Scientists trace atmospheric rise in CO2 during deglaciation to deep Pacific Ocean
CORVALLIS, Ore. – Long before humans started injecting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal, the level of atmospheric CO2rose significantly as the Earth came out of its last ice age. Many scientists have long suspected that the source of that carbon was from the deep sea.
But researchers haven’t been able to document just how the carbon made it out of the ocean and into the atmosphere. It has remained one of the most important mysteries of science.
A new study, published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, provides some of the most compelling evidence for how it happened – a “flushing” of the deep Pacific Ocean caused by the acceleration of water circulation patterns that begin around Antarctica.
The concern, researchers say, is that it could happen again, potentially magnifying and accelerating human-caused climate change.
“The Pacific Ocean is big and you can store a lot of stuff down there – it’s kind of like Grandma’s root cellar – stuff accumulates there and sometimes doesn’t get cleaned out,” said Alan Mix, an Oregon State University oceanographer and co-author on the study. “We’ve known that CO2 in the atmosphere went up and down in the past, we know that it was part of big climate changes, and we thought it came out of the deep ocean.
“But it has not been clear how the carbon actually got out of the ocean to cause the CO2 rise.”
Lead author Jianghui Du, a doctoral student in oceanography at Oregon State, said there is a circulation pattern in the Pacific that begins with water around Antarctica sinking and moving northward at great depth a few miles below the surface. It continues all the way to Alaska, where it rises, turns back southward, and flows back to Antarctica where it mixes back up to the sea surface.
It takes a long time for the water’s round trip journey in the abyss – almost 1,000 years, Du said. Along with the rest of the OSU team, Du found that flow slowed down during glacial maximums but sped up during deglaciation, as the Earth warmed. This faster flow flushed the carbon from the deep Pacific Ocean – “cleaning out Grandma’s root cellar” – and brought the CO2 to the surface near Antarctica. There it was released into the atmosphere.
“It happened roughly in two steps during the last deglaciation – an initial phase from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, when CO2 rose by about 50 parts per million, and a second pulse later added another 30 parts per million,” Du said.
That total is just a bit less than the amount CO2 has risen since the industrial revolution. So the ocean can be a powerful source of carbon.
Brian Haley, also an Oregon State University oceanographer and co-author on the study, noted that carbon is always falling down into the deep ocean. Up near the surface, plankton grow, but when they die they sink and decompose. That is a biological pump that is always sending carbon to the bottom. “The slower the circulation,” Haley said, “the more time the water spends down there, and carbon can build up.”
Du said that during a glacial maximum, the water slows down and accumulates lots of carbon. “When the Earth began warming, the water movement sped up by about a factor of three,” he noted, “and that carbon came back to the surface.”
The key to the researchers’ discovery is the analysis of neodymium isotopes in North Pacific sediment cores. Haley noted that the isotopes are “like a return address label on a letter from the deep ocean.” When the ratio of isotope 143 to 144 is higher in the sediments, the water movement during that period was slower. When water movement speeds up during warming events, the ratio of neodymium isotopes reflects that too.
“This finding that the deep circulation sped up is the smoking gun in this mystery story about how CO2 got out to the deep sea,” Mix said. “We now know how it happened, and the deep Pacific is the culprit – a partner in crime with Antarctica.”
What concerns the researchers is that it could happen again as the climate continues to warm.
“We don’t know that the circulation will speed up and bring that carbon to the surface, but it seems like a reasonable thing to think about,” Du said. “Our evidence that this actually happened in the past will help the people who run climate models figure out whether it is a real risk for the future.”
The researchers say their findings should be considered from a policy perspective.
“So far the ocean has absorbed about a third of the total carbon emitted from fossil fuels,” Mix said. “That has helped slow down warming. The Paris Climate Agreement has set goals of containing warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees (Celsius) and we know pretty well how much carbon can be released to the atmosphere while keeping to that level.
“But if the ocean stops absorbing the excess CO2, and instead releases more from the deep sea, that spells trouble. Ocean release would subtract from our remaining emissions budget and that means we’re going to have to get our emissions down a heck of a lot faster. We need to figure out how much.”
The authors are from College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State, and from United States Geological Survey. The study was supported by the National Science Foundation.
The Study: Flushing of the deep Pacific Ocean and the deglacial rise of atmospheric CO2concentrations
Abstract
During the last deglaciation (19,000–9,000 years ago), atmospheric CO2increased by about 80 ppm. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for this change is a central theme of palaeoclimatology, relevant for predicting future CO2 transfers in a warming world. Deglacial CO2 rise hypothetically tapped an accumulated deep Pacific carbon reservoir, but the processes remain elusive as they are underconstrained by existing tracers. Here we report high-resolution authigenic neodymium isotope data in North Pacific sediment cores and infer abyssal Pacific overturning weaker than today during the Last Glacial Maximum but intermittently stronger during steps of deglacial CO2 rise. Radiocarbon evidence suggestive of relatively ‘old’ deglacial deep Pacific water is reinterpreted here as an increase in preformed 14C age of subsurface waters sourced near Antarctica, consistent with movement of aged carbon out of the deep ocean and release of CO2 to the atmosphere during the abyssal flushing events. The timing of neodymium isotope changes suggests that deglacial acceleration of Pacific abyssal circulation tracked Southern Hemisphere warming, sea-ice retreat and increase of mean ocean temperature. The inferred magnitude of circulation changes is consistent with deep Pacific flushing as a significant, and perhaps dominant, control of the deglacial rise of atmospheric CO2.
“The Pacific Ocean is big and you can store a lot of stuff down there – it’s kind of like Grandma’s root cellar – stuff accumulates there and sometimes doesn’t get cleaned out,” said Alan Mix, an Oregon State University oceanographer and co-author on the study.
“Grandma’s root cellar” and “”stuff accumulates”. Nothing screams SCIENCE like phrases like those.
That phraseology bothered me, too. It is as if you can’t write about science to people who know a decently wide vocabulary and are conversant with scientific terms. You must write down to them, folksy and chummy, in terms the kids at the mall can understand–not that most of their grannys ever had a root-cellar. ” . . . sometimes doesn’t get cleaned out” seems to be calling for a laxative, which is just another way of saying CO2 is waste, no-good stuff. My impression is that CO2 is not waste, but plant food.
You write the abstract for the people who paid for the study. They don’t necessarily want to know the entire calculus, they just want a layman’s term abstraction, along with confirmation, that whatever you are studying could indicate a crisis is in the works, that the agency could potentially “help.”
that verbiage isnt even in the abstract
Interesting.
I wonder about the age of the person that wrote that.
My grandmothers died before I was born. I’m told my mother’s family had a milk house over a cold spring where the milk often was watched over by a rattlesnake.
Not that I haven’t seen a root cellar. Just not recently.
Rob & John it is the most perfect of analogs. Why in Grandma’s root cellar you could find old coins vintage bottles and old news papers with headlines of heat waves in the 1930s or a coming ice age in the 1970s. And lets not forget all of the temperature records and weather reports just waiting to be rediscovered.
michael
When asked what happens when grandma loses control of her bodily functions, he probably said something like, “Depends.”
W.O.W…Just W.O.W….
Now it is a “CRIME to emit CO2 into the air. These scientists better learn to hold their breath for a very long time lest they are arrested for a crime against the Deep Green State
Nothing says BS to me like someone coming out with a string of scientific terms that his audience can’t possibly understand.
On the other hand …
The CO2 budget is poorly understood and has huge error bars. The alarmists claim they can balance the budget to within 1%. That’s also BS.
In particular, we are given CO2 residence times that range from four years to centuries. The alarmist message requires the latter.
It is highly likely that a great proportion of the CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere is from natural sources, including the deep ocean.
commieBob,
Individual CO2 fluxes are hardly known within any accuracy, but the overall budget is quite simple to know accurately: we have fossil fuel use inventories with reasonable accuracy (maybe underestimated…) and we have CO2 measurements with high accuracy. The difference is the total balance of the natural cycle.
As in the past 65 years the natural balance was always negative it is very unlikely that nature is the source of the CO2 increase…
Ferdinand,
You said, “As in the past 65 years the natural balance was always negative it is very unlikely that nature is the source of the CO2 increase…” Could you elaborate on that? The OCO-2 satellite maps show significant CO2 levels over the tropical oceans, but the supposed source of anthropogenic CO2 over land are difficult to discern. There appears to be a biological cycling of CO2, particularly in association with mid-latitude deciduous forests, but I don’t see the same thing over the tropical oceans.
Clyde,
I think they overestimated the possibilities of OCO-2 to detect the human influence: 4.5 ppmv human emissions/year is about 0.01 ppmv/day. Even concentrated in about 10% of the earth’s surface, still only 0.1 ppmv/day, hardly detectable by the satellite in daily changes of 100s of ppmv within e.g. a forest…
The natural cycles are huge, especially seasonal and all temperature driven. At the end of the full seasonal cycle there is little change in total CO2 and the cycle itself hardly changed between 60 years ago and today. The same for the main continuous CO2 flux between the upwelling in the tropical oceans and the polar sink places. What you see is the high emissions of equatorial waters (partly drifting over land), but that doesn’t say anything about the effect on total CO2 levels, as you need to subtract the sinks near the poles.
Then, there are still unexplained impossibilities in the satellite data: the main CO2 sink place in the N.E. Atlantic has high levels of CO2 while some 40 GtC CO2 sinks there every year into the deep oceans? The atmosphere is around 400 ppmv, the pCO2 of the ocean surface there is about 150 μatm, should lower the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a lot…
“still only 0.1 ppmv/day, hardly detectable by the satellite in daily changes of 100s of ppmv within e.g. a forest…”
And yet they need that level of precision to get the correlation of global levels measured from a single spot with SH SST and RSS.
Robert,
Mauna Loa and other stations are reference points which can be used to calibrate the satellite readings for the same point at the same time. No need for global levels if used for calibration only…
Ferdinand,
It’s not that simple, nor was the balance negative. There has never in human record keeping of co2 in the last 165 years has co2 been negative. In fact I suspect that some high percenrage of co2 that is in the increase is natural. When it warms up there is more co2 ppm/v. and when it cools down less ppm/v …..
rishrac,
That is a matter of solubility of CO2 in seawater, specifically for the surface waters. There is a shift of about 16 ppmv/K change in ocean surface temperatures. If we may assume that there was a warming of 1 K since the LIA, the maximum increase in atmospheric CO2 ould be 16 ppmv. About 116 ppmv above equilibrium for the current average ocean temperature is observed, thus some 100 ppmv is human caused…
Ferdinand,
How big are the sinks? I’ve been saying this since 2014, there is something wrong with the carbon cycle that AGW has trotted out. AGW likes to portray that the carbon cycle was so finely balanced that when we started burning fossil fuels, it showed up in the co2 record. In fact for a long time AGW was telling people how much the percentage of natural co2 as opposed to anthro co2 based on isotopes ratios. They can’t.
This at a time when it took 30 years or more to produce what we now produce in 1 year. This is also when there was a lot more forests and supposedly the oceans were cooler. Turning the ocean acidic is another story. And somehow in 30 years back at the start of Industrial times, the sinks just couldn’t take down the co2 that was being produced?
That ridiculous!!!!
I’ve look at this a lot, and I don’t know. You know factors like the salinity of the oceans, the standard temperature and pressure versus what the pressure and temperature actually are, the surface area….. all those waves increase the surface…. is there more surface area now than 100 years ago? How do you determine those factors?
In 1965 12 Billion Metric Tons of co2 was produced, 6 BMT by weight and volume became atmospheric co2 and 6 BMT went into the sink. In 2014, 38 BMT was produced, 19 BMT went into the sink per NOAA. The rise in atmospheric co2 was 2.23 ppm/v that year, so that’s a little over 12 BMT. Where did 7 BMT go to? This wasn’t a one off year. Every year is like this. The difference between what the sinks are capable of handling today is one and a half times greater than all of the co2 produced in 1965, and yet somehow when co2 production was much, much less, that co2 showed up in the record?
Further, in March of 2015 when I started talking about this subject and the apparent discrepancies between production and what was ending up in the atmosphere, NOAA and the European counter part started going on about ‘ world production levels of co2 have leveled off “. Sure I believe that. ( I don’t ) Year after year production was going up over a BMT a year.
This will give you an idea of how whacked out this story on this carbon cycle is, … ( and they keep doing studies to try to explain it…. just recently as highlighted here on WUWT, a paper on the southern ocean is leaking co2 ) No co2 ppm/v per year increase was higher than 1998 until 2017, another warm year, and then just barely, despite yearly increases of co2 production. The year 2017, the co2 increase should have been a minimum of 4 ppm/v up to 6 or 7. It was only 3.05 ppm/v barely above the 1998 of 2.98 ppm/v.
Want to know a AGW nightmare: co2 levels decline 20 ppm/v in a year and temps go up. Which is in opposition to what I’ve been saying that co2 follows temperature, proof is in the record. However, there could be an event that causes a decline in co2 and a temperature rise. A real one.
Accurate data is needed to do the best analysis of what the processes at work are. NOAA changing the data, and they did, to meet a political agenda is not helpful. CO2 follows temperature, follows peak to peak solar activity and follows cosmic ray activity. Direct conversion of co2 to carbon and oxygen is also a fact. The carbon found in the Arctic may not be all soot carried there. I also think that the SH a lot more direct conversion could be happening when the earth is at perihelion. I think if they look at core samples they might be able to see it. Short term and long term as the position of the earth changes during those times.
How would I know, they aren’t about to give me a grant to go study it, are they?
One further note, ALL of the increased production of co2 since 1998 (using the production of co2 in 1998 as the baseline ) has disappeared. And the reason for ” I don’t how how much of the co2 in the atmosphere is from us or natural ” because there is the little thing called the pause in temperature after 1998. Looks to me like co2 paused as well.
rishrac,
I have no way to validate (or invalidate) anything you claim in the above…and given that this is not something I’ve ever looked at, have no idea if it’s loony tunes or serious inquiry… (😁)
But just wanted to say I love comments like this one. You’ve clearly spent a lot of time thinking about this topic, and are asking some intriguing questions. You should dig in and write up your thoughts for Anthony as a head posting.
I think it might generate some truly interesting discussion here.
rip
@ ripshin,
Everything I’ve said can be validated. It really isn’t that hard if you have a knowledge of Excel or Google docs. The information is free of charge at NOAA. It has both temperature by month and co2 ppm/v by month from 1958. Charting is pretty easy. After you write the formula, you can copy and paste for the rest of the years…. you can subtract the dec 1998 co2 reading from dec 1997 gives you 2.75 ( or any month to start and end with or add the months up and divide by 12.) and so on… it’s pretty easy really.
( I should say at least for me .. if your good you can download the data directly into the spreadsheet that’ll save you time and errors )
Realizing that it’s not the total atmospheric co2 you are comparing but the yearly amounts co2 went will save you a few years. The fact that co2 follows temperature clearly wasn’t what I was looking for when I graphed it. It was from a discussion here on WUWT about the acceleration. I was looking for the yearly co2 ppm/v increase compared to the rate at which temperature was increasing.
After all according to the IPCC and assoc. adding more co2 is suppose to be exponential. What I got was a lot of ups and down with co2 that went up and down with temperature. NOAA did mess with it some, but everything is still there… they can’t change it too much.
I’m waiting for somebody to confirm it . This isn’t magic. It works and I am confident that anybody that does the same will get the same result…. and maybe see more in it than I do. … it’s repeatable and verifiable… real science.
The thing I thought was really exciting was the graph on co2 monthly levels for the year. It’s the exact same sine wave as the earth’s orbit around the sun…. it is temperature controlling co2!!!!!!!!! A eureka kind of moment… That’s why I go on about the 3 % distance the earth’s orbit out…. it a 4 C drop planet wide. during aphelion ( when it’s the greatest distance away)
rishrac,
You are not the first who tries to make something of the nice correlation between the variability in temperature and the variability in CO2 rate of change.
To keep it simpel:
The variability in the CO2 rate of change indeed follows the temperarature rate of change with a small lag, but that results only in a small +/- 1.5 ppmv variability around the 80+ ppmv trend over the past 60 years, here enlarged for the 1991 Pintubo and 1998 El Niño:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
The main cause of the CO2 rate of change variability is the response of mainly tropical forests on temperature changes and changed rain patterns.
That has nothing to do with the increase of CO2 itself, which is NOT caused by vegetation: vegetation is a small, but increasing sink for CO2, the earth is greening…
That has nothing to do with constant increasing man made co2 and temperature dropping and co2 following. This isn’t over a period of time where things change.
Besides that information is included in the sinks. It’s still short 7 BMT for 2014, and all the increased co2 since 1998. I think I said that.
I am saying that because of that, there is/has been warming but co2 wan’t driving it.
It’s small when you don’t want it to be and huge when you do. +/- 1.5 ppm/v is anything but small. It’s twice that when considering sinking. By atmospheric weight it’s 9 BMT. If it’s man made it’s 18 BMT allowing for half of it to be sunk.
rishrac,
Seasonal changes are the ones with the highest CO2 fluxes, but end with near zero change after a full yearly cycle.
Global impact: +/- 5 ppmv
ENSO and huge volcanic events impact temperatures for 1-3 years and then level off to near zero. Small, lagged effect on CO2 fluxes: +/- 3 GtC/year.
Global impact: +/- 1.5 ppmv
Humans continuously emit some 4.5 ppmv/year (9 GtC/year) nowadays. The impact of 4.5 ppmv/year extra results in an increase of about 2.15 ppmv/year (2012). The year by year natural variability is only noise and has no influence on the increase. As both oceans and vegetation are net sinks for CO2, the noise is in the variability of the sinks. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Average sink capacity increases with the increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: for the same drain diameter in a sink, a doubling of pressure (= height of the water in the sink), doubles the outflux…
rishrac,
A lot of questions you have… I had them too, but by looking at all evidence built over the years, I am now convinced that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 165 years is mainly man-made.
Let us start with the main CO2 fluxes between atmosphere and biosphere/oceans within a full year:
Based on O2 and δ13C changes, one can make reasonal estimates of these fluxes:
– Some 60 GtC as CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and the biosphere: absorbed in spring/summer/fall and released all year, but mainly in fall-winter-early spring.
– Some 50 GtC as CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean surface: released in spring/summer and absorbed in fall/winter.
As these fluxes are opposite to each other and opposite in the hemispheres, the net result is some 10 GtC (~5 ppmv) amplitude, mainly in the NH where most of the land/forests reside.
Note indeed that in the seasonal case, CO2 changes are opposite to temperature changes! Warmer = less CO2…
Here for Mauna Loa and Barrow:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Besides that, there is:
– Some 40 GtC/year as CO2 is continuous exchanged between the deep oceans and the atmosphere between the upwelling places near the equator and the sink places near the poles.
The 40 GtC/year is estimated from the “thinning” of the human “fingerprint”: If all human CO2 would have remained in the atmosphere the δ13C level would have dropped much faster than observed. That is independently confirmed by the decay rate of 14C from the atomic bomb tests:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
All these fluxes are caused by temperature: seasonal, with a lag of a few months for CO2 and continuous due to the temperature difference between equator and poles.
Then we have some large year by year variability in temperature, which causes some variability in the yearly rate of change of CO2, independent of any (human) emissions. Based on the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes, it is proven that the (tropical) forests are the dominant response, not the oceans. In general that levels off to near zero within 1-3 years with a maximum amplitude of 1.5 ppmv around the trend for the extremes (1991 Pinatubo, 1998 El Niño).
Here CO2 follows T with a lag, but in the same direction:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
Then we have the slow multi-year to multi-millennia changes: there is where the oceans dominate the CO2 changes, following temperature changes with decades to millennia…
Then we have humans adding a little CO2 each year in that more or less equilibrated circus.
In the first years, little happens and a little extra CO2 (as mass!) remains in the atmosphere, within the natural – temperature caused – variability.
As humans add more and more CO2, CO2 levels in the atmosphere start to increase. That doesn’t change the base of the seasonal cycle, which is temperature driven, but it adds a little to how much CO2 is stored into more permanent organics (roots, peat, -brown-coal) and it reduces the input from the equatorial upwelling and increases the output into the deep ocean sinks near the poles somewhat.
How much? According to the data over the past 60 years, quite linear in ratio with the increase in CO2 above the temperature controlled dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere, with a half life time of ~35 years.
Thus how much the CO2 increase will be in a given year, depends of:
1. human emissions.
2. temperature changes.
3. total extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which determines the sink rate.
Besides the temperature variability, in average the increase in the atmosphere is about half human emissions which is pure coincidence: it would be zero if humans reduced their input in half, or ir would be zero after a long time, if the emissions were constant or it would be negative if humans reduced their input to below half.
The factor 2 is only the result of the slightly quadratic increase of emissions over time and resulting slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and in sinks…
Thus in short: the sink base didn’t change, but the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increased from near zero in 1750 to 115 μatm in 2018…
Fredinand,
The are no negative numbers since pre Industrial times in the co2 record. This fine equilibrium that is put forth in the carbon cycle is wrong.
Factor 2: Temperature is the driver.
There is a definite day of the year when total atmospheric co2 stops increasing. That day is when the earth is moving away from the sun. The rate of increase declines and goes to zero. After that co2 levels start to decline, and they continue to decline until the earth reaches a point where the decline stops ( by atmospheric weight it’s more than the sum total of all the current co2 produced in a year ) and the the numbers build back up as the earth warms back up.
I think that at that number where the earth is at the temperature when co2 levels stop increasing and goes to zero, if it gets cold below that number you will see co2 start to go negative.
I can point out episodes in the last 60 years where the temp dropped and co2 ppm/v increase also dropped. And when temps went up co2 ppm/v went up. That’s a fact.
Everything else is speculation and needs to be driven by that fact. When you provide the science that supports what I see in the observation, then we will know something.
We don’t know any more about climate than we did 60 years ago. In fact we may have known more.
While I don’t think that I’ve totally disagreed that we have added some co2 to the atmosphere, the percentage is. And for 2 reasons:
1. I don’t trust the record for the MWP and LIA on co2. And the reason I don’t trust them is that it was both colder and warmer than present. Being that there is geologic, written, and biologic evidence that supports that view, what’s in disagreement is the co2 record.
2. The combination of the sinks and temperature.
How big are the sinks? By today’s volume of co2 there is no reason at all that any of the co2 should have been positive… Unless there was an underlying trend… warmer.
During any time period co2 follows the time.
There will be world wide chaos if temperatures drop. No amount of money will save you.
One other thing, the current levels of co2 are the highest they been in a very long time. During a couple of the last periods between ice ages the temperature was warmer than it is now. What do you think the reason is for the discrepancy between more co2 and lower temperatures?
We are 126 ppm/v over pre Industrial times, what should the temperature be? Or my new question how many ppm/v raises the temperature 1 C. That way it can be verified. Some one said 357 ppm/v. That seems an awful lot.
rishrac,
The are no negative numbers since pre Industrial times in the co2 record.
As the short term variability (El Niño) levels off in 1-3 years and the best performing ice cores have a resolution of about 10 years, we simply don’t know.
That day is when the earth is moving away from the sun.
For the NH. For the SH it is exactly the opposite. As the NH has a higher forest to ocean ratio, the NH is dominant. Of course the position of the earth is important, as that gives the seasonal temperature changes, but the temperature change is what drives the CO2 change, not the position of the earth directly.
I can point out episodes in the last 60 years where the temp dropped and co2 ppm/v increase also dropped
The focus is on “ppmv increase dropped”, as even in that case the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere still increased. The variability in CO2 rate of change is (near) entirely caused by the influence of temperature variability on the sink capacity of the natural sinks. Even so, the average impact on the increase is near zero after 1-3 years.
I don’t trust the record for the MWP and LIA on co2
The resolution of the ice core CO2 record is too coarse to see fast changes, still the best record shows the influence of the LIA: minus 6 ppmv for a drop of about 0.8 K, with a lag of ~50 years after the temperature drop. From Etheridge (1996) e.a.:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_1000yr.jpg
How big are the sinks?
Depends of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. If there is no extra CO2 in the atmosphere, there are no extra sinks. With 50 ppmv extra there is a sink of about 1 ppmv/year. With 110 ppmv extra the sink is 2.15 ppmv/year. Highly linear as observed in the past 60 years of measurements.
There will be world wide chaos if temperatures drop.
Not at all: a sudden drop of 1 K will give a drop of 16 ppmv, that is fully compensated by less than 4 years of human emissions at 4.5 ppmv/year.
Or my new question how many ppm/v raises the temperature 1 C.
Firste the opposite: 3 million of seawater samples have proven that the equilibrium between seawater CO2 and atmospheric CO2, changes with about 16 ppmv/K. Thus if all 115 ppmv was caused by warming oceans, the temperature should need to have increased with about 7 K, which is not what is observed…
Second: theoretically, a doubling of CO2 (560 ppmv) causes an increase of about 1 K (Modtran). In real life it seems less (ice cores) in climate models a lot more, but the performance of these is rather questionable…
I’m waiting for the light bulb to go on in your head. That’s all I talked about was drops. You talked about 1998. Let’s talk about 1998 specifically. You know the year before the co2 was less as well as the year after and all the years up 2017. What I didn’t talk about was that 1998 we didn’t produce enough co2 to make the ppm/v that high. What drove 9 BMT to be in the atmosphere? or 1.5 ppm/v that we didn’t produce? Was it hiding somewhere?
The way I see it is that last year, 2017, was the 1st year that co2 production matched what was found in the atmosphere. Therefore I can concluded that the actual temperature has been declining.
The orbit of the earth is extremely important. Of course it’s just the opposite in one hemisphere than the other. That has nothing to do with the total TSI the earth receives at aphelion. It’s 5 Million Km further away. The energy flux drops more than 3%, I told you it’s the inverse power law. Additionally, because of Kepler’s law, it’s out there longer.
It is temperature controlling co2. The total uptake in the production is included in the NH. From May to October the amount of co2 being sequestered somewhere is truly staggering. For 2017, not only all of co2 produced during that time became sequestered, but 42 BMT of atmospheric co2 became sequestered in addition to. That is more than we produced all year. A temperature drop below a certain level will cause atmospheric co2 levels to drop. This isn’t some guess work, this happened.
rishrac,
You are overfocused on the short term variability.
Short term variability is caused by temperature variability. Everybody agrees on that: all sceptics, the IPCC, NOAA,…
See Pieter Tans of NOAA at (from sheet 11 on):
https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
The seasonal temperature changes are huge and so are the seasonal CO2 changes.
The year by year temperature changes are smaller and so are the year by year CO2 rate of change changes.
At the end of the year, the net CO2 effect of the seasons is near zero.
After a few years, the net CO2 effects of Pinatubo or El Niño are near zero.
It is proven that seasonal and year by year effects are mainly the response of vegetation on temperature changes (but opposite to each other!).
It is proven that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is NOT caused by vegetation, as vegetation is a net, proven, increasing, sink for CO2:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
We find the average CO2 uptake by the ocean and the land biosphere was 1.7 ± 0.5 and 1.0 ± 0.6 GtC/yr respectively
It is proven that warming oceans are NOT the cause of the increase, only a small part of it, because of the solubility change with temperature is too small. The oceans are a net, proven, increasing, sink for CO2:
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
This map yields an annual oceanic uptake flux for CO2 of 2.2 ± 0.4 Pg C/yr
In contrast, humans emit in average twice the amount of CO2 than the measured increase in the atmosphere.
It doesn’t matter at all if one year more than all human emissions of that year are absorbed and the next year the increase is more than what humans emitted. That is just completely unimportant noise and doesn’t affect the cause and effect case for human emissions averaged over a few years
About spurious correlations which “prove” that temperature is the cause of the overall CO2 increase:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/25/about-spurious-correlations-and-causation-of-the-co2-increase-2/
Rishrac, this is hugely a important concept to discuss. Well stated.
Thank you, I’ve looked at this a long time.
They have already shown that approx. 50% of the CO2 is produced by nature and it is one of the main reasons plant life started to spread all over the planet. Without CO2 in the atmosphere all life except for a few species of microbes would die.
CO2 never “accumulates” in Earth’s atmosphere.
It circulates to and from much larger surface pools, both ocean and biological.
Just like a river flows from sources to sinks. Water never accumulates in a river, it just flows.
River levels do rise when inputs to watersheds exceed outflows. And vice versa.
Exactly. The same is happening with atmospheric CO2.
bwegher,
I don’t see it that way: the atmosphere, soils, oceans,… are reservoirs for CO2, not active fluxes. There are lots of active fluxes (“rivers”) at work which exchange CO2 between the different reservoirs. If there is more influx than outflux in one of the reservoirs, CO2 will accumulate in that reservoir. Which is currently the case for the atmosphere…
commieBob,
In addition, the residence time for any CO2 molecule, whatever the origin, in the atmosphere indeed is only a few years. But that has nothing to do with how fast (or slow) an extra shot of CO2 above equilibrium is removed out of the atmosphere, that is about 51 years. The hundreds of years is from the IPCC’s Bern model, for which not the slightest proof of saturation of the deep oceans is in sight…
You can see the difference between the two decay times as the throughput of goods (and capital) through a factory (=residence time) and the gain (or loss) of the same factory after a fiscal year (=your return on investment). Quite different things…
Your 51 years claim has no basis in reality, and is directly refuted by observed radiocarbon tracer showing tau of 18 years.
No real scientist will ever cite your convoluted claims when the real world experiment has already shown the conclusive reality.
bwegher,
Please, the 51 years claim is based on real life data over the past 60 years and is surprisingly linear with the extra CO2 pressure above the dynamic equilibrium.
Residence time = content / throughput:
800 GtC / 150 GtC/year = 5.3 years
E-fold decay rate = cause / effect:
= extra pressure in the atmosphere / net sink rate:
In 1959: 25 ppmv / 0.5 ppmv/year = 50 years, half life time 34.7 years
In 1959: 60 ppmv / 1.13 ppmv/year = 53 years, half life time 36.8 years
In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years or a half life time of 35.5 years.
There is a problem with the use of the 14C decay rate from the atomic bomb tests: what goes out of the atmosphere does return only after some 1,000 years. Thus while high levels 14CO2 sink into the deep oceans, only 45% returns the same year (at the bomb peak), while 97.5% of all 12CO2 returns the same year. That makes that the decay rate of any extra 14CO2 is much faster than of any extra 12CO2.
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
Sorry, the second decay rate calculation is from 1988, not 1959…
One has to wonder just who the expected or intended reading audience was.
Sadly one often has to “dumb down” science to analogies a 3rd grader would understand, quite frankly because the majority of Americans have only a 3rd grade level of science understanding. Not everyone has a comprehension of scales and sizes of things, not even some well educated scientists.
“A scientist can calculate a number, but it takes and engineer to make you understand just how big a sh!tload that is.”
rocketscientist,
That is the point! Were they writing for other scientists, or was it intentionally written as propaganda for the scientifically illiterate?
It’s meant for politicians and MSM who, too often, have the comprehension of 3rd graders (no offense to 3rd graders, some are better than the two afore mentioned…..)
Talk to a water operator or a limnologist. i think “turnover” could cause a release. Cold water from the surface falls and displaces a warmer blob stratified below to the surface. happens all the time in lakes and ponds. On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock.
yes as popper argued, you can reject science merely by looking at the bad metaphors used by scientists when trying to explain compkex phenomena to the popular press.
bad metaphor means its false.
who knew that an art critic could reject science so easily. wuwt readers are razor sharp.
Instead of your usual drive-by comment, you are actually putting your English background to good use through creative sarcasm. Keep up the good work! But, I still maintain that when authors appear to be writing for a lay audience, rather than their peers, it raises the question of whether their purpose is to communicate science or to promote propaganda. If the latter, then it doesn’t matter what Popper would have thought.
I learned about Granny’s root cellar when she made Jethro dig one out next to the cement pond.
Why do they insist on labeling CO2 “Carbon”??
Carbon is the new Satan whereas CO2 is literally the stuff of life, the vector by which all life on the planet flourishes. The eco science einzatsgruppenfuhrers can’t have any confusion about any of that. It would complicate the job they have to and are paid to do.
In Carbon Bondage.
Everybody seems to forget life on this planet IS carbon-based without it life here would not exist..
They’re racists.
Moleculists perhaps
Eric H,
There is a good scientific reason to call it the carbon cycle, as CO2 is only CO2 in the atmosphere. In the oceans it is 1% CO2, 90% bicarbonates and 9% carbonates. In vegetation it is transformed into a lot of carbohydrates (sugars, starch, cellulose,…) and other compounds. Thus to make comparisons and flows easier to calculate and follow, everything is calculated as carbon…
The same reason as why in agriculture one follows the phosphor cycle (although mostly phosphate), the nirogen cycle (mostly nitrate and/or ammonium), the potash cycle…
In a discussion of such cycles, yes, it makes sense to speak of only carbon, but when the discussion is clearly about carbon DIOXIDE, and an attempt is made to conflate THIS discussion with a more generalized discussion, then we are no longer in the realm of “sense” but in the realm of sensationalizing, as the word plays on emotions by associating what is dirty and evil with what is black (i.e., coal).
Robert,
I know, some make it carbon “pollution”, but the origin was simply scientific: the carbon cycle and not the CO2 cycle, even if one theoretically can calculate everything as CO2 “equivalents”: it is not CO2 that is cycling, it is CO2 only in the atmosphere and that is only 1% or so of all carbon on earth…
CO2 is also found in the soil as well as methane, it is produced by organic matter decomposing.
John,
Most of what is buried into soils is organics: carbon compounds like cellulose and lignin. That is decomposed by bacteria and molds to CH4 and CO2, which escapes to the atmosphere and is part of the biological carbon cycle. One can call that the “CO2 cycle”, but that isn’t the case for 99% of the cycle…
And one of the things this “study” is glossing over is “what oxidises the carbon in the sediment?”
Nobody uses the term “nitrogen pollution”.
sure they do. There is a fancy word for it though. Eutrophication is almost always too much organic nitrogen in the water. Eutrophication is almost always induced by the discharge of nitrate or phosphate-containing detergents, fertilizers, or sewage into an aquatic system.
“The same reason as why in agriculture one follows the phosphor cycle (although mostly phosphate), the nirogen cycle (mostly nitrate and/or ammonium), the potash cycle…”
Not really, as a farmer we try to have all those nutrients in the soil for the planets to uptake as it is needed, true early in planting nitrogen is needed for vegetation growth but so are phosphate and potash. As the growth of the plant continues nitrogen is used up to a degree as the plants requires it and when fruiting starts to happen the plant uses more of the other nutrient to complete it’s growth.
It’s the plant itself that decides what it needs and wants at each stage of growth to grow properly, this can easily been seen when doing organic gardening/farming. Personally I dump all kinds of organic matter on the soil before the winter is over work it in then in spring time I plant the veggies and during the growing season I do nothing but give it water when needed nothing else, the plant uses the nutrients as it is needed.
John,
I fully agree (was on organic gardener myself in my -small- family garden)…
As you see in your own words: you use the term “nitrogen used” by the plants, while it is in fact mostly nitrates which are absorbed.
Several people here object to the use of the words “carbon cycle” with a vision of black carbon floating around, while that term is only used to follow any element from point to point, in whatever form it may be incorporated…
Because everyone knows Carbon is Black and Dirty
Bryan A
..”everyone knows Carbon is Black and Dirty”….
I wouldn’t describe my wife’s diamond ring as ‘black and dirty’ !!?
Cheers
Just give that little clear stone a bit of pressure and see what color it crushes into.
Diamonds are a good way to sequester carbon though
why?
must be a conspiracy.
Oh you little Conspiracy Ideationist you
Lots of hand-wavium going on here in this paper.
They’re just trying to say when the ocean gets warmer, it releases more CO2…
..and when it gets colder it sucks up more
but 80ppm ain’t squat
No, their use of neodymium isotopic ratio as a proxy measure for the Pacific over-turning current flow speed is dubious. Alterations to Neodymium isotope ratios at the millennial time scale could easily come from submarine volcanic flows and hot smoker mineral laden deep waters, of which there are copious amounts of both on the Pacific floors. So they think they are seeing flow speeds alone with that ratio, when is could just be jumbled mess meaning nothing. Like seeing patterns in clouds.
I wonder just how accurate the neodymium proxy is. Remember treemometers?
The deep oceans are the main sources and sinks for CO2, that is clear, but the CO2 level in the atmosphere is determined by the average seawater temperature of the surface layer, not by the deep oceans.
There is a quite linear ratio between Antarctic temperatures over the past 800,000 years of about 8 ppmv/K. Translated towards global temperatures, that is about 16 ppmv/K. Not by coincidence the change of the solubility of CO2 in seawater:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
Most of the discrepancies are the result of the (huge) lag of CO2 after the temperature rise and especially the temperature drop towards a new glacial period
Also important: the glacial-interglacial transition needed 5,000 years to push 80-100 ppmv extra in the atmosphere or a “speed” of maximum 0.02 ppmv/year while the current increase is over 2 ppmv/year (and human emissions 4.5 ppmv/year).
In the first case, it was quite easy to reach an equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels, while we are now 110 ppmv above equilibrium for the current average ocean temperature…
Equilibrium? What does that mean exactly? Why does it matter if we are 110 ppmv above some arbitrary number? Why does the speed matter? Seems to me you are trying to say something useful but instead are dancing around the AGW talking points.
CO2 in the atmosphere is the effect. When science gets around to figuring out all the causes (like ocean circulation patterns) then we might be able to predict the effect.
Lance,
Over the past 800,000 years or so in ice cores (supported by a few million years of foramin proxies), there is a nice correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That correlation has been broken in the past 165 years (or beyond): levels are now 110 ppmv higher than should be for the current average ocean surface temperature.
The mass balance shows that humans have emitted about twice the increase in the atmosphere and in the past 60 years in every year nature was more sink than source.
You don’t need to known anything of any natural source or sink: nature as a whole was always more sink than source, thus not the cause of the increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Thus, yes in the past 800,000 years and beyond, CO2 was the effect of temperature changes. In the past 165 years, CO2 is the source of a possible (small) effect on temperature.
The cause of the CO2 increase is one of the few points (if not the only) where the “consensus” is rock solid, so it is not smart of sceptics to insist on a non-human sources of the increase, as that simply undermines the very good arguments we have on the effects of the increase…
I seem to recall that CO2 rises lag temperature rises – as measured in ice core samples? So while there may be a correlation, one can simply not assume that the CO2 is causing the rise in temperature, but it is far more likely (given the correlation) that temperature rise is causing an increase in CO2 (possibly through rising ocean temperatures and effects on plant life).
I also seem to recall that the “explanation” is that temperature does not really go up first, but that air trapped in the ice is younger than the surrounding ice so the measurement is skewed enough that CO2 is really the culprit… So…either CO2 is not causing the temperature to start rising (but might contribute some to the overall warming), or the ice core samples are very blurry on measuring CO2 concentrations versus temperature and are therefore open to all sorts of interpretations. Either way, the “straight forward” belief that everyone accepts CO2 causes all or most of the warming is simply not proven per scientific methods. At best, one can state it “may” cause most of the warming.
Given that the last 20 years has seen a remarkable increase in CO2 released into the atmosphere by developing countries, and that acceleration of temperature rise seems to be immune to this, one can also conclude that CO2 does not play the simple role of “Climate Temperature Control” some espouse it to be.
Meant with all due respect, you can hold whatever beliefs you want, but so can others. It is what can be demonstrated using scientific methods that we should be focused on. The science so far is still not conclusive, so it is not only fair but scientific to remain skeptical.
Robert,
Most scientists agree that in the past, temperature changed first and CO2 levels followed temperature. That doesn’t exclude a (small) role of CO2 in the warming (or cooling), as long as that is small to modest. According to models, that is more at the “modest” side, according to ice cores, that is at the small side.
Ice cores air bubbles and ice are not buried synchronous, as pores still may be open to air for years to centuries after the snow accumulated. So there can be discussion about the timing of what started first when deglaciations started. There is no discussion possible about the opposite: CO2 starts to go down thousands of years after the temperature drops to new cold levels.
The problem then is in the past 165 years: the correlation is what it was for the past few million years, but now we are some 115 ppmv above that ratio. That can’t be caused by temperature. As humans have emitted about 200 ppmv over the same period and every single observation points to human emissions as the source, then it is obvious that humans are the cause. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
One can discuss the effect of the 110+ ppmv increase – in my opinion very small – but any further discussion about the cause of the CO2 increase is a lost battle and doesn’t do any good to the cedibility of the real good arguments that sceptics have about the minor role of CO2 in any recent warming…
Ferdinand
You will see here the increased accumulation at 100km altitude. At this altitude it is the last bus stop to space, one way traffic only. It should be interpreted as a pass through rate. Space is one of the largest destinations for CO2 and is never even considered in the budget. The periods of NH winter and the June to September are the primary transport periods. Part of earths breathing cycle.
Regards
https://phys.org/news/2012-11-atmospheric-co2-space-junk.html
Ozonebust,
As far as I remember, only hydrogen (and to a smaller extent helium) is light enough to escape the gravity forces of the earth. So I don’t think that CO2 will get out, or we should have not existed on a planet without the lighter O2 and N2 molecules…
Still interesting that the CO2 increase reaches the highest atmosphere, even with a long lag…
Very interesting. I”m this will be viewed in the context of warming started by humans, which triggered a series of events that will accelerate warming and kill us all. But it’s empirically equivalent to the view that the warming so far has been natural, so it gains the AGW crowd nothing in that sense, and actually undermines the thesis that humans are responsible for the warming so far. If this is true, it helps explain the observation that in the past warming has preceded CO2 increases, which had nothing to do with AGW. Am I right?
it’s like they’ve never heard of Lake Nyos
It makes sense if the oceans have a part to play in the global CO2 distribution, being 70% of the planet’s surface, but this only enforces the fact that we still have a lot to learn. CO2 levels have varied significantly historically for many reasons – and evidence with correlation to warming is not overwhelming. Should we not close the door just yet and study more Nature’s cycles?
Why study more of nature’s cycles when we have a few thousand years of studying so far of it? Nature is going to do what nature wants to do there is nothing we can do to control what it does.
So these guys are claiming global warming speeds up overturning circulation.
And then there is this piece of junk science from Stefan Rahmstorf’s group at Pottsdam Institute, as reported in 2015 by the fake climate news outlet WaPo:
“Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences
Q: So Which is it?
A: It is whatever they need it to be to bring home the grant money gravey train.
…and the heat hiding in the deep ocean slows it down
Let them try and figure that one out
Maybe they are talking about the underwater volcanic vents releasing heat and CO2 which like land-based volcanic activity releases the same things?
Too bad they don’t understand there is not one thing humans can do about it.
Well they’ve “proved” 2 of the 3 possible states and decided both are bad. Speeds up, bad, slows down, also bad. Now they just need to figure out a way to show that no change is bad too, and that we caused it, and all bases will be covered. It’s settled.
No change is also bad.
see IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, page 8:
“There is no observational evidence of a trend in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), based on the decade-long record of the complete AMOC and longer records of individual AMOC components. {3.6}”
Whatever happens is bad, and it’s all the fault of capitalism in particular and evil humanity in general.
joelobryan,
Good find! Even within the “consensus” there is no consensus which way it goes…
Even so, the speed of overturning deep ocean waters doesn’t influence atmospheric CO2 levels one ppmv, as long as the overturning removes as much CO2 where it sinks in cold polar waters as it releases in warm areas where the waters return to the surface.
The deep oceans contain about 38,000 GtC, mainly as bicarbonates. 100 ppmv extra in the atmosphere is about 50 GtC as CO2. The change in the deep oceans then is simply negligible.
The same for the circulation speed: the current CO2 exchange between atmosphere and deep oceans is about 40 GtC/year, both directions. Even if you increase that a tenfold, that doesn’t change anything in the atmosphere. Only the difference between the sources and the sinks does that.
The 80-100 ppmv extra CO2 in 5,000 years only needed a difference of 0.01 GtC/year between the deep ocean upwellings and the deep ocean sinks to give the difference, no matter if the historical exchange was 40 or 400 GtC/year…
“But it has not been clear how the carbon actually got out of the ocean to cause the CO2 rise.”
If I were a lawyer I would object because he makes assumptions not in evidence. How does he know that the CO2 rise didn’t have a different cause? The only reason we can discount is that it was human caused.
The only pure Carbon molecule that I know of is diamond. Other than that, what other atoms were the Carbon atoms attached to? What happened to them either in the Ocean or atmosphere?
I have read that atmospheric CO2 was roughly 250 ppm during the pre industrial period. (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)
“It happened roughly in two steps during the last deglaciation – an initial phase from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, when CO2 rose by about 50 parts per million, and a second pulse later added another 30 parts per million,” Du said.
In other words, the CO2 level 20000 years ago was roughly 170ppm, below starvation level for plants.
How are we here?
Graphite is also a pure carbon compound, and, like diamond, is also not CO2.
I stand corrected. Thank You. As Roseanne Roseannadanna said…”It’s always something.”
Those are both crystalline forms of carbon. It can also exist in an amorphous form.
Also graphene (an atomic monolayer of graphite) and fullerenes, the spherical forms of which are called Buckyballs.
We are here because your figures are wrong obviously, if they were right we wouldn’t be talking about them.
It didn’t affect us. It’s only our ancestors that were wiped out.
Grandma does not like tall tales about her root cellar. Give back the cookie jar now and we’ll talk it over about what has been learned.
The “carbon” released is just a bit less than that released since the industrial rev by humans. This is the fake news riding on the study. Even if they actually got the mechanism right, the accuracy indicated by this statement is completely bogus. And why is it that they can’t go with the good news. They have to use it to scare us about what might jump out at us from Grandma’s root cellar. Perhaps this is more transition lit back out of the alarmist hell that we have seen much of of late.
To me the most important aspect seems that these Nature authors explicitly say (although of course not in their Abstract) that the CO2 rise is the consequence and not the cause of the temperature rise.
Yep.
Well of course, Ocean Temperatures needed to rise to force the release of CO2 into the atmosphere…Cold Water holds more CO2
This is the stake through the heart of the CAGW hypothesis. No warmist has ever given a convincing explanation of why CO2 always changes AFTER temperature.
Wilt,
With the exception of a few, most scientists – even in the IPCC – accept that historically CO2 follows temperature. What they insist is that in the past 165 years – and beyond – humans have added a lot of CO2 above what is “normal” for the current (ocean) temperature as seen over the past 800,000 years in ice cores. That gives (part) of the temperature rise since about 1950, according to the IPCC.
The lag of CO2 after temperature during the last deglaciation says nothing about the (probably small) effect of the 110 ppmv CO2 rise in the past 165 years on temperature…
it is both.
Of course the science of carbon absorption and emission by the ocean—and planet-wide—is well-understood, all sources of carbon emissions and all carbon “sinks” are accounted for and well-defined, and we know with absolute certainty that only human fossil fuel use and land-use changes are increasing the CO2 saturation of the atmosphere. Uh-huh, right.
It couldn’t possibly be that CO2 is being dredged up by the deep ocean and released into the atmosphere already. Ocean-dredged CO2 is only a problem when it can be used to paint a nightmare scenario of dramatically accelerating human CO2 emissions. It can’t possibly be a primary contributor of CO2 emissions all by itself. Because the science is settled.
stinkerp,
You don’t need to know anything of any natural flow to know that the oceans ánd vegetation are sinks for CO2, not sources.
We know with reasonable accuracy global fossil fuel use and its CO2 emissions. We know with high accuracy the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The difference between these two is what nature releases or absorbs.
Currently about half what humans emit (as mass, not the original molecules) is absorbed by oceans and vegetation.
the study author said
“So far the ocean has absorbed about a third of the total carbon emitted from fossil fuels,”
That would mean that the land has absorbed 43% of the total carbon emitted from fossil fuels since the land sinks are 33% higher than the ocean sink. Therefore the remaining 24% emitted by man has ended up in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere exchanges 23 times the amount of CO2 with the oceans and land , than man puts into the atmosphere every year. And even with that input by man , the net CO2 increase is only 2 ppm by volume per year and this net increase % of CO2 in the atmosphere hasnt changed much nor accelerated. Considering that we have been heavily emitting fossil fuels since 1950, then that would seem to negate their argument that there is a tipping point for ocean CO2 absorption. If there was a tipping point and that we were getting near the tipping point, you would see a large change in net CO2 in the atmosphere. The data does not support that.
When I say that the land sinks are higher than the ocean, what I mean is the yearly exchange. Even though the total amount of carbon in the oceans is 2 times that of on land, the amount of interchange per year is more with the land than with the oceans. So the focus of the study seems to be on the minor player here. Land and plants are a bigger yearly delta exchange than the oceans are. The oceans exchange is much more dependent on temperature changes. Alarmists always point to might, possibly could, models show, calculations show, statistics show, and every other wanna be conclusion NOT supported by the facts. The fact is; net CO2 in atmosphere goes up 1/2% per year Since 1200 ppm by volume would be ideal for plants, it will take 216 years to get there. GO China Go.
Alan,
While it is true that the seasonal biological cycle is larger than the ocean cycle, it is the oceans which were responsible for the increase in CO2, as the increase in biomass during interglacials is far larger than during glacial periods, biomass is an inreasing sink with higher temperatures…
Alan,
The “tipping point” is based on the Bern model, which assumes a saturation of different sinks at different levels of CO2 emissions.
The only reservoir where that is proven is the ocean surface. That has a fast exchange rate with the atmosphere (less than a year), but because of chemistry, is already in equilibrium at 10% of any change in the atmosphere.
That isn’t the case (yet) for the deep oceans, where any CO2 that sinks with the waters is isolated from the atmosphere for some 1000 years and the cold sinking waters near the poles are highly undersaturated in CO2.
That is aboslutely not the case for the biosphere, which only grows better with more CO2.
In reality, the oberved sink rate still is the same now as 60 years ago (about 51 years e-fold or 35 years half life time) and there is no sign of saturation in sight…
Ferd.
Nice to see you around again.
Not read all of your comments here, but if you do not mind, can you clarify your position for me in one given point
Do you accept or not, that in the last period of ~ 2 decades the CO2 concentration has increased but still there seems to be no any signature of any acceleration of it detected or observed???
Whiten,
I haven’t looked at the latest figures, but the economical crisis has made that during several years, human emissions didn’t acellerate and were rather constant. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere still increase with a constant supply above the sink rate, the sink rate increased and the increase in the atmosphere therefore didn’t accellerate.
According to what I have read, 2017 was a new record year in CO2 increase, thanks to increased emissions (thanks to China…), but I haven’t seen the official figures yet…
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
Hello Ferd
Thanks for the response
You seem to accept that there is no any CO2 concentration acceleration during the last 2 decades, the period of the warming hiatus, the period of no further warming.
Unless you do not accept the hiatus, then you need to seriously consider that a lack of a similar hiatus in the CO2 yearly emission wold create a condition of CO2 concentration acceleration.
As far as I can tell anthropogenic CO2 emission does not have any thing to do with a hiatus what so ever, regardless of any acrobatics.
cheers
As I understand the ratio, a bit less than 60% of C02 comes from the ocean, and a bit less than 40% comes from animal (including humans) respiration.
IPCC shows CO2 flux of about 80 petagrams/yr for ocean, and 120 pg/yr for land biology.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
Sure, let’s base all our policies on ‘if’, ‘might’, and scary speculation. The lower classes will die out faster by implementing them and save the global planners from waiting on climate to accomplish their attrition.
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”there is a circulation pattern in the Pacific that begins with water around Antarctica sinking and moving northward at great depth a few miles below the surface. It continues all the way to Alaska, where it rises, turns back southward, and flows back to Antarctica where it mixes back up to the sea surface.”
If the water rises near Alaska and turns back southward, wouldn’t it release the CO2 in the tropical areas of the Pacific (where it is in contact with warmer air and more sunshine) rather than near Antarctica, where the air is cold and the sea is ice-covered half the year?
Also, if the water’s round trip takes “almost 1,000 years”, is Mr. Du predicting a sudden jump in CO2 concentrations around the year 3000? Wouldn’t that give mankind plenty of time to deal with the consequences?
For far too long climate scientists have been getting away with this nonsense.
All the world’s media and politicians keep saying that there are more extreme weather events now than before. The climate scientists have fed them this false information . Here is Canada’s tornado data. I have asked Environment Canada where is the data after 2009?
https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/65658050-7a80-4da3-9a09-da137c203a34
Canada’s tornado data like every other tornado data in the world DOES NOT SHOW ANY INCREASE IN ACTIVITY. The same goes for every other extreme weather event except for river hillcrest overflow which shows minor increase.
THERE ARE NO MORE TORNADOS,HURRICANES/CYCLONES,FLOODS,WILDFIRES,STORMS,DROUGHTS, NOR SURFACE TEMPERATURE EXTREMES THAN THERE EVER WERE.
THE BIG LIE OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS HAS NOT BEEN COUNTERED BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. In fact climate scientists like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt keep pushing this lie. Is there no honour left in this world or is it all groupthink and religion?
“Is there no honour left in this world or is it all groupthink and religion?”
Didn’t you get the memo? Humans are BAD and capitalist humans are even worse. Honour is a bourgeois concept and does not apply to freedom fighters saving the world from humanity.
Humm,
And where exactly does that 500 year to 800year after warming when the CO2 levels peak, as is evident in the ice-core data, come into this argument? Do the ocean cycles hold the key to why there is this lag period? Can “the analysis of neodymium isotopes in North Pacific sediment cores.” be used to to shine a light on this lagging CO2 increase after warming periods.
The Medieval Climate Optimum was how long ago?
Never miss a chance to balyhoo CO2 as a poison gas, do they?
There is no science behind GCM code
****************************************************************************************************************************************8
In an earlier posting I detailed that it was not possible to calculate the emission profile of a gas because the Voight profile equation has no closed form solution. In addition that equation is only good for grey bodies or blackbodies that have an emission spectrum that is independent of any variance in electromagnetic properties. Gases like CO2 and water vapour are non grey bodies and should not be confused with blackbodies or gray bodies. All the radiation transfer equations are only valid for blackbodies or gray bodies. Anybody using a pyrgometer to measure the back radiation of CO2 and H2O are just fooling themselves especially considering that the instruments default to an emissivity factor of 1 which is certainly not true for CO2 nor H2O.
The same holds true for absorption characteristics. The Hitran absorption database is based on gray body calculations and is not specifically accurate for pure gases even though approximations are used. Even so, most of the climate science literature gives methane as a potent greenhouse gas. However the Hitran absorption database gives H2O and CO2 as much more powerful absorbers of photon energy than methane is. In addition it assumes a common temperature between the gas and the source of radiation.
If the temperatures are different as they are in the atmosphere and the surface, then you have to use a modified Planck mean absorption coefficient equation = Integral from 0 to infinity of ( blackbody intensity * Temp of gas * coeff of spectral lines * source temp ) derivative of spectral line
divided by Integral from 0 to infinity of ( blackbody intensity * Temp of gas) derivative of spectral line
This has not been done because no one has produced an equivalent Hitran database with differing temperatures of the gas medium and a source energy flux. Thus it is not possible to determine the exact absorption energy of CO2 nor H2O in the atmosphere. THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND THE GCM climate computer code. It is all a mirage.
I’m confused, as usual. According to the authors of this study, during the last glacial maximum, the Antarctic current slowed. Then the current sped up as the world warmed. Now the current is slowing. Shouldn’t that mean that we are heading towards another glacitation rather than more warming?
Are there data on the Antarctic current in recent decades? If so could you provide a link?
The study stated that it was slowing.
Wow – so not only do we have heat hiding down in grandma’s root cellar, but nasty, evil CO2 as well.
We’re doubly-doomed.
Doesn’t the biological pump send carbonate (calcium and magnesium) to the ocean floor.
does it not require something akin to a lime kiln to recreate the carbon dioxide – volcanoes will suffice if the kiln workers are feeling the cold and have stayed home.
Then, having the cold/warm/whatever temperature seawater release carbon dioxide truly tramples Le Chatelier’s principle so how does their magic neodymium get over that little hurdle?
OK, some organic material may have made it to the bottom and be dredged back up but that would be happening now at upwelling places. So is it?
No.
The rise in CO2 came from melting permafrost. As temps rose the bacteria set to work and decomposed the long frozen organics. Easy experiment to replicate – just leave the door of your home freezer open and watch it happen.
It is my assertion that a large amount of the extra CO2 in the contemporary atmosphere came from long buried organics that have been oxidised – by man effectively.
The ongoing disappearance of that material is also reducing the water content of vast areas of land, thus allowing larger variations of diurnal and annual temperatures.
The disappearance of soil organic material and the associated water it soaks up neatly explains the failure of (how many?) civilisations in the past. Explains why California is currently burning. Inside just a few centuries it will be Total Desert and the people will be gone, blaming Climate Change as they go and always have done.
The oxidiser currently is not (rising) temperature stimulation of bacteria but stimulation by water-soluble nitrogen = the “Bread from Air” as produced by Haber-Bosch process and significantly also, when anything is burned in a normal atmosphere.
Neatly explains Global Greening to boot.
All of which is entirely academic as we need to know what set off the initial rise of temperature…
I do like the term Bread from Air – it gives the impression of something for nothing and Lordy Lordy Lordy, don’t we all enjoy Free Lunches?
I think you are on the right track of looking at the calcium (and magnesium) carbonates relative to release of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is a lot to be said about sequestering and into calcium carbonate rock at the equator in warm water as the soluble alkaline earth bi-carbonate salts break down and precipitate CaCO3 or MgCO3 when they get warm. (The breakdown of the bicarbonate also releases free or dissolved CO2.) There certainly can be biology involved but to have stable carbonate rocks you have to prevent re-dilution in cold water.
However the authors talk about release of CO2 in Antarctica. There is an odd, unstable form of hydrated calcium carbonate called calcium carbonate hexa-hydrate and it has been found at the bottom of glaciers and in very deep cold water around the poles. You could envision a lot of this compound forming around or under glaciers during ice ages and this could lead to rapid release of CO2 at the poles as this unstable form of calcium carbonate breaks down.
It works like this
There are giga tons of carbonates dissolved as salts in the ocean.
HCO3-+HEAT = CO2 + OH-
Just like the first smoke from the kettle.
If it gets hotter the equilibrium shifts to the right.
No surprise waiting for us in the oceans.
Must add. If it gets colder the equilibrium goes the other way. In that case CO2 from the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean.
The explanation about CO2 and how about in relation to climatology terms is and relies mostly within the modern data….as such data more directly related and also more reliable plus such data offers higher resolution and also better accuracy.
Let me put it as simply as I can…
It is not only a yuge problem for the AGW-ACC crowd climasters but also for the rest too in climatology .
Considering as Janice may put it, CO2 up temps down, in a way to clearly trying a show the hollow of the
AGW-ACC fallacy, is one thing, the other thing not really realized is, CO2 concentration still going up, in a no further warming, but no acceleration on that CO2 concentration increase.
That makes impossible to consider either a AGW-ACC climate science, but also shows that most of climatology and the paleoclimate is greatly misinterpreted and obfuscated…
Again, CO2 concentration going up during an ~ 2 decades of no warming, but still no any signature of acceleration of the CO2 concentration detected or observed…….very very weird!!!!
Can\t really be explained either by the AGW-ACC climate position, or otherwise, yet!!!!
CO2 concentration going up in a period of a warming pause, with no acceleration signature detected or observed in a such CO2 concentration trend, not only falsifies AGW-ACC, but also puts a big question mark in a lot of paleoclimate data, and the interpretation of such data……
cheers
well that cinches it, we gotta kill all plankton to save Gaia….
I mean really, why do we even need life on this earth?
lets save the earth by killing everything…
Without actually having read the paper (paywall) there seems to be something wrong with the argument as I understand it. The circulating deep flow in the Pacific is not a source of carbon: it is merely a conveyor belt. The source which governs the rate of carbon flow is the organic flow filtering down from the upper layers of the ocean. If the conveyor belt runs slowly then the carbon piles up deeply. If the conveyor speeds up the carbon piles up less deeply. If after a period of slow running the conveyor speeds up there will be a pulse of higher levels of carbon being delivered by the conveyor as it runs out the previous high deposition. After that the rate of carbon flow will reduce to match the rate of inflow from the surface.
A more likely explanation for the increase of atmospheric CO2 “during the last deglaciation (19,000–9,000 years ago)” is that whatever drove the deglaciation also drove an increase in biological activity and that this is the source of the increased levels of CO2.
The problem is phosphate, P, unlike C and N, has no (well a little gets up there with salt, etc.) atmospheric component. It is often a limiting factor for phytoplankton. One way street to the deep ocean, so speed it up. Hooray for the “abyssal flushing events.”
From the article: “But researchers haven’t been able to document just how the carbon made it out of the ocean and into the atmosphere. It has remained one of the most important mysteries of science.”
I thought it was fundamentally explained by the known physical chemistry that CO2 solubility in sea water increases with declining water temperatures (what happens as Earth enters a glacial period) and decreases as Earth warms up going from a glacial low- to an interglacial high-average temperature.
Earth’s oceans are BIG and can store/release a large quantity of CO2, solely as a function of temperature.
Perhaps I was misinformed.
We can send billions of tons more CO2 to Davie Jones’ locker, restore the ocean fisheries and feed hundreds of millions by adding a small amount of iron to the oceans. RussGeorge.net
Heavy sighhhhhh.. The warmists really, REALLY don’t get it.
We are SUPPOSED to be liberating CO2. That’s one of the two reasons Mother Nature raised us up. See, Mother Nature LIKES having lots and lots of life crawling all over Her. Massage or tickles or something, I don’t really know the specifics. Back when the dinosaurs roamed, She was just so happy. Then SMACK, a big honkin rock comes out of nowhere, killed 90% of all life. She set about noodling on a solution. While She was doing that, most life returned, but then slowly started ticking down. It took Her a while to sort out what was going on, then She figure it out. Those darn fossil fuels were sequestering the carbon that Her plants needed. She new that a big smack, or maybe some serious 2012 level tectonics could bust that carbon free, but She didn’t want anywhere near that much trauma.
Then She noticed a few clever monkeys were using sticks to get ants for food, and the proverbial light bulb went on. These monkeys could be boosted up and hopefully solve BOTH problems. Free up a bunch of carbon so the plants, and as a result the animals also, could flourish. AND get up topside and stop anymore of those nasty big rocks from smacking Her. Win-win.
So began Operation Uplift. And now it’s OUR turn to pay back what Gaia has done for us. Take a drive just for the sake of taking a drive.
FREE THE CARBON!!! COLONIZE SPACE!!! PROTECT TERRA!!!
Any CO2 in all that ice that melted? Not mentioned in this report.
Sea ice doesn’t contain much air, thus near nothing of CO2. Land ice contains some 10% by volume air as enclosed bubbles at normal pressure, which may be set free when the ice is melting.
As the historical levels were 180-300 ppmv, melting ice would reduce the current level of 405 ppmv in the atmosphere, but quantities are negligible compared to what is already there…
“The concern, researchers say, is that it could happen again, potentially magnifying and accelerating human-caused climate change.”
Sure.
In the past 2 decades, emissions have accelerated markedly, but concentration is at a steady rate.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
Temperature is driving it, not humans.
http://oi66.tinypic.com/jgnl6o.jpg
Hi Bart,
Missed you in the discussion…
About the first link:
Sinks do not depend of emissions, they only depend of the extra CO2 pressure above the dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere. Temperature gives a change in solubility (and thus equilibrium) of about 16 ppmv/K by far insufficient to be the cause of the 110 ppmv increase.
Here the calculated (yearly) CO2 increase, which is emissions minus the calculated sink rate, compared to the noisy monthly observations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
About the second link:
Human emissions are driving it, not temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
Or since 1960 when we have more accurate readings:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
You keep making these assertions as if there were settled fact. No, this is not a static pool of water, and the sensitivity should be in ppmv/K/unit-of-time.
Also, your emissions curve does not match the concentration curve. For the past two decades, the former soared, while the latter stayed put.
Bart,
Indeed the oceans are not a static pool of water, but the equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface is exactly the same, no matter if you take a single sample in a closed flask or look at the dynamics of the full oceans with 90 GtC CO2 circulating each season/year between oceans and atmosphere.
As said already many times, it is physically impossble that a single temperature step gives a continuous influx of CO2 without feedback from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That completely lacks in your temperature-only approach.
Further, the sink rate doesn’t depend of the emissions of one year, it only depends of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium. The equilibrium itself depends of temperature. With a (relative) constant temperature and a constant human input, the increase in the atmosphere will drop, as the CO2 levels still increase and thus the sinks increase. That is visible in the small drop at the end of the calculated CO2 rate of change.
The increase in the atmosphere even may get zero at a constant 4.2 ppmv human input. All what is needed is that the CO2 levels rise enough to push 4.2 ppmv/year extra into the oceans/biosphere. That is the case at 4.2 / 0.02 = 210 ppmv above equilibrium or about 500 ppmv, where the 0.02 is the current sink ratio.
“…but the equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean surface is exactly the same…”
This is mere assertion. You can say it as many times as you like. It does not make it true, and the evidence indicates that you are wrong.
Bart,
The evidence is in 800,000 years of ice cores with a – for a natural process – extreme good correlation between temperature (proxy) an CO2 levels with a lag. That shows the same global ratio for the whole dynamics between oceans and atmosphere as for over three million single seawater samples…
What you suppose is the opposite: while there is a lot of increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, that has no effect at all on the uptake of CO2 by the oceans…
We do not need to take a leap of faith on proxies. We have modern data which indicate otherwise.
You have posted a blue line of emissions, and an orange line of emissions arbitrarily halved, and extruded through a relaxation response with a short time constant. You might as well just draw an arbitrary line.
It’s not valid because it is not physically viable. The short time constant has to operate upon the pre-existing natural balance as well, and we would have been out of atmospheric CO2 ages ago.
Why go through such contortions, when there is a simple relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature?
http://oi67.tinypic.com/f2ro03.jpg
Thank you Bartemis, your simple relationship clearly shows that global temperature is a function of dCO2/dt.
Clearly your graphic shows that CO2 controls the climate.
JPP,
Indeed, Bart doesn’t see that his “relationship” between T and dCO2/dt has no lag, thus can be interpretated in both directions.
In real life, CO2 follows T and dCO2 follows dT/dt with some lag, but that is only for the +/- 1.5 ppmv “noise” around the trend, not the 90+ ppmv trend itself, which is (near) entirely caused by human emisions…
The problem in Bart’s graph is that a more or less sinusoid has exactly the same form in origin and derivative, only shifted 90 degrees backward. By taking the derivative of one and the origin of the other, you can obtain a perfect match, which is entirely surious. The real match is in the derivatives of both:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
or in the origins (here enhanced to show the Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
There is a nice match between the “noises” in T and CO2, but that doesn’t say anything about the cause of the increase…
The long term trend matches as well as the short term variability. You are removing the long term trend in order to shoehorn your preferred narrative in its place.
There is no justification for doing this. Occam’s razor says it already matches, so there is no need to substitute some exotic melange in its place.
Ferdinand,
I agree that taking the derivatives of both provides the correct lag of about 6 months, but I believe that both are actually wrong (by the same amount) in terms of specific timing of changes to rate of growth.
Your “sine derivative” example is valid mathematically, but would lead to a quarter cycle – 3 months – offset. In addition, there is a “pause” in rate of CO2 growth at Mauna Loa almost every year around Jan-Feb (least evident in El Niño years) and hence the peak rate of growth does not occur at the same part of the annual cycle as would be the case if we had a sine curve. There is actually six months offset and this is simply because when WoodForTrees takes a 12 month rolling average it plots the value at the mid-point of that 12 month period. This is, of course, six months earlier that the first month that “sees” the increase in rate of change.
Jim,
I need to check this, but as the shift is the same for both the temperature and CO2 derivatives, it doesn’t change the lag of CO2 after T.
Further, MLO figures (at 3400 m) for CO2 are more mixed and lagged than for Barrow or other stations at ground level, so that can give a different appearance.
That rationale leads to an absurdity. If it were true, we could pump up CO2 as high as we like, but temperatures would revert to their nominal values once we stopped pumping.
Bart, your “relationship” just shows the “noise” in both signals match. Unfortunately, Ferdinand is right, dCO2/dt removes the long term trend rendering your correlation pointless with regard to causation.
You see Bart, your “relationship” starts around 1979, when atmospheric CO2 was approximately 315 ppm. Today (2018) atmospheric CO2 is 410 ppm.
…
Your “relationship” offers no explanation of where the additional 95 ppm of CO2 has come from.
Bart, what is your explanation for the additional CO2 ?
My hypothesis is explained with a toy model here:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10993
All you have to do is integrate the rate:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958/integral/offset:314
Bart, don’t forget, if you integrate one side of the equation, you have to integrate the other side. So, with your “relationship”, when you integrate dCO2/dt, you get the concentration of CO2, and when you integrate the other side of the “relationship” you get degree-(days,weeks,years,etc) which has no PHYSICAL MEANING. Your calculus might be OK, but your algebra sucks.
….
Please explain the meaning of this graphic: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral
When you integrate both sides of your “relationship” this is what you get :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral/plot/esrl-co2
How about this, using something other then UAH6?
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-300
The RSS data have been bastardized in the 2000’s, but if you fiddle with the offsets and scale factors, you can still get a pretty good match.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:0.84/scale:0.15
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/integral/plot/rss/offset:0.84/scale:0.15/integral
They all work with the proper selection of affine parameters that relate the temperature series one to the other.
No, that’s what you get. When I integrate this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/derivative/plot/uah6/scale:0.175/offset:0.142
I get this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.175/offset:0.142/integral/offset:337
Fitting random data curves does not offer causative explanations. Especially since the integral of a time series does not have PHYSICAL MEANNING
Explain what this means:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral:
It certainly has a physical meaning when there is a sensitivity in terms of ppmv/K/unit-of-time. I’ve given you my hypothesis as to the causative agent. But, I do not have to have one to recognize what is happening, any more than I need to know how a diesel engine works to know I need to get off the tracks when a locomotive is bearing down on me.
The scale factors provide the proper units. This is common. For example, the speedometer in your car does not measure velocity. It generally measures an angular rate, and that is converted to equivalent velocity by a scale factor in units of mph/(rad/sec).
You have not explained what the PHYSICAL MEANING is of the intergal of the temperature time series.
..
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral
You need to read the link I sent you:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10993
If you are unable to explain in a few sentences or a paragraph what the physical meaning of the integral of a time series data set is, you are showing cluelessness.
Nonsense. This is trivial. Temperatures affect rates of uptake and transport, yielding a sensitivity in terms of ppmv/K/unit-of-time.
PS, the speedometer of a car does NOT measure an angular rate. It measures the time interval between pulses generated from the rotation of the output shaft of the transmission.
Which produces angular rate by dividing the angle between pulses by time between them. You are quibbling.
There is no “angle” between pulses.
I see you do not know how it works.
LMAO @ Bart: “I see you do not know how it works.”
The sensor is physically mounted in a fixed location, and the notch in the shaft is sensed at the same physical position each shaft rotation. Seriously Bart, please don’t delve into automotive technology because you don’t have a clue.
And, what is the angle from one notch to the next? Do you know the circumference of a circle?
Seriously, dude, this is dumb, and it’s not even related to the question at hand. Let it go.
This is not “dumb”….I’m trying to show you how clueless you are about automotive tech. There is only one “notch” in the shaft. So there is no “angle.” The speedometer is measuring the time interval between successive passes of the SINGULAR notch.
..
You obviously don’t know how an automobile speedometer works.
So, Bart, please tell us what the integral of a time-series temperature anomaly means: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral:
Doubling down on stupid does not impress.
The angle, for those who don’t already know, is 2*pi radians. So, when you see the notch at time dt seconds since the last one, the mean angular rate of the shaft is 2*pi/dt radians per second.
Zero is zero, there is no “angle.” There is only a single notch.
…
Clueless you are. There is no “angular rate”, it’s pulses per second. The electronics are measuring a time interval, not an “angle.”
Please stop digging. This is getting painful to watch.
Painful? You are making me laugh. I’m enjoying watching you squirm.
..
Answer my question, what is the PHYSICAL MEANING of the integral of a temperature time series anomaly.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/integral:
Besides the fact that you are clueless about speedometers, you still have not explained what the integral of a temperature time series anomaly is. You use it in your graphic: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/scale:0.175/offset:0.142/integral/offset:337
.
.
But you are unable to explain what it physically means.
I’ve explained it I don’t know how many times now. You are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, and I think this conversation is futile.
You have not explained the physical meaning of the integral of a temperature time series anomaly.
..
I a lot sharper that you perceive. Your ego needs to get trimmed,.
I sympathize for Ferdinand, his patience with you and your stubbornness is admirable.
PS Bart, if you sum the number of pulses the sensor emits, you can display the result also. They call it an “odometer.”
No, it doesn’t. The long term trend in rate is readily observable.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958
JPP,
I have had this discussion with Bart already many years to no avail…
Bart is a smart guy and a mathematical genius, but has troubles to see what happens in simple dynamics.
His main problem is that he sees a near perfect match in the noise around a trend and with some arbitrary factor and offset can match both variability and trendlines, as if these two are caused by the same, temperature dependent, process. Then all other contrasting evidence is swept aside.
– Variability and trend are not from the same process:
Most variability is caused by vegetation, but vegetation is a net, growing, sink for CO2 over periods longer than a few years.
– No influence of any increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: a small positive step in temperature gives a fixed CO2 increase until eternum.
– Violation of the solubility coefficient of CO2 in seawater.
– Violation of the mass balance, be it with one escape route: if the natural cycle increased a fourfold in the past 60 years, as human emissions did, for which is not the slightest indication – to the contrary.
– Violation of every single observation over the past 60 years: δ13C and 14C decay rate, oxygen balance, overall sink rate in the oceans and in the biosphere,…
Normally, one observation that doesn’t match a new theory is sufficient to reject or adjust that theory. In this case Bart rejects all observations, because his theory, based on a single graph, must be right…
“– Violation of the solubility coefficient of CO2 in seawater.”
It is a dynamic response over an immense reservoir, not a shallow pool of water.
“– Violation of the mass balance, be it with one escape route: if the natural cycle increased a fourfold in the past 60 years, as human emissions did, for which is not the slightest indication – to the contrary.”
Not necessary. All that is necessary is a throttling of the natural flow to the ocean depths.
“– Violation of every single observation over the past 60 years: δ13C and 14C decay rate, oxygen balance, overall sink rate in the oceans and in the biosphere,…”
All of these change with temperature, too. There is not a unique interpretation of these data.
Bart, there we go again:
It is a dynamic response over an immense reservoir
If the response was with the total oceans, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would equilibrate below 100 ppmv, as the average ocean temperature is 5ºC. Fortunately for the biosphere (and us), that atmosphere equilibrates with the ocean surface, which is at 15ºC.
All that is necessary is a throttling of the natural flow to the ocean depths.
Nice fantasy for which is not the slightest indication. Even so, the “throttling” works the same for natural and human emissions alike – in your words. Thus if human emissions increased a fourfold, and the sinks increased a fourfold (as is observed), then natural throughput must have increased a fourfold too…
All of these change with temperature, too. There is not a unique interpretation of these data.
Wow, Bart, you are just adjusting a lot of physical laws to save your theory.
Like the small change in 13C/12C ratio due to temperature shifts when CO2 is emitted (and absorbed) at the water-air border. Over the past 10,000 years, the δ13C level varied +/- 0.2 per mil with temperature (e.g. MWP-LIA).
Since about 1850 that dropped 1.6 per mil, thanks to human emissions.
If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, the δ13C level would have increased, not decreased, impossible to have a different interpretation of the data. See for the period after 1400:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
Resolution of the sponges: 2-4 years.
Ferdinand,
You say: “If the oceans were the main cause of the [CO2] increase, the δ13C level would have increased, not decreased, impossible to have a different interpretation of the data.”
This has long been my understanding as well, based, I thought, on the δ13C of surface oceanic waters being around zero per mil or even slightly positive. However, I see that NOAA now believes that the impact of fractionation is to decrease the δ13C content of released CO2 (flux) to -9.5 per mil (i.e. less than current atmospheric values). If that is correct, it kinda destroys the argument that you refer to. What am I missing here?
Jim Ross,
The δ13C level at the water-air border indeed goes down about -10 per mil, but at the air-water border it sinks again about -2 per mil, due to the slower speed of the heavier 13CO2. For the atmosphere that means an overall drop of about -8 per mil compared to the ocean surface.
The long term equilibrium was -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil for the atmosphere, while the per mil of the ocean surface is between +1 and +5 per mil, depending of biological activity, compared to the deep oceans at about zero per mil.
The biological activity at the Bermuda’s seems to be pretty high as the sponges have about the same per mil as the surrounding waters at +4.95 per mil.
Thus in average the atmosphere – oceans/biosphere exchanges without human emissions give -6.4 per mil in the atmosphere. From about 1850 the δ13C level dropped more than a per mil from about -6.4 per mil to below -8 per mil. If the oceans were the main cause of the CO2 increase, the addition of lots of CO2 at average -6.4 per mil would increase the per mil back towards -6.4 per mil.
Here calculated for a 1:4 increase of both human and natural emissions since 1960, of which the whole natural increase by the oceans (40 -> 290 GtC/year):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_increase_290.jpg
Thanks for the response Ferdinand. There is a serious damger of getting into a circular argument here, so let’s keep it real simple. You seem to be saying that CO2 flux from the oceans to the atmosphere would have a δ13C content of -6.4 per mil. NOAA says it has a δ13C content of -9.5 per mil. Which is correct?
In the following link NOAA shows the value as -10 per mil and even add an example, based on the 14C numbers, that highlights my point – they show that you would be adding CO2 of -10 per mil from the oceans to the atmosphere at (currently) -8 per mil:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html
Jim,
The figures from NOAA are one-way. If you remove CO2 out of the atmosphere into vegetation the net effect is +26 per mil in the atmosphere. Thus if there is a balance in biosphere uptake and release, the net effect in the atmosphere is zero. With the current extra uptake, a slight increase in per mil can be expected.
For the oceans it is different: -10 per mil for CO2 releases compared to the surface (which is between 0 – for the deep oceans – and up to +5 – for the surface) and for the CO2 sinks in the oceans +2 in the atmosphere (-2 per mil seen from the oceanside). Thus if in balance, the average level in the atmosphere is 8 per mil below the ocean surface per mil. Here too, there is slightly more uptake than release, so the per mil drop is slightly less than -8.
As the historical per mil in the atmosphere was -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil, that can be reached by an average ocean surface layer of +1.6 per mil, which is largely within the range as observed.
See also the theoretical δ13C of DIC (total inorganic carbon) in the ocean surface (Fig 10):
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v51i2.16269
The 1,000 year atmospheric δ13C record is in Fig. 9.
The latest δ13C measurements near sea level are already below -8.5 per mil and still going strongly down. No way that can be caused by the oceans…
It was the one-way flux that I was interested in. So you would seem to agree that CO2 emitted from the (deep) oceans has δ13C content of -10 per mil. Of course some, perhaps all, of this CO2 that is released into the atmosphere will be re-adsorbed with a (partial) counter-balancing effect on the atmospheric δ13C value. The point is that the atmospheric δ13C is -8.5 per mil and is going down and this observation on its own shows that the net effect of the incremental CO2 has an average δ13C of less than -8.5 per mil. So, on this basis alone (i.e. leaving aside any assumptions about the balance of sources and sinks), the incremental CO2 could be oceanic (-10 per mil), or vegetation (-26 per mil), or fossil fuels (-28 per mil), or it could be some combination thereof. I do not see how you can say, based on the δ13C data alone, that the oceans cannot be a source of incremental CO2.
In any event, we know that the net effect of the incremental CO2 reflects an average δ13C content of -13 per mil (including the ice/firn data from your reference).
Jim,
In theory, yes, but it is the same as too many discussions about the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: human emissions are only 6% of all inputs, thus the increase is only 6% due to humans. That is false reasoning, as human emissions are 0% of all outputs (there are hardly any human sinks) to maximum 3% of all sinks, if you take the extra sinks as fully caused by human emissions. Then 100% of the increase is from human emissions.
The same applies to the δ13C drop, if you look at the inputs only, the δ13C drop may be human, ocean or vegetation. But that violates the mass balance (the increase can’t be from humans + oceans and/or vegetation at the same time) and violates the net sink rates in oceans and vegetation…
That the average δ13C content seems from a source that is at -13 per mil is just coincidence, as human emissions increased slightly quadratic over time, giving a rather linear increase in human “airborne fraction”.
Ferdinand,
“In theory, yes …”. Good. Thank you. I like to try to understand the theory before looking at hypotheses/models which invariably include assumptions, often unstated ones at that.
BTW, given the subject of the original post, and in case you missed it, you may be interested in the following paper (paywalled unfortunately), which is based on observational data and purports to show that significant CO2 upwelling is occurring around the Antarctic and is linked from here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/08/15/diving-robots-find-antarctic-winter-seas-exhale-surprising-amounts-of-carbon-dioxide/
Oh yes, the sponges plot which demonstrates that the incremental CO2 since circa 1800 has had a constant δ13C of -13 per mil.
Ferdinand Engelbeen @ August 18, 2018 1:38 pm
“If the response was with the total oceans, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would equilibrate below 100 ppmv, as the average ocean temperature is 5ºC.”
It might, over many eons. But, this is a transport problem. Transport problems have traveling wave responses, with complicated dynamics of forward and backward propagation.
“Nice fantasy for which is not the slightest indication.”
Of course there is an indication, and a strong one. The rate of change of atmospheric concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly.
“Wow, Bart, you are just adjusting a lot of physical laws to save your theory.”
No, you are asserting a unique explanation for a phenomenon that has many viable alternative explanations.
Bart:
It might, over many eons. But, this is a transport problem.
Indeed, it took nature some 5000 years to equilibrate the deep oceans in temperature, but still the ocean surface was the main cause of the equilibrium CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The rate of change of atmospheric concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly.
With a feedback of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: 16 ppmv/K, not X ppmv/K/year…
No, you are asserting a unique explanation for a phenomenon that has many viable alternative explanations.
Bart it is like asserting an alternative explanation to adding an acid to a base: the pH may go up?
It might, over many eons, with no changes, perhaps I should have said.
“With a feedback of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere: 16 ppmv/K, not X ppmv/K/year…”
Assertion contradicted by the data.
“Bart it is like asserting an alternative explanation to adding an acid to a base: the pH may go up?”
No, it is not like that at all. That is a known phenomenon that can be replicated in end-to-end testing in a laboratory. This is a system of many parts that is only partially understood, and we cannot run end-to-end experiments.
Bart,
The orange line is not emissions/2, it is the difference between emissions and net sink rate:
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions – k*Δ(pCO2(atm) – pCO2(eq))
where k = 0.02, or a time constant of about 50 years as observed in the past 60 years. Not really fast.
That is a simple response of a simple, linear function which describes the response of the atmosphere – oceans/biosphere equilibrium to disturbances of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That works and worked for at least the past 800,000 years (and beyond).
As that is a response relative to the temperature dictated equilibrium, there is no chance that CO2 levels ever would go down to zero.
Your relationship is real for the “noise” around the trend, but entirely spurious for the trend itself…
Yes, fed through a relaxation filter with non-physical time constant.
“As that is a response relative to the temperature dictated equilibrium…”
No. You cannot do that. You have to treat natural and anthro emissions the same. The “equilibrium”, to the extent one exists, must exist for a reason, that being a balance of source and sink.
It’s not possible, Ferdinand. If CO2 were permanently removed that quickly, we wouldn’t have any left at all.
Bart,
You may know a lot of rocket science or anything else that is your profession, but you simply don’t understand a simple linear dynamic equilibrium process,
In the case of the atmosphere – ocean system, a lot (about 40 GtC/year) CO2 is exchanged. The main cause: warming upwelling at one side, cold sinks at the other side of the globe.
If the temperature of the total ocean surface increases, more CO2 is emitted and less absorbed.
The difference of inputs and outputs increases the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
An increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere reduces the outputs and increases the absorption.
At 16 ppmv/K, inputs and outputs again are the same as before the temperature increase,
Add an external CO2 source to the atmospher: e.g. 100 volcanoes emitting together 9 GtC all natural CO2 per year.
Does that increase the 40 GtC/year in/out up to 40 GtC/year input and 49 GtC/year output from the first year on? Of course not, as that amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere hardly influences the CO2 pressure, thus hardly changes the CO2 pressure difference between oceans and atmosphere at the upwelling and sink places, thus hardly changes the in/out fluxes.
Thus in your reasoning the earth treats volcanic and oceanic CO2 emissions different, but in fact the process that causes the 40 GtC circulation is almost completely temperature dependent, while any extra CO2 only can be removed by a pressure dependent process, even if that applies to the same upwellings and sinks.
Different processes with different time constants, treating any source of CO2 the same…
I detailed how it can happen here:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10993
What you do not understand is that you cannot have one set of dynamics for equilibrium with natural emissions, and another set for anthro emissions. If the mechanism is linear, they must be precisely the same, and you cannot have an impact greater than the relative input ratio, which is on the order of 30:1 or more in favor of natural inputs.
To step that up to a level of 3:1 or so needed to get 100 ppm out of 400, you would need a gross nonlinearity with polynomial order in the range of 10 or more. I do not find that credible.
Bart,
Dr. Ed didn’t publish my later response, but let it be.
The main point in our different views is that you still see the whole dynamics of the CO2 exchanges as one single, temperature controlled process with one single decay rate and I (and many others) see it as a set of many processes going on in parallel (or countercurrent), each with its own decay rate.
Some processes are mainly temperature (difference) dependent, others mainly pressure (difference) dependent or a mix of both.
Again, these processes don’t make any differentiation in the origin of the CO2 present in the atmosphere. Different processes react different to temperature changes (seasonal, year by year: opposite to each other!) or CO2 pressure changes in the atmosphere, no matter if the latter is caused by decaying organics, volcanic eruptions or human emissions.
The seasonal fluxes are about 110 GtC in and out per season with an endresult of near zero after a full cycle.
The continuous flux between equator and poles is about 40 GtC/year in and out with an endresult of near zero at the end of the year.
Both mainly depend of temperature (difference) changes. Overall decay rates a few months to a few years. Overall turnover (residence time) about 5 years.
Change in ocean/biosphere – atmosphere dynamic equilibrium: about 16 ppmv/K.
Removing any extra CO2 out of the atmosphere above the foregoing equilibrium is a pressure (difference) dependent process, near independent of the above fluxes. Decay rate about 50 years as is observed.
“I (and many others) see it as a set of many processes going on in parallel (or countercurrent), each with its own decay rate.”
But, that is what you want to be, not necessarily what is. The data do not show it. The data show a single, dominant response.
“Decay rate about 50 years as is observed.”
It’s not possible. If it were, the natural balance would not be what it is.
Bart,
The data show a single, dominant response.
If it is one dominant process, then how do you explain that the largest fluxes: seasonal CO2 movements, show lower CO2 levels at higher temperatures and reverse, while your theory is based on much smaller fluxes that show higher CO2 with higher temperatures? See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_BRW.jpg
It’s not possible.
In your theory not possible, but it is observed as a very linear response to the increase in the atmosphere over the past 60 years, thus your “one dominant process” theory is simply wrong.
“…seasonal CO2 movements, show lower CO2 levels at higher temperatures and reverse…”
Seasonal fluxes come about when temperature is lower in one hemisphere, but higher in the other.
“…but it is observed as a very linear response to the increase in the atmosphere over the past 60 years…”
In a linear system, it is impossible for the input to have a greater proportional impact on the output than its proportional influence on the input. In fact, for a linear system, those proportions are precisely the same.
Bart:
Seasonal fluxes come about when temperature is lower in one hemisphere, but higher in the other.
Yes, but in each hemisphere CO2 goes down with higher temperatures…
Due to the higher land to sea surface ratio in the NH, there is a residual global drop of about 5 ppmv CO2 during the NH summer…
In a linear system, it is impossible for the input to have a greater proportional impact on the output than its proportional influence on the input.
That is not the point: any increase of CO2 pressure in the atmosphere will reduce the ocean input and increase the ocean sinks alike. Or reverse to the same extent.
Any increase in temperature will increase the ocean output and decrease the ocean sinks alike. Or reverse to the same extent.
Already two near independent working processes, opposite to each other, each with their own tau…
The point is that the year-by year variability where your theory is based on is dominated by the reaction of vegetation on temperature variability with a lag of a few months and a tau of about a year back to near zero around the trend (Pinatubo, El Niño) while vegetation is a proven, increasing sink for CO2 (with a tau of about 170 years for increased CO2 pressure, according to the IPCC), thus not the cause of the trend.
Two different, opposite working processes with different tau’s.
On the other hand, the reaction on an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere is mainly by the oceans with a tau of about 50 years…
“Yes, but in each hemisphere CO2 goes down with higher temperatures…”
Based on what data?
Even were I to accept this as truth, it would simply reflect the short term seasonal dynamics and phase lags. I am not interested in that. I am interested in the long term dynamics, and it is very clear there that CO2 rate of change tracks temperature anomaly.
“That is not the point…”
Yes, that is the point. That is why your model is non-physical. You have anthropogenic CO2 driving levels in 1:3 ratio with natural inputs, while the actual ratio is on the order of 1:30 or less.
Put inputs with a ratio of 1:30 into a linear system, and the contribution to the output from each separately will be in ratio of 1:30. You’ve got anthro inputs contributing on the order of 100 ppm to the naturally induced balance of about 300 ppm. That’s a 1:3 ratio. You can’t get there with an input ratio of 1:30.
Bart:
Based on what data?
Measured over the past 60 years in lots of stations from near the North Pole to the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
it would simply reflect the short term seasonal dynamics and phase lags.
But that “simply” is the bulk of all natural inputs and outputs! The seasonal fluxes between atmosphere and oceans/biosphere are 110 GtC/season back and forth all together.
What remains is the continuous flux between equatorial upwelling and polar sinks of ~40 GtC/year, which is hardly affected by temperature changes.
What also remains is the small temperature caused variability and the vegetation response of +/- 3 GtC which is where your theory is based on…
You have anthropogenic CO2 driving levels in 1:3 ratio with natural inputs, while the actual ratio is on the order of 1:30 or less.
The actual ratio is not 1:30 (in fact 1:16.7 nowadays), as that is compared to the total seasonal inputs, which you rejected. The actual input is either 1:4.4 compared to the 40 GtC flowing from equator to poles or it is 2:1 compared to the variability around the trend.
You’ve got anthro inputs contributing on the order of 100 ppm to the naturally induced balance of about 300 ppm. That’s a 1:3 ratio. You can’t get there with an input ratio of 1:30.
Of course it can, because the output ratio is 1:60 (in fact 1:33.4 nowadays)… Thus less human CO2 (as mass) sinks than is emitted…
Even faster for a 1:4.4 or 2:1 input ratio…
Again, everything boils down to your one temperature controlled process controls everything, which is physically impossible…
No, you’re just not getting it. If 1/30th of input causes a 100 ppm rise, then 30 times that will give you 3000 ppm or more.
It is simply not possible, and you are arbitrarily rejecting an excellent fit with the long term trend in CO2 rate of change with the temperature anomaly.
It’s not a close question, Ferdinand. One day, you will look back on this, and wonder why you believed something so clearly contraindicated.
Note that the above contradicts what I stated at August 17, 2018 1:17 pm. I wasn’t really thinking then. Though I knew there was an inconsistency, I wrongly assumed it would go in the way of having a lower natural balance, but it is the opposite. If 1/30th of natural input causes 100 ppm, then to the degree the regulatory system is linear, the natural input would produce 3000 ppm.
This can only be reduced if the response is massively nonlinear, and a nonlinearity that could produce a 10:1 difference in sensitivity is not credible.
Bart,
You make a mess of everything for the simple reason that you don’t see that the natural sources and sinks are not one temperature controlled process, but lots of independent processes, each with their own speed, fluxes, response rates to temperature and/or CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
Your theory is based on the year by year variability, that is only one of the processes, which has the smallest influence of all: +/- 1.5 ppmv (3 GtC) per year, going down to zero around the trend in 1-3 years. Moreover variability and trend have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
As human emissions are over 4 ppmv/year, the ratio is about 2:1 and there is not the slightest reason why 200 ppmv human emissions can’t increase the atmosphere with 110 ppmv.
All other natural inputs have natural outputs which without human input were near equal. These natural circulations are entirely temperature driven and human emissions have only a small influence on the difference between inputs and outputs, as that is a pressure driven change, not a temperature controlled process…
Bart,
Another remark:
Seasonal fluxes are the largest CO2 fluxes in and out of oceans and biosphere within a year: about 110 GtC in and out per season.
In the past 60 years the CO2 level in the atmosphere increased from 315 to 405 ppmv, an increase of about 30%.
Why does dat not give some 30% more amplitude in the seasonal changes (very small increase observed), neither in individual fluxes, as far as estimated?
Low pass frequency response. Higher frequencies are attenuated in amplitude. This is consistent with what I have been telling you – the result cannot be greater than the proportional input, but it can be less.
“You make a mess of everything…”
Are we on the playground here? Grow up, guys.
“…you don’t see that the natural sources and sinks are not one temperature controlled process, but lots of independent processes…”
Sure, there’s lots of independent processes. The question, though, is what is dominant? The data indicate a dominant process which is dependent on temperature anomaly. To say otherwise is just making an uninformed assertion.
“…there is not the slightest reason why 200 ppmv human emissions can’t increase the atmosphere with 110 ppmv.”
Yes there is. You cannot just take the natural equilibrium level for granted. It is set by the balance between inflow and outflow. You must subject the natural inputs to the same balancing equations as you subject the anthro inputs.
But, you cannot, because if you did, the balance would be far higher than 300 ppm, because the natural inputs are massively larger than the anthro inputs.
“All other natural inputs have natural outputs which without human input were near equal.”
That balance does not just appear by magic. It is not something you can take for granted. You must apply the same dynamics to it that you apply to the anthro flow.
Bart,
Almost missed this one within the nested responses…
The data indicate a dominant process which is dependent on temperature anomaly.
That is not what the data show: what you see is the variability caused by a very small process that changes the CO2 increase with +/- 1.5 ppmv around a +90 ppmv trend. That is all. Small compared to human emissions of currently 4.5 ppmv/year. Very small compared to other natural fluxes like the seasonal changes.
Deducing the cause of a +90 ppmv trend from +/- 1.5 ppmv variability around the trend without any further evidence is a bridge too far.
You must apply the same dynamics to it that you apply to the anthro flow.
Which I did and do. Our difference is not in the treatment of anthro vs. natural, our difference is that natural fluxes act different on temperature changes than on CO2 pressure changes, whatever the source of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
30% more CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 60 years hardly changed the seasonal amplitude as caused by temperature changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_trend.jpg
The net effect is a doubling from 1 to 2 ppmv/year increase at the end of the ~55 ppmv in/out cycle.
Seems that the seasonal cycle, the largest CO2 cycle, is near independent of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere or whatever its source…
wrong placement
Ignore the immediately preceding message at 12:57 pm. I am not used to this nested system.
You can’t get anything right there Bart….
I am completely right. Ferdinand’s model treats natural and anthropogenic inputs asymmetrically, and is thereby not physically viable.
Meanwhile, the agreement between the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and the temperature anomaly is striking, even as emissions significantly outpace observed concentration over the era in which temperature anomaly came to a standstill.
1) A “striking” correlation is still a correlation. It provides no information as to causation.
2) The rise in atmospheric CO2 is a result of man’s combustion of fossil fuels. If you have evidence of a different source of this rise, please provide it, as your graphic does not show causation.
3) Finally, you will need to demonstrate that the isotopic mix of your source matches the dilution of naturally created carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.
Here is your problem Bart: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-burning-obscures-radiocarbon-dates/
Narratives can always be constructed by choosing evidence that appears consistent with it, while downplaying evidence that does not. Narratives do not prove anything.
1) when it’s this good a match, it cannot be dismissed so lightly
2) the evidence is that the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly, in both the short and the long term, while it does not track emissions
http://oi66.tinypic.com/jgnl6o.jpg
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
3) This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalization – it is not uniquely dispositive
1) I can dismiss any correlation because a correlation as you well know doesn’t prove causation. Your “graphic” evidence does not show causation. For all we know, the changes in dCO2/dt is the cause of the change in the temperature anomaly.
2) You are incorrect about the long term, as it doesn’t hold for ice core data.
3) What is the source of the CO2 causing the increase in atmospheric concentration…….please provide data and or a scientific study for proof.
1) You can stick your head in the sand if you like, yes. But, the idea that dCO2/dt causes changes in temperature is absurd.
2) The ice core data are bunk
3) Natural sources of CO2 abound. They dwarf our inputs.
1) Calling something “absurd” is not providing evidence. The graphic you provide does not show causation, so it is equally probable that dCO2/dt is the independent variable as is the probability that temperature anomaly is independent.
2) Your “opinion” of ice core data is noted. Opinions are not evidence
3) True. But that has very little to do with the price of tea in China. Small perturbations is a vast equilibrium can alter the equilibrium point.
PS, calling data that shows your theory false is hardly “bunk.” When ice core data aligns with other proxies and with orbital cycles, your dismissal of it is self-serving.
1) Really dumb. If dCO2/dt caused temperature change, then we could pump it up as high as we like, but when we stopped pumping, the temperature would settle back to its prior level, regardless of the CO2 level achieved.
2) The interpretations are contradictory with known physics for a variety of reasons. If that’s all you’ve got to hang your hat on, it’s not very much.
3) Small perturbations have small impacts on equilibrium points. In a linear system, their impacts are precisely proportional. You would have to have a very powerful nonlinearity indeed for a perturbative input to display 10x sensitivity.
Bart:
1) Really dumb. If temperature caused dCO2/dt changes, a small + step in temperature would increase CO2 levels until eternity. That is physically impossible without reaction from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and not observed in the past few million years…
What is observed is a change of about 16 ppmv/K, except over the past 165 years or so…
Nope. You wouldn’t say Newton’s 2nd law is invalid because it says if force causes dV/dt changes, then velocity would increase until eternity.
Other processes come into play. It does not invalidate the relationship.
And, no, you cannot treat the oceans as though they were just a shallow pool of stagnant water.
PS: the ice cores don’t align with other proxies. That is why they are used – they provide the desired story while, e.g., stomata suggest much greater variability. And, alignment with orbital cycles, if I accept your claim at face value, provides no quantitative verification.
Bart,
Stomata data are local/regional proxies which are calibrated against… ice cores over the past century. If they show a different average in the past over the length of any ice core resolution, the stomata data must be recalibrated for that period.
Of course they show more variability, as that is local/regional variability, which is has far more amplitude over land where the leaves did grow than anywhere over the oceans, deserts and mountain tops…
IOW, everything relies upon interpretation of the ice cores, a data set which cannot be verified by independent means.
Bart,
There is nothing to interprete about ice cores: that are the same measurement methods in air of the bubbles as directly in the atmosphere. Only the data are smoothed which results in a resolution of 10 to 600 years, depending of the snow accumulation rate.
– Direct measurements in the atmosphere overlap with ice core measurements 1960-1980.
– Direct measurements over the oceans 19th-20th century are around ice core levels.
– Proxy measurements in the oceans (coralline sponges) show the same levels and drop in δ13C as in the atmosphere of ice cores, taking into account the shift in δ13C level at the water-air border.
– Sediment foramins show the same levels over the past 800,000 years but go back over several million years.
But I know, you are not interested in any observation that doesn’t fit your theory.
Problem is that there is no evidence at all that supports your theory except a nice fit of +/- 1.5 ppmv CO2 variability as result of +/- 0.3 K temperature variability…
Sounds like a nice story. Lots of nice stories have been formulated over the years, while remaining unverified by independent means. A lot of them failed when verification became possible.
And, I will remind you that in the not too distant past it was considered “absurd” to say the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Remy,
Had this discussion with Bart several times in the past years, but his point of view didn’t change one millimeter…
All what Bart has is a nice graph which shows the correlation between T and dCO2/dt. Which he interpretates as causation for both the variability and the trend. That includes a few problems:
– Indeed there is no lag between the two, thus nothing shows what causes what.
– Any sinusoid shows the same variability in direct values and derivatives, only shifted back some 90 degr. in the derivative, That is exactly the case here: there is a lag between CO2 changes and T changes and a similar lag between dCO2/dt changes and dT/dt changes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
That shows that the variability is only +/- 1.5 ppmv around a trend of +90 ppmv since 1960.
and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_der.jpg
– There is no trend in the T derivative, only a small offset from zero, while in the CO2 derivative, one can see a trend, which is caused by the slightlyquadratic increase of total human emissions, total sinks and amount in the atmosphere over time, leading to a linear trend in the derivative.
– All variability in CO2 and its drivative is caused by the reaction of (mainly tropical) vegetation on temperature changes. That can be seen in the opposite CO2 and δ13C level changes. If the CO2 and δ13C levels changed in parallel, the variability was from the oceans.
– The trend in CO2 rate of change is not from vegetation, as that is a net, small but increasing sink for CO2. Thus even if trend and variability are the result of temperature, that is not from the same process, thus the cause of the variability doesn’t give us a clue about the cause of the trend.
Last but not least, Bart’s theory violates about every single observation: mass balance, δ13C and 14C balance, oxygen balance,…
If a nice theory violates only one observation, the theory is rejected, or must be changed accordingly…
“All what Bart has is a nice graph which shows the correlation between T and dCO2/dt.”
It is dispositive, Ferdinand. Agreement like that isn’t accidental.
“– Indeed there is no lag between the two, thus nothing shows what causes what.”
Logic tells us the arrow of causality.
“– Any sinusoid shows the same variability in direct values and derivatives, only shifted back some 90 degr.”
A 90 deg shift across all frequencies is unique to derivative action in linear systems. There is no indication whatsoever that the phase shift does not extend to arbitrarily low frequencies.
“There is no trend in the T derivative…”
There is a trend in T, and it matches the trend in dCO2/dt when the data are scaled to match the variability. To dismiss that match arbitrarily is whistling past the graveyard.
“All variability in CO2 and its drivative is caused by the reaction of (mainly tropical) vegetation on…”
This is mere assertion.
“Last but not least, Bart’s theory violates about every single observation: mass balance, δ13C and 14C balance, oxygen balance,…”
There is no violation of any of these, only a disagreement with the narrative you have imposed upon them. The pseudo-mass balance argument is particularly dumb.
Bart says: “Logic tells us the arrow of causality.”
…
Is that the same logic that told us the Sun revolves around the Earth?
Bart, as a good scientist, I need EVIDENCE to show the arrow of causality, not logic.
Bart:
There is a trend in T, and it matches the trend in dCO2/dt when the data are scaled to match the variability.
That is not true: for more than half the 60 years of data, the trends are opposite to each other. Your “match” is only because both human emissions and T have a trend, the first an increasing trend, resulting in a linear trend in the derivative, the second only because the endpoint is higher than the beginpoint, with a lot of ups and downs in between.
If you try to match the variability, the factor needed is about 4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1958/to:2018/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/derivative/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2018/scale:0.25/offset:0.1/trend
If you try to match the trends, the factor needed is about 6:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1958/to:2018/scale:0.16/offset:0.145/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:2018/derivative/trend/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2018/scale:0.16/offset:0.145/trend
and the T amplitudes are only 2/3 of the CO2 amplitudes.
Simple reason: +/- 1.5 ppmv amplitude of the “noise” and 90 ppmv trend have nothing to do with each other, different processes, different factors…
For the rest, the usual differences in “opinion” with zero evidence from your side…
Have you already found the natural circulation that increased a fourfold to “dwarf” human emissions that increased a fourfold in the past 60 years?
Remy – don’t be so willfully stupid. I explained above why that assumption leads to absurdity.
Ferdinand –
“That is not true: for more than half the 60 years of data, the trends are opposite to each other.”
These data are stochastic, and you are holding them to an unreasonable standard that you don’t apply to your own hypothesis, which has a far more egregious problem with divergence between the variables of interest.
“Have you already found the natural circulation that increased a fourfold to “dwarf” human emissions that increased a fourfold in the past 60 years?”
Completely unnecessary. All that is required is a temperature dependent throttling of the natural flow.
Bart, you can “explain” until the cows come home. You have provided no EVIDENCE. Do you know what “evidence” is? All you have is a pair of squiggly lines you force to match with offsets and scale factors. That is it. That is the only evidence you have. No proof of causation in either direction.
PS Bart, temperature “throttles the flow” in both directions. Also note that all of the hand waving you are doing is affecting the flows in BOTH directions.
Bart,
A factor 4 or 6 is quite a difference.
Anyway I have shown that there is not the slightest problem with using human emissions as source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere: if you take the observed decay rate (~50 years) for any extra CO2 above the long term equilibrium, then the calculated increase is in the middle of the natural variability:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
All that is required is a temperature dependent throttling of the natural flow.
Bart, as you said many times: ons should treat human and natural flows the same.
Human emissions/year increased a fourfold over the past 60 years. Increase in the atmosphere increased a fourfold in the past 60 years, that means that total net (human + natural) sinks increased a fourfold in the past 60 years. If the processes act the same for human as for natural fluxes, then the natural fluxes must have increased a fourfold too, or you can’t have a fourfold increase in net sinks.
Further, if natural fluxes are “throttled”, then human emissions are that too. Thus more human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere. Observed at about 10% nowadays.
Strange, 10% human CO2 measured while human CO2 is only 6% of all CO2 inputs?
Remy – what can I say? Your objection is really dumb.
Ferdinand –
“Anyway I have shown that there is not the slightest problem with using human emissions as source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere…”
Your model is non-physical for reasons I have cited. It treats natural and anthro inputs asymmetrically.
And, it is a flail. Why do something so convoluted when you already have excellent agreement between the temperature anomaly and the rate of change?
“Further, if natural fluxes are “throttled”, then human emissions are that too. Thus more human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.”
That’s true. I haven’t said human inputs have made no contribution. I have said that they are negligible. It’s the proportions that matter. Natural input is on the order of 30x or more of anthro.
Bart:
Your model is non-physical for reasons I have cited. It treats natural and anthro inputs asymmetrically.
Sigh. For the last time, as this is just a waste of my time:
There is not the slightest differentiation between human and natural CO2 in any process (except for a very minor shift in isotopes).
There is a huge difference in process responses to terrestrial/ocean temperature changes, compared to CO2 pressure changes in the atmosphere.
Natural input is on the order of 30x or more of anthro
That is 3.3 % anthro in the inputs. Explain: observed is 10% anthro in the atmosphere.
I’m sorry, Ferdinand, but you cannot get a 300 ppm to 100 ppm ratio in impact when you have a 30 to 1 ratio in input, unless you have a gross nonlinearity, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
“Explain: observed is 10% anthro in the atmosphere.”
I do not know what you are talking about here. Estimates of the flows, and they are only estimates mind you, are on the order of 30:1 between natural and anthropogenic contributions to the flow. Meanwhile, the claim is that anthro has contributed about 100 ppm out of 400 ppm, for a 3:1 natural/anthro ratio in impact.
This is not tenable.
I ask Bart for evidence , and he replies: “Your objection is really dumb.”
…
Why don’t you explain to us why asking for evidence is dumb.
Show us the evidence as to which variable in your squiggly lines is independent, and which is dependent.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/13/study-co2-rise-after-last-ice-age-didnt-need-man-made-influences-just-the-deep-pacific-ocean/#comment-2436816
Waving your arms in comment 2436816 is not “evidence.” Bart’s pronouncements are not “evidence.”
..
You are the perfect example of why an engineer does not make a good scientist.
SMH
In fact rising CO2 (dCO2/dt > 0) is causing Earth’s temperature to rise. This is the consensus science is all about.
Nope. AGW is founded upon quantity of CO2, not its rate of change. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Bart,
That is not tenable in your model. But it is observed, thus your model is wrong, as al other observations also indicate.
In the general model, accepted by many, even within the sceptics community, it is simply the different effects of temperature and pressure on different processes.
Here the base of the story, assuming that about 20% per year (150 out of 800 GtC) of all CO2, whatever the origin, is exchanged between atmosphere and other reservoirs (by temperature changes) and that 1/50 of the excess CO2 above equilibrium is removed each year (by pressure changes):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
Where FA is the accumulated fraction of human emissions in the atmosphere, FL in the ocean surface – not important here, tCA the calcuted CO2 mass in the atmosphere and tCA obs. the observed CO2 mass.
The essential mistake you do make is that human emissions are not proportional to natural inputs in the outputs. Human inputs are spread in the atmosphere fairly evenly, thus the outputs remove human inputs in proportion to the ratio present in the atmosphere, not the ratio in the inputs… That for the ratio in fractions.
Something similar happens for mass quantities: the increase in sinks is not proportional to the total inputs, the increase in sinks is proportional to the CO2 pressure increase in the atmosphere above equilibrium, while temperature changes and the resulting huge (seasonal) fluxes largely remain the same.
Remember that 30% more CO2 has hardly any influence on the seasonal amplitude, only a doubling of the residual small amount of extra CO2/year in the atmosphere.
“But it is observed, thus your model is wrong, as al other observations also indicate.”
That is completely circular reasoning, and you are rationalizing impossibilities.
It is not tenable in the real world. You might as well try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5.
“Something similar happens for mass quantities…”
Magic!
That is what you are essentially claiming. Anthro CO2 molecules are magic molecules.
Bart,
If you can explain to me why a 30% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has hardly any effect on the seasonal amplitude, which implies the largest temperature controlled CO2 fluxes (14% of all CO2 mass in the atmosphere in and out) on earth then we can have a real discussion.
All what humans do is increasing the 30% increase with 0.5% per year, thus why should that have any more influence on the 110 GtC/year seasonal sinks than 30% extra already in the atmosphere?
Low pass response. We’ve been over this.
Come on Bart,
Natural inputs ánd outputs have a response time of a few months on temperature changes, BTW opposite to temperature – the horror. Human inputs have a response time of ~50 years on the same outputs in the same processes? Please explain…
Yeah, no. You can’t do that. Nature has no means of differentiating anthro species from natural.
Bart,
Agreed, but how do you explain that the largest natural fluxes, the seasonal ones, show an opposite response to temperature?
How do you explain that the seasonal fluxes show hardly any change over the past 60 years with 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere (or 0.5% more human CO2/year)?
If we assume Southern hemisphere ocean’s are dominant in uptake, then they should be taking up most in Southern hemisphere winter, and throttling down in Southern hemisphere winter.
Thus, we expect the rate of change to decrease in Northern hemisphere summer, and increase in Northern hemisphere winter. And, lo and behold, it does:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/detrend:40/to:2005/derivative
Bart,
So you found another escape goat…
Problem with that goat is that there is a few years lag for CO2 changes between the hemispheres, with the NH increasing first and that there is hardly any seasonal exchange between the two.
The dip at MLO is entirely from vegetation in summer of the NH, not from winter in the Southern Oceans, or it would be difficult to explain the very large seasonal amplitude at Barrow, near the North Pole…
Don’t you see Ferdinand? You’ve already produced a convoluted model to keep your hypothesis alive. Now, you are finding you have to make further exotic excuses for it. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
This is why Occam’s Razor is so valuable. You don’t have to go down this epicyclic road. The rate of change is proportional to temperature anomaly. Done.
Ferdinan’s models are better than a pair of squiggly lines forced into submission with offsets, scale factors and what-not.
..
All your eggs are in one basket (graphic) with no supporting evidence.
You are wrong.
Or equally probable is that the temperature anomaly is proportional to the rate of change of CO2. Done 2.0
…
Which variable is independent?
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Oh….and your statement that it is “proportional” is incorrect. They are correlated. Using the word proportional implies some kind of causality of which no evidence has been furnished.
You are clutching at straws.
Nope, you are hanging your hat on a single graphic. A graphic that does not show causality. That is pretty “dumb.”
And Ferdinan’s detailed use of real data shows your “arguments” lacking substance.
I have a detailed employment of real data as well. This argument doesn’t help you.
Good…..post your evidence of causation. I’ve been asking for it.
Because it is absurd to posit the rate of change of CO2 drives temperatures. You can then pump it up as high as you like, and once you stop, the temperatures revert to the initial value, independently of the quantity.
How many times to I have to explain this before it goes in?
Can’t wait to hear your theory of how temperatures depend on the rate of change of CO2, and not the quantity.
Bart……when the quantity changes, dCO2/dt is non zero.
SMH
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
My acronym isn’t the same as your.
So, we can pump it up as high as we like, and as soon as it stops, temperatures revert to the initial level? This makes sense to you?
WRONG……you are using anomalies, not absolute temperatures. As soon as “it stops” the anomaly goes to zero, but the baseline has risen over the time interval, so you are at a new higher absolute temp. Bart, your relationship is NOT ABOUT TEMPERATURE.
Geeez….you don’t even know what you are talking about.
You don’t know what a baseline is, do you?
LMAO, now Bart is grasping at straws.
You don’t know what a baseline is, do you? Or, an anomaly.
You want to LMAO? Get this: ” but the baseline has risen over the time interval”. What a maroon.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
LMAO, for the Nth time Bart has no viable explanation. Saying “Wrong” is pointless, and you are now becoming a boring waste of my time.
Ferdinand…..God bless your tolerance of the petulant little boy.
Still waiting for your exegesis on how temperatures can depend on the rate of change of CO2, and not the absolute quantity.
BTW, your increasing shrillness is noted.
Bart,
A single step in temperature spewing a fixed amount of CO2/year until eternum, without any response of the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, is as absurd as the reverse.
The lag and response is between T and CO2 and between dT/dt and dCO2/dt. Not between T and dCO2/dt, as there is zero lag between these two.
Further, you are comparing the full trend of T with the detrended increase of CO2, thus you removed the cause of the full trend of CO2 and then conclude that there is no influence of that cause…
Ferdinand, you are arguing with a brick wall.
What is absurd is assuming a single step in temperature, and an infinite timeline for the response. Over long periods of time, other processes come into play. There are limits to how much CO2 the oceans can disgorge.
This is not a valid criticism.
Bart:
The general accepted “model” simply follows the rules of solubility of CO2 in seawater and the observed decay rate of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere and fits all observations, past and present. Yours violates the solubility of CO2 in seawater and about all known observations…
Occam’s Razor is so valuable
Indeed the simplest explanation is in most cases the best one. But yours is too simple: it is simplistic, as it ignores the influence of a changing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere.
Workers in a soda factory know that if the temperature of the liquid in the carbonator increases, all they have to do is increase the CO2 pressure to obtain the same CO2 levels in the bottles.
Seems that something is missing in your temperature-only approach…
Ah, the old “generally accepted” ploy.
Sorry, Ferdinand. You can’t treat natural and anthro inputs asymmetrically. Not if you want to maintain any relationship with the real world.
Bart,
Generally accepted did react on “my model”, as that is not my model, but the model that explains all observations.
And here ends it, if you can’t accept any explanation that not one process on earth does treat anthro and natural inputs different, but that many processes treat temperature changes and pressure changes different, then any further discussion doesn’t have any purpose.
Ferdinand… you are arguing an impossibility. You must subject anthro and natural inputs to the same dynamics. If you cannot understand this, then I don’t know what to tell you except, watch and see what happens.
You’re already in a bad situation, as concentration has not risen with emissions for the past 20 years. If temperature anomaly continues its standstill, or declines, you are going to have to admit at some point that you were wrong.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
Bart,
Are you really so obtuse? Again and again, there is no, none, zero difference in treatment between natural and anthro CO2 in any process.
There is a lot of difference in process reactions to temperature and pressure changes.
But CO2 pressure changes are of no interest for you…
I am not in any bad situtation at all: “my” model still shows the calculated increase in the atmosphere in the middle of the natural variability:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
The increase in the atmosphere eventually will get to zero for a constant emission of 4.5 ppmv/year if the CO2 pressure increases to 515 ppmv in the atmosphere…
No, Ferdinand. It is not I who is being obtuse.
You cannot just assume an equilibrium exists for no particular reason, and then just add whatever arbitrary dynamics on top of it you please.
The inputs establish the balance. Both inputs are subject to the same balancing mechanism. You cannot treat one input one way, and the other another. Your model would have the natural balance 10x higher than it is. Fail.
Bart,
You are just talking nonsense. During the seasonal changes, warming oceans emit a lot of CO2 at the same moment that vegetation absorbs a lot of CO2.
The inputs from the oceans have zero effect on the sinks into vegetation, only temperature affects both: temperature is the driving force for both opposing fluxes. At no moment in time there is 110 GtC (55 ppmv) extra in the atmosphere, only + and – 10 GtC (5 ppmv) from 60 GtC uptake/release in the biosphere and 50 GtC release/uptake of the oceans.
If there is any influence from the quantities in the atmosphere by seasonal changes, that would be from the +/- 5 ppmv within a year, ending at about +2 ppmv after a full cycle. Humans emit about 4.5 ppmv/year, continuously. That is twice the endbalance of a full seasonal cycle. The input effect then is 2:1, not 1:10 or 1:30. Even that is nonsense, as the extra outputs are driven by the total increase in the atmosphere, not the increase of one year.
Further the dynamic equilibrium exists, because that is the solubility equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere for the average temperature of surface seawater. Confirmed by 800,000 years of ice cores and over 3 million direct ocean surface water samples. The same for a single sample as for the full dynamics of the ocean surface.
“Continuously” doesn’t matter, Ferdinand. All that matters year to year is the total. You are giving excuses to treat the two inputs differently. That is not valid.
BTW, your CO2 inputs do not look accurate to me here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
Here are two other graphs which show continuous increase without the plateaus you are showing.
Given likely undercounting by fast growing emitters like China and India, I think your plot is fanciful. But, of course, it is a bit moot, because your model is not physically valid anyway.
Bart, you said:
The inputs establish the balance. Both inputs are subject to the same balancing mechanism.
According to your own formula, temperature establishes the balance: the increase in the atmosphere is temperature dependent only, not input (=pressure) dependent.
Even within the largest CO2 fluxes on earth, the seasonal fluxes, the inputs and outputs from oceans and the biosphere are reverse for each other with temperature and as the biosphere fluxes are larger, the net effect is that higher temperatures show lower CO2 in each hemisphere and global for the NH summer. Each large flux is largely independent of the other’s, opposite flux.
That means that temperature treats the two largest CO2 inputs not only different, but even opposite. Even the removal of any extra CO2 mass in the atmosphere (whatever the source) is different between oceans: mainly in fall-winter and biosphere: mainly in spring-summer.
All that matters year to year is the total. You are giving excuses to treat the two inputs differently.
As shown above: there is not one natural input, there are at least two (and many more): opposite to each other over time and temperature. The resulting net input (sum of all inputs and outputs on earth) varies from -5 ppmv to +5 ppmv over the year and ends at +2 ppmv after a full year.
Humans emit in average 4.5 ppmv/year, thus the real inputs are 2:1 human vs. natural.
Here are two other graphs which show continuous increase
I did use EIA figures up to 2003, then CDIAC up to 2008, then EIA again, as the first and second did stop updating the pages I used. But that hardly makes a difference, as the sinks follow the total CO2 in the atmosphere over the equilibrium, not the emissions of one year.
If I add the latest European global inventory, human emissions increased a lot in 2016, but still the calculated rise is largely within the huge noise:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6B.jpg
But I will check your CDIAC source…
In case you have trouble finding it …
The latest version of the “Global Carbon Budget” that used to be published by CDIAC is now available here: https://www.icos-cp.eu/GCP/2017. Same author team.
That page provides links to a technical paper giving a full description of the derivation of the data and to the metadata in the form of two spreadsheets.
The global “budget” is a little different this year. Previously, the uptake by the terrestrial biosphere was simply the difference between the estimated total emissions for the year and the summation of the atmospheric CO2 increase and the estimated (from models) oceanic uptake. No wonder it always balanced!!
This year, each of the two assumed sinks are estimated separately (means of multiple models), which leads to some very interesting mis-matches, particularly during the early 1940s and late 1970s (see plot at top right of page linked above). Enjoy.
Thank you, Jim.
Thanks Jim,
Have plotted the three versions now:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6B.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6C.jpg
It seems that the European inventory is a little too high compared to the EIA and CDIAC inventories, but as the natural noise is that high, doesn’t make much difference for the calculated increase.
Better compare yearly values with yearly increase, that has less noise…
Will make an update of that graph.
“The resulting net input…
No, that’s not what you compare it against. You have to compare it against total input. Inputs go in. Outputs are not inputs.
Something has to sustain the equilibrium level. That something is natural inputs.You must subject the natural and anthropogenic input to the same dynamics.
Come on Bart,
The equilibrium level is sustained by the balance between inputs and outputs, not by the inputs alone.
Take the ocean surface: when the temperature increases in spring/summer, a lot of CO2 is released until the CO2 pressure (pCO2) in atmosphere and ocean are equal. If that was the only CO2 flux, then indeed the equilibrium level will be reached with that input only. When the temperature drops in fall-winter, a lot of CO2 is absorbed in the ocean surface, until the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface again is equal. In that case it is the outputs that reach the equilibrium.
I know, in a dynamic equilibrium, there are continuous ocean sources and sinks, but that doesn’t make any difference: it is the unbalance between inputs and outputs that will try to obtain the equilibrium. Not the inputs or outputs alone.
The same reasoning, but opposite fluxes, for the biosphere.
The same reasoning, but one-way influx for human emissions, which disturbes the equilibrium and creates an unbalance between inputs and outputs.
As temperature is the main driver of seasonal fluxes, the input and output fluxes are largely independent of each other, as can be seen in the only slightly increased seasonal amplitude with 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere, no matter if that is all natural or all human or anything inbetween.
Human input hardly influences the bulk of the seasonal fluxes, but it influences the balance between total inputs and total outputs at a ratio of 1:50 for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium.
If you subject the natural inputs to the same dynamics you have assumed for the anthro inputs, you would find equilibrium at a much higher level than exists.
You just keep going round and round, saying the same things, Ferdinand. You just don’t get it, and I see little point in continuing.
Your model is illegitimate, and you have arbitrarily thrown away the obvious, excellent fit between the trend in temperature anomaly and the trend in the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
I don’t see any way to break through your dedication to your fanciful narrative. Until we meet again…
Bart,
The equilibrium for the current average ocean surface temperature is 290 ppmv, not 410 ppmv, no matter static or dynamic. Or you are violating the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
Your model is illegitimate, and you have arbitrarily thrown away the obvious, excellent fit between the trend in temperature anomaly and the trend in the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
Your model is a single, temperature controlled process, while in the real world tens of temperature and/or pressure controlled processes are at work in parallel and countercurrent..
You compare the trend in T with the detrended trend of CO2, thus you removed most of the real cause of the trend in dCO2/dt: the slightly quadratic increase of residual human emissions in the atmosphere…
Until next time…