YOU’LL HAVE A HIGH CORRELATION.

Alan McIntire

“Bartemis April 7, 2017 at 7:10 pm
Wouldn’t be the case anyway, because the correlation is with the rate of change, not the absolute level.

From this paper,
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.pdf

“…However, we find that greenhouse gas forcings might have
a temporary effect on global temperature. This result is illustrated
in panel c of Fig. 3 in which the horizontal axis
measures the change in the estimated anthropogenic trend.
Panel c clearly shows that there is a positive relationship
between temperature and the change in the anthropogenic
anomaly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken
into consideration.”

If there’s a correlation between rate of change of CO2 and tempratures, apparently what is measured must be changes in the heat island effect caused by additional waste heat pumped into the system by
human economic development.

NowyKopernik

Joe

I find it amazingly suspicious that the people proposing all these correlations don’t take into account the nice experiment that Mother Nature performs for us every year:

In the Northern Hemisphere the coming and going of the leaves on the temperate forests “force” the CO2 to follow the seasons in an annual sawtooth like oscillation. There is much less of this “sawtooth” signature presence in the Southern CO2 data due to the preponderance of Southern plant life being plankton in the Oceans, and even the preponderance of Southern forests being Tropical [and hence not strongly tied to seasons] rather than temperate.

Hypothesis: there should be a some kind of function acting on the CO2 Sawtooth visible in the Northern Hemisphere Temperature and a much diminished [if present at all] functional dependence on the Southern CO2 annual fluctuations

Nice thing is that compared to trends and strange corrections — the Sawtooth repeats annually so there is plenty of cycles to do nice modern frequency domain analysis

I’ve yet to see anyone perform such an analysis

More interesting would be a correlation analysis to determine which came first, the temperature change or the CO2 change and it does look like min/max temperature peaks are generally followed by min/max CO2 peaks, most likely as CO2 enters and leaves the oceans. Clearly, a small fraction of a ppm change in CO2 will not cause tenths of a degree in temperature change, but the other direction is quite plausible.

DMA

See http://www.climate4you.com/ Ole Humlum’s site for in depth analysis of time relation between CO2 and Temp. He shows it lags at all intervals with some slight exceptions in El Nino years.

eck

I vote for the chicken. Wait….what?…oh, never mind. (sarc)

Bartemis

The temperature change is always first. This is not a plot of CO2 and temperature, but of CO2 rate of change and temperature. The rate of change leads the absolute level by 90 degrees of phase, temperature anomaly matches the rate of change, hence temperature anomaly is always leading absolute CO2 level.

no, bartemis. humans are emitting co2 into the atmosphere, regardless of any temperature change.

just where do you think all the co2 we’re creating goes, anyway?

Bartemis

“…that is an assumption you make without evidence.”

Hardly. The plot in the article shows the agreement between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 rate of change. The rate of change leads the absolute level by 90 degrees of phase, temperature anomaly matches the rate of change, hence temperature anomaly is always leading absolute CO2 level.

That is the evidence. Are you going to make me cut and paste it again?

“…humans are emitting co2 into the atmosphere, regardless of any temperature change.”

Yes, they are, yet CO2 level is temperature dependent, as is shown by the plot in the article. That is how we know that human emissions are not a significant contributor. The only way they could be is if the were varying with temperature.

“…just where do you think all the co2 we’re creating goes, anyway?”

Natural emissions are on the order of 30X human emissions. Where do you think all that goes? They necessarily go to the same places.

richardscourtney

crackers345:

You ask the silly question so loved by AGW believers when you write

no, bartemis. humans are emitting co2 into the atmosphere, regardless of any temperature change.

just where do you think all the co2 we’re creating goes, anyway?

.I answer.
The total emission of CO2 to the air “goes” into the carbon cycle, and humans emissions are a trivially small addition that total emission.

The analysis by Salby (mentioned by Robert Balic in his above article) obtains the same finding as our earlier analysis;
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

At issue is what the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the CO2 emission from human emissions (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) were absent.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration would probably be the same if the CO2 emission from human emissions were absent. It would probably be the same. Our analyses show the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to each of our six different models, the total emission of a year affects the equilibrium state of the entire carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. So, the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly changes in response to any change in the equilibrium condition.

Importantly, each of our models demonstrates that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system caused by, for example, the anthropogenic emission or may be solely, for example, a result of desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it.

The most likely explanation for the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment towards the altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system provided by the temperature rise in previous decades during the centuries of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).

Richard

Bart,

As argued many times before:

T changes lead CO2 changes,
dT/dt changes lead dCO2/dt changes.
T changes don’t lead dCO2/dt changes.
That is because taking the derivative of CO2, you shift the CO2 variability with pi/2 back in time, but then you are comparing apples with oranges, as you have removed most of the slope of the CO2 changes, while retaining the slope of T.
The match of the variability still is real, but the “match”of the slopes is entirely spurious: there is no slope in dT/dt, as that is the real cause and effect of dCO2/dt.

Richard,

There are many ways that a mathematical solution can match the real CO2 increase in the atmosphere, including the theory of Bart, but there is only one “theory” that matches all observations, that is human emissions as main cause of the increase, while temperature variability is the main cause of the variability around the trend, but only s small contributor to the increase: ~16 ppmv/K according to Henry’s law. That is all equilibrium change there is, as proven over the past 800,000 years ice core record and proven by the net sink capacity over the past near 60 years of accurate measurements: the net sink capacity of all natural sinks is directly proportional to the increase in CO2 pressure (pCO2) above the long term steady state, which is ~290 ppmv for the current average seawater temperature…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

There are many, many ways to model the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration which each match all observations to within the inherent errors of the data.

One model which fails to match all observations is your assertion that human emissions of CO2 overload the ability of the carbon cycle to sequester all of the human emissions. The many failures of the model you promote include;
a) the model requires 5-year data smoothing when there is no plausible physical mechanism which would require it,
b) the dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the ‘sinks’ can easily sequester all of the total CO2 emission each year (at issue is why they don’t),
c) the OCO-2 satellite observations disagree with your model,
…. n)

Richard

AndyG55

The extra CO2 goes into the carbon cycle, where it belongs.

In case people, especially the AGW cultists, didn’t know it….

ALL LIFE ON EARTH is dependant on the CARBON in that carbon cycle.

“just where do you think all the co2 we’re creating goes, anyway?”

Based on the objectively verifiable evidence so far, it has asphyxiated climate scientists to the point of cerebral gang green.

Richard,

Please, don’t start -again- your “arguments” which have no merit at all.

– Human emissions fit all observations. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

If you have any objection to these observations, then we can have a discussion.

Further,
– “My” model doesn’t need 5 years smoothing at all.
– Seasonal changes are temperature related, practically independent of pressure changes. The removal of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere is pressure related, practically independent of temperature. Different causes, different rates of change. Seasonal changes don’t say anything on what happens with any extra CO2 in the atmosphere above the temperature related steady state.
– I have no idea what the OCO-2 satellite has to do with “my” model, as it is probably not sharp enough to measure human activity within the huge natural fluxes. That doesn’t imply that human emissions are not the cause of the increase, as we have other means to measure that…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

You ask me

Richard,

Please, don’t start -again- your “arguments” which have no merit at all.

I answer,
whenever you assert your silly psuedo-mass balance argument I will refute it with empirical evidence and logical argument. Such refutation is called science and I don’t agree that science has “no merit at all”.

In fact, I think science has much more merit than the irrational assertions you provide and bolster with processed and cherry-picked data much of which is irrelevant to whatever variable assertion you choose to claim from time to time.

Richard

Bart,

Temperature changes indeed lead CO2 changes.
dT/dt changes lead dCO2/dt changes.
There is zero lead of T before dCO2/dt.

An integral of T anomaly has no physical meaning in itself has no connection with CO2 changes, as these are directly caused by T changes (at +/- 1.5 ppmv around a trend of 90 ppmv), not by the integral of T…

Richard,

“empirical evidence” like:

the model requires 5-year data smoothing
Smoothing which I never, ever, used (BTW I am not responsible for what the IPCC does or doesn’t)

the dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the ‘sinks’ can easily sequester all of the total CO2 emission each year
They don’t “indicate” anything like that. They indicate that they can’t sequester all human emissions in the same year as emitted over every year of the past near 60 years.

the OCO-2 satellite observations disagree with your model
The OCO-2 sattelite has a (theoretical) resolution of about 0.1 ppmv. Human emissions are around 0.1 ppmv/day. Would be a hell of a job to find that back…

Further:

– Empirical evidence shows that the ocean surface increases in DIC and decreases in pH and the average pCO2 in the atmosphere is ~7 μatm above the average pCO2 of the oceans: the net CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans. Not reverse.

– Empirical evidence like the O2 measurements show that the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2. The earth is greening, also seen in satellites measuring chlorophyl.

– With oceans and biosphere as net sinks, where does the increase of CO2 comes from? Volcanoes? Rock weathering? Just in time and quantity to mimick the increase of human emissions? And where goes human emissions? In space?

Bartemis

Long term equilibration with the oceanic depths explains the temperature dependent rise. I gave a model of how it could come about here.

“The OCO-2 sattelite has a (theoretical) resolution of about 0.1 ppmv. Human emissions are around 0.1 ppmv/day. Would be a hell of a job to find that back…”

You said it. Would be a hell of a job for measuring too. Fraction of micro enters nano in the metric system. Perhaps OCO-2 has already discovered giga-alarmism to match.

Bart,

The deep oceans react much too slow to have any substantial influence on the ocean surface – atmosphere steady state within centuries.
I have sent two times a reaction to Dr. Ed in your link, but it wasn’t published…

Jaakko,

There are other means to measure the human influence than satelites…

Take a pump that circulates 1,000 liter per minute over a fountain which drops its water back into the same bassin. We measure the waterflow to within +/- 1% or +/- 10 l/minute.
Someone opens the supply valve to add 1 l/minute to fill the bassin further and forgets it all together, While the additional flux is only 0.1% of the original cycle, not even detectable in the huge pumped flux, wouldn’t you think that the bassin will overflow after some time and that only the 1 l/minute extra is to blame?

Of course the natural cycle is not fixed as in this example, but the observed variability of the natural cycles is +/- half human emissions and the net sink rate is also only half human emissions…

Michael Nelson

You need to compare the actual CO2 volume ratio and not the dry CO2 volume ratio. All reported CO2 volume ratios are reported as dry numbers, i.e. all of the water is removed from the air before the tests are conducted. This creates a higher than actual CO2 concentration (volume ratio). They are significantly different near the equator. See http://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG_2016102714282839.pdf
or Google “Oceans, Ice & Snow and CO2”

jorgekafkazar

but isn’t the difference between dry basis CO2 % and wet basis CO2 % a lot less than the difference between dry CO2 forcing and wet CO2 forcing?

co2 is almost always expressed on a molar basis — the number of molecules.

so co2=400 ppm means 400 out of every one million air molecules is a co2 molecule.

people should write 400 ppmv, to be clear it’s on a molar basis. but not everyone does.

The CO2 increase/changes are lagged behind the temperature changes however. The increase year over year in CO2 is lagged about 7 months behind the temperature changes.

Warm El Niño years always have a higher CO2 increase and cooler La Nino/volcano years are always lower in terms of the increase, but there is a lag.

Obviously, the Ocean and Vegetation CO2 sinks vary based on the temperature. The warmer it is, the lower the rate at which they sink CO2. But one should also note that the net sinking rate continues to rise every year and is now about 5 times higher than it was 60 years ago for example. The higher the CO2, the more the Oceans and Vegetation absorb each year but there is slight change in the rate of increase based on the temperature.

Samuel C Cogar

Bill Illis -April 7, 2017 at 12:38 pm

Obviously, the Ocean and Vegetation CO2 sinks vary based on the temperature. The warmer it is, the lower the rate at which they sink CO2.

You 1st statement is “correct” about said sink rates varying based on temperature.

But you are 50% wrong with your 2nd statement.

So “Yes”, the warmer the ocean water is …. the lower the ocean water CO2 sink rate is.

But on the contrary, the warmer the near-surface temperatures are ….. the higher the vegetation CO2 sink rate is.

And also on the contrary and the cause of your confusion, ….. is the fact that the warmer the near-surface temperatures are ….. the higher the microbial decomposition of dead biomass is ….. and thus the higher the outgassing of CO2 into the atmosphere is, …… which results in a false conclusion about vegetation sink rates.

Just remember that I’m not claiming anything physical dominates. Its that any correlation with any event that is temp dependent will be muffled by others that will be affected by temp differently or independent ie human emissions.

We should also note that human emissions continue to rise (although the last three years have slowed considerably and are close to flat as electricity production has shifted more to natural gas than coal. With coal having more CO2 emissions than the new combined cycle natural gas plants

But human emissions are still equivalent to about 5.0 ppm CO2. Yet the amount remaining in the air is only about 2.5 ppm each year (3.0 ppm in a warm El Niño year and 1.9 ppm in.a cold La Niña/volcano year.)

So plants oceans and soils are increasingly absorbing more of our emissions each year. The net increase is a combination of how fast human emissions are growing, how much the natural sinks are absorbing and the temperature of that particular year (impacting the natural sink rate.)

richardscourtney

Bill Illis:

You say:

So plants oceans and soils are increasingly absorbing more of our emissions each year. The net increase is a combination of how fast human emissions are growing, how much the natural sinks are absorbing and the temperature of that particular year (impacting the natural sink rate.)

Yes, but all of those variables (and others) are adjusting towards altered equilibria which combine to form the altering equilibrium state of the carbon cycle that determines atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Please see my above post.

Richard

Samuel C Cogar

Bill Illis – April 7, 2017 at 7:23 pm

But human emissions are still equivalent to about 5.0 ppm CO2.

Really now, …. is that a wild guess or the result of “fuzzy” math calculations, ….. and for what reason would anyone care what the total quantity of human CO2 emissions are equivalent to?

Do ya suppose that the total human emissions of CO2 are also equivalent to …… the total quantity of human feces emissions? WHOOPEEE, … now that shur would be important to know.

Bill Illis – April 7, 2017 at 7:23 pm

Yet the amount remaining in the air is only about 2.5 ppm each year (3.0 ppm in a warm El Niño year and 1.9 ppm in.a cold La Niña/volcano year.)

Bill Illis, nowhere within the 59 years of the a href=ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt>Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 ppm data can anyone see, observe or find a “human CO2 emission signature” that even remotely suggests, implies or defines their anthropogenic CO2 emission quantities.

Please cease and desist from employing the junk-science of “reverse mathematics” in the silly and/or futile attempt to interpolate humanity’s contribution to the calculated/measured ppm quantity of atmospheric CO2.

Samuel,

You are wrong on your second statement: during an El Niño, both the oceans and tropical vegetation do sink less CO2, as El Niño changes the rain patterns over the Amazon and Indonesia, drying out land and thus less uptake and more release/fires. That is clearly visible in the opposite CO2 and δ13C levels and the higher oxygen use. Vegetation is the main cause, oceans are secondary.

Ferdinand,

You say that vegetation is the main cause (of CO2 variations) and oceans are secondary.

Plankton, algae and other organisms are vegetation in the oceans. What do you say aboiut the potential contribution of such organisms to the observed 13C levels ?

Bartemis

Bill Illis @ April 7, 2017 at 7:23 pm

“So plants oceans and soils are increasingly absorbing more of our emissions each year.”

That is a rationalization. A kluge to save a dying hypothesis. An epicycle.

An alternative hypothesis which doesn’t require a kluge is that sink response to anthropogenic CO2 is the same it’s always been – it takes out just about all of it. But, as temperatures stall, so too does the rate of change of atmospheric CO2.

Occam’s Razor slices the first one away.

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – April 8, 2017 at 9:59 am

You are wrong on your second statement:

Shur nuff, Ferdinand, …….. I also noticed that mistake.

Apparently I mis-keyed when entering that “hyper-link” format.

Bart,

Why doesn’t your theory removes all available CO2 out of the atmosphere? There is no more reason for the natural cycle to remove specific human CO2 than all available natural CO2…

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – April 10, 2017 at 1:56 am

Bart,

There is no more reason for the natural cycle to remove specific human CO2 than all available natural CO2…

There shur is a reason, Ferdi, ……. and it’s the same reason that you, Ferdinand, use for validating the quantity of CO2 that humans emit into the air each year by burning fossil fuels …… and for validating the quantity of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere as a residual of each year’s emissions …… and for validating the dozens or hundreds of years that thar human emitted CO2 stays up there floating around in the atmosphere.

Ferdinand, you musta dun forgot about that isotope of CO2 that humans are responsible for emitting that contains an H-pyron in its nucleus, …… thus permitting you and your like-believers to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.

Bartemis

Ferdinand Engelbeen @ April 10, 2017 at 1:56 am

“There is no more reason for the natural cycle to remove specific human CO2 than all available natural CO2…”

You misapprehend. It removes all but a slight portion of both. The same proportion, as all inputs must be treated on an equal basis.

It is because the natural input is so much larger than the anthropogenic input that the residual remainder is almost entirely due to natural inputs.

Bart,

A 30% increase in the atmosphere (whatever the cause) has hardly any influence on the amount of CO2 removed by the largest cycles in nature: the seasonal cycles. Thus the seasonal cycle is largely indifferent for a CO2 pressure increase in the atmosphere.
Human (and volcanic) emissions increase the pressure in the atmosphere, but are apparently not removed by the largest cycles in nature, they are removed by processes influenced by pressure, which are much slower in removal rate than temperature induced processes.

Different processes at work…

jorgekafkazar

‘Lag’ is an active verb, Bill, in this context. I’ve only seen ‘lag’ as a passive verb when talking about insulation. “The pipe is lagged with 3″ of calsil.”

Bill
Do you have a chart to provide for the claim in the first paragraph. Where is the CO2 data from and where is the temperature from?

“Rather than using the above derivative of smoothed data (12 month moving mean), I took the CO2 levels from woodfortrees.org and the difference between values 13 months apart. Essentially the same with the results being in ppm per year.”
I don’t see what your point overall is here. But arithmetically, the 12 month moving mean of differences is 1/12 the difference between values 12 months apart. So that correspondence isn’t surprising.

I wrote that the result will be ppm per year.

Sorry, misread your comment. It is exactly the same except the units.

Stan Robertson

Lon Hocker did this same analysis 7 years ago and noted that it picked out all of the El Nino years very cleanly. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/

NZ Willy

I see no such variations in the CO2 curve from Mauna Loa — pretty much a Keeling curve since the 1960’s — so I don’t see a valid connection. Maybe the input data (of this article) was contaminated with some temperature-related pre-processing.

Not by me. Since its been discussed before, I’m assuming that woodfortrees has reported the results from NOAA correctly.

Bartemis

This is not a CO2 curve, it is a CO2 rate of change curve.

Thanks, I didn’t spot that he wasn’t referring to the rate.

Moa

For those that haven’t seen Professor Salby’s talks, here are some:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8niiyDn2FI&t=605s (2016-07-18)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCya4LilBZ8 (2015-03-17)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc (2014-08-13)

If you struggle to follow the maths you may wish to see the earlier videos to get an overall picture.

Professor Salby was unceremoniously fired from his university in Australia, ostensibly for some dispute with the university bureaucrats. We can support him by buying his book, as Salby literally wrote the (graduate-level) textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-published-Cambridge-University/dp/B00E28A3S0/

what institution is murray salby at these days?

richardscourtney

crackers345
:
Who payed you to ask that question?

Please note that my question addresses the fact that your question is an ad hominem which says nothing about the correctness of Salby’s analysis.

Richard

richardscourtney

Moa:

Salby’s findings concur with our earlier findings
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

A video of me presenting our earlier findings at Heartland 1 can be seen at
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeQtRB60kU60&h=ATObYgy_MOvn8v_bXywxJvXiDXI72PNMaVhk3Kjjk0yNrZGTFxx6gqZibKQ2XmB7Willoh_p9HTzOLg-U4y2x_Wqtg-hgU3jGcOP0Y4FVSRKVofIyHDGAtJHHqDKUrSVNDI4
Unfortunately, the video does not show the illustrations I was explaining.

The audience’s appreciation of our findings is shown e.g. by their bursting into spontaneous applause before I had finished the presentation.

Richard

Moa,

I was in London a few years ago where he had his speech in the Parliament buidling. Unfortunately there was little time to discuss several points of disagreement and he clearly avoided direct discussions. Several of his points are controversial even impossible: levels of CO2 in ice cores were far higher at the peaks, according to him, but that implies much lower levels during glacial periods, effectively killing all life on earth.
Further, the integration of temperature which is non-physical, to obtain CO2 levels without any mention of human emissions,…

Too many questions, never discussed out on any blog or publication…

That doesn’t make his firing at his university any more warranted, but I have my doubts about what he said on the topic of the CO2 increase, even if his book on “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” may be superb…

Bartemis

What is a-physical is your assumption that the equilibrium dynamics for natural CO2 are decoupled from the treatment of anthropogenic CO2.

Bart,

They are decoupled as most natural processes are temperature driven and thatis the cause of the short (~5 years) resindence time for any individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
Any removal of an extra CO2 level above steady state in the atmosphere is pressure driven and has an observed e-fold decay rate of ~51 years. Or a half life time of ~35 years.

Bartemis

Gibberish. You must treat inputs of the same substance on an equal footing. You are engaging in pseudo-science.

Bart,

Natural emissions and human emissions are treated the same, if you accept that temperature changes and pressure changes have different influences on different processes.
Your theory treats all processes as one process that only responds to temperature. That has zero connection with real life processes in nature as in nature lots of different processes are at work, some mainly influenced by temperature, others by pressure and most a mix of both.
The largest CO2 fluxes are seasonal and mainly temperature driven. These are hardly influenced by 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever the source.

“So unlike I first thought, the precision didn’t need to be ridiculously good to see the correlation but this is still to good to be true.”
Otherwise known as the argument from incredulity .
Congratulations, if they served up Nobel awards for fallacies, you’d be in the running to win one.

charles nelson

No ‘ifs’ about it. They gave Barak Obama a Nobel ‘Peace’ prize…so they already have one for ‘fallacies’.

So Steven, why do you think it is in the data? Fit a curve to the CO2 levels and add half a ppm of noise to it and repeat what was done. Would you see a correlation?
Global temperature anomalies were an input into calculations of CO2 levels is what I showed. I can see why local temperatures would be part of the calculations but not global anomalies, but neither should show a correlation with the result if done properly.

So with rising ocean temperature the rate of absorption of CO2 by the oceans decreases, but the higher the CO2, the more the Oceans absorb each year? Perhaps I am confused by rates and amounts, but I am tempted to try applying Boolean algebra to it.

JPaul,

Indeed it is confusing…
Points to take into consideration:

– Temperature is the main driver of seasonal changes, where oceans and vegetation react in opposite direction. (NH) vegetation wins the battle:
~5 ppmv/K global change, CO2 changes and δ13C changes in opposite direction (=vegetation uptake/release), CO2 drops with summer temperatures.

– Temperature is the main driver of year-by-year variability, where oceans and vegetation react in the same direction. Again (tropical) vegetation wins the battle:
~4-5 ppmv/K global change lasting 1-3 years and then zeroes out. CO2 changes and δ13C changes in opposite direction, CO2 rises with global temperatures.

– Temperature is the main driver for the very long term CO2 changes, where oceans and vegetation react in opposite direction. The (deep) oceans win the battle:
~16 ppmv/K, CO2 changes and δ13C changes in opposite direction, CO2 rises with global temperatures.

– Pressure differences are the main driver for the removal of any extra CO2 (whatever the source) above the temperature driven dynamic equilibrium between oceans (and vegetation) and CO2 in the atmosphere.
The current pCO2 is ~110 ppmv (~110 μatm) above the long-term equilibrium (“steady state”) of ~290 ppmv for the current average ocean surface temperature. That pushes more CO2 into the oceans (and vegetation).
Temperature has not much influence on that, as higher ocean surface temperatures increase the ocean pCO2 with ~16 μatm/K, while the atmosphere is at 400 ppmv.
For 1 K temperature increase of the ocean surface the pCO2 difference with the atmosphere drops from 110 μatm to 94 μatm, or a change of ~15%. With only 8 years of human emissions (for what remains in the atmosphere as mass), the drop in sink rate by higher temperatures is overruled…

Bartemis

These are all merely assertions. Essentially random thoughts of how Ferdinand and others think things should be. Evidence for them is virtually nonexistent.

Bart,

I get -finally- tired of your evidence free reactions. You haven’t given any straight answer why “my” (and other’s) “random” thoughts are not backed up by observations.

You don’t accept any evidence at all from any observation, if it does refute your “temperature explains all” curve fitting, which violates every single observation in the field.

Take the “horrible stupid” mass balance argument. That refutes your “natural cause” narrative, so it must be horrible stupid.
The only possibility that it doesn’t refute your natural cause argument is if the natural carbon cycles increased at least a fourfold since 1958, like human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere (and thus the net sinks) did. There is zero evidence for such an increase in natural cycles, just the opposite…

Moreover, as the total human emissions increased over time, but the increase in the atmosphere is only half that amount, the net total sinks increased also over time in the same period that overall temperature increased.
If temperature is the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, how then is it possible that at the same time the sinks increased and where and why did they increase?

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_sinks_1960_cur.jpg

Sorry, copy/paste needs more attention:

For the very long time changes (glacial – interglacial, MWP-LIA,…) the part:

CO2 changes and δ13C changes in opposite direction

must be

CO2 changes and δ13C changes in the same direction as the oceans have a higher δ13C level than the atmosphere…

AndyG55

Ferd, nobody here gives a STUFF where extra atmospheric CO2 comes from..

You are arguing like a mad hatter…

Just so long as it keeps INCREASING.

If humans happen to be a major driver, then all the better, because China, India, and other developing nations, will continue to use this cheapest and most environmentally beneficial source of energy for MANY, MANY years to come.

Andy,

I agree that we need more CO2 in the atmosphere, but too many sceptics are giving a bad name to all sceptics by using arguments which are completely wrong, thus making valid arguments worthless. That is why I am reacting again and again on such arguments…

Bartemis

“You don’t accept any evidence at all from any observation…”

I reject any interpretation of an observation as established truth until it is verified and corroborated. That is the scientific method. I will not compromise it.

“Take the “horrible stupid” mass balance argument. That refutes your “natural cause” narrative, so it must be horrible stupid.”

No, the pseudo-mass balance argument is simply stupid. It is the perspective of one who has no familiarity with the evolution of a dynamic system.

“If temperature is the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, how then is it possible that at the same time the sinks increased and where and why did they increase?”

Because in a dynamic system, the sinks respond to the forcing. No matter the source of the rise, the sinks will respond by expanding their capacity. They will respond to all forcing, not just a portion of it – inputs of the same substance must be treated on an equal basis, and in the same proportion.

Bart,

They will respond to all forcing, not just a portion of it – inputs of the same substance must be treated on an equal basis, and in the same proportion.

Yes, if your theory is right: human emissions increased a fourfold since 1958 and so did the increase in the atmosphere and so did the net sink rate, As a consequence of equal treatment (by the same process) that means that the natural inputs MUST have increased a fourfold since 1958. For which you haven’t delivered one shred of evidence… To the contrary: there is evidence of a decrease in residence time, thus a rather stable throughput in an increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That completely refutes (again) your hypothesis…

Philo

If I follow what you have done correctly you got a running average, adjusted the y axes on the different measures to the same scale(graph height), and adjusted the zero offset to make differences more apparent.
Adjusting the span of the Y axis in this case(assuming similar X intervals) will more or less automatically give both graphs a very similar slope. The major differences will only be in how much they may the curve differently or random differences in peaks and valleys. And, since they have different units, it’s a meaningless graph anyway. Comparing feet to feet/second doesn’t mean anything.

afonzarelli

You can “curve fit” to get the exact same slope. What you can’t do (by curve fitting) is make the interannual variability AND the long term trend features match. There has to be a reason for that…

Bartemis

Robert B –

Yes, it is a good fit for 59 years, since MLO started.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958/integral/offset:314

Ferdinand –

“If both amplitude and slopes match, that is pure coincidence…”

It would be one hell of a coincidence. The odds are vanishingly small.

“Over half of the time the slopes are even opposite to each other, that is masked by the difference in endpoints…”

Nonsense. This is based on your cherry picking short intervals. It is fitting trends to noise.

Fonzie and Bart,

Either the amplitudes don’t match or the slopes don’t match

The appearance may be good for a wide range of factors, but if you plot both trend lines you can see the difference. That is because variability and trend are caused by different processes, independent of each other.
Near all variability is caused by temperature variability, that is proven. The slope may be influenced by temperature too, but there is not the slightest reason that it should have the same conversion factor from temperature to CO2 levels.

Moreover, it is proven that most of the variability is the reaction of (tropical) vegetation to temperature fluctuations (ENSO, Pinatubo), while the total biosphere is a net, growing sink for CO2, as proven by the oxygen balance…

Fonzie and Bart,

Either the amplitudes don’t match or the slopes don’t match

The appearance may be good for a wide range of factors, but if you plot both trend lines you can see the difference. That is because variability and trend are caused by different processes, independent of each other.
Near all variability is caused by temperature variability, that is proven. The slope may be influenced by temperature too, but there is not the slightest reason that it should have the same conversion factor from temperature to CO2 levels.

Moreover, it is proven that most of the variability is the reaction of (tropical) vegetation to temperature fluctuations (ENSO, Pinatubo), while the total biosphere is a net, growing sink for CO2, as proven by the oxygen balance…

Ferdinand
now you bring in the oxygen balance….
yet we all know that we cannot possibly measure oxygen in the atmosphere to the accuracy required to even show the increase in CO2 that is alleged to be caused by human activity…

Go home, Ferdinand,

and if you live in the Benelux, I am happy to include you on my list of people to meet,
during my visit to Europe in August, like I was willing to meet bindidon, but clearly he was not interested in having a meeting with me viz-a-viz…

now you bring in the oxygen balance
yet we all know that you cannot measure O2 to the accuracy required to even prove that the increase in CO2 is real…

Henryp,

They can measure O2 to better than 1 ppmv, sharp enough to knpw that the biosphere is growing, but by far not enough to remove all human emissions in the same year as emitted:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Henryp,

In August we are normally at home, thus have a nice visit to Europe and you are welcome to Antwerp, where I live in the neighborhood, with many buildings of the 12th-16th century in the centre and a railway central station that is declared one of the most beautiful (top 5) railway stations in the world…
See my email address on my website to get in contact…

I’m getting to tired to keep this up, so last one for now.
If you integrate HadSSTv2SH after offsetting to start at 0, scale by 0.26 and then offset to start at 310, you get a good fit. Do it with HadSSTv3NH or v2SH and its a poorer fit.
I’m not pointing to physical reasons for it. I’m pointing to poor calculations.

afonzarelly,

If both amplitude and slopes match, that is pure coincidence, as there is zero connection between the variability and the slopes: these are caused by different processes. In general the “match” is not that nice: either the slopes differ or the amplitudes differ. Over half of the time the slopes are even opposite to each other, that is masked by the difference in endpoints…

Bartemis

“If both amplitude and slopes match, that is pure coincidence…”

That is one hell of a coincidence.

“…as there is zero connection between the variability and the slopes: these are caused by different processes.”

Assertion. Begging the question.

“In general the “match” is not that nice…”

The match is exceptional. About as good as could be hoped with stochastic data. The SNR is obviously very high.

“Over half of the time the slopes are even opposite to each other, that is masked by the difference in endpoints…”

Nonsense. This is based on least squares fitting of short intervals, i.e., trending noise. That is not a valid analytical technique.

Frank Lansner observed this remarkable correlation many years ago. He used the 12-month CO2 difference. I would say that you are seeing Henry’s Law in operation, but others may be able to provide more detailed analysis. As Bill Illis says, CO2 lags temperature, so it’s temperature in the driving seat.

R. Shearer

Yes, in analytical chemistry, it’s analogous to headspace analysis, which is derived from Henry’s law. CO2 partitions between the gas phase atmosphere and the liquid phase oceans and partitions between the two phases, the distribution coefficient being dependent largely on ocean temperature. On short time scales, one should expect good correlation as is observed.

Mike,

According to Henry’s law, the change in temperature gives a change in CO2 equilibrium between the ocean surface and the atmosphere of ~16 ppmv/K. That would be ~290 ppmv for the current average ocean surfae temperature. We are at ~400 ppmv now, thus the main flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans, as is observed at several stations taking repeated ocean water samples.
Thus temperature variability causes the variability in CO2 uptake rate, but is not responsible for the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, neither of the slope in the derivative…

On planetary scale there are other variables than outside air/water concentrations and temperature alone. That’s why I don’t think Earth systems can be explained with Henry’s law.

Bartemis

Henry’s Law acts on the interface between the atmospheric and the oceans at the surface. Long term equilibration with the ocean depths takes much longer, on the order of centuries if not millennia. That, I believe, is what produces the derivative signature, as I describe here.

Bart,

Henry’s law did work over the past 800,000 years, incuding the total overturn of the deep oceans: 16 ppmv/K that is all…
The variability of the derivatives is much too fast to have anything to do with the deep ocean overturning, that is pure correlated with the surface temperature and moreover mostly the reaction of (tropical) vegetation on short living temperature (and drought) changes.

Retired Engineer John

Your curves are interesting, but I suspect that the relationship isn’t that simple. One factor, the log curve relationship of carbon dioxide to temperature, should be present, but I don’t see it. All but 2 spectral lines in the carbon dioxide spectrum are saturated at 400ppm and the total curve is approaching a limit. Some say that line spreading will occur ;however, even though that spreading occurs in the solar spectrum and stars, I have not seen where a credible mechanism has been identified for the Earth’s atmosphere. There must be some type of feedback in the system. Also note that the Earth’s temperature has been very constant for 15-16 years while carbon dioxide has been increasing.

george e. smith

The reason YOU don’t see the log curve relationship, is that there simply isn’t one.

Neither experimentally nor theoretically is there any log curve relationship between CO2 and global Temperature anomalies.

Sometimes CO2 and Temperature anomalies go in the same direction together, and sometimes they go in opposite directions, and there are no logs of negative numbers.

The Beer’s or Beer-Lambert Law, apply only to the linear propagation through a NON-SCATTERING medium, so the simple logarithmic attenuation formula does not apply to transmission through the atmosphere, where absorption results in eventual emission of energy in a totally random direction, relative to the incident beam.

G

Retired Engineer John

I recall that an IPCC report stated that the effect of carbon dioxide was logarithmic. The ability of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to function as a greenhouse gas is saturated at some point.

I’m not pointing to a physical relationship. As others have pointed out, plots similar to shown above have been around for a while. I was pointing out how well CO2 levels need to be measured so its not too noisey to see it and then making the point that there is nothing physical that could correlate so well that half ppm error wouldn’t obscure it.

RE John The above is the derivative of CO2 levels. You can also use the integral (sum of the anomalies) firstly offsetting to start at 0, scaling by 0.26 after summing and then offsetting by 310, and that’s a good fit to CO2 levels.
Because the anomalies are close to a linear increase, the integral is close to a second order polynomial and the log of the integral of the anomalies is not far off being directly proportional to the anomalies.

Robert,

That is the whole point: total human emissions indeed increased with a slight quadratic function over time, as year by year emissions were increasing near linear. So did the increase in the atmosphere and the difference: the net sink rate.

Temperature increased more or less linear and thus – per Henry’s law – can give only a more or less linear slope in CO2 level at about 16 ppmv/K, as is seen in the near linear increase over glacial – interglacial intervals.

There is no reason to integrate temperature: that is a non-physical entity, as there is no physical process that gives a continuous fixed flux of CO2 into the atmosphere for a fixed temperature offset. Any such flux would be completely offset by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which pushes more CO2 in the oceans and vegetation…

Bartemis

“There is no reason to integrate temperature: that is a non-physical entity, as there is no physical process that gives a continuous fixed flux of CO2 into the atmosphere for a fixed temperature offset.”

There is, and it is a real physical process. I describe it here.

“There is no reason to integrate temperature: that is a non-physical entity,”
Agree but someone did it.

Bartemis

Dismissing what you see in the data as a non-physical entity is not science. It is imposing one’s own preconception. The proper response is not “that cannot be”, but “how can that be?”

As it happens, an integral-like response is perfectly natural over short timelines in systems that act over long timelines.

Bart,

there is no physical process that gives a continuous fixed flux of CO2 into the atmosphere for a fixed temperature offset. Any such flux would be completely offset by the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere

16 ppmv/K is sufficient to reduce the net influx to zero, as seen in ice cores over 800,000 years and as predicted by Henry’s law…

I have found the same correlation between the tropical ocean temperature and the CO2 concentration. In Fig. 1 is this correlation starting from the year 1950. There is one year delay between the ocean temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration as found by Humlum et al. in 2013. The physical explanation is pretty simple. The cold sea waters of the high latitudes absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere and the warmer tropical oceans dissolve CO2 back into the atmosphere.

I have developed a model for the recycling of CO2 between the atmosphere – the ocean and the atmosphere – the biosphere. By this model, I have calculated the net yearly CO2 flux increase in the atmosphere. It is depicted in Fig. 2. The correlation between the observed and the calculated CO2 flux is 0.81 if the Pinatubo eruption is eliminated. Strange enough, when the Pinatubo eruption reduced the temperature, it also caused the sun light to be more diffused – i.e. the light came from different directions and thus the leaves of plants could get more light even though its absolute flux value was smaller. As a result, this caused the decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration because of higher photosynthesis rate.

Since 1956 the yearly human emissions into the atmosphere have stayed in the atmosphere about 55 % and the rest has been up taken by the ocean and by the biosphere. Before 1956 the CO2 amount increase in the atmosphere was more than the yearly human emissions. Because of the recycling phenomenon the anthropogenic CO2 portion in the atmosphere is now only 8 %.
comment image
Figure 1. The tropical ocean temperature and the CO2 flux into the atmosphere
comment image
Figure 2. The measured and calculated CO2 fluxes into the atmosphere

Link to the original study: Link to the original study: http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract/15789

One more comment about my model. The basic physical connection between the atmospheric CO2 and the ocean CO2 is through Henry’s law, because it depends on the atmospheric CO2 concentration as well on the ocean temperature. Otherwise the model includes 26 equations. The correlation of this model is not causation, it is only the measure of the correlation showing that it is not perfect but it is pretty good. In Fig. 1 there is only correlation without any physical explanation but the in Fig. 2 , the calculated CO2 flux is based on the physical connections. The CO2 flux change means directly same as CO2 concentration change.

richardscourtney

aveollila:

You say (I have added emphasis)

One more comment about my model. The basic physical connection between the atmospheric CO2 and the ocean CO2 is through Henry’s law, because it depends on the atmospheric CO2 concentration as well on the ocean temperature. Otherwise the model includes 26 equations.

John von Neumann said,

With four parameters you can fit an elephant to a curve, with five you can make him wiggle his trunk.

Richard

richardscourtney. You did not understood my statement. These equations describe physical relationships without tuning or fitting anything.

Frank

Robert: You should be aware that GMST (not the temperature ANOMALY) rises 3.5 K every year during summer in the NH. So when you are plotting at the change in monthly temperature anomalies, you aren’t looking at the true physical temperature that makes CO2 less soluble in water. Temperature anomalies are for climate change.

The mixed layer of the ocean emits a minor amount of CO2 when it warms and takes it back up when it cools. If you look at the 97/98 El Nino and the following La Nina, you will see that the year-to-year rise in CO2 was 3 ppm during the El Nino and 1 ppm during the following La Nina. Every other year around that time, the increase is close to 2 ppm. In other words, the 0.3 K of warming in SST during this El Nino released about 1 ppm, that was reabsorbed during the following La Nina. Extrapolating, the 1 K temperature rising the the 20th century, would have released about 3 ppm of CO2 (and possibly a little more from cold water slowly upwelling from the deep ocean). If you look at CO2 in ice cores during the LIA and MWP, the change is near 10 ppm and the temperature change was about 1 K. The idea that 20th century warming of about 1 K is responsible for the 100 ppm rise in CO2 doesn’t make sense.

Samuel C Cogar

@ Frank

The following might be of interest to you,

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2016
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03

The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May and the end of January of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of January and mid-May of the next calendar year.

Frank

Samuel: Thanks for the data. Where is it from? I had studied reviewed graphs by eye and picked out the 97/98 El Nino and 99 La Nina as biggest perturbations, but that was before 2016.

Many people say that the annual cycle of CO2 is due to the uptake by greening plants on land in the NH (from January to May), but I wonder about absorption by the larger cooling ocean in the SH. Global temperature overall is maximal in July, but I don’t know about SSTs.

Samuel C Cogar

Frank, I extracted that data from NOAA’s web site as noted in my above post and then calculated the “yearly increase” in ppm by subtracting the previous year’s “max” ppm from the current year’s “max” ppm.

And Frank, without exception, the maximum atmospheric CO2 ppm always occurs around mid-May of each year ….. and the minimum atmospheric CO2 ppm always occurs at the end of September of each year. And the difference between the two (2) max figures is the “yearly increase”.

So sayith: Frank

Many people say that the annual cycle of CO2 is due to the uptake by greening plants on land in the NH (from January to May)

“Yup”, that is what many people say, …. Frank, ….. but they are simply mimicking “junk-science” claims.

And “Yup”, the “greening” in the NH begins in January in the southern latitudes and progresses to the northern latitudes by June 01 or there about. But none of the initial “greening” requires any “uptake” of CO2. And the majority of said CO2 “uptake” occurs between mid-April and August.

Also, 95% of the CO2 emissions resulting from the microbial decomposition of dead biomass ….. occurs between April 01 and August 31 ….. with said CO2 emissions compensating for most or all of the aforesaid CO2 “uptake”. Said microbial decomposition requires a moist/wet environment and temperatures >40 degrees F … but preferably >60 degrees F. Little to no “microbial decomposition of dead biomass” ever occurs in your refrigerator/freezer ……. and likewise in the NH “wintertime”.

Also sayith: Frank

but I wonder about absorption by the larger cooling ocean in the SH.

Frank, your “wondering” would be “spot on” simply because the temperature of the ocean water in the SH is determined by the “changing of the seasons (equinoxes)” …. which is the “driving force” that is responsible for the biyearly increase/decrease in atmospheric CO2 ppm ……. as well as the average annual increase in CO2 ppm as a result of the gradual “warming-up” of the ocean water …… which is explicitly defined in the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm Record and/or on the Keeling Curve Graph. Like so:

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif

Samuel,

We have been there before: the seasonal changes are dominated by NH vegetation, not by the SH oceans.

That is proven by the much larger seasonal amplitude in the NH and hardly any in the SH, while if the oceans were the main cause the amplitude in the SH should be much larger. Additionally, it si proven by the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes, which point to vegetation as main cause. If it were the oceans, the CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other.

Here the seasonal CO2 changes at Barrow and Mauna Loa:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg

The seasonal CO2 changes in the SH are less than +/- 1 ppmv and opposite to the NH seasonal changes.

As the NH average CO2 increase in the NH leads the CO2 levels in the SH with 1-2 years, the source of the extra CO2 is in the NH, not in the SH. As NH vegetation and oceans are net sinks for CO2 (as can be seen in the O2 balance and the pCO2 measurements of the ocean surface), the 2 ppmv/year increase over the seasons is not from vegetation, neither from the oceans.

Hi, Ferdinand.
Looking at your chart for seasonal CO2 changes at Barrow and Mauna Loa.
Barrow does show a larger seasonal variation but for a short period of time.
Mauna Loa shows a lower seasonal variation but the seasonal variation is spread over a longer period of time.
Taking account of that difference I would say that taking the year as a whole the SH variation is actually greater than the NH variation.
What say you ?

Frank

Sam and Ferdinand: Thanks for sharing information.
comment image

Samuel C Cogar

@ Frank – April 8, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Frank, thanks for posting the above “composite” graph of atmospheric CO2 ppm measurements as measured and recorded at the different Global Stations.

And Frank, be very, very careful how you interpret the CO2 ppm data that is plotted on those graphs, …… either individually or inclusively as a group …….. simply because there are three (3) critical factors associated with the measurement of CO2 ppm that are all different at the different Global Stations …… and each one (1) of said factors has a direct effect on the measured CO2 ppm.

And those “factors” is why there is such a vast difference in the bi-yearly ppm amplitude “swing” at the different Global Stations.

And those three (3) critical factors are, to wit:

—– Global Station —- elevation ——— latitude —— average temperature
PTB = Point Barrow, ———- 10 feet, —- 71°23′20″N —– 9.4°F
LJO = La Jolla, ————— 633 feet, —- 32.8328° N, —- 70.5°F
MLO = Mauna Loa, —– 13,678 feet, —- 19.4721° N —– 46.2°F
CHR = Christmas Island, — ‎916 feet, —– 10.4475° S, —- 77.0°F
SAM = Samoa, ———– 6,096 feet, —– 13.7590° S ——78.0°F

And Frank, a 4th critical factors that directly affects the measured CO2 ppm quantity is water (H2O) vapor, both invisible humidity and visible droplets.

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – April 8, 2017 at 9:23 am

Samuel,

We have been there before: the seasonal (CO2) changes are dominated by NH vegetation, not by the SH oceans.

Shur nuff, been there before, ….. and that is simply because you are either protecting your “funded interests” …… or are “educationally challenged” and “learning disabled” in respect to the Biology of the natural world of planet earth.

Ferdinand, it is both devious and disingenuous for you to be claiming that the Summertime (May thru August) greening/growth “ingassing” of CO2 by the NH vegetation is responsible for the average 6 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2 ……… when you damn well know, or should know, ….. that the Summertime (April thru mid-September) “outgassing” of CO2 by the microbial decomposition of dead biomass is surely large enough to nullify the afore stated average 6 ppm decrease in atmospheric CO2.

Yes, I’ve noticed that Ferdinand makes assertions based on incomplete facts.
On the face of it his work is logical and persuasive but he leaves out alternative explanations that could be equally valid.

afonzarelli

Richard Feynman, he ain’t… but he does bring an awful lot to the table. Too bad he has to “cotton bomb” every thread on the carbon data. (really stunts the discussion)…

Samuel C Cogar

Ferdinand “squeezes” the data just as long and strong enough as it takes for it to “fess up” with the “results” that he was looking for …….. and then he takes off “racing” down a wrong path through the woods shouting “I found it, I found it” …… while turning a “deaf ear” to anyone that’s trying to tell him that he’s done got himself “lost in the forest of ‘junk-science’ conjecture”.

Samuel,

Can you explain to me why the NH amplitude is largest, and why there is an opposite huge increase in δ13C together with a huge decrease in CO2, if the change comes from the SH oceans?

Note: the δ13C of the oceans is higher than in the atmosphere…

commieBob

… the rate of increase correlates well with global temperature anomalies …

Eyeballing this graph leads me to believe the above relationship doesn’t hold for the early 20th century warming.

afonzarelli

cB, ferdinand made this nice little graph for bart showing just how the data shakes out (based on hadcrut4sh). If there is any noticable smoothing in ice cores it would be in the area where the carbon growthrate changes the most, that being the early 20th century. (the growthrate as calculated by temperature goes from .3ppm/year to 1ppm/year in just a few short decades) If there is considerable smoothing then we would expect to see inflated numbers in the cores and we do. If we go to an area of the core where we would not expect to see much smoothing (like around the turn of the century) we get a near perfect match. Had ferdinand extended the graph back to 1850 the data would match for that period as well. (there being little change in the growthrate during that period of time)…

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2011_B.jpg

Bartemis

We do not have MLO data for the early part of the 20th century. MLO measurements were created precisely because they wanted precise measurements. If we are now going to decide the better measurements are invalid because the worse measurements do not agree with them, then that is decidedly putting the cart before the horse.

Besides, the overwhelmingly greater part of the increase in CO2 came in the latter part of the 20th century, when we had the good measurements. Whatever may have happened before that is moot.

Bartemis

No, it is because they cannot be validated, and I do not think science should be about taking things on faith.

It would actually be a bigger problem for those who ascribe the buildup to human emissions than it would for me. There is a glaring disconnect behind the idea that CO2 levels were maintained at staggeringly stable levels for centuries, and then took off due to minor human perturbations.

A stable level within a tight band demands high bandwidth regulation. But, high bandwidth regulation is insensitive to perturbations. Any feedback expert would see the contradiction there.

Bartemis

That does not validate them. For validation, you need independent corroboration.

Bartemis

Ah, that’d be no. Science is the antithesis of faith.

Bartemis

Sorry, no. You have to show independent corroboration. Until then, they remain unvalidated.

Bartemis

Perhaps you are not a native English speaker. “Unvalidated” does not mean “invalid”. It is a state of limbo, like Schrodinger’s cat. Neither alive nor dead, until a corroborating observation or series of observations is provided.

Bartemis

No, then it will become invalidated. Until then, or until corroborating evidence is uncovered, it remains unvalidated.

afonzarelli

Bart, as always, nice to see you… What i was getting at in my comment to cB is that the temperature data DOES provide some independant verification of ice cores. To verify ice cores, we use the area of the core where we would expect to find the least smoothing. And according to ferdinand’s graph we do find it at the turn of the century…

richardscourtney

afonzarelli:

You say

Bart, as always, nice to see you… What i was getting at in my comment to cB is that the temperature data DOES provide some independant verification of ice cores. To verify ice cores, we use the area of the core where we would expect to find the least smoothing. And according to ferdinand’s graph we do find it at the turn of the century…

And the stomata data refutes the ice core data, but so what?
This discussion concerns the above article by Robert Balic which concerns the MLO data that is since 1958 and not before. Also, MLO data cannot be directly compared to ice core data because they have different temporal sensitivities.

Your attention to ice core data is a distraction from Bart’s cogent comment that said.

We do not have MLO data for the early part of the 20th century. MLO measurements were created precisely because they wanted precise measurements. If we are now going to decide the better measurements are invalid because the worse measurements do not agree with them, then that is decidedly putting the cart before the horse.

Richard

The mass balance approach is falsified if our emissions are quickly absorbed by nearby vegetation and if the organic content of ocean waters affects the isotope signatute of oceanic CO2 emissions, both of which are entirely plausible.
Ferdinand may well be barking up the wrong tree with the mass balance argument.

Where is your data to the contrary?
The mass balance proposal is based on supposition.

I am very familiar with Ferdinand’s posts and have spent a great deal of time identifying the flaws in his contentions.
The mass balance proposal is based on assumptions that are not necessarily correct. All that is necessary to rebut his suppositions is to present alternative possibilities. He does not have data to rebut such alternatives.

Since the initial hypothesis has no data to make it more likely than the alternative it follows that the initial hypothesis has no merit.

afonzarelli,

The CO2 data are from the Law Dome ice cores, where 2 out of 3 have a resolution of less than a decade. Repeatability 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma).
Thus a sustained change of 2 ppmv over 10 years would be measured in the ice cores, or a 1 year peak of 20 ppmv (as a small change of 2 ppmv).

Bart’s formula shows far more deviation and doesn’t match any long term change over centuries or millennia, except if you change the driving temperature factor again and again for each period in time.

The formula I do use does show a good fit over 800,000 years, as that gives CO2 levels in ratio to the temperature level, per Henry’s law, with only human emissions and a half life of ~35 years of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above steady state.
Bart’s formula changes from 0.02 ppmv/year during a deglaciation to 0.066 ppmv/year cooling to a new glacial period, to 0,0 ppmv/year during (near) zero temperature changes at levels 10 K apart (interglacial periods vs. glacial periods) and then suddenly increases to 2 ppmv/year in modern times… Seems rather questionable to me…

Some zero is missing here:

0.066 ppmv/year cooling to a new glacial period

should be:

0.0066 ppmv/year cooling to a new glacial period

or some 300 times smaller than the current increase in the atmosphere or 600 times smaller than the current human emissions…

Bartemis

“Bart’s formula shows far more deviation and doesn’t match any long term change over centuries or millennia, except if you change the driving temperature factor again and again for each period in time.”

If you make the assumption that the unvalidated and unverifiable ice core data represent truth. But, so what? Even if we make the leap of faith that the ice core data are reliable, we see many instances of precipitous regime changes in the climate. If anything, a model that treats all ages as identically dynamic is a curve fit, and very suspect as being an oversimplification.

Samuel C Cogar

So saidith: Robert Balic

There is also the question of why such a good (CO2 ppm) correlation with SH sea-surface temperatures and not NH, and why should the correlation be so perfect when things like changes in ocean currents should have a large effect on how much is sequestered into the depths of the oceans.

Well now, there is a direct correlation between the quantity of atmospheric CO2 ppm and the Southern Hemisphere’s sea-surface temperatures, …… and no correlation whatsoever between the quantity of atmospheric CO2 ppm and the Northern Hemisphere’s sea-surface temperatures …… simply because of the following physical scientific facts, ….. to wit:

In the Northern Hemisphere, the ratio of land to ocean is about 1 to 1.5. The ratio of land to ocean in the Southern Hemisphere is 1 to 4.

The Northern Hemisphere is 60% land and 40% water. The Southern Hemisphere is 20% land and 80% water.

Source: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/6515/in-the-northern-hemisphere-only-what-percentage-of-the-surface-is-land

So, given the above, the total surface area of the Southern Hemisphere ocean water is twice as large or 50% greater than the total surface area of the Northern Hemisphere ocean water.

And ps, as far as atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities are concerned ….. it matters not how much CO2 is sequestered or being sequestered into the depths of the oceans …….. simply because Henry’s Law governing the ingassing/outgassing of CO2 could care less about said sequestration.

And iffen you plotted the 1979 to 2013 Southern Hemisphere’s Monthly Average sea-surface temperatures onto the following graph, …… they should correlate pretty good with the CO2 ppm plotted thereon, to wit:

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png

One more – look at HadSSTv2 SH and NH. There is no physical reason for the observations.

You are not the furst to have discivered the co2 thermometer, it was first coined bij Jarl Ahbeck on the late John Daly’s website
https://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/updated.htm

“If the increase of CO2 concentration for one year, dCO2 (ppm), is measured (Mauna Loa), the global “Carbon Dioxide Thermometer” temperature anomaly for one year can be estimated by the regressional formula:

estimated MSU = CDT = 0.23*(dCO2 – 1.53) ± 0.2°C.”

I’m probably not the first to notice that its not real. Just the first to stick my head above the parapet

Bartemis

Actually, I’ve been going on about it for years here. And, regular commenter Allan MacRae noticed it before I did.

It’s real, and it shows beyond any reasonable doubt that human emissions are not the main driver of atmospheric CO2.

This is where I disagree with you, Bartemis. Not that SST wouldn’t have an effect but that it wouldn’t correlate so well as to be observable. It requires everything else to be insignificant, a simple relationship that neglects ocean currents and not swamped by realistic uncertainties in measurements.
I agree, though, it isn’t consistent with human emissions being the cause.

richardscourtney

Robert B:

Bart and I have been debating this for more than a decade.

Ferdinand Engelbeen asserts that the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is causal of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO since 1958.
Bart argues that the the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 measured at MLO since 1958 is natural.
I don’t know if that observed rise has a human or a natural cause but its cause is most likely natural.

You say

This is where I disagree with you, Bartemis. Not that SST wouldn’t have an effect but that it wouldn’t correlate so well as to be observable. It requires everything else to be insignificant, a simple relationship that neglects ocean currents and not swamped by realistic uncertainties in measurements.
I agree, though, it isn’t consistent with human emissions being the cause.

Actually, as I explain in my above post in this thread, it is “consistent” with human emissions being the cause although a natural cause is more likely.

Richard

Robert B

@richardscourtney there is a graph above http://aveollila.wordpress.com/ that you should compare with the plot above comparing with RSS. There are too many inconsistencies to say the data fits anything.
Human emissions have been at 9.3Gt per year for three years while there was a spike in the rate along with the El Nino so not consistent with human emissions.

Robert B,

The main effect is on tropical vegetation:

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

The ocean surface temperature changes with an El NIño mainly near the Amazon and that changes rain patterns and the uptake/release of CO2 by the rain forests. That vegetation gives the main CO2 reaction on temperature can be seen in the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes. If the main reaction was from the oceans, the CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other (the oceans have a higher δ13C level than the atmosphere).

Overall the effect is short living and zeroes out after 1-3 years. Further, vegetation is not the cause of the slope in dCO2/dt, as vegetation is a small, but increasing sink for CO2. Variability and slope are from complete separate processes.

The main problem in that graph is that you compare T with dCO2/dt, that is where it goes wrong: by taking the derivative of CO2 changes, you have removed most of the trend caused by human emissions and only the remaining slopes and all variability are compared. Either compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt. That is where so many before you, including Bart, Salby,… got wrong.

There is no slope in dT/dt, but still all variability, leading almost all of dCO2/dt variability, but with zero effect on the slope, only a small offset above zero, which gives 16 ppmv/K extra CO2 caused by the temperature increase since 1958 per Henry’s law…

richardscourtney

Robert B:

You write

@richardscourtney there is a graph above http://aveollila.wordpress.com/ that you should compare with the plot above comparing with RSS. There are too many inconsistencies to say the data fits anything.
Human emissions have been at 9.3Gt per year for three years while there was a spike in the rate along with the El Nino so not consistent with human emissions.

Your link goes to a page that says

Apologies, but no results were found for the requested archive. Perhaps searching will help find a related post.

Anyway, aveollila’s model is simple curve fitting that uses 26 variables!
In this thread I refuted that with reference to ‘von Neumann’s elephant’.

Clearly, you have not read my post you claim to be answering because you claim the untrue point that,”Human emissions have been at 9.3Gt per year for three years while there was a spike in the rate along with the El Nino so not consistent with human emissions.”
As I explained, that IS consistent with either natural causes or human emissions.

Furthermore, our paper demonstrates you are wrong when you say, “There are too many inconsistencies to say the data fits anything”.
In reality, every one of the six models (three of anthropogenic cause and three of natural cause) in our paper matches the modeled annual atmospheric CO2 concentration to MLO measured annual atmospheric CO2 concentration to within the stated MLO data inherent error without need for any ‘fiiddle factor’ such as the 5-year smoothing adopted b y the IPCC to get its model to match the empirical data.

Perhaps your failure to read my explanation is because I linked to where I had posted it in the thread. Therefore, I copy it to here so you don’t have to use the link.

crackers345:

You ask the silly question so loved by AGW believers when you write

no, bartemis. humans are emitting co2 into the atmosphere, regardless of any temperature change.

just where do you think all the co2 we’re creating goes, anyway?

I answer.
The total emission of CO2 to the air “goes” into the carbon cycle, and humans emissions are a trivially small addition that total emission.

The analysis by Salby (mentioned by Robert Balic in his above article) obtains the same finding as our earlier analysis;
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )

At issue is what the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the CO2 emission from human emissions (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) were absent.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration would probably be the same if the CO2 emission from human emissions were absent. It would probably be the same. Our analyses show the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to each of our six different models, the total emission of a year affects the equilibrium state of the entire carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. So, the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly changes in response to any change in the equilibrium condition.

Importantly, each of our models demonstrates that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system caused by, for example, the anthropogenic emission or may be solely, for example, a result of desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it.

The most likely explanation for the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment towards the altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system provided by the temperature rise in previous decades during the centuries of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999).

Richard

Richard

I hope that you read this Richard.
What I linked to was a plot above that compares rate of CO2 increase with southern hemisphere SST as posted by aveollila (must have copied the link under his name rather than the date).
In it he shows how well they correlate until 1992 when Mt Pinatubo makes an impact – except the rate of CO2 increase follows RSS nicely at that point.

Robert,

The main problem with that graph is that by taking the derivative of the CO2 levels, you have removed most of the cause of the increase in CO2: human emissions.

Human emissions show a steady increase over time, hardly influenced by economic crisis and show little year by year variability, not detectable in monthly or even yearly variability of the measurements.
On the other hand, the effect of temperature on CO2 levels is a small increase (~16 ppmv/K) over time, but lots of monthly to yearly variability.

CO2 variability lags T variability, but that is small (+/- 1.5 ppmv) variability around the 90 ppmv trend since 1959. Here for the enlarged 1985-2000 period, including the 1992 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg

The derivative of the CO2 emissions is a (near) straight slope, as the emissions themselves are increasing slightly quadratic over time. All variability is caused by the derivative of the temperature (dT/dt), which leads dCO2/dt with several months:

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

The fully synchronised opposite CO2 and δ13C rate of changes show that the main effect of temperature is on (tropical) vegetation, not the oceans: temperature and changed rain patterns (drought) in the tropics give less uptake and more decay/fires in the Amazon during an El Niño. The opposite hapened during the Pinatubo eruption.

That temperature is the main cause of the variability in CO2 rate of change is agreed by NOAA as Pieter Tans showed during his speech for 50 years Mauna Loa:
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
from sheet 11 onward.

The second problem in that graph and the reason why so many are misled, is that one compares T with dCO2/dt. That is comparing T with the detrended/flattened CO2 changes, or comparing apples with oranges. Either compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt. In the latter case, dT/dt has no trend, only a small offset from zero and thus a small influence on CO2 levels, while the main increase is from the slope of the derivative of the CO2 emissions, which is twice the slope of the derivative of the observed increase in the atmosphere.

It is easy to deduce that T/CO2 variability has nothing to do with the increase in the atmosphere, as most of the variability is the reaction of vegetation on temperature variability, while vegetation is a small, but growing sink for CO2 in the past decades as can be deduced from the oxygen balance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short

Why then the high synchronisation between T and dCO2/dt? That is because taking the derivative of a (more or less) sinusoid variable shifts the sinusoid 90° back in time, without changing much of the appearance. That makes that as CO2 variability lags T variability, taking the derivative from only CO2 does synchronise it with T variability, but at the same time that gives a largely spurious similarity of T with the slope of dCO2/dt, which doesn’t exist in the real world…

More in depth explanation is in an earlier work of mine here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html#The_real_world with the theory in the first chapters.
Which was fiercely discussed here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/

1sky1

Ordinate scaling has no effect whatsoever upon the correlation coefficient. Time-lags, however, do. The well-known high correlation between delta-CO2 and temperature is apparently a consequence of Henry’s law, manifest largely in the annual cycle. At much lower frequencies, first-differencing converts the secular trend of CO2 into an ordinate offset and sharply reduces the amplitude of other low-frequency components of variability. Not only is the zero-correlation reduced by time-lags, but the cross-spectral coherence is demonstrably insignificant over the span of “Keeling’s curve.” That’s what makes the notion of CO2-induced global climatic variability a conjecture wholly unsupported by empirical data.

1sky1

Please read “zero-lag correlation,” instead of “zero-correlation.”

Robert,

For an in-depth discussion of that graph and the reason why of the correlation see my work at:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html#The_real_world
with the first chapters about the theoretical background and the fierce (!) discussions here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/

A more comprehensive reaction is underway (I suppose in moderation now).

afonzarelli

“…fierce (!)…”

right you are (☺)…

I’ll read them in more detail soon but the elephant in the room is the last El Nino while human emissions have been a steady 9.3 Gt per year for the past 3 years.

Bartemis

Ferdinand just manhandled the data to produce an a-physical model that seems to jibe with reality, but accomplishes this by taking natural equilibrium for granted.

A discussion of how I believe the relationship comes about can be found here.

Bartemis

The pseudo-mass balance argument is for idiots who have no idea how dynamic systems work. Occam’s Razor comes out strongly on my side. Otherwise, you have to dream up a multitude of perfectly complementary, frequency dependent processes to explain things.

Anthropogenic emissions end up the same place as natural emissions, but the latter are very significantly greater in magnitude. The natural regulatory systems barely even notice it.

Bartemis

1) No, it makes it objective. They really are idiots. It’s just about the dumbest argument anyone could make. It betrays total lack of insight into and unfamiliarity with dynamic systems.

2) Basic addition et al. is not up to this task. It is a dynamic system, and analyzing dynamic systems requires calculus.

You need to review Occam’s Razor.

Bartemis

No, because they really are idiots. Objectively speaking. No question about it. It is a very stupid argument.

Bartemis

“How do you argue against that?”

How can you argue with it? It’s like arguing that the kid who says 2 + 2 = 3 isn’t a genius. If the argument is rejected, what do you say?

The pseudo-mass balance argument is really about that level. It is spectacularly dumb, on a very basic level.

Bartemis

“wow that’s a tidy argument.”

And, hopelessly jejune.

Robert,

I had years of discussion with Bart on that item. All what Bart has is curve fitting of a graph. For the rest, with his “temperature fits all” (variability + slope), he violates all known observations, including Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater (~16 ppmv/K, that is all), which is exactly the same for a single static sample as for the world wide dynamics of the ocean surface with the atmosphere. Confirmed by over 3 miilion seawater samples all over the world.

But as he doesn’t accept any observation that counters his sole argument, we can rediscuss that again and again, to no avail.

Then he starts shouting about the “pseudo mass balance”. The mass balance must be obeyed at any moment of time, except if CO2 escapes to space.
That makes it very simple:

Increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
2.3 ppmv/year = 4.5 ppmv/year + natural emissions – natural sinks
natural emissions – natural sinks = -2.2 ppmv/year

In every year of the past 57 years, natural sinks were larger than natural emissions:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

Further, there is no discrimination of the sinks between natural and human caused CO2 (except a small one in isotope ratio’s). Human emissions increased a fourfold between 1958 and 2012. So did the increase in the atmosphere and the difference between these two: the net sink capacity.
That is only possible if either the natural CO2 cycle didn’t change (much) at all, or if the natural cycle also increased a fourfold over the same period (as is necessary for Bart’s theory), or you violate the equality of CO2 for the sink processes. The more recent residence time estimates show an increase in residence time, thus a stable CO2 throughput in an increasing CO2 mass in the atmosphere…

The point is that variability and slope are from different processes: near all variability is the influence of temperature on mainly (tropical) vegetation (which zeroes out in 1-3 years), while near all slope is caused by the twice as high human emissions. The removal of the latter is a pressure dependent process, near independent of temperature. One can calculate the remaining CO2 level based on human emissions and the net sink rate, based on the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and the steady state level for the ocean surface temperature per Henry’s law:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg

The amount is not trivially small. It is the method of separating fluxes in physics. This works for water currents, electrical currents and also for co2 currents.

2hotel9

No, calling idiots idiots is simply stating the observable facts. Means he wins.

Although natural emissions are 30x greater you fail to address the issue that the natural sinks are not suffitcent to absorb the growing human co2 emissions completely. That is the mass balance argument which has been explained by Ferdinand.

Richard,

The CO2 amounts emitted by humans are about 9 GtC/year. Natural emissions and sinks are near equally at around 150 GtC/year, not including the diurnal ~60 GtC/half day in and out, as that hardly reaches the bulk of the atmosphere and doesn’t influence global CO2 levels.

Thus human emissions are about 6% of the global carbon cycle. That is not “trivial” as human emissions are one-way additions and the 150 GtC is in AND out, even more out than in.
Moreover, there is never 150 GtC (~75 ppmv) extra in the atmosphere, neither seasonal, continuous between equator and poles or year by year.
Most of these fluxes are countercurrent between oceans and biosphere. Thus these three temperature dependent sources/sinks hardly change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere: between 3 and maximum 5 ppmv/K, leveling to zero in 1-3 years. For seasonal changes, that makes a global amplitude of not more than 5 ppmv. Three years of current human emissions are surpassing the seasonal changes and 1 year is already sufficient to dwarf the year by year variability in CO2 rate of change which is from the difference between all natural inputs and all natural outputs together…

Thus while natural inputs and outputs do change, their difference over a year is only half human emissions and negative. That is all what counts for the increase in the atmosphere: zero contribution of the natural fluxes to the increase in the atmosphere. No matter if the natural fluxes are 100 or 150 or 1000 GtC/year in and out, that difference is what is observed… That is what the mass balance says…

Of course, there is one escape route for Bart’s theory: if the natural fluxes increased a fourfold since 1959 in very close lockstep with human emissions. Unfortunately for Bart, there is zero indication in any observation for an increased natural cycle, with one exception: a slight increase in seasonal amplitude over the high latitudes, due to longer growing seasons. But as more plant growth also gives more (semi) permanent carbon storage, the biosphere is a net sink for CO2, not a source…

richardscourtney

Hans Erren:

Instead of admitting you were wrong you attempt to pretend I have not refuted Ferdinand’s daft assertion and you also attempt to change the subject saying

Although natural emissions are 30x greater you fail to address the issue that the natural sinks are not suffitcent to absorb the growing human co2 emissions completely. That is the mass balance argument which has been explained by Ferdinand.

Firstly, my post you purport to be answering explained why Bart was right to say only “idiots” accept the nonsensical pseudo-mass balance argument. That idiocy is the pseudo-mass balance argument which has been asserted (n.b. NOT “explained”) by Ferdinand.

Much evidence indicates the sinks are not being saturated.

Firstly, the seasonal change in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loaindicates the sinks are not saturating. For each year the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the residual of the seasonal variation. That variation is a fluctuation that forms a ‘saw tooth’ with no indication of any slow down in saturation as the sinks fill.

Secondly, at present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But that is probably not possible.

Thirdly, the OCO-2 data shows that local sequestration processes sequester all the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from industrial regions.

etc.

At issue is why the sinks for CO2 are not absorbing all the annual CO2 emission so there is a residual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Clearly, the sinks can but don’t sequester all the total CO2 emission each year. This is explicable by assuming the carbon cycle system has altered its equilibrium condition and the system is adjusting towards the altered equilibrium state.

Some mechanisms of the carbon cycle have rate constants and, therefore, the carbon cycle takes decades to adjust to an altered equilibrium. Hence, whatever has altered or is altering the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle is causal of the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

There are many possible causes of the alteration to the equilibrium state of the carbon cycle. The anthropogenic CO2 emission is one possible (but unlikely) cause. The most likely known cause is the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has been intermittently occurring for centuries.

Richard

richardscourtney

Oh dear! I have a voice recognition software error not spotted when checking before posting.
(It is a problem with having an arm that doesn’t work).

Where I posted

“Some mechanisms of the carbon cycle have rate constants and, therefore, the carbon cycle takes decades to adjust to an altered equilibrium.”

I intended to post

“Some mechanisms of the carbon cycle have rate constants of decades and, therefore, the carbon cycle takes decades to adjust to an altered equilibrium.”

Sorry.

Richard

Bindidon

richardscourtney on April 8, 2017 at 12:20 am

Considering these facts, only an idiot would think the trivially small amount of CO2 that humans are adding to the CO2 emission must be causing the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

richardscourtney on April 8, 2017 at 10:12 am

The anthropogenic CO2 emission is one possible (but unlikely) cause. The most likely known cause is the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has been intermittently occurring for centuries.

Well I would like to believe you, but when looking at these two charts below, I have a problem…

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170408/r5ozgtae.png
Fig 1: CO2 concentrtion during the last 10,000 years

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170408/qfpho6u4.png
Fig 2: CO2 concentrtion during the last 1,000 years

Maybe you think these two charts are fake pcitures made by warmistas?

The ice core records do not accurately reflect past CO2 quantities.

Richard, there is no need to admit that I am wrong because I am right. Already in 2006 you could not see your error so I don’t have any hope for you that you will ever see the light in this matter. All the best.

Stephen Wilde:

The ice core records do not accurately reflect past CO2 quantities.

They do accurately (+/- 1.2 ppmv – 1 sigma for a single core) reflect past CO2 changes, be it averaged over 10 to 560 years, depending of local snow accumulation rates…

Any literature about the opposite opinion?

Richard:

Firstly, the seasonal change in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa indicates the sinks are not saturating.

With the same reasoning, one can argue that there is no sea level rise possible, as the huge tidal changes show that the ocean mass is not saturated and the rise due to warmer oceans and ice melt is trivial compared to the total mass going up and down every 12 hours or so.

What you don’t take into account is that the additional CO2 is not part of the temperature cycle. No extra leaf will grow if there is no incease in the seasonal summer temperature and no extra CO2 will be absorbed. Only because of the extra 30% CO2 pressure in the atmosphere more CO2 is pushed into the plant alveoles and that gives more uptake. That are two largely separate processes each with their own exchange/decay rate and an order of magnitude slower for the extra pressure, compared to temperature influences.

Secondly, at present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production

Richard, you are comparing the second derivative of human emissions with the direct effect of seasonal temperature on vegetation. That is comparing apples with oatmeal. Absolutely zero connection between the two and thus zero proof of anything.
If you make a comparison, then compare something comparable: yearly human emissions vs. yearly increase in the atmosphere or human emissions variability to natural variability…

Thirdly, the OCO-2 data shows that local sequestration processes sequester all the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from industrial regions.

The OCO-2 data shows impossible things: high CO2 concentrations above the N.E. Atlantic where the largest CO2 sink into the deep oceans is situated… I think that they still have a lot of work to do to calibrate the instruments.

Further, not all human CO2 is sequestered in nearby plants or oceans: at least 1/3 is showing up in the atmosphere as a drop in 13C/12C ratio. Even if all human CO2 was sequestered in the next nearby tree: that doesn’t change the fact that the tree will not take in a “natural” CO2 molecule instead, thus the CO2 increase in the atmosphere as mass remains exactly the same. The only extra uptake is if the total CO2 pressure increased in the atmosphere)…

Bob boder

Ferd;

Why don’t you ever address Samuel Couger point, he is clearly refuting your point and confirming Richards.

Bob,

Which point?

I have had several discussions with him in the past…

His point in this case is that the SH oceans are the cause of the smaller uptake at higher ocean temperatures. That is ony true for a part of the story. It is not true for vegetation: in general vegetation is a net sink for CO2, increasingly with temperature. In the case of El Niño, tropical vegetation is acting opposite: due to higher temperatures and changing rain patterns (drought over large parts of the Amazon and Indonesia), less CO2 is absorbed by plants and more is released by decaying vegetation and forest fires. That makes that in such circumstances CO2 absorption is less than in reverse years (La Niña, Pinatubo).

That vegetation is dominant, not the oceans can be seen in the opposite CO2 and δ13C (and O2) changes. If the change was from the oceans, CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other (and O2 would hardly change).

Bob boder

Ferd;

So you state but I think the satellite data is proving you wrong.

Bob,

The satellite seems to have a lot of probems to show reality, as the data show elevated CO2 levels over the N.E. Atlantic, where the largest CO2 sink of the world in the (deep) oceans is situated. Besides that, a variability of +/- 2% of full scale is still well mixed and mainly reflects the seasonal changes in the NH.

If the accuracy of the satellite is sufficient to detect daily human emissions needs to be seen as the satellite has a possibility tp focus on specific (urban and industrial) spots for longer periods. But I have the impression that they still have too much troubles to calibrate the measurements…

Bindidon

The radiative forcing of CO2’s atmospheric concentration and the temperature anomalies deduced from the forcing should imho solely be viewed over the long term: there are too many fluctuations due to ocean vs. atmosphere exchanges, volcanic eruptions, increases / decreases of human activity inducing fossile fuel burning etc etc.
I have forgotten where I obtained this computation from:
ΔT = 1.66 ln (CO2 actual/CO2 begin)
It certainly originates from Myhre’s 1998:
ΔF = 5.35 ln (CO2 actual/CO2 begin)
Superposing it in a chart with the temperature anomalies provided by Japan’s Met Agency gives the following:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170408/9ssl42vi.jpg
If the computation is correct, then we see that CO2’s radiative forcing accounts, as expected by many people, for a part of the global temperature increase since 1891.
Simple eye-balling by the unexperienced layman gives about 50%.

Bindidon

Oh BTW I would like to express my deep gratitude for this pretty good new layout so perfectly embellishing my comments! Thank you WordPress or whoever else.

Manch einer will Autorität und Stärke demonstrieren, zeigt jedoch stattdessen bestenfalls Mangel an Souveränität und letztendlich… Schwäche.

sailboarder

How do you rationalize the near identical 1910 to 1940 warm spurt? (human CO2 negligible)

Bindidon

Sorry ECB: this is exactly the kind of question my comment won’t be able to answer to. That was the reason to publish this chart as an alternative to the WFT chart at top of thread:

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170408/9ssl42vi.jpg

It makes IMHO no sense to subdivide it into subperiods of whichever duration. BTW, I could ask you in turn: how shall we rationalize the 1940 to 1975 cooling spurt?

CO2 has always been a participant in keeping our planet about 33 °C warmer than it would be in its absence (as opposed to the main GHG water vapor, it is a noncondensing, non precipitating trace gas).

For what reason shall we think that increasing its presence in the atmosphere won’t have any consequence?

I recall for example on math work done 40 years ago by Joseph W. Chamberlain
hdl.handle.net/2060/19790010343
where he performed an impressing demonstration of the effect of even tiny trace gas concentrations due to their ability to close the atmospheric window (8 to 12 µ).

But nowhere you will see in his papers any reference on how quickly and continuouls this phenomenon takes place.

Bob boder

Duh by changing the data.

sailboarder

“CO2 has always been a participant in keeping our planet about 33 °C warmer than it would be in its absence (as opposed to the main GHG water vapor, it is a noncondensing, non precipitating trace gas).

For what reason shall we think that increasing its presence in the atmosphere won’t have any consequence?”

I think thermodynamics maintains the earths temperature, as defined by the atmospheric density.

CO2 might change the temperature profile a bit, but the vertical transfer of energy by thermodynamics will keep it very small.(abt 0.7C imo)

I see two warm bursts, separated by an equally long hiatus or slight cooling. It looks like a natural set of cycles to me, and not man made. Dr. Curry refers to this(uncertainty) often, most lately in her presentation a week ago.

observa

I should definitely put my soda pop in the fridge after I’ve opened it then?

crotalus

NOAA learned their methodology diddling with their budget projections, and can use the same peer review cast.

JDN

What makes everyone think this is a chemistry question instead of a biology question? Is life in the ocean incapable of affecting CO2 based on seasonal growth and ocean surface temperature?

Smart Rock

The chart, or graph or whatever you want to call it, appears to show a correlation between rate of increase of CO2 and temperature anomalies. This is completely absurd.

There is nothing in the greenhouse theory (whether you choose to believe it or not) that says increase in temperature bears any relation to the rate of increase of CO2. If I read the theory correctly, it says that the temperature (or temperature anomaly, whatever) bears a linear relationship to the logarithm of the concentration of CO2 There are estimates of the factor that is supposed to tie those parameters together, which has been called the “climate sensitivity” or the “transient climate response” and it varies from about 1.4°C per doubling to absurdly high numbers, according to who has estimated it.

(Digression: there should be an “effective climate response” that accounts for direct and indirect “feedbacks” (like water vapour and clouds) and I suspect that it might be so close to zero as to be undetectable, but that’s my opinion”).

Basically, there is a correlation on that graph because temperature has gone up a bit between 1958 and 2017 (not a lot of disagreement there, except perhaps as to the amount), and the “derivative”, i.e. the rate of increase of CO2 has gone up a bit too. The plot of CO2 at Mauna Loa is not a straight line; it curves upwards, i.e. the rate of increase of CO2 is increasing (as the mathematicians say, the second derivative is positive).

But the greenhouse theory says that, even if the rate of increase did not increase over time (which would make the Mauna Loa chart a linear increase), the increasing level of CO2 would still be causing the temperature to go up. If that had been the case the derivative of CO2 would plot as a flat line on the chart that we’re being asked to look at in this post, while the temperature anomalies would still be going up.

You can even envisage a situation where the rate of increase in CO2 starts to decrease. CO2 concentration would still be going up so (greenhouse theory says) temperatures keep on going up. That would have led to an antithetic relationship between the parameters shown here.

If Robert B hasn’t grasped this, maybe he doesn’t have the ability to question what he’s looking at as much as this jaded geologist who is skeptical about everything that’s put in front of him, no matter whence it comes. But honestly, this graph, whoever put it together, is the absolutely worst kind of pseudo-science. It shows a correlation between two quantities where there is absolutely no theoretical or empirical reason to believe that they should correlate – even if you believe without question the greenhouse dogma.

In other words, that chart does nothing but discredit the warmists who designed it. They are mathematically illiterate (or just stupid, and there’s a lot of that around these days). Or even worse, they just don’t care.

afonzarelli

Smart Rock, i think you have causation backwards here if i’m reading you correctly here. It’s not the change in the rate of carbon growth that is causing temperature to go up. Rather, it’s the change in temperature that’s causing the rate of carbon growth to go up. (at least, that’s the claim that is being inferred by the graph)…

Could you stop pretending that it’s gone through some algorithmic wringer. I’m not discussing any physical reason for it but lack of there being any and the correlation still being visible.

To not so bright rock, read it again. I’m politely pointing out that its not real.

As we can see by eye, there is a correlation between the ocean temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Robert B, you are asking, if there is any physical explanation. That is what I tried to show you. The explanation is that the atmospheric CO2 is in balance with the CO2 in the mixing layer of the ocean. This balance is based on the Henry’s law. Simple like that. The temperature dependency of Henry’s law explain very well the yearly changes of CO2 concentration. Einstein said that things should be explained as simply as possible but not simpler that that.

I have used my model to calculate the residence time for the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. It is possible, because I can calculate both the anthropogenic CO2 and the total CO2 fluxes. The residence time for the anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is 16 years. It is the same as shown by the full scale test (maybe the only one) available for the climate. The residence time of the radiocarbon 14C is the same 16 years as caused by the stopping the nuclear bomb test in 1964. In this sense I can say that I can truly validate the results of my model. The radiocarbon is a perfect tracer material for testing the anthropogenic CO2 behavior, because the both elements are artificially emitted into the the atmosphere and the whole atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system did not contain this element before the test: anthropogenic CO2 starting about 1750 and the radiocarbon starting in 1940’s.

aveollila, I’m not arguing that you are wrong that atmospheric CO2 is in balance with the CO2 in the mixing layer of the ocean. Look at the Pinatubo eruption about 1992. The rate of CO2 increase matches RSS well (see above graph)

afonzarelli

Robert, IF the aggregate total of all SST temperatures determine the carbon growth rate, wouldn’t that make sense to you? Warmer areas outgassing more, cooler areas uptaking less all according to the temperature anomaly relative to the equilibrium state temperature. Note that “0” anomaly is about .7C less than SSTs as of the hiatus in warming. (this is consistent with what we believe temps were during the LIA)…

Smart Rock

Yeah, I assumed it was a typical AGW piece trying to prove that carbon does bad stuff (we do see enough of that). Oops. It was apparently an attempt to show – what exactly? That observed CO2 increase all (mostly? partly?) comes from warming of the oceans? Well it doesn’t work for that either, or rather it only works if you ignore the fact that anthro CO2 emissions increased during the period being plotted. That will give you a whole lot of dCO2/dt and you would need to quantify that and see if there was any unexplained acceleration of CO2 that you could attribute to degassing of the oceans. So IMHO it’s a very weak illustration to use as a proof of anything.

Aveollila’s comments quantify atmosphere-ocean interaction quite nicely,as long as you assume that land-based carbon sinks are small relative to the oceans. There’s no reason why Prof. Salby couldn’t have dome something similar instead of showing an apparent correlation between two parameters that have both gone up a bit since 1958. As a demonstration, it’s weak because there are other theories that it could be used to support equally as well, and because it’s not quantitative enough when some of the quantities are quite well quantified.

One minor comment on Aveollila’s calculations. I’m not sure how well Henry’s law should apply to CO2 in ocean water. It’s not just a gas dissolved in a liquid, because there’s a lot of chemistry going on with carbonate and bicarbonate anions being formed. I would guess that, if anything, that the CO2 capacity of ocean water will go down faster with increased temperature than Henry’s law would suggest, because of the breakdown of bicarbonate ions with temperature (as we see when baking cakes). Principle is similar but details may differ. Experimental data are needed. Maybe they do, but it’s too late tonight for me to dig them up tonight.

“IF the aggregate total of all SST temperatures determine the carbon growth rate, wouldn’t that make sense to you? Warmer areas outgassing more, cooler areas uptaking less all according to the temperature anomaly relative to the equilibrium state temperature. Note that “0” anomaly is about .7C less than SSTs as of the hiatus in warming. (this is consistent with what we believe temps were during the LIA)…”
The whole point of the piece was that the correlation had to be perfect with CO2 levels measured to &plumn;0.34ppm. I can see why there would be some effect but not such a good correlation.

And smart rock, take note. I don’t believe that it shows anything except someone needs to have a good look at the calibration.

Robert,

CO2 measurements at all stations are better than +/- 0.2 ppmv. That is no problem to see that the correlation between T (in fact dT/dt) and dCO2/dt is real.
Thus the correlations between T, dT/dt, CO2 and dCO2/dt are all real with and without lags. Causation in this case is also known and both the short term reaction on temperature changes by oceans and (mainly) by (tropical) vegetation.

Variations in T cause variations in CO2, but that is constrained to the small (+/- 1.5 ppmv) noise around the large (+90 ppmv) trend. It is only by taking the derivative (and thus largely detrending the CO2 increase) that one has blown up the noise around the trend to huge proportions. No problem with that, as long as that is not used to declare that this “proves” that the +90 ppmv trend is also caused by temperature, which is not the case, as that is where human emissions are involved…

Smart Rock. You little bit aside now. It is not about the warming effect of CO2, we are discussing here. It is about the correlation about the tropical sea water temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration. We do not care talk about the possible reasons for the temperature changes of the oceans. In my model I have not used any assumptions for the temperature effects of the CO2 changes. But I can show that the yearly CO2 changes in the atmosphere are related mainly to the sea water temperatures and not just on the yearly CO2 emission rates. How much the atmospheric CO2 can increase the global temperature is totally another issue.

aveollili: “We do not care talk about the possible reasons for the temperature changes of the oceans.”

but that’s the most important question of all !!

richardscourtney

crackers345:

If you want to decide which question is important in a thread then start your own blog.

AW is our host here and he has decided that the question of a correlation observed by Robert Balic (and several others previously) deserves attention. To that end he has invited Robert Balic to post the above article.

Only matters raised by the article from Robert Balic are pertinent in this thread. All other questions are off-topic, and it is reprehensible that you attempt to deflect the thread onto an irrelevance of your choosing.

Richard

Thanks Richard

the rate of co2 increase in the atmosphere depends on how fast we emit it into the atmosphere, and how much of that is taken up by the land and ocean, and only very slightly on the atmopheric temperature.

Very true

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

It seems you missed my use of the word “honestly”.
The easiest person to mislead is yourself.

Each of your excuses for your refusal to accept the evidence presented by Stephen Wilde is wrong.

The OCO-2 satellite measurements indicate that ALL the CO2 from human activities is sequestered by sinks local to its emission sites. Hence, it is observed that the CO2 from human activities is not overloading those local sinks and is not available to overload other sinks.
That is what the data indicate whatever you may want to pretend.

Richard

richardscourtney

crackers345:

You assert without any evidence and/or argument to support it

the rate of co2 increase in the atmosphere depends on how fast we emit it into the atmosphere, and how much of that is taken up by the land and ocean, and only very slightly on the atmopheric temperature.

OK. I understand that is your superstitious belief.
I write to ask how you square that superstitious belief with the observed reality that the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is independent of “how fast we emit [CO2] into the atmosphere”.

Richard

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

Yes, the observed reality is that the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is independent of “how fast we emit [CO2] into the atmosphere”.

If the extra emission of human origin were the only emission then in some years almost all of it seems to be absorbed into the sinks, and in other years almost none.

You get an appearance of a relationship by smoothing the data to a degree that cannot be justified by any known physical mechanism.

Richard

Bartemis

Bart,

Except that the integral of temperature anomaly has no physical meaning, while the integral of emissions and remaining amounts in the atmosphere are physical quantities…

Bartemis

Nonsense. I’ve explained in considerable detail the physical basis. You just don’t understand dynamic systems.

richardscourtney
“I write to ask how you square that superstitious belief with the observed reality that the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is independent of “how fast we emit [CO2] into the atmosphere”.”

oh, please. that’s absurd.

richardscourtney

crackers345:

Yes, I know your superstitious belief is “absurd”. That absurdity is why I asked you to explain how you square it with the observed reality that the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is independent of “how fast we emit [CO2] into the atmosphere”.

In some years the accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to almost all of the CO2 we emit and in other years it is equivalent to almost none of the CO2 we emit to the atmosphere.

So, now you have admitted that you your superstitious belief is “absurd” so you cannot square it with observed reality, perhaps you will relate how you obtained that absurd superstitious belief?

Richard

Richard,

It is quite simple: in every year of the past near 60 years, natural sinks were not able to remove all human emissions in the same year as emitted. Thus the huge natural in and out fluxes are mostly insensitive to the extra CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere. These fluxes are mainly (seasonal) temperature dependent and show a year by year variability of maximum +/- 1.5 ppmv around the (90 ppmv) trend. That is all.

The removal of any extra CO2, whatever the source, needs pressure dependent processes mainly sinks into the oceans and partly vegetation. That are much slower process than the seasonal fluxes…

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

I agree that it is “very simple” but I accept empirical data so I say the “very simple” thing is your refusal to consider data which refutes your narrative. You say

It is quite simple: in every year of the past near 60 years, natural sinks were not able to remove all human emissions in the same year as emitted.

The OCO-2 data show that ALL the CO2 human emissions of a year ARE absorbed by the sinks near to their emission sources.

Richard

Yes, that is what I inferred here:

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

and when I posted it upthread Ferdinand was dismissive without a logical reason for so being.

The problem I find with all Ferdinand’s deep and detailed work is that at base it is founded upon a limited number of assumptions relying on observations that are capable of having alternative explanations to those proposed wrongly (IMHO) by Ferdinand as irrefutable.

He has built an intricate inverted pyramid on top of a sandy base.

Jim Ross

Richard and Stephen,

I have been having a discussion with Ferdinand down-thread about the alleged time lag in CO2 growth between the NH and South Pole. I would appreciate the views of others.

richardscourtney

Stephen Wilde:

You have commented on my saying

The OCO-2 data show that ALL the CO2 human emissions of a year ARE absorbed by the sinks near to their emission sources.

by responding

Yes, that is what I inferred here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

Thankyou. That makes the matter very clear.

I do not understand how anybody who has seen that plot can honestly claim natural sinks are failing to sequester ALL the CO2 from human activity.

Richard

Richard:

I do not understand how anybody who has seen that plot can honestly claim natural sinks are failing to sequester ALL the CO2 from human activity.

1, Because the emissions from humans (~0.1 ppmv/day) are not directly measurable by the satellite, which only takes snapshots at midday, at the height of photosynthesis.
2. Because they have troubles to calibrate the satellite: there are too many impossibilities like higher levels at the largest sink place of the world: the N.E. Atlantic.
3. Because even if all human CO2 was captured by the next nearby tree, that doesn’t change the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, as that is only less natural CO2 captured by the same tree. The tree captures whatever CO2 which is that moment around, but doesn’t capture more CO2 because it comes from humans (*).
4. Because still 30% of all human CO2 is in the atmosphere, the rest is mainly in the oceans and only a small part in vegetation as is measured via the 13C/12C ratio.

(*) Of course if the total CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases, both oceans and vegetation will take more CO2 away, but until now that is less than what humans emit in every year of the past 60 years.

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

My reply to you appeared in the wrong place. Hopefully this copy is in the right place.

It seems you missed my use of the word “honestly”.
The easiest person to mislead is yourself.

Each of your excuses for your refusal to accept the evidence presented by Stephen Wilde is wrong.

The OCO-2 satellite measurements indicate that ALL the CO2 from human activities is sequestered by sinks local to its emission sites. Hence, it is observed that the CO2 from human activities is not overloading those local sinks and is not available to overload other sinks.
That is what the data indicate whatever you may want to pretend.

Richard

Richard,

Your “proof” that I am wrong is only your misinterpretation of the satellite data:

The OCO-2 satellite measurements indicate that ALL the CO2 from human activities is sequestered by sinks local to its emission sites.

1. The satellites theoretical resolution is ~0.1 ppmv.
2. The satellite does follow the midday line and takes snapshots of the midday areas.
3. Photosynthesis is at maximum around midday.
4. Human emissions are average ~0.01 ppmv/day (used 0.1 ppmv/day a a comment down, that is in error)
5. Human emissions are concentrated in specific areas (towns, industrial) with higher emissions.
6. The satellite can focus on specific areas for longer periods, thus enhancing the resolution.
If human emissions are visible in the satellite data at specific areas depends of 1. – 6.

Thus it is possible that all human emissions around midday are all removed by the next available tree (which doesn’t change the mass balance with one gram), thus masking human emissions.

The satellite doesn’t measure at night, when factories still are working and emitting and heating (in winter) is at full speed in cold areas and there is no photosynthesis…

As far as I know they haven’t used the focus possibility of the satellite until now, as they still seem to have troubles to calibrate the satellite data with near ground data.

Thus sorry Richard, absence of good data is not proof of anything.

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:

The data under discussion is shown by this plot of atmospheric CO2 concentration provided by the OCO-2 satellite. And the link also provides the summary by Stephen Wilde of discrepancies between that plot and your narrative.

Look at what the data shows instead of making excuses for the data refuting your narrative.

As I said, the OCO-2 satellite measurements indicate that ALL the CO2 from human activities is sequestered by sinks local to its emission sites. Hence, it is observed that the CO2 from human activities is not overloading those local sinks and is not available to overload other sinks.
That is what the data indicate whatever you may want to pretend.

But, as is your usual practice when confronted with data which refutes your narrative, you have reacted with a series of ‘epicyclic excuses’ in attempt to sustain your narrative.

You say

1. The satellites theoretical resolution is ~0.1 ppmv.

Yes. That is sufficient to show the sinks are not overloaded in industrial areas.
So what is your point?
You say

2. The satellite does follow the midday line and takes snapshots of the midday areas.

Yes. What is your point?
You say

3. Photosynthesis is at maximum around midday.

Yes. But so what?
You say

4. Human emissions are average ~0.01 ppmv/day (used 0.1 ppmv/day a a comment down, that is in error)

Yes. 0.01 ppmv/day is trivially small, and as the plot shows it is not sufficient to overload the sinks local to industrialised areas e.g. Western Europe.
You say

5. Human emissions are concentrated in specific areas (towns, industrial) with higher emissions.

Yes. And the plot shows those emissions are sequestered local to those specific areas. Much higher atmospheric concentrations exist elsewhere.
You say

6. The satellite can focus on specific areas for longer periods, thus enhancing the resolution.

Yes. But so what?

Face reality, Ferdinand; the OCO-2 data is yet another piece of evidence that refutes your narrative.

HAPPY EASTER!

Richard

richardcourtney, explain the atmosphere’s decreasing 13C/12C ratio.

richardscourtney

crackers345:

You demand that I assert what is not known and what available data cannot indicate when you write

richardcourtney, explain the atmosphere’s decreasing 13C/12C ratio.

The ratio change is clearly NOT a direct result of emissions of CO2 from human activities. The change is in the correct direction for it to be a result of that cause (n.b. there is 50% change that it would be because it has to be up or down), but it is wrong by 300% for it to be a direct result of emissions of CO2 from human activities. (One of Ferdinand’s epicyclic excuses is for this gross disagreement of the isotope ratio change with his narrative. He says the disagreement results from dilution which is a possibility but there is no evidence for it.)

I can make several suggestions as to possible causes of the atmosphere’s decreasing 13C/12C ratio, but nobody knows – and at present nobody can know – the true cause.

Richard

richardcourtney – the declining atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C is consistent with an anthropogenic source for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and inconsistent with it being from natural sources.

richardscourtney

crackers345:

Clearly, you have not read my answer to your question.

A discrepancy of 300% is NOT “consistent with” the “declining atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C” caused by “an anthropogenic source for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere”. And as discussions by others downthread reveal, there are – as I said – several possible causes of the “declining atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C”.

As usual, your posts are a waste of electrons.

Richard

Gerald Machnee

For interest have a look at the 5th chart or graph at this site:
https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

It is a correlation of Adjustment to USHCN Temperature vs Atmospheric CO2

Bartemis

Yes, to the extent that temperatures appear to track CO2, it is mostly because the temperatures have been manipulated to do so.

However, it does not affect an affine comparison such as shown above in the article. It is here that we see the truth: temperature is driving CO2, not CO2 driving temperature.

R. de Haan

This is exactly how NOAA cooks the books. Tony Heller solved this puzzle a long time ago.
It’s a political dictate and NOAA delivers.

1) how would you like to adjust for biases?

2) adjustments -reduce- the long-term warming trend

Michael Jankowski

Lead -reduces- IQ

michael j, you avoided my question.

richardscourtney

crackers345:

You ask

1) how would you like to adjust for biases?

Scientists do NOT “adjust” data and I am a scientist so I would not do it.
And I would NOT “like” to “adjust” data because that would be my having a bias.

When a scientist suspects an error in data then s/he attempts to quantify that uncertainty and reports that inherent error as being part of the data (e.g. a value of x +y-z at 95% confidence).

Richard

Michael Jankowski

Why engage you in Q&A when your #2 statement is either painfully ignorant or deliberately misleading?

richardcourtney: scientists constantly adjust raw data to remove biases. it’s an important part of every experiment.

you didn’t explain how you would treat the raw temperature data in light of its biases. (those biases aren’t “errors,” they are unavoidable methodological issues.)

richardscourtney

crackers345:

Clearly, you have not read my answer to your question.

To avoid you needing to find it, I copy it to here. Please read it.

Scientists do NOT “adjust” data and I am a scientist so I would not do it.
And I would NOT “like” to “adjust” data because that would be my having a bias.

When a scientist suspects an error in data then s/he attempts to quantify that uncertainty and reports that inherent error as being part of the data (e.g. a value of x +y-z at 95% confidence).

Richard

So we are left with three possibilities.

An infinitesimal jump in CO2 causes a noticeable jump in temperature.

A noticeable jump in temperature causes an infinitesimal jump in CO2.

Something ill understood is capable of a noticeable increase in temperature and infinitesimal jump in CO2.

No way I would bet my own money on the first.

“Something ill understood” Keeling calibration

Jim Ross

Rob Dawg, I like your summary. If I may nit-pick a little, it is not a “jump in CO2”, but a “jump in rate of growth of atmospheric CO2”. I guess the view that it is an infinitesimal jump depends on how significant you consider an increase in rate of growth of 50-100% to be.

Your “something ill understood” is, of course, El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Robert of Texas

The air gets warmer and the ocean either slows absorption or even emits for a short while – possibly because the near surface water (inches?) warms due to the temperature of the air rising? So rate of change of CO2 is correlated to air temperature but in the reverse of what many expect?

I don’t really see a problem with the correlation – its just we don’t know causation, people are just assuming it fits their story. I tend to believe temperature is causing CO2 release rather than CO2 is causing the short-term temperature fluxes.

As for CO2 being a well mixed gas… I think that depends on the scope of what you are looking at. CO2 is at higher concentrations in cities for example. It would not surprise me at all if concentrations around oceans were linked to near surface temperatures. If you could see CO2 concentrations in color (3D, locally) I don’t imagine you would see one color but many. Eventually it becomes well mixed, if nothing is adding or subtracting the gas (which is always happening). So maybe the air several hundred feet up is well mixed, but close to where CO2 is interacting I doubt that it is.

Last attempt. I don’t want to talk about what might cause the correlation because nothing would make the two line up so well in the real world. Too many things going on and you need to measure the CO2 levels to ±0.34 ppm to see it.

Robert,

Measurements at most CO2 stations are better than +/- 0.2 ppmv. more than good enough to show natural variability in uptake, not enough to show the variability in human emissions.

Still you are looking at the variability of CO2 around the trend, which is not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv around a 90 ppmv trend, all caused by temperature variability, mainly the reaction of tropical forests. That is figured out by many before you, including Pieter Tans of NOAA, from sheet 11 on:
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

That is only for the variability, the slope is NOT caused by the same processes, as vegetation is a net sink for CO2 on periods longer than 1-3 years.

I’m sure that the measurements at single station do not vary more than ±0.2 but that is not for a global estimate from that spot. The earlier estimates of error were ±1 ppm and still there is good correlation with SH SST up until 1980 when, as admitted in Climategate emails and published articles that there was insufficient data for most of the SH oceans to get any reliable temperature anomalies.
There is no physical reason for it.
Again. I’m pointing out how precise the measurements need to be with a perfect correlation. ±0.2 instead of ±0.34 ppm still means an extremely good correlation that nobody has shown to be true as evidenced by the multitude of reasons given.

Robert,

The main problem with that graph is that by taking the derivative of the CO2 levels, you have removed most of the cause of the increase in CO2: human emissions.

Human emissions show a steady increase over time, hardly influenced by economic crisis and show little year by year variability, not detectable in monthly or even yearly variability of the measurements.
On the other hand, the effect of temperature on CO2 levels is a small increase (~16 ppmv/K) over time, but lots of monthly to yearly variability.

CO2 variability lags T variability, but that is small (+/- 1.5 ppmv) variability around the 90 ppmv trend since 1959. Here for the enlarged 1985-2000 period, including the 1992 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg

The derivative of the CO2 emissions is a (near) straight slope, as the emissions themselves are increasing slightly quadratic over time. All variability is caused by the derivative of the temperature (dT/dt), which leads dCO2/dt with several months:

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

The fully synchronized opposite CO2 and δ13C rate of changes show that the main effect of temperature is on (tropical) vegetation, not the oceans: temperature and changed rain patterns (drought) in the tropics give less uptake and more decay/fires in the Amazon during an El Niño. The opposite happened during the Pinatubo eruption.

That temperature is the main cause of the variability in CO2 rate of change is agreed by NOAA as Pieter Tans showed during his speech for 50 years Mauna Loa:
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
from sheet 11 onward.

The second problem in that graph and the reason why so many are misled, is that one compares T with dCO2/dt. That is comparing T with the detrended CO2 changes, or comparing apples with oranges. Either compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt. In the latter case, dT/dt has no trend, only a small offset from zero and thus a small influence on CO2 levels, while the full increase is from the slope of the derivative of the CO2 emissions, which is twice the slope of the derivative of the observed increase in the atmosphere.

It is easy to deduce that T/CO2 variability has nothing to do with the increase in the atmosphere, as most of the variability is the reaction of vegetation on temperature variability, while vegetation is a small, but growing sink for CO2 in the past decades as can be deduced from the oxygen balance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short

Why then the high synchronization between T and dCO2/dt? That is because taking the derivative of a (more or less) sinusoid variable shifts the sinusoid pi/2 back in time, without changing much of the appearance. That makes that as CO2 variability lags T variability, taking the derivative from only CO2 does synchronize it with T variability, but at the same time that gives a largely spurious similarity of T on the slope of dCO2/dt, which doesn’t exist in the real world…

See further the discussion at the links in my previous message…

Peter Sable

Correlations on time series data sets happen all the time. You can’t use standard statistical techniques on time series, they are pretty much meaningless.

(that’s besides that 0.4degC of the temperature increase is bogus data manipulation anyways)

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

Why not have a simple explanation?
One that fits the observations a bit bitter?
One that might even offer causation instead of correlation.
Why not do, or observe in everyday situations, an experiment that even Al Gore couldn’t make a foul-up of – an experiment that refutes the whole GHG effect.
2 similar containers, one containing a GHG and the other not. Put a differential thermometer across them. What happens?
Why not explain the annual variation of CO2 ppm without bluster and hand-waving?
Not agriculture then? A major seasonal activity that only really happens in one hemisphere, so no global averaging
Why claim the climate is a non-linear system then utterly ignore the mother & father of all non-linearities?
<cold objects do not radiate energy to warm ones and cause them to warm even more
Why talk about ‘temperature of the surface of the Earth’ then put all the thermometers nowhere near it – anywhere from 4 feet to 400 miles above
<Why are no thermometers worth talking about actually buried in the dirt
Why talk about some nebulous “Industrial Revolution” when its clear to even a child that CO2 levels started ramping up in the late 1940’s
Totally no chance it may have been an agricultural revolution then?? Are you really saying that 10,000 yrs ago, Ugg The Chugg staggered out of his cave every morning, climbed aboard his 500HP John Deere caterpillar and let loose 180 million tons of ammonium nitrate? Did he really do that?
Why talk about Global CO2 levels then measure that level as far from anywhere as its almost possible to get?
Why claim the impossible?
An alkali solution is not going to give up an acidic species just on a few 10th’s of a degree temp change. Henry’s Law in junk for seawater
Why not directly link the observed temp changes with the observed CO2 variation with the most basic climate observation possible?
Seasons
Why come up with such a technical complicated theory (GHG and positive feedback) to explain what thermometers and CO2 levels are doing when all you need do is look out of your window now and again?
A vast area of the planet is now growing annual plants instead of perennials as it historically did

Why ignore the dirt – and the bacteria that comprise the main part of its organic content. Are bacteria not temperature sensitive. Does seasonal plant growth not occur because of what those bacteria are doing in precise symbiosis with plants?
What do those soil bacteria do and what limits what they do? Completely not soluble nitrogen?
Why does farmland treated with water-soluble nitrogen become acidic? (Please do answer that point, in your own head at least) Would that not explain the observed Ocean Acidification – primarily in slow moving estuarine water that came off farmland.

I’ll answer my own questions and it’ll make Malthus, Ehrlich, Chuckles and AH all look like saints when I do.
Therein lies the Magical Thinking that nothing is wrong, that technology will fix anything and no matter what, it is always Someone Else’s Fault.
So finally, why did Climate Change put an end to every organised ‘civilisation’ that has ever existed on the Earth. Is that what happens when The Buck finally stops.

All those fine bureaucracies never ran out of dirt, they never overused fertiliser, they never cut too many trees, never kept too many sheep & goats and never never ever, had too many babies.
No, somebody else always did those things.

Peta from Cumbria, now Newark

sigh. Maybe you figured it yourself but anyway..
You get other people to accept the blame by confusing them, with science.

AndyG55

WAKE UP people.

Why are we arguing about where the increase in highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 is coming from?

Just so long as it keeps on coming.

We really MUST turn the narrative around, and show that increased atmospheric CO2 has absolutely ZERO detrimental effect.

TOTALLY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.

A C Osborn

Everybody has been talking about well distributed CO2 and the measurements taken at various sites, most of which show a steady increase in CO2, however the latest US Satellite data shows no such distribution.
There is no “Global CO2” when you look at the results from the Satellite data.
NASA has been very quiet about their results, I wonder why that is.
Let me remind you of their first output
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/finally-visualized-oco2-satellite-data-showing-global-carbon-dioxide-concentrations/

A C Osborn,

Have a look at the scales: +/- 2% of full scale variability. Seasonal exchanges are ~20% CO2 in and out. Do you expect that such huge changes are instantly mixed at every place everywhere?

blcjr

164 replies so far, and I didn’t bother to read them all. Part of the reason is that there is nothing new about this, and it is a bit frustrating that it keeps coming up again as if it is. I know I’ve posted in replies about here before, even posting images of this “effect.” I also wrote a short piece about it early last year and sent it to Anthony but he either didn’t get it or didn’t think it was timely. In any case I am going to post one of the images from the work I did on this last year, and then make some brief observations. Here is the image:

http://imgur.com/a9O3aCC

This is a plot of seasonal differences of UAH’s global temperature series and the Mauno Lao CO2 series, i.e. the first difference (what I think the author of this piece is calling a “derivative”) on an annual basis, i.e. the value in one month differenced with the value 12 months previously. I take the natural log of the CO2 series for this comparison because it seems that the CO2 series is increasing at a relatively constant rate of growth.

It is pretty obvious what is going on here. Changes in CO2 consistently LAG changes in temperature and a regression correlation with lagged variables line the two series up quite nicely, as shown in this graph:

http://i.imgur.com/HZRTkM1.jpg

Again, by now there should be nothing remarkable about this. On almost any time scale — here short run seasonal variations — temperature changes are driving CO2. This does not prove that CO2 might not itself have an effect on temperature, which by most theoretical accounts it does. But it seems to me that it is so small that it is swamped by the effect in the other direction, again on all time scales.

What is so hard to understand about this? Is it the presentation of the data in “derivative” format that is novel? I cannot understand why that would be the case. Analyzing first differences is a basic consideration in evaluating time series. If “climate science” hasn’t figured that out yet, it deserves the skepticism it gets in claiming to be “science.”

Basil

Bindidon

blcjr on April 8, 2017 at 3:01 am

On almost any time scale — here short run seasonal variations — temperature changes are driving CO2.

What about having a look at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/07/questions-on-the-rate-of-global-carbon-dioxide-increase/comment-page-1/#comment-2471412

To be honest: If I want to obtain valuable information about CO2, I rather will trust in Ferdinand Engelbeen.

blcjr

Trust whomever you want. I took a look at the Ferdinand post you pointed to. Not enough detail there for me to understand how he gets to his conclusions. He seems to be saying that temperature rise since the LIA can account for only a small fraction of the rise in CO2, and he points the finger at human emissions as accounting for the bulk of it. I’m sure he has what he considers an answer to this question, but I am not sure where to look to find it: what explains the large increases in CO2 in geologic times past, when human emissions did not exist?

Basil

Basil,

Most of the increase of CO2 in the past 1.5 century is man-made. All observations point in the same direction, here a comprehensive overview of the available evidence:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html

The main point is that over at least the past 800,000 years there was a quite constant ratio between CO2 and temperature of ~8 ppmv/K in ice cores, reflecting polar temperatures. Translated to global temperatures, that is ~16 ppmv/K. Not by coincidence the same as the equlibrium of CO2 in seawater with CO2 in the atmosphere per Henry’s law. That means that if the temperature now is the same (or lower) than around 1200 (the MWP), we should see ~290 ppmv in the atmosphere, not 400 ppmv…

Over longer time periods the same ratio doesn’t apply as e.g. during the Cretaceous, carbonates in the oceans and CO2 in the atmosphere were much higher than today. Much of that CO2 is now buried in large carbonate deposits like in south England: the withe cliffs of Dover…

That was a remarkable set of figures.
“a regression correlation with lagged variables line the two series up quite nicely”
Can you please provide or link to some more details about how you made those curves?

Bindidon

Using the appropriate tool, you can draw a plot of anything according to your needs. Here is a chart with trendless plots of UAH6.0 and CO2 concentration:

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170410/rixnm7gt.png

Origin: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/derivative/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/derivative/mean:12/scale:0.5/offset:-0.07

But here the CO2 concentration unluckily seems to follow the temperature, that MUST be plain wrong, shouldn’t happen 🙂

Bartemis

A) Of course it should happen. Cause precedes effect. Temperature change precedes CO2 change.

B) What we see here is a 90 deg phase lag, precisely what is expected if there is an integral dependence of CO2 on temperature.

You’ve done nothing but reinforce the conclusion here: temperature is driving CO2, not CO2 driving temperature.

Bart,

There is a lag between T variability and CO2 variability.
There is practically no lag between T variability and dCO2/dt variability.
There is no integral dependence of CO2 on T.

The observation that the SH shows a better fit than the NH supports the ocean temperatures as the primary cause of CO2 levels simply because there is more ocean in the SH.
Human emissions of CO2 are primarily in the NH so if we were the cause then the NH would show a better fit.
The reality must be that our emissions are rapidly taken up by local vegetation and have little or no effect on global levels.

Stephen Wilde,

Most variability is in the SH, as that is where the rain forests react on fast temperature changes. That is about the variability, not the trend. The trend in increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere starts near ground in the NH, where CO2 increase leads the increase at altitudes and lower latitudes and the SH with 6-24 months:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg

Clearly the source of the increase is in the NH, where 90% of human emissions are. The same for the δ13C trends (from low-13C fossil fuels burning): the drop is in the low lying high latitudes first and the SH lags with several years…

Bartemis

Your conclusion is non sequitur. There are a host of reasons the plots might appear to be offset. These are different locations, using different equipment, different protocols, and different people. You have no control experiment upon which to base your conclusion.

Bart,

Before you spout such a bunch of nonsense, will you please, please, please check how the data is sampled, with what methods, and how they are (inter)calibrated?

For every single station, the local data are within +/- 0.2 ppmv, regardless of the equipment used, worldwide calibrated by the same calibration mixtures.

Thus either there are regional natural sources at work and the distribution needs time or human sources are at work and the distrubution needs time.

There are huge regional sources at work in the tropics and huge regional sinks near the poles. That should show the highest CO2 levels at Mauna Loa (be it at 3,400 m height, takes time too) and Samoa (30 m ASL) and the lowest levels at Barrow and the South Pole.

Barrow (and other near sealevel stations) show the higher CO2 increase first…

Here is an illustration of why it must be the oceans that control CO2 levels:

http://www.newclimatemodel.com/evidence-that-oceans-not-man-control-co2-emissions/

Stephen,

That graph is from one month… Have a look at the yearly release/uptake by the oceans as measured by regular samples taken all over the oceans:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml

co2islife

“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/its-official-global-warming-and-higher-co2-ended-the-california-drought/

I realise Ferdinand has already largely pointed this out, but I’ll do so again. If you plot the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 over a relatively short time interval (say about 2 decades, as Salby does) you’ll see that it is variable, but does not vary about 0, it varies about a value of about 1.6ppm/yr – there is an offset. Correlations are, however, insensitive to offsets and so if you then find a good correlation between temperature and the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, what you’re finding is a correlation between temperature and the variability about the mean, but your correlation says nothing about the almost constant offset. So, the question is, what is causing this almost constant offset? The answer, is us, as Ferdinand has already pointed out. There’s quite a good discussion of this here.

TTP,

Seems that I have missed that discussion at Bishop’s…

Actually, there is a nice explanation of this correlation issue in this post by Dikran Marsupial.

Bindidon

I don’t understand why DM’s excellent answer to Salby’s conundrum, though about 2 years older, wasn’t mentioned at the very beginning of the comment thread in
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2398783.

Because it’s really dumb?

Because it’s really dumb?

No, I it’s because I wasn’t aware of DM’s excellent answer when I was commenting on the BH Discussion thread.

Bartemis

Would have been better for you if you had conceded that it is really dumb. Because, it is really dumb.

Bartemis

I explain why it is so dumb below.

Correction: You explain why you think it is so dumb below.

Bartemis

No, it’s pretty objectively dumb as rocks.

Bartemis

That is facile. It is not the offset in the rate of change of CO2 that produces the curvature of the absolute level of CO2. That is caused by the trend in the rate of change. And, the trend in the rate of change of CO2 matches the trend in temperature anomaly, when the one is scaled to match the other’s variability.

Human emissions also have a trend. There is little to no room for them to be added in to the CO2 rate of change, once the temperature sensitivity is accounted for. Hence, human emissions cannot be a major driver.

Dikran is a computer scientist, and promoter of the horrendously shallow pseudo-mass balance argument. He has no understanding of dynamic systems, and his arguments are physically absurd.

Bart,

There is no need to compare the trend of T with the trend of dCO2/dt, as the trend of both CO2 emissions and increase in the atmosphere are both slighlty quadratic and human emissions are twice the increase in the atmosphere.

The simplest explanation mostly is the one that fits cause and effect: human emissions cause most of the increase in the atmosphere, both the curvature of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere and the straight increase in the derivative. That is what the mass balance says and as long as you have no proof that the natural carbon cycle increased a fourfold over the past near 60 years, as human emissions and the increase in the atmosphere did, you have no leg to stand on and your theory is just one of the many others that pop up now and then without any proof in the real world.

The variability of T causes the variability in CO2 around the trend, but that is only +/- 1.5 ppmv around a trend of 90 ppmv. That is just noise and has no influence on the increase of CO2.

No arbitrary manipulation of T to fit the slope of dCO2/dt can change the fact that the influence of temperature is mainly in the small variability and hardly in the CO2 increase…

Bartemis

” That is what the mass balance says…”

No, that is what the pseudo-mass balance says. And, it is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Your “simplest explanation” does not explain the excellent agreement between the rate of change of CO2 and the temperature anomaly, including the long term trend over the past 59 years. Ergo, it fails.

Bart,

I have proven beyond doubt that a combination of the trend caused by human emissions and the temperature varaibility explains the full trend in the atmosphere, including most of its variability, as good as your theory does. Here again for those few who haven’t seen it:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/had_co2_emiss_nat_deriv.jpg

That human emissions are the main cause of the increase is confirmed by every single observation, That temperature is the main cause of the increase violates every single observation. All what you have is a nice match between a lot of noise around a huge trend and a spurious “match” between two straight slopes.

The temperature anomaly only explains the variability, which is the same in T and dT/dt, only shifted back in time for the derivative, which has zero trend.
It doesn’t explain the increase in the atmosphere, as that is not caused by temperature, as you have removed much of the trend of the CO2 increase before comparing it with the the temperature trend and it violates Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater, no matter if that is for a single sample in a lab or the wrold wide ocean surface in dynamic equilibrium with the atmosphere…

Bartemis

You have “proven” nothing at all. You have merely extruded the data through some finely tuned filters. And, you have to bend over backwards to do it. All I have to do is take the derivative. Occam’s Razor says mine is more likely.

But, your prescription is a-physical, because you assume a natural, underlying equilibrium, and decouple the anthropogenic forcing from those equilibrium dynamics.

Bart,

Please,

All I have done is the application of Henry’s law for the oceans, using the observed sink rate for oceans + vegetation of ~35 years half life time) and a factor 4 for the short term influence of T on CO2 (the same factor as you have used). Nothing is filtered, except for a 12-month smoothing of the observed CO2 rate of change.

But, your prescription is a-physical, because you assume a natural, underlying equilibrium, and decouple the anthropogenic forcing from those equilibrium dynamics.

Bart, there was a temperature controlled equilibrium of CO2 between the oceans (deep and surface) and the atmosphere over the past 800,000 years. Don’t you agree on that? That equilibrium changes with about 16 ppmv/K.

Further, the net sink rate is proportional to the extra CO2 pressure in the armosphere above steady state. With three points in the total CO2 level in the atmosphere and the corresponding net sink rate one can calculate the zero sink rate for a linear process (which the sinks are in the past 60 years), that is at the steady state level. That is ~290 ppmv, not by coincidence what Henry’s law says for the current average ocean surface temperature.

The removal of any extra CO2 injection into the atmosphere is not by the same mechanism as most of the natural fluxes.

Take the seasonal changes:
~60 GtC uptake in warm months by vegetation ~60 GtC/year release, with a peak in late fall.
~50 GtC release by the oceans in warm months, ~50 GtC uptake in cold months
Average global seasonal difference ~10 GtC all temperature induced.

Does that change if we add 10 GtC human emissions in the very first year of fossil fuels use? Hardly. Still near the same quantitities wil go in and out if the temperature differences over the seasons remain the same. There is no reason for the sessonal temperature caused processes to take more CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Of course, the extra CO2 increases the average pressure in the atmosphere a little bit. With the observed sink rate of 0.02, some 0,2 GtC will be taken away by the oceans and vegetation. The rest, 8.8 GtC remains in the atmosphere… we are now at 110 ppmv above steady state and only half of human emissions (as mass) are removed in the same year as emitted…

Bartemis

“Bart, there was a temperature controlled equilibrium of CO2 between the oceans (deep and surface) and the atmosphere over the past 800,000 years. Don’t you agree on that?”

No, I do not. The ice cores are the only source of that insinuation, and they have fundamental problems.

“…With three points in the total CO2 level in the atmosphere and the corresponding net sink rate one can calculate the zero sink rate for a linear process…”

All premised on the ice cores, and the requirement that the relationships are unchanging over 100s of thousands of years.

“The removal of any extra CO2 injection into the atmosphere is not by the same mechanism as most of the natural fluxes.”

Utter nonsense. All inputs of the same compound must be treated exactly the same.

dikranmarsupial

“That is facile. It is not the offset in the rate of change of CO2 that produces the curvature of the absolute level of CO2.”

This is a clear misrepresentation of the SkS article, which shows that the offset causes the linear trend in the CO2 (i.e. the rise in CO2, which is what actually matters), not the curvature (which is actually rather small and of little relevance). Nobody was claiming that the offset in the growth rate causes the *curvature*, as anyone who actually read the SkS article would know:

“Essentially the correlation only explains the variability of CO2 measurements around the long term trend, but not the trend itself.”

“Thus we can see that the long term rise is principally because of the mean value of net global emission, not because of the wiggles.”

“Thus the correlation doesn’t tell you very much about the cause of the long term rise, because that is mainly due to the mean value, not the variablity around the mean.”

“Key Point: It isn’t the variability (the general up and down wiggliness) in net emissions that gives rise to the long term trend, it is the mean value of the net emissions, and the value of the correlation does not depend in any way on the mean value. Therefore the correlation with net global emission tells you very little about the cause of the long term trend.”

How much more clearly did I need to state it? How more often did I need to state it?

Sadly, having been so insulting about the mass balance argument, and those that argue against him, Bartemis has backed himself into a corner where he can no longer admit he is wrong without looking utterly ridiculous. Hence his only option is to be ever more insulting and to indulge in this kind of rhetorical misrepresentation, which is why there is little point in trying to discuss this with him. I don’t need to insult Bartemis, as I am confident the science is correct.

Bartemis

It’s not an insult, DM, merely a fact. Your pseudo-mass balance argument is dumb as rocks, and you have no business inserting yourself into a discussion in an area for which you have no training or aptitude.

dikranmarsupial

So I point out that Bartemis had misrepresented the SkS article, and that he has backed himself into a position where he can no longer admit he is wrong without completely losing face, forcing him to resort to insults.

How does he reply? By showing that he hadn’t misrepresented the SkS article? No, by merely being insulting, as predicted (and thereby tacitly acknowledging that he had misrepresented the article). Very sad.

Bartemis

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

dikranmarsupial

Bartemis doubles down again, obviously because he can’t bring himself to admit that he misrepresented my argument, which did not claim that it is ” the offset in the rate of change of CO2 that produces the curvature of the absolute level of CO2.”, but instead shows the offset gives rise to the trend in atmospheric CO2.

Perhaps you would like to point out where I did claim that it is “the offset in the rate of change of CO2 that produces the curvature of the absolute level of CO2.” (emphasis mine).

Bartemis

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Bartemis

Response here.

The pseudo-mass balance argument is just so, so, so dumb.

dikranmarsupial

Bartemis makes it completely clear that he knows perfectly well that he misrepresented my argument, but can’t admit that is what he had done after having been so insulting. It is a shame that science cannot be discussed on blogs without descending to this sort of behaviour.

Bartemis

DM is a computer scientist. He has no training in dynamic systems analysis, and he has no idea what he is talking about. The pseudo-mass balance argument is junk science.