A Simple Model of the Atmospheric CO2 Budget

Reposted from Dr Roy Spencer’s blog

April 11th, 2019 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

SUMMARY: A simple model of the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is presented which fairly accurately reproduces the Mauna Loa observations 1959 through 2018. The model assumes the surface removes CO2 at a rate proportional to the excess of atmospheric CO2 above some equilibrium value. It is forced with estimates of yearly CO2 emissions since 1750, as well as El Nino and La Nina effects. The residual effects of major volcanic eruptions (not included in the model) are clearly seen. Two interesting finding are that (1) the natural equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere inplied by the model is about 295 ppm, rather than 265 or 270 ppm as is often assumed, and (2) if CO2 emissions were stabilized and kept constant at 2018 levels, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would eventually stabilize at close to 500 ppm, even with continued emissions.

A recent e-mail discussion regarding sources of CO2 other than anthropogenic led me to revisit a simple model to explain the history of CO2 observations at Mauna Loa since 1959. My intent here isn’t to try to prove there is some natural source of CO2 causing the recent rise, as I think it is mostly anthropogenic. Instead, I’m trying to see how well a simple model can explain the rise in CO2, and what useful insight can be deduced from such a model.

The model uses the Boden et al. (2017) estimates of yearly anthropogenic CO2 production rates since 1750, updated through 2018. The model assumes that the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is proportional to the atmospheric excess above some natural “equilibrium level” of CO2 concentration. A spreadsheet with the model is here.

Here’s the assumed yearly CO2 inputs into the model:

Fig. 1. Assumed yearly anthropogenic CO2 input into the model atmosphere.

I also added in the effects of El Nino and La Nina, which I calculate cause a 0.47 ppm yearly change in CO2 per unit Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) value (May to April average). This helps to capture some of the wiggles in the Mauna Loa CO2 observations.

The resulting fit to the Mauna Loa data required an assumed “natural equilibrium” CO2 concentration of 295 ppm, which is higher than the usually assumed 265 or 270 ppm pre-industrial value:

Fig. 2. Simple model of atmospheric CO2 concentration using Boden et al. (2017) estimates of yearly anthropogenic emissions, an El Nino/La Nina natural source/sink, after fitting of three model free parameters.

Click on the above plot and notice just how well even the little El Nino- and La Nina-induced changes are captured. I’ll address the role of volcanoes later.

The next figure shows the full model period since 1750, extended out to the year 2200:

Simple-CO2-model-fit-1750-2200-550x413Fig. 3. As in Fig. 2, but for the full model period, 1750-2200.

Interestingly, note that despite continued CO2 emissions, the atmospheric concentration stabilizes just short of 500 ppm. This is the direct result of the fact that the Mauna Loa observations support the assumption that the rate at which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is directly proportional to the amount of “excess” CO2 in the atmosphere above a “natural equilibrium” level. As the CO2 content increases, the rate or removal increases until it matches the rate of anthropogenic input.

We can also examine the removal rate of CO2 as a fraction of the anthropogenic source. We have long known that only about half of what is emitted “shows up” in the atmosphere (which isn’t what’s really going on), and decades ago the IPCC assumed that the biosphere and ocean couldn’t keep removing excess CO2 at such a high rate. But, in fact, the fractional rate of removal has actually been increasing, not decreasing. And the simple model captures this:

Fig. 4. Rate of removal of atmospheric CO2 as a fraction of the anthropogenic source, in the model and observations.

The up-and-down variations in Fig. 4 are due to El Nino and La Nina events (and volcanoes, discussed next).

Finally, a plot of the difference between the model and Mauna Loa observations reveals the effects of volcanoes. After a major eruption, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is depressed, either because of a decrease in natural surface emissions or an increase in surface uptake of atmospheric CO2:

Fig. 5. Simple model of yearly CO2 concentrations minus Mauna Loa observations (ppm), revealing the effects of volcanoes which are not included in the model.

What is amazing to me is that a model with such simple but physically reasonable assumptions can so accurately reproduce the Mauna Loa record of CO2 concentrations. I’ll admit I am no expert in the global carbon cycle, but the Mauna Loa data seem to support the assumption that for global, yearly averages, the surface removes a net amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that is directly proportional to how high the CO2 concentration goes above 295 ppm. The biological and physical oceanographic reasons for this might be complex, but the net result seems to follow a simple relationship.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

261 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 12, 2019 9:44 am

Bear with me. In 2002 I filled an area of my garden’ lined with concrete edging, with topsoil, seedcd it with grass..and just mowed it leaving all the leaves from the trees and clippings on it.

The gravel drive it adjoins having become grass covered I started to remove the gravel – now also full of organic material.

The soil level is a full 2 cm above what it was…due to accumulated organic material.

Any archaeologist can tell you the same. Land not covered in concrete or rock accumulates organic matter constantly.

About a meter every thousand years of mainly pure carbon…teh black peats of the world.

That is one hell of a lot of carbon capture…

kevin kilty
April 12, 2019 10:36 am

ctm: Did a comment of mind from half and hour ago get lost somehow?
Thanks,
Kilty

Clyde Spencer
April 12, 2019 11:04 am

Roy Spencer

I’m at a loss to explain why a significant volcanic eruption would cause a decrease in CO2. Clearly sulfate aerosols and ‘dust’ increases, and I would expect CO2 to increase proportionately.

One possibility that occurs to me is that with a decrease in temperatures, ocean out-gassing decreases. That would suggest that out-gassing is the most important CO2 source and that the correlation of the Keeling Curve with anthropogenic emissions is a spurious correlation.

Any additional thoughts on the issue?

Bindidon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 12, 2019 12:01 pm

Clyde Spencer

“I’m at a loss to explain why a significant volcanic eruption would cause a decrease in CO2.”

A layman’s question: if a huge volcanic eruption (I mean one similar to Tambora in 1815, or better: Mt Samalas in 1257) causes a corresponding aerosol coverage in the lower stratosphere, will that not result in

– a significant ocean cooling worldwide, and thus to
– a decrease of oceanic CO2 outgassing (a process I intuitively link to oceanic temperature) ?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Bindidon
April 13, 2019 7:14 pm

Bindidon
I believe your assumptions are correct.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 12, 2019 12:32 pm

I’m at a loss to explain why a significant volcanic eruption would cause a decrease in CO2.

I have the same problem, Clyde.

It is clearly related to the climatic effect of the eruption. Pinatubo had a significant impact on temperature and a huge impact on CO2 rate of increase. El Chichón had a smallish effect on temperature and it is almost invisible in CO2 rate of increase.

First possibility: Volcanic eruptions with big sulfate injection into the stratosphere interfere with stratospheric circulation and imitate the effects of ENSO. If I remember correctly the first look like an El Niño and then a year or two later like a La Niña. But the effect of Pinatubo on CO2 is much larger than the effect of a strong La Niña.

Second possibility: volcanic aerosols disperse incoming solar radiation producing diffuse radiation that is more effectively used by plants to photosynthesize. A higher rate of photosynthesis would reduce CO2 levels. The radiation diffusion effect has been researched and published. I am not aware if the increase in photosynthesis has been documented.

I am sure there are additional possibilities I can’t think of right now.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2019 1:30 pm

Short term changes in CO2 ie d/dt(CO2) , correlate with SST. Cooler oceans absorb the excess CO2 more readily than warmer oceans.

Mt. P caused world wide cooling, this is probably most relevant in the tropics. However, if we plot the two we see an extra deep dip with started well before the June 1991 eruption. It seems that some other cause happened at about the same time and is being confounded with the volcanic effects. ( Don’t worry this also applied to temperature effects ).

comment image

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
April 12, 2019 1:46 pm

This is clearer in higher differentials : second diff of CO2 vs first diff of SST. Again the Mt. P dip is clearly seen but there is a definite departure a good year before it happens as well.

comment image

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
April 12, 2019 1:59 pm

sorry, that was not graph I thought it was ( that was an attempt to fit a combined model, please ignore).

here the second diff plot I intended to post. It fits a lot closer during Mt. Pinatubo period.

comment image
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/d2dt2_co2_ddt_sst/

Bartemis
Reply to  Greg Goodman
April 13, 2019 12:30 pm

“Short term changes in CO2 ie d/dt(CO2) , correlate with SST..”

Longer term as well:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.16/offset:0.097/from:1959

Bindidon
April 12, 2019 11:34 am

DocSiders

CO2 induced “greening” ? Where does that exist – right now?

I recommend you to look at the following chart:
http://tinyurl.com/y5dwmeut

Actually, most greening on Earth barely could have anything to do with CO2.

It is mostly due to human activities, above all
– China’s billion-tree fight since decades against World’s most intensive desertification
and
– India’s urge in increasing crop production at rates corresponding to the increase of population.

The next greatest increase also is not related to CO2, but rather to increased warming in the Arctic regions, where the tundra is rapidly losing permafrost and thus greening since quite a lot of time. (Where that warming comes from is quite secondary here).

*
The greatest greening losses are there where you would expect them the least: in the globally greatest rain forest region (Amazonas).

Brazil loses forest at a rate of round 100,000 km^2 per decade. The second greatest greening loss region is Indonesia: palm trees account for ridiculous amounts compared with rain forests.

And the following paper might be of interest for you:
https://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/JCLIM.African.Sahara.Desert.Expansion.published.29March2018.pdf

What is correct is that the African Sahel region for example might over the long term experience this CO2-related greening:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266031206_CO2-Induced_Sahel_Greening_in_Three_CMIP5_Earth_System_Models

Greg Goodman
April 12, 2019 12:40 pm

The resulting fit to the Mauna Loa data required an assumed “natural equilibrium” CO2 concentration of 295 ppm, which is higher than the usually assumed 265 or 270 ppm pre-industrial value:

Interestingly this is exactly the same value that I arrived at in2014, by a different method.
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/co2-log-rise/

This method leads to a pre-industrial estimation of 295 ppmv. Somewhat higher than the usual estimation of about 280 ppmv.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
April 12, 2019 1:15 pm

Basically I took the log of accumulated emissions according to CDIAC and scaled it fit MLO observations. I took the log of CO2 and found three distinct exponential growth periods described the record quite well.

The intercept of the earliest growth period intercepted y axis at a value corresponding to 295 ppmv.

No ENSO, no volcanoes, no account of the excess above base value. A unique scaling factor is applied, being inferred from MLO period which covers the latter two growth periods: essentially 1900-1960 and 1960 onwards.

The MLO does rise a little faster than the model near the end ( a result of the choice of fitting period ). This probably explains why my extrapolated 2050 is slightly lower at 462ppmv.

whiten
April 12, 2019 1:44 pm

The model assumes the surface removes CO2 at a rate proportional to the excess of atmospheric CO2 above some equilibrium value.
——————–
Sorry but the above explanatory approach seems to me more like a circular reasoning.
There could not be excess to contemplate when an equilibrium considered, unless in matter of projections….

So if there the equilibrium maintained there can not be any excess observed….whatever the value of such as equilibrium considered at some given point.

An equilibrium and an excess in a given relation could not co-exist, or be observed in the same data for the same period of time….
especially when considering CO2 concentration in and as for regard of CO2 equilibrium….where any CO2 equilibrium can only be considered as in direct means only in the context of CO2 flux and in matter of CO2 mass and its relation in that flux…
The ppm value for such could only consist as ‘valid” only in the context of indirect, with a big error margin to count for,
where simply comparing a value of 270ppm versus 295ppm will still be within error bars as per means of such model calculations…..

Oh well, maybe I just missing the point…

cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
April 12, 2019 4:28 pm

Greg
April 12, 2019 at 2:03 pm
———————

Greg,

You should read my comment again, I think…. or let me help.

“There could not be excess to contemplate when an equilibrium considered, unless in matter of projections….”

So using a simple model based, as you say, in “pre-industrial” time and data of the past to project an “excess” into “present”, the ML data period,
is not to be considered simply as circular reasoning but also as backwards.

When it comes to CO2 concentration measurements, the ML period consist as the best and higher resolution and direct measurements in the atmosphere, where the only projections about CO2 concentration within model means is from present to either the future or to the past, where ether in one case we have no any data at all yet or in the other the data is to be considered as subject to validation and correction or necessarily adjustments due to the very low certainty and very low poor resolution and accuracy of what these data suppose to represent.

Where also considering a low accuracy in expression and relation of an equilibrium (response) to CO2 by relying on the CO2 concentration and a given ppm value by a model estimation of far more uncertain data of the “past”, as per my understanding stands as a very high error risk approach, in this case.

And yes I do agree with your point of IPCC being a champion with such approaches when it comes to climate data and especially the CO2 concentration and CO flux budget…
within the realm of models and projections.

Oh well, anyway I still may be missing the point.

No hard feelings. Your reply appreciated. 🙂

cheers

[Please clarify your “ML” term for other readers. .mod]

whiten
Reply to  whiten
April 13, 2019 2:08 pm

ok, thorry, for being not so clear… mod

“ML” stands for “Mauna Loa (observations)”.

Thanks

cheers

Greg
April 12, 2019 2:03 pm

“Oh well, maybe I just missing the point…”

Yes, read it again. He is suggesting a pre-industrial “equilibrium” which is what IPCC etc do too. Values after 1750 are assumed to be out of equilibrium. That is what the model is based on.

chaamjamal
April 13, 2019 3:26 am

A Simple Model of the Atmospheric CO2 Budget

A little too simple I’m afraid. If you assume that a certain set of variables explain changes in atmosco2 then you can surely come up with the math to present the mass balance but without empirical evidence of such causation it is circular reasoning. First and foremost it must be shown with data and not with talk that the effect of fossil fuel emissions on atmosco2 is even detectable given large uncertainties in natural carbon cycle flows that can’t be directly measured but must be inferred.

Pls see

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/

John Norris
April 13, 2019 8:10 am

“What is amazing to me is that a model with such simple but physically reasonable assumptions can so accurately reproduce the Mauna Loa record of CO2 concentrations.”

Of course that may just mean that Boden calibrated his estimates to the Mauna Loa data; perhaps inadvertently.

climanrecon
April 13, 2019 9:21 am

A different perspective to that of many commenters:

Roy’s model is that the changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration (besides the anthropogenic additions) C are proportional to (X – C), where X is a constant. This is equivalent to two sources of change, a positive CONSTANT one (the X term), which can be regarded as the “natural” flux from sources such as respiration and ocean outgassing, and a negative one proportional to C, which is effectively the assumption that CO2 molecules have a constant probability of leaving the atmosphere, so twice as many gives twice the flux.

Thus, the model seems to me to be well rooted in the basic phenomena, and in the mathematical technique of perturbation theory.

DMA
Reply to  climanrecon
April 13, 2019 3:33 pm

“a positive CONSTANT one (the X term), which can be regarded as the “natural” flux from sources such as respiration and ocean outgassing”
I think the problem with this statement is the assumption that natural sources are constant which is far from true. See ( https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/ ) at 24:20 to 26:30

Bart
Reply to  DMA
April 14, 2019 8:55 am

Correct. One cannot just take the natural equilibrium as a given, and then construct an arbitrary system response on top of that which gives the output one desires. Whatever dynamics enforce the natural level also dictate how the anthropogenic inputs are treated.

And, this is where it all falls down. Natural inputs are so much greater than anthropogenic that, if they were subjected to the same dynamics, they would quickly drive the equilibrium level far higher than just 300 ppm.

Admad
April 13, 2019 7:15 pm

If I read this right, according to this new model atmospheric concentration of CO2 tops out at 500 ppm. I’m sure I’ve read elsewhere that at previous geological times atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were in the 1,000 to 1,200 range. Is this model questionable or is my memory defective?

Reply to  Admad
April 14, 2019 9:24 am

Just your reading skills. The article very clearly specifies the condition that emissions don’t increase. CO2 has to come from somewhere.

Verified by MonsterInsights