Clyde Spencer
2021
Introduction
I started this exploration into the changes in atmospheric CO2 because I was surprised that a widely reported significant reduction in anthropogenic emissions in 2020, resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic curtailing industrial activity, commuting, and air travel, did not result in a discernable decline in the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2. I was not satisfied with the official explanations for the impact not being observed. I decided to examine the data and see if I could tease out the effects, or understand better why not, with more-detailed graphs.
While several sources estimate that the decline in anthropogenic CO2 emissions averaged about 7% to 10% for all of 2020, Carbon Brief has an interactive map that shows the global reduction reached over 18% in mid-April 2020; it was down to about 10% in March and May. Coincidentally, those months are near the usual, annual peak of CO2 Winter ramp-up, when Northern Hemisphere photosynthesis is at a minimum. One would naively expect that, if anthropogenic CO2 were important in the growth of the atmospheric concentration, double-digit percentage drops in the three last months of the annual 8-month ramp-up would at least be suggested in the height of the peak (range) or the slope of the curve. Indeed, it is common to observe ‘benches’ on the growth curves (see Figures 1 and 2, below), related to decreased CO2 flux, perhaps resulting from abnormally low Winter temperatures. However, the ‘bench’ present in 2020 is almost indistinguishable from 2019, and the Winter ramp-up range ties for 3rd place (Presented with one significant figure to the right of the decimal point.) with three other years over the 31-year period analyzed. The rate decline in 2020 was in March, not April, and the April value was a little higher (0.3 PPMv) than in 2019. It is reasonable that there may be a slight lag in observed effects; however, it is X-Files spooky to suggest that a hiatus precedes the decrease in the forcing agent. Therefore, it is impossible that the decline in anthropogenic CO2 flux is responsible for the March decline, which happens frequently.
According to a NOAA Research News Article, “The global rate of increase [2020 CO2] was the fifth-highest in NOAA’s 63-year record, following 1987, 1998, 2015 and 2016.” The same article shows a time-series graph for methane, which shows a seasonal variation also, albeit of different shape. The article makes the following statement with regard to methane:
“Methane in the atmosphere is generated by many different sources, such as fossil fuel development and use, decay of organic matter in wetlands, and as a byproduct of livestock farming. Determining which specific sources are responsible for variations in methane annual increase is difficult. Preliminary analysis of carbon isotopic composition of methane in the NOAA air samples done by the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado, indicates that it is likely that a primary driver of the increased methane burden comes from biological sources of methane such as wetlands or livestock rather than thermogenic sources like oil and gas production and use.”
Considering the obvious seasonality of methane and CO2, I’m inclined to believe that it is temperature, hence weather and climate, that is driving the changes.
Background
I used NOAA data from the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory for analysis. Mauna Loa data are generally considered to be the best representative sample of what is happening in the Northern Hemisphere (NH).
Fig. 1. Recent, typical data from Mauna Loa Observatory (https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/) The red lines and symbols represent the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black lines and symbols represent the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle.
Note the saw tooth-like form (red line) resulting from seasonal variations. If a positive trend-line is added to a sine wave (a function of the form y = m x + a sin x), the slope of the increasing side of the sine wave will increase while the absolute value of the slope of the decreasing side of the sine wave will decrease as m increases. That is the opposite of what is observed with the CO2 concentrations! The absolute value of the drawdown slope is greater than the ramp-up slope! By removing the ‘seasonality’ in the black line in Figure 1, it makes it look like there is a trend, presumably driven by continuous fossil fuel emissions, that is modulated by natural variations. I’m making the case that the apparent trend is the result of natural seasonal variations and that the accepted model is not physical.
What I missed, initially, is that the saw tooth pattern is not symmetrical. The ramp-up phase lasts longer than the drawdown phase, although the slope is about two-thirds. In addition, the drawdown phase does not return the CO2 concentration to the original starting level!
A fundamental question to be answered is whether the long-term changes in CO2 concentration are 1) caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2, and by implication, responsible for warming; or 2) if the warming is responsible for rising CO2 levels; or 3) the apparent correlation is spurious and it is just coincidence that both variables are increasing over time.
I created yearly graphs for the years 1990 through 2021, for analysis, by normalizing the beginning of each yearly ramp-up phase by subtracting the October CO2 value from all the CO2 concentrations for the contiguous 12-month period (Oct.–Sept.). Thus, the ramp-up phase starts at zero in all graphs, and all subsequent concentrations are relative to a zero baseline. See Figure 2, below. Some might be concerned that I defined the ramp-up phase as beginning with the lowest, and ending with the highest seasonal values. I did this to emphasize the part of the year when the natural sinks were minimal and there was the greatest hope for detecting a decline in anthropogenic CO2.
Fig. 2. L) Ramp-up and R) drawdown phases for the period of October 2019 through September 2020.
The first half of the yearly cycle is a change from a net absorption of CO2 as plants become senescent and shut down photosynthesis. The annual minimum usually occurs in October; however, rarely, the September average is slightly lower. After the Fall minimum, the CO2 concentration climbs throughout the Winter and early-Spring. The peak is almost always in May; however, it is sometimes as early as April. There are some variations in the pattern in that there is usually a short hiatus for a month or two during the Winter, varying from December to March, as shown in Figure 2, above. It appears that slightly warmer than usual weather may also result in a temporary convex-upward bulge, as shown in Figure 2 above, and conversely, slightly cooler weather results in a concave-upward depression, or bench.
The ramp-up phase is followed by an abrupt decline in the CO2 levels with Spring phytoplankton blooms and leafing-out of deciduous trees and other plants. While biogenic decomposition of dead organic material, producing CO2, is always occurring, the photosynthetic activity on land and in the oceans results in a net decline during the Northern Hemisphere growing season. In addition, theoretically, the reduction in polar pack ice should withdraw additional CO2;however, it isn’t evident.
The 31-year aggregate ramp-up range varies from a low of 6.2 PPMv (in 1999–2000) to a high of 9.4 (in 2015–2016, El Niño); the average is 7.7, with a standard deviation of 0.7 PPMv. The plot of the yearly trend-slopes [not shown] of the ramp-up strongly resembles the range-trend slope (Figure 5) for the 31-year interval. The minimum slope is 0.92 PPMv per month (1999–2000), to a maximum slope of 1.3 PPMv per month (in 2015–2016, El Niño), with an average of 1.1 PPMv per month and standard deviation of 0.1 PPMv.
The shapes of the drawdown curves are much simpler and consistent than the ramp-up phase curves. In addition, the average coefficient of determination (R2) for a linear fit is slightly higher than for the ramp-up curves.
The 30-year [2021 is not available] annual range and slope values for the drawdown phase have R2 values low enough (<0.04) to raise a question as to whether the long-term trend in range and slope (<0.009 PPMv/yr) is statistically significant. The calculated p-values for range and slope are both >0.3; using a p-value cut-off of 0.05, we cannot reject the null-hypothesis that there is no formal predictive value in the independent variable, time. Therefore, the trend is not statistically significant, and we cannot say that the annual drawdown is increasing or decreasing. This suggests that the rate of drawdown is insensitive to the temperature changes. However, we can still say that based on past history, it is probable that the annual drawdown values will continue to oscillate around the current average values (Range: -5.2 PPMv ±0.8; Slope: -1.8 PPMv per month ±0.3) with a 2σ uncertainty.
The wrinkles in the faces of older men are sometimes said to add character. One might similarly say that the CO2 ramp-up curves express more character than the drawdown curves. I think that the transient deviations from a linear growth tells us that something other than the usually constant anthropogenic emissions are having an obvious impact on the yearly growth. Figure 3, below, compares the last 6 years of the ramp-up phase. The El Niño event stands out; however, the other years – except 2017–2018 – are very similar.
Fig. 3. Stacked CO2 ramp-up phase curves.
One might argue that the main driver of the upward trend of CO2 is either increased anthropogenic emissions, which is the default claim, or one could argue that the active sinks simply aren’t keeping up with changes in the temperature-driven emissions. The uncompensated residual at the end of the Summer drawdown is on average about 2.5 PPMv, for the 30-year period. Thus, the next season starts at a base-line that is elevated above the previous season base-line. The drawdown phase is not compensating for the increasing ramp-up. Figure 4, following, illustrates this.
Fig. 4. Annual uncompensated, or residual CO2 at the end of Summer drawdown.
A clue that temperature is driving the annual variations, is that the infamous El Niño events of 1997–1998 and 2015–2016, present as prominent peaks in the graph of the seasonal ramp-up range-trend, as shown below in Figure 5. Note that the 1997–1998 event is also unprecedented in Figure 4, and followed by a similarly unprecedented decline!
Fig. 5. Trend of annual ramp-up phase ranges with peaks at years 7 and 25,
corresponding to the El Niño years of 1997—1998 and 2015–2016, respectively.
If CO2 concentrations were driving temperatures, then one would expect the temperature growth to remain high after a spike in the annual CO2 ramp-up phase. Instead, one observes a sharp decline in temperatures in the years immediately after an El Niño, along with a decline in CO2 concentrations! Clearly, temperature is driving the ramp-up phase variations.
The system seeks an equilibrium between all the sources and sinks, as determined by the solubility of CO2 in water, which is determined by the temperature and atmospheric partial pressure. Bacteria and fungi will increase their activity with increasing temperatures, at temperatures above freezing, also.
Different international agencies have proclaimed 2020 to be either tied with 2016 as the warmest year on record, or the second warmest year. Interestingly, the ‘bench’ is muted in 2020, when the pandemic closures were most severe! This suggests to me that Northern Hemisphere temperatures are more important than anthropogenic emissions.
To explore this further, I obtained GISTEMP v4 Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means for the Northern Hemisphere, land and ocean. I then calculated the average temperature anomaly for the CO2 ramp-up phases (Oct.–May) for the years 1990 through 2020. The following graph, Figure 6, is the result of plotting the annual range of the ramp-up phase against the temperature anomalies:
Fig. 6. Annual ramp-up phase range versus temperature-anomalies for the years 1990 through 2020.
The R2 value indicates that nearly 44% of the variance in the annual range can be explained by average seasonal temperature changes. This provides better prediction than the time-series, which only has an R2 value of about 28%. I suspect that if multi-variate analysis were to be applied, with the ocean and land temperatures treated as separate variables instead of being averaged, a better fit would result and provide more insight on whether outgassing or biological decomposition were the major contributor. One might want to include an index for upwelling, but I think that would be very difficult to obtain.
When the relationship between CO2 and temperature is examined at a finer temporal resolution than annually, i.e. at monthly averages for a single ramp-up phase (i.e. 2018–2019), the R2 value is reduced significantly to 0.230. This could be explained by differences in lag times between outgassing and bacterial production. However, the graph shows two outliers of large jumps [not shown] in CO2 that are suggestive of transient events that are not temperature dependent. What comes to mind is wildfires, but they rarely occur in the Winter. Also, the transient forcing can’t be anthropogenic because large sudden changes are exceedingly rare, and when they do occur, they aren’t measurable!
There are claims that Spring is coming earlier, and there is evidence that Winters are becoming warmer. Is the current behavior of the ramp-up phase representative of the longer-term behavior? To answer that question, I also looked at three years of early atmospheric CO2 data, 1959, 1960, and 1961, also obtained from the NOAA interactive graph cited below. The maximum and minimum seasonal values occur in the same months as currently, and the shape of the curves are similar to the recent curves, and the slopes and ranges, while lower than most recent data, are within the observed variations for the last 30 years. Thus, I would conclude that there have been no significant changes in roughly the last 60 years. Instead, we are dealing with small long-term changes, not at all unlike the phenomena of NASA ‘mission creep.’ Compare Figure 7, below, with Figure 2, above.
Fig. 7. L) Ramp-up and R) drawdown phases for the period of October 1959 through September 1960.
Summary
The slope of a line is important because it is a direct expression of the rate of change of the dependent variable, in this case, CO2 concentration. The slope of the Ordinary Least-Squares Linear Regression trend line for Winter 2019–2020 (1.17 PPMv/month) was higher than the 30-year average (1.09) ramp-up, and higher than the ramp-up slope in 2018–2019 (1.15). Not only can a reduction in range or slope of the growth curve, resulting from a reduction in anthropogenic CO2 not be observed, but it is actually suggesting the opposite!
It is generally claimed that about half-of the anthropogenic CO2 goes into the atmosphere and is totally responsible for the annual increase of about 2 PPMv annually.
Therefore, that would predict a decline in the slope of the CO2 concentrations for the 2019–2020 ramp-up phase of about 9% in April (It increased!), or a lowered April 2020 concentration of at least 0.1 PPMv because of reduced CO2 emissions. It increased compared to 2019 and 2021!
If it weren’t for the economic importance of fossil fuels, we wouldn’t have an estimate of their annual production, consumption, and resultant emissions. The available atmospheric CO2 measurements wouldn’t allow us to make such estimates. That is, not only is the anthropogenic release swamped by natural sources, but even subtle changes, such as a decrease in the rate of increase during the seasonal ramp-up phase, cannot be discerned. The working hypothesis of climatologists is that the long-term atmospheric CO2 increase is the result of anthropogenic emissions. However, the evidence supporting that is weak.
In the finest tradition of post-modern climatology, I will speculate, with little supporting evidence, that the benches in the ramp-up curves during the coldest months of Winter (commonly starting in February, as seen above in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 7.), may suppress oceanic out-gassing, and/or inhibit the activity of biogenic decomposition of detritus, thus causing a hiatus in the increase of CO2. I will further speculate that upwelling plays a role in the temporary increases and decreases in the ramp-up phase.
If the Winter ramp-up is driven by soil respiration, biogenic oxidative decomposition of surface detritus, and ocean out-gassing, it is difficult to imagine an equilibrium between the ramp-up and drawdown when the ramp-up lasts twice as long as the Summer drawdown. An exception might be made if bacterial/fungal action were to be shut down during most of the ramp-up phase by temperatures well below freezing, as might be expected during glaciation. Thus, we could be observing a delayed rebound from the Little Ice Age.
However, because the total anthropogenic contribution to the atmosphere is only about 4% of the total carbon flux into the atmosphere, humans can’t be responsible for this yearly imbalance! The atmosphere can’t tell the difference between anthropogenic sources and natural sources, such as out-gassing and biological decomposition. It is just coincidence that the long-term rise is about one-half of the anthropogenic contributions to the atmosphere.
If there was a delicate balance between the carbon fluxes going into and out of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere, then it is conceivable that a perturbation created by Man might cause a reaction to dampen that perturbation, with the effect being to suppress all the anthropogenic-induced change. However, this analysis suggests that because of the annual variations in the ramp-up phase, that delicate balance doesn’t exist, and probably hasn’t existed during at least the last 60 years. The available empirical observations do not support the idea that changes in anthropogenic fluxes are measurable directly. Instead, it appears that temperature is the controlling factor.
However, it does appear that there may be a negative-feedback mechanism, which generally is not recognized. As the Arctic pack ice melts in the Summer, it exposes the underlying cold water to the atmosphere. This allows CO2 to dissolve into the water, reducing the local concentration, and contributing to the general NH drawdown. It is noteworthy that the Fall-Winter CO2 ramp-up phase coincides with the growth of the Arctic pack ice.
It is difficult for me to accept that there is an unrestrained, positive feedback loop driven by CO2 and resulting in significant surface temperature increase, because, if that were the case, one would expect that we would have long ago passed the so-called ‘Tipping Point’ and be in a permanent ‘hot house’ state, like Venus.
It appears that the long-term growth in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is driven not by anthropogenic emissions, but instead, by static effectiveness of the sinks, which because of the seasonal effects, appears to not be keeping up with increasing temperature-driven emissions. There is no question that anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed in the atmosphere. However, there is no obvious evidence to support the claim that it is totally responsible for the annual CO2 increases. I’m speculating that the carbon flux is large enough that, in the absence of anthropogenic CO2, the annual increase would be at least 96% of what is being measured. The temperature-driven transients are undeniable, and therefore the annual temperature increases must be primarily responsible for the annual increases.
For additional background on this, I can recommend this article by Chaamjamal.
Remarks
I used NOAA CO2 data from the last 31 years to produce Excel graphs to explore the annual range and slope from the ramp-up period from October through May; additionally, I prepared graphs for the years 1959, 1960, and 1961. The downloaded ASCII data that I used for analysis only covered the period 1973 through 2019. I had to retrieve the last three years, and early-1960s data, manually from the following interactive graph: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/graph.html
The temperature-anomaly data were from the following:
GISTEMP Team, 2021: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), version 4. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dataset accessed 2021-06-04 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Lenssen, N., G. Schmidt, J. Hansen, M. Menne, A. Persin, R. Ruedy, and D. Zyss, 2019: Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 124, no. 12, 6307-6326, doi:10.1029/2018JD029522.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The 2020 decrease in anthropogenic CO2 emissions exceeded 10% for only a few months, and for the whole year the emissions decrease was less than 10%. The effect of this on growth of CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere does not outweigh noise from factors such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Dr. Roy Spencer predicted this about a year ago. Meanwhile, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are sufficient to explain the growth of atmospheric CO2, even with nature removing CO2 from the atmosphere (such as via absorption by the oceans). CO2 increase in the atmosphere and CO2 contribution from fossil fuel usage are well enough known.
As for atmospheric CO2 being a result instead of a cause of warming (it was a result and also a minor positive feedback mechanism from at least 400,000 years ago to the time of significant fossil fuel extraction): There is a historic relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 from at least 400,000 years ago and the Industrial Revolution, back when the sum of carbon-cycle-available carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was fairly constant. Since the Industrial Revolution, we transferred hundreds of gigatons of carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere, and about half of that was absorbed from the atmosphere by the hydrosphere and the biosphere, leaving enough added carbon (in the form of CO2) to make atmospheric CO2 increase being over 100 PPM more than explainable by the temperature increase. During this time after the Industrial Revolution, global temperature increased. Global temperature increased even most of the time and as a net result after a multidecadal oscillation peak in the early 1940s, despite solar activity change favoring cooling in the past few decades. Even the UAH V.6 TLT global temperature index has noticeably increased since it started at the end of 1978.
I’m guessing as a percentage – ZERO or pretty close to it.
Not really on topic, but it has puzzled me for a while as I’m not a chemist or biologist.
Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 by Beta decay. So Methane may become ammonium NH4 if it has a C14 atom. Natural Gas is mainly Methane so virtually all the C14 has long since decayed into N14. Is NH4 stable as nitrogen has 7 electrons to carbon’s 6.
Photosynthesis produces C6H12O6 or a similar compound. So what happens if one of those C6 atoms is C14 and decays to N14 which is a stable isotope?
Are any of these nitrogen based compounds be detected in any ancient organic material and what do they tell about ancient C14 levels?
Clyde, please do not misunderstand me;
But got to ask, simply,
Have you ever achieved to publicize any of your clever claims?
Am guessing that even WE had not much luck there, so tell me if you ever somehow manged to publicize something of some value there…
As else you not understand the point of arguing within the premise of error tolerance there.
You definitely no anywhere of a successful publication of your ides or your might of mind!
cheers
You are coming in very loud and clear. There is no problem of misunderstanding!
If allowed to clarify my point,
Clyde is attempting a smart path, but in my understanding is not good enough.
Is claiming that if not enough strength signal of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the CO2 concentration as per Mauna Loa CO2 data, then the man made CO2 may not have an impact on CO2 concentration, as per the given of 2020.
Still even when the error margin small in consideration of Mauna Loa data, still no much of a saying there, as if to be fair, still no any detection of variation expected to clarify one way or another the proposed impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
But in consideration of OCO2 data, which have a larger error margin than Mauna Loa, still for what standing there as a point, the CO2 emission SIGNAL, still much expected observtion to be, in consideration of assessment of whether anthropogenic CO2 emission forcing versus the CO2 concentration has any value or validity… there as in relation to the 2020 global imprisonment.
I would not ever mind or fade way in consideration of measuring up to the absolutely perfect English languists claims there.
BUT;
They got to prove their English in the prospect of being published in English journals at the very least, or else take a freaking fracking hike, regardless.
cheers
In retrospect, it appears I did misunderstand you. I apologize.
I have not attempted to publish anything in a peer-reviewed journal for several reasons: 1) being retired, I have no need to pad out my CV; 2) I don’t have an academic affiliation and I believe that would work against me; 3) the views I hold would not be welcome by probable reviewers or the publications.
And the reviewer would point out the counter arguments that show you are wrong (unless you submitted it to a journal with very weak reviewing, as Harde and Berry did)
Do I again have to wait in patience for two days till my comment or reply allowed!
cheers
Fixed your misspelled email address that your browser keeps autofilling and you’ll stop being caught in moderation.
ok, fair enough, I see, I missed an “a” there, not your fault… this time… but you still happen to be in my record as having my comment standing out for close to two days… 🙂
Thank you Charles.
There are currently 181 comments and I have not looked at every one of them so I apologise if someone has already expressed my concerns.
I have no comments to make about Clyde Spencer’s analysis of the ramp up/draw down curves, or the conclusions he draws from his study.
But I think it a bit ingenuous to assume the NOAA Mauna Loa observations represent the composition of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Admittedly there is little robust information of the distribution of CO₂ around the globe and I appreciate any study has to start somewhere.
The difficulty with using the Mauna Loa observations is that the study has to assume the atmosphere is well mixed. It is not! Some satellite observations show decided differences over industrialised regions.
Trying to draw conclusions about the effect of the reduction of activity during periods of lockdown during the pandemic without also considering the effect of varying sea level temperature is fraught. I haven’t done the calculations but I’d not be surprised if the influence of CO₂ transferring between the ocean and atmosphere is more significant than any variations in emissions.
Hawaii, like many island nations in the Pacific such as my home in New Zealand, are more subject to oceanic variations than industrial variations. I would not expect to see influences of industrial variations in the Mauna Loa observations. But I would expect to see oceanic variations.
The issue with the qualifier “well-mixed” is that there is no commonly accepted definition of it. There is enough variation that it can be measured. But, that doesn’t mean that it is poorly mixed.
Gary, each season some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with CO2 of the oceans and vegetation within a year. Despite that all yearly averaged CO2 levels from near the North Pole to the South Pole are within 2% of full scale.
I call that well mixed.
Well mixed doesn’t imply that any change at any place on earth is immediately visible all over the earth…
There was a good article here a few years on why Maura loa (and similar marine sites at altitude) is a good location. IIRC at night there is a breeze from land to ocean that brings down air from above, so it is measuring the bulk atmosphere?
Clyde,
It is important that people write analyses like yours, that help put data to words that explain some of the vague and troubling uncertainties within prevailing dogma.
Can I suggest that you rely too much on Mauna Loa data? I did an analysis a year ago that gave data for Barrow, Cape Grim and South Pole. The differences between these can help interpretation of effects.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/22/the-global-co2-lockdown-problem/
There are more uncertainties in the data.
Geoff S
Geoff,
You said, “Can I suggest that you rely too much on Mauna Loa data?” You certainly can! 🙂 But, I was using it as an example because it is readily accessible and commonly cited, as just yesterday Seth Borenstein was crowing about a new record for May.
I got to about 1800 words as an outline, and then in an attempt to fortify the barricades to keep the trolls from overrunning the place, I ended up with almost 3300 words! Adding other stations would have become unwieldy. I think that it can be said that the most well known source of CO2 data does not provide unequivocal evidence of any anthropogenic influence.
Therefore, I think that your point 6 is the most important. Without clear, measurable evidence that allows us to say how much the CO2 will decline by a certain date, society is engaging in wishful thinking.
I do have issues myself with MLO making subjective judgments as to which data should be scrubbed and which should be retained. It leaves too much room for subjectivity. I think that the only excuse for excluding data is if the instrument breaks, or the person with the notebook spontaneously bursts into flame and the notebook gets burned badly as well.
I haven’t researched this but I have had doubts about scrubbing the ML data. If the purpose is to get a “global value” free of volcano influences, then are world wide volcanic outputs also scrubbed? It would seem that if not all are scrubbed, then none should be. If all volcanic emissions are scrubbed, I seriously doubt that very accurate numbers are used which would make the uncertainty very high.
Geoff and Clyde, the difference between retaining all the raw data of Mauna Loa and only the “cleaned” data is only in the error margins. Not in the daily, monthly or yearly averages. Thus it is a matter of noise cleaning of contaminated data, that is all. The difference is mostly in the afternoon, when upslope winds from the valley are reaching the station, slightly depleted in CO2 (4 ppmv) due to vegetation uptake.
See the graphs for 2004 at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
My recollection from reading at the MLO or NOAA website is that they are also concerned about volcanic emissions when the wind is blowing the right way. However, either way, Volcanic emissions that elevate the CO2 concentration downwind from the observatory, and wind that has been depleted of CO2 by vegetation, before it continues on its way across the Pacific, are removed from the data. I’m still not a fan of ‘cleaning’ the data that represents what is actually in the air at the observatory. If there was electronic noise introduced by something totally unrelated to what was being measured, then i’d agree the ‘cleaning’ was appropriate. However, the bottom line is that what MLO is reporting is what has been subjectively decided is representative of what might be present if the Hawaiian islands didn’t exist.
Let the user of the data decide what should be scrubbed or not. To have a “central planning agency” do it for everyone is a typical big government way to justify getting bigger and bigger.
Clyde, the problem with the Mauna Loa and other station data is that these are pure luxury. There are so many data over a day, that we can decide, on stringent pre-collection criteria, which are really “background” data and which are contaminated data from local sources and sinks.
For one year at Mauna Loa we still have average 14 hours per day of hourly averages deemed “background”.
Compare that to the “huge” sampling at Giessen of three CO2 samples a day, which the late Ernst Beck used to “prove” that there was a peak of CO2 in 1942…
There is nothing wrong with not using contaminated data from a database. If you are interested in “background” CO2 data, only use uncontaminated background data. If you are interested in volcanic emissions, measure near volcanic vents. If you are interested in vegetation uptake and release, measure within vegetation. That is both done too.
Or do you also insist that temperature data in the middle of fast growing towns should be included in global temperature data?
Last but not least: there is no difference in monthly and yearly averages if you include or exclude the contaminated data. Only the error margins are wider if you include all data, So that makes no sense to include them.
Moreover ALL data are available for everybody to download, if you want to control them…
I have done it. Even received several hours of 10-second snapshots from Pieter Tans (NOAA) on simple request to check their calibration method.
Geoff, a lot of objections… let’s see if I can answer them…
Note to the iso-dopes: Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (noaa.gov)
Back in the early 2000’s, Dr. Robert Essenhigh, a professor of Energy Conservation at Ohio State published a research note making the same argument – that high temperatures were driving higher CO2. His argument wasn’t as fully developed (that I knew of), but I thought persuasive in making me consider that possibility.
I attended one of his lectures at Ohio State about that time.
It was also refuted by the comment paper that I wrote and was published by the journal. Prof Essenhigh was unable to refute the arguments I presented.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u
non-paywalled pre-print here
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.713.6770&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Essenhigh did not understand that residence time and adjustment time are fundamentally different, and so made the same mistake as Starr before him and several after him. E.g. Berry and harde. The first IPCC report specifically debunked this argument nearly 30 years ago, but skeptics continue to trot it out because they don’t listen to the counter-arguments.
To his credit, Prof Essenhigh seemed to accept his error and stopped promulgating it. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, we all do it, it is only a problem if you think you don’t make them or are resistant to correction.
Clyde,
Just where do you think all the CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels is going if not into the atmosphere? The calculation is really quite simple. Human activities result in the equivalent of about 6ppm of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year. Actual CO2 levels increase by about 3ppm each year. Do you disagree with either of those numbers?
And if you agree, and you appear to from this essay and your previous one, then you need to say where you think all of the human CO2 goes every year and where the new CO2 is coming from.
The ~4% of total carbon flux generated by humans gets partitioned to all of the sinks, in proportion to the size of the flux characteristic of that sink. While most of the CO2 may initially go up the flues of factories or out the tailpipes of vehicles, it quickly gets taken up by clouds, rainwater, lakes, oceans, photosynthetic organisms, and CO2-breathing aliens.
Clyde the fact that human emissions are only 4% is irrelevant. Suppose for
example you put 96ml into a bathtub every minute and 96ml flow out through
various holes (i.e. sinks) then the system is in equilibrium and the amount of water in the bathtub remains constant. Now suppose I add an extra 4ml of water then what do you think will happen to the water level in the bathtub? And who do you think is responsible for any increase? You since you put in 96% of the water or me since I changed the equilibrium?
Izzak,
You ever heard about the CO2 atmospheric concentration-temperature correlation?
Giving you a chance for a pause of thought, in consideration of the actual mechanism of the CO2 atmospheric concentration variation.
It simply means that it is thermally orientated.
And variable.
And when it comes to thermals, either in the context of the fluxes or the gradient,
the land surface versus atmosphere is very very poor in comparison with that of ocens versus atmosphere.
So much so, that the main thermal feed of atmosphere over land happens to be oceanic.
So your thought experiment is non realistic as you not only magically adding some assumed content,
but also in the same moment and line of thought, you are jeopardising the main base of the claimed anthropogenic effect that consist within the CO2-temperature coupling.
In consideration of the observed correlation of CO2 and temperature,
land CO2 emissions no matter what way calculated, or equivalently served for whatever purpose,
still do not have any much saying or potential versus the CO2 atmospheric concentration variation,
even when it comes to anthropogenic content.
So as for your thought experiment offered.
How much extra water will end up in the bathtub, will depend solely on the tap or the taps the extra one injected has to go through.
The tap(s) in this case are thermally sensitive and only thermally responsive.
Olso the level in the “bathtub” in this case still thermally effected too, as the “bathtub” also thermally sensitive and responsive too.
Hope you get the point made, in this reply to you.
All that CO2 manmade emission which is considered in an amount of 6ppm equivalent, almost all of it sinks to land before making it to the “bathtub”.
🙂
Actually CO2 emissions are calculated not in ppm or ppmv.
cheers
“You ever heard about the CO2 atmospheric concentration-temperature correlation?”
yes, we pretty much ALL know about it. The main reason is that the solubility of co2 in the oceans has a slight temperature dependence (another reason is the greenhouse effect). However that is only half of Henry’s law and skeptics tend to ignore the other half, which is the solubility is proportional to the difference on concentration in the oceans and partial pressure in the atmosphere. So if atmospheric co2 rises, say through fossil fuel emissions, solubility goes up which tries to bring the atmospheric concentration back to its equilibrium level. Which half dominates? The mass balance argument, ocean acidification and direct measurements of carbon in sea water tell us the difference in partial pressure dominates.
“Giving you a chance for a pause of thought,”
perhaps you should have a pause to read some of the basic science so that you would be aware of the answer to your point already.
Sorry, your reply makes no sense in consideration of my comment reply to Izzak.
You are no showing me that I am wrong when saying that there is not any valid path for land emissions to make it in any meaningful way to the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not change that.
Izzak clearly ignored and contradicted the main line of AGW, or the entire climastrology.
thanks for your reply.
Whiten, it is not because you don’t understand what Dikran writes that he is wrong.
I like analogies like these. I’ve used the bathtub analogy many times myself. I have another I use as well.
You have 280 $1 bills. Each year you spend 100 of them and gain 100. Your balance remains at $280. One year grandma give you a 120 $1 bills as a gift. Your balance is now $400. But because the residence time of the bills is short with an e-fold time of 400/100 = 4 years the bills with grandma’s fingerprints deplete out with exponential decay. After about 20-24 years you are unlikely to find even a single bill with grandma’s fingerprints in your possession. Yet your balance is still $400 and grandma is still the cause of the increase in your balance from $280 to $400. Yes, the carbon cycle is vastly more complex than this analogy. It is kept simple intentionally to better communicate the idea of causation without being distracted by unnecessary details.
A better analogy would be a large livestock water tank with several, variable water sources and multiple holes of different size in the tank at different heights near the top. Then make slight changes in the water source that only provides nominally about 4% of the water.
Fine. Say I measure the water from one inlet that provides about 4% of the total input, and I measure the depth of water in the tank, from which I can work out the volume. If I notice that the water in the tank is rising more slowly than the rate at which it enters from the inlet I am monitoring, then I know that the net effect of all the other inlets and holes is letting more water out than it puts in.
so mass balance is the same for the tank in *your* analogy.
Totally fine with me. Just understand that without the extra 4% of inflow the level of the tank would remain at L and with the extra 4% it would be X*L then that 4% is the cause of the multiplier X whatever it happens to be. And even if that 4% of extra inflow raised the water level enough to activate new holes such that the outflow increased 2% then you still have a 2% imbalance. A 2% imbalance year after year adds up quickly. And that initial 4% of extra inflow is still the cause the outflow increase by 2% and still the cause of the 2% imbalance and still the cause of the multiplier X and still the cause of the level increasing from L to X*L.
Wouldn’t human emissions only be 4% of the additional 4ml?
This is a common misunderstanding, and it isn’t surprising as it is a bit counter-intuitive. The post industrial rise is entirely due to fossil fuel emissions, however only a small percentage of the molecules of the excess are of directly anthropogenic origin. The reason for this is that there are vast exchange fluxes that are constantly swapping atmospheric CO2 with oceanic and biospheric CO2. However this is a straight swap and doesn’t affect atmospheric concentrations in any way.
Consider a basin containing 10 liters of water. A tap delivers 1 liter of water per minute into the top of the basin and a drain lets out 1 liter of water per minute from the bottom. No matter how long we leave the system, there will always be 10 liters of water in the basin, but the average amount of time an individual water molecule resides in the basin is only about 10 minutes (the capacity of the basin divided by the rate of efflux). This is known as the “residence time”.
Now, say we add 1 liter of red dye. There will then be 11 liters of fluid in the basin, but of the tap still delivers 1 liter per second and the drain takes out 1 liter per second, then the basin will hold 11 liters of fluid indefinitely. In this case the increase in fluid in the basin will be entirely due to the addition of the red dye, but those dye molecules (and the water molecules) will have a residence time of only 11 minutes, so if you wait a few hours, there will be almost no trace of red dye molecules left in the basin.
The carbon cycle is similar, where the red dye represents anthropogenic emissions and the water natural emissions/uptake, except the dye is poured in gradually, rather than all at once (and the tap and drain will adjust to oppose the increase in the amount of fluid in the basin). So there is no paradox in the idea that anthropogenic emissions are the cause of the increase even if only a small percentage of CO2 molecules are of directly anthropogenic origin.
The residence time of atmospheric CO2 is only about 4 years, so this replacement happens fairly quickly.
Thank-you Clyde for a well thought out and written consideration of the puzzle that is the set of differential equations that relate to carbon dioxide fluxes :
I wrote to Willis about efflux in relation to the sea temperature charts as I think there is a good correlation there
but the point I wish to enquire about is the north south mixing rates and the difference between southern hemisphere (Cape Grim) and Mauna Loa numbers over the covid ‘shutdown’ period : the north is proportionately more land mass, more human CO2 generation whereas the South has substantially less human CO2 and is mostly all sea (Southern America, Africa and Australia notwithstanding)
I haven’t been able to locate a good treatise on Nth:Sth mixing calculations
and the CSIRO data I have is only 15th of the month (and may well be adjusted data, by the people at CSIRO …)
it was on my ‘to-do’ list
my guess is that, as atmospheric CO2 is largely a delayed ocean temperature effect, rather than human derived affected, the Southern hemisphere ‘covid shutdown’ had the SAME minimal effect as the Northern hemisphere abscence of signal
I’m not sure about the delay. Gorman and others suggest about enough time to have a baby. However, the fact that CO2 growth changes abruptly to decline in May almost every year, suggests to me that the lag (at least in a given hemisphere) is probably no more than a couple weeks because it coincides with mid-latitude leaf-out of deciduous trees.
Similarly, the MLO data that I used is the monthly average, which equates to the middle of the month.
There is a wealth of further information in patterns of CO2 in air from locations other than Mauna Loa. Here is but one example of 4 stations compared:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/fourkeeling.jpg
(This one stops at 2010).
For example, easily seen for Barrow in Alaska, there is a change in slope (trend) about 1980 to 1990, followed by a reversion to the earlier trend. Why?
Why does the amplitude at each station vary so much with latitude?
Ken Stewart at kenskingdom blog produced this more detailed version ending half way through 2020:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/sevenkeeling.jpg
Ken’s analysis is at
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2020/06/11/a-closer-look-at-co2-growth/
There are a few more blog articles and formal papers that discuss these matters and related others, but somehow they do not all read as settled, more like poking around in the dark.
That is why studies like this one by Clive and Ken are valuable, for looking beyond the easy explanations. Geoff S
Please explain why the annual emitted CO2 from anthro has increased markedly from 1960 to now, but the annual rise and fall has remained about 5 ppm, see the fourkeeling graph I just posted. If the explanation is so obvious, please send it in without further thought. Geoff S
It is because the annual rise and fall is because of seasonal growth and decline of plants and has nothing to do with the processes causing the long term increase.
You talking about land or ocean plants!?
Still I do not think that is what anthropogenic CO2 emissions consist as.
But never the less, the observation evidence shows that the annual seasonal rise and fall happens geographically where there is less plants… well land plants to be more precise.
Both oceanic and terrestrial flora have seasonal cycles. But this is cyclical and tells you nothing about the long term increase because it is cyclical.
Yes it tells us nothing… that is the handicap there.
Just an assumption, smart, intellectual, perhaps academic to a degree.
But never the less not supported by the observations.
When in the other hand, observations tell us,
that yes even in annual seasonal term the CO2-thermal coupling is in play as considered in the long term…
with no any anthropogenic fingerprint detected anywhere at all.
cheers
‘Just an assumption, smart, intellectual, perhaps academic to a degree.’
sorry, that is just transparent bluster. What I said is consistent with the observations. See the paper by Betts et al that I have mentioned numerous times already.
Excellent point Geoff. Thanks for the links.
How much do sea organic processes affect this? a lot it would appear – plankton & algae perhaps are very significant … see chart from kenskingdom
Geoff, in the last years, human emission are rather flat, didn’t increase much.
Still there is an increase in the atmosphere, as the sinks are smaller than human emissions.
As the sink rate is directly in ratio to the extra CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium, the sink rate increases and with a rather flat emission profile, the increase in the atmosphere drops…
Here an overview of the calculated increase in the atmosphere, based on a 2%/year sink rate of the difference in pCO2 in the atmosphere with the equilibrium pCO2:
Very interesting. CO2 follows temperature, “the infamous El Niño events of 1997–1998 and 2015–2016, present as prominent peaks in the graph of the seasonal ramp-up range-trend,” Extraordinary, yet does not follow human activity, clearly.
Not extraordinary, scientists know about this and have done for a long time
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/123682/Ch%2020%20ENSO%20and%20the%20carbon%20cycle%20-%20for%20production.pdf?sequence=2
The causes of the inter-annual variability are cyclical though and do not explain the long term rise.
As a layman most of this article and the posts are over my head but interesting . I cannot see how the four percent level of anthropological contribution of CO2 is not of central importance in the issue of human caused climate change. During the period of 1960 through 2020 the CO2 level rose from 317ppm to 417ppm, a rise of 100ppm in 60 years. At a four percent contribution level this means that the anthropological contribution was only 4ppm in sixty years. Only a hair-on-fire fool would believe that this minute contribution would have any effect on global temperature or climate. Unfortunately we have a large number of politicians, media figures and entertainers who fit into this category.
Comparing anthropogenic emissions to natural emissions is misleading because it ignores the fact that natural emissions are greater still. That means the rise in co2 is 100% due to anthropogenic emissions and has been opposed by the natural carbon cycle.
Sorry, that should have been “fact that natural uptake is greater still. “
Bill, a 4% bump in inflow even when buffered almost 50% by natural sinks is > 2 ppm/yr imbalance. That’s > 120 ppm in 60 years or > 200 ppm/century. Humans pumped 330 ppm into the atmosphere since 1850 of which about 135 ppm remains.
Various CO2 mapping based on OCO-2 data does not support your statement.
Bill, the problem with the OCO-2 data is the same as with Clyde’s analysis: a small extra input within huge in and out flows.
The main fluxes are seasonal: out of the oceans in spring-summer, into the oceans fall-winter (~50 PgC/season each direction). The same, but opposite for vegetation (~60 PgC/season each direction).
Add to that the ~40 PgC/year from upwelling near the equator to the polar sinks.
And then you have to detect ~9 PgC/year in the above mass transfer…
I doubt if the OCO-2 satellite is sharp enough to detect that…
Wrong. This is interesting confirmation of what has been shown elsewhere – namely, that it applies to the long term rise just as well as to inter-annual variability.
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=161&doi=10.11648/j.earth.20190803.13
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13
Science publishing group is not a reputable publisher, they will publish more or less anything if you pay the fees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group
I have pointed out Harde and Berry’s errors to them, but they don’t listen. That is why they can’t publish in good journals like Betts et al.
Their work is also refuted by the mass balance analysis.
If one cannot prevail on substance, then there is always “My journal is better than your journal.”
You clearly don’t understand what you claim. The mass balance is just what Harde and Berry show invalidates the IPCC and thereby your claims.
No, both Harde and Berry confuse residence and adjustment times.
Jack,
I have tried to convince Dr. Berry that he was wrong: he reversed the formula for the residence time to prove what he wanted to prove, but that you may only do if and only if all fluxes are in the same direction, which is not the case for seasonal fluxes which switch from sources to sinks and reverse.
About Harde: he used the residence time in hist final formula, which doesn’t change the content of the atmosphere. I wrote a complete comment on his work;
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
With as conclusion:
Jack, thanks for the links
About Harde, see my response:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
Harde uses the residence time of ~4 years as decay rate for any excess CO2, but the residence time only is responsible for a lot of CO2 exchange, not change…
The second is from Dr. Berry. Sorry, completely wrong: he used the residence time upside down, which you may do if and only if all in/out fluxes are unidirectional, which is not the case: over the seasons, the main fluxes are switching in direction…
Make sure you read Kohler2017. The mistakes Harde and Berry make are so basic and fundamental that it almost defies credulity.
Yes, do read Kohler (2017), Harde’s response to which was gagged. Now why would that be?
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
If you then read Harde (2019), above, you will see just how nonsensical were the claims in Kohler (2017) – claims that were permitted to stand without rebuttal.
It’s a familiar pattern, most recently with Steve Koonin.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/03/oreskes-and-the-climate-gang-penned-a-smear-in-scientific-american-sciam-refuses-to-print-response-by-koonin/
They can’t win on substance, so they have to silence discourse. And, if that fails, they resort to “my journal is better than your journal” – see above.
To anyone with an IQ greater than 40, the maneuvering is transparent.
Pathetic.
From 1960 the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere took up 450 GtC. The website claims that 15% of the 450 GtC or 68 GtC was the result of human emissions. So tell us…what happened to the other 382 GtC that humans emitted and what reservoir was tapped to provide the other 382 GtC that you and Harde claim did not come from humans but wound up in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere?
“Harde’s response to which was gagged. Now why would that be?”
because it was obviously wrong and Harde was not able to take advantage of “pal review” for the reply. From the commentary published by the editors:
During the initial manuscript submission, H. Harde suggested five potential reviewers. Most if
not all of them are prominent individuals advocating that currently raising CO2 concentrations would be natural and not related to human influence. A careful assessment of their CVs, fields of expertise and publications lists leads to the conclusion that none of the five reviewers proposed by Harde can be considered as an expert or authority in carbon cycle, carbon or climate sensitivity or similar fields of research.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818117306586
copy available here
https://boris.unibe.ch/114178/7/Grosjean%20et%20al%202018%20%28Global%20and%20Planetary%20Change%29_accepted.pdf
I always understood that about one third of CO2 was an atmospheric gas and the other two thirds were dissolved in the oceans. I vaguely remember looking this up a long time ago.
I am fairly confident that this was well known and easily accessed about twenty or so years ago. Just try finding the distribution today. Again, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this basic fact has all but disappeared from the internet.
Why would this basic information be concealed or difficult to find? The obvious answer is that we are supposed to look at the Keeling curve and believe that it is a measure of AGHG. The non effect of the recent pandemic global lockdown has destroyed that myth.
If my recollection is correct then the keeling curve owes its slope to ocean de-gassing of CO2 and the most likely explanation is warming from the LIA that ended in the mid 19th Century. It seems that AGW is not significant enough to appear in the curve.
In terms of carbon of any form the ocean stores way more than 2/3. I believe it is 38,000 GtC in the ocean vs 800 GtC in the atmosphere. The ocean is a net sink right now. It is taking more carbon from the atmosphere than it is outgassing. In fact, if weren’t for the ocean and biosphere sequestering atmospheric carbon the concentration in the atmosphere would actually be closer to 610 ppm today.
The early CO2 mapping from OCO-2 showed the highest levels of CO2 to be at the locations of the heaviest vegetation on Earth. Why would this be if the vegetation only returned as much CO2 as it absorbed?
Bill the highest CO2 levels are around the equator, from the deep ocean upwelling near the South American coast. That blows over the tropical forests, but mature forests are about neutral in CO2 uptake and release.
The exception is ENSO: El Niño makes the Amazon dry and releases a lot of CO2, while the rains of a La Niña make them taking a lot of CO2 away.
On the other side, the strongest sinks for CO2 and water are near the poles.
The balance shows that there is more CO2 sinking near the poles than released near the equator…
OK, theory is nice, but what Bill was pointing out is that the empirical data from OCO-2 doesn’t support your claim. 2014, which was the year the first OCO-2 map was released at AGU, wasn’t an El Niño year.
Not all of the areas showing the highest levels of CO2 are near the equator. Eastern China is one of those areas and its latitudes are similar to those of the Southeastern United States. Also the mapped areas of highest levels of CO2 are well defined by the mapping not streaky as if wind driven.
It seems odd that the explosive release of CO2 from fossil fuels, agriculture, concrete production and forest burning is not reflected in the CO2 changes. Even now. Is 2 ppm/year in line with the production? Even at a proportionate rate, you would think the acceleration at Mauna Loa would be more worthy. The human population has more than doubled since 1960, and CO2 is much higher than it was. Yet the rate of increase isn’t that great.
The oceans sequestering 90% … without showing it? Suggests no disaster can happen because the incremental impact on atmospheric CO2 is too small.
‘Is 2 ppm/year in line with the production?’
2 ppm/year corresponds to about half of anthropogenic production.
’The oceans sequestering 90%’
no, the natural environment is currently taking up about 50%. In the long term (hundreds of years) if we stop emitting more, the oceans will absorb 80% ish IIRC
co2 levels have risen from about 280ppm to over 400ppm, which is hardly “incremental”.
Clyde,
I applaud you for examining the basic raw data. It generated lots of good discussion. If you can incorporate the isotopes into your story, then I believe you will have a solid scientific hypothesis.
The slope in fig.2 L) is not 1.1744. More like 8/7.
Sorry, my mistake.
The more we look to the natural systems in place, increase our understanding of these functions of climate and weather, the less likely we are to adopt punitive agendas based on subjective dogma as related to a social politic.
As to the ongoing conversation about C14 isotopes and European forests. I think the subject of centuries of burning peat should be introduced. That is/was biomass.
philip, depends how old that biomass is. moss starts to get peat already after several hundreds of years. 14C can be detected up to some 6000 years. Any peat of age in between still has some 14C content, while coal and oil are millions of years old and don’t contain any measurable 14C…
No it doesn’t matter the age if the biomass. Not unless they are finding C14 in new growth timber harvests. Apples to apples here.
C14 is a red herring as used here to bolster the argument where all others under the anthropogenic banner have failed. The same extremist types are abusing C14 to ‘prove’ evolution to attack Christianity, well religion, but the attack is focused on Christianity.
Here the attack is on humans but,, really its anti-industry.
There seems to be a subculture intent on corrupting science, like it was an actual thing, but since its merely a process of testing hypotheses, they abuse data to infer their alarmism. If you are uncomfortable with the large number if ‘deniers’. Think how they must feel with that rather large and quite frankly obnoxious stick CAGW has stuck in their eye.
I think Ferdinand’s point was that peat bogs tend to be several thousand years old, so they are old enough to have a non-negligible reduction in 14C compared to trees.
hahaha. Com’on man! Meaningless verbiage. No one but an idiot invests in non-negligible reduction. AND the greens are asking us to invest in their utopian dreamscape where wind and solar answer all their needs. I say theirs because it can never answer to the needs of a industrial nation.
Greens need a fixed canon that never wavers. This hunting and pecking for a ‘blame humans’ smoking gun so they can sup at the govt.trough reeks of desperation. AND, if it’s so non-negligible, why do the ranting and raving to shut down peat fueled generators. Doesn’t make sense.
Yawn.
…try grift.
It seems that the discussions are about ending…
Conclusions?
It seems to be quite difficult to convince each other that one side is right and the other side is wrong…
Many main skeptics like Lindzen, Spencer(*), McIntyre, Willis,… agree that humans are the cause of the bulk in CO2 increase in the atmosphere. They have all observations on their side:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
Evidence of human influence on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
Conclusion:
All observed evidence from measurements all over the earth show with overwhelming evidence that humans are causing the bulk of the recent increase of CO2 into the atmosphere.
If the oceans were the main cause of the increase, the increase into the atmosphere would be higher than from human emissions alone, thus violating the mass balance. And the 13C/12C ratio would increase, not decrease. And the pH of the ocean surface would increase with a higher pCO2 than in the atmosphere, while the observations show the reverse…
If biosphere was the main cause of the increase, the oxygen use would be larger than from burning fossil fuels alone and the 13C/12C ratio would drop faster than from fossil fuels alone.
And again violating the mass balance.
Simply said: any nice theory is killed by one observation that shows something different than the theory says…
For me it ends here, as this kind of discussions are completely meaningless and undermine the good arguments skeptics have to show that the climate models are largely overestimating the effect of more CO2…
(*) See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/15/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-wont-show-up-in-the-atmospheric-co2-record/
I think the problem with the discussion is that those that don’t accept the mass balance analysis are unable to identify a specific flaw in the analysis, nor acknowledge that they can’t identify a flaw. So progress is not possible and the same mistakes circulate again.
I am pushing off now, however I’m happy to discuss this via email, the address is on the pre-print of my paper
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.713.6770&rep=rep1&type=pdf
If not, Ferdinand has been doing an excellent job on this topic for many years, so my input isn’t really necessary anyway!
Very nice work Mr. Spencer. Here is my chemist’s explanation which seems to fit with yours.
If humans never existed, the global average atmospheric CO2 concentration would be the same as it is today. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is independent of source of the CO2 (Salby) and primarily dependent on ocean surface temperature. The amounts of CO2 gas in both air and ocean are determined by a ratio in Henry’s Gas Law, as well as ocean carbonate chemistry and physics. This does not imply that the atmosphere is free of anthropogenic CO2. All CO2 is heavily mixed in air and ocean.
Two giant fluxes of CO2 each of them over 90 gigatonnes per year, i.e., absorption of CO2 into ocean water surface and emission of CO2 from ocean surface water, are each more than 10 times larger than human CO2 emission (estimated 5 to 8 gigatonnes per year). These three fluxes and others are continuously and chaotically mixed in air and ocean. Ocean is about 98% of the hydrosphere (Mason). Ocean surface contains about 1000 gigatonnes of aqueous CO2 gas, but beneath that and chaotically coupled to it is an aqueous CO2 sink of 10’s of thousands of gigatonnes of CO2 in deep ocean, according to this graphic and data supported by IPCC and scientists. The giant deep ocean CO2 sink circulates over centuries. Henry’s Law at ~400 ppm in air implies ~2000 ppm aqueous CO2 gas in ocean water in contact with air. (Mason)
Oceanic and atmospheric carbon dioxide are interdependent, the former being a function of the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus to double the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would require the addition of much more than is now present therein, because most of that added would be absorbed by the ocean; similarly to decrease the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by half would require removal of many times the present content. It is apparent that the oceans, by controlling the amount of atmospheric CO2, play a vital part in maintaining stable condition suitable for organic life on the earth.” (Mason, Page 211-212.)
The addition of human CO2 to the atmosphere does not change the total amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere or in the ocean. The ratio is about 50:1 CO2 gas in ocean versus air. Sea water contains 20 g of CO2/cm2 of the earth’s surface, as against 0.4 g/cm2 in the atmosphere. (Mason) The ratio adjusts rapidly (seconds) to local ocean surface temperature and is also affected by local salinity/pH and pressure. The Henry’s partition coefficient for methane and other gases is different. The Henry’s Law coefficient and ratio only applies to a specific gas and specific solvent. It specifies the gas concentration in a liquid and the gas concentration above the liquid. Henry’s Law does not apply to ionic reactants of the gas and liquid. Henry’s Law is the foundation science of the multi-billion dollar per year scientific instrument industry of gas chromatography and several other industries. Average global SST is not applicable science. Local differentials in cells apply for all Henry’s variables. Ocean surface above ~26 C emits CO2 gas continuously until the ratio is reached. Ocean surface below ~25 C absorbs CO2 gas until the ratio is reached. Disturbance of the water’s surface increases its surface area at a given temperature which changes the flux. Slightly less alkaline pH in a cold ocean estuary such as a kelp coastline or Alaska result in a different partition ratio than warm tropical estuaries.
Aqueous CO2 gas in ocean is ionized into the infinite ocean buffering system for highly soluable CO2 gas. (Segalstad, Stumm and Morgan; Segalstad and Jaworowski) For example, aqueous CO2 gas ionizes into several intermediates of carbonate ions which combine rapidly (seconds) with abundant calcium ions in alkaline ocean water to yield calcium carbonate which rapidly (seconds) precipitate as a solid in cold water. In cold ocean water, this chemistry removes aqueous CO2 gas from the liquid portion of the Henry’s Law partition; the partition ratio re-equilibrates to the loss of aqueous CO2 gas, which causes more CO2 gas to be continuously absorbed into cold alkaline ocean surface in order to re-equilibrate Henry’s partition ratio. The result is continuous removal of CO2 gas from the atmosphere, which is only slowly replaced by volcanic eruptions, weathering dissolution of stone and biogenically formed solid carbonates into ocean water. One side of this mass balance equation in this ocean carbonate chemistry is very fast (seconds) and the other side is very slow with occasional volcanic spikes (centuries, millennia.) Other inferences are suggested, such as equator to polar atmospheric CO2 flux, polar to equator ocean aqueous CO2 gas flux, and the probability that the CO2 gas from burning from all known hydrocarbons on earth could be dissolved in the oceanic buffering system without significant change to ocean pH. (Segalstad)
The very large amounts of carbonate stone in and above ocean imply large emission of CO2 into atmosphere from volcanoes has occurred over geologic time. The CO2 represented in stone is larger than in all known sinks of hydrocarbons in earth. (Mason)
The net global average CO2 concentration observed by NOAA at Mauna Loa and other locations is the record of two gigatonne fluxes flowing in opposite directions (absorption into ocean surface and emitted from ocean surface) adjusting the ratio according to Henry’s Law equilibrium equation dominantly to the slowly increasing temperature of ocean surface. Fossil fuel CO2 is diluted into and becomes part of those two opposing fluxes. Due to the thermal momentum of ocean, we can expect SST and atmospheric CO2 concentration to continue to increase for years. (Salby). The Henry’s partition is also independent of atmospheric CO2 residence time.
I conclude that human CO2 is not responsible for global warming or cooling, global greening, glaciers melting, polar bears, social justice or any of the myriad claims made either against human CO2 or favoring it.
“There is no climate emergency.” (William Happer and Richard Lindzen, National Review, 16 April 2021.) “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” (Richard Lindzen, 31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation)
References:
Bud Bromley : ”…. Two giant fluxes of CO2 each of them over 90 gigatonnes per year…. ”.
Please, also notice some very important details in your submitted carbon cycle figure.
The differences between those big natural flows from and to the atmosphere :
A.
The flows to and from the oceans :
92 – 90 = 2 Gtonnes C/year.
B.
The flows to and from the terrestrial vegetation :
61 – 60 = 1 Gtonnes C/year.
So there is a net natural flow from the atmosphere to the nature (oceans and land). Those individual flows are big, though, not very accurately estimated. The total, 2 + 1, net flow to the nature is, though, accurately calculated from the Mauna Loa atmospheric measurements and the measured flow of combusted fossil fuels :
C.
Fossil fuels combusted, accurately measured, and land change emissions corresponding to :
5.5 + 1.5 – 0.5 = 6.5 Gtonnes C/year.
Due to the atmospheric carbon balance which always is fulfilled :
Inlets + Produced = Outlets + Accumulated
==>
6.5 + 0 = 2 + 1 + Accumulated
==>
Accumulated = 3.5 Gtonnes C/year in the atmosphere as accurately measured at Mauna Loa and other stations.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
How is it possible for humans to be the principle source of the rise of the CO2 level if their contribution is only five percent or less of the CO2 total? What is the relevance of ocean activity when the annual air temperature measurement would be effected by the level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the year of measurement if there was any noticeable effect from CO2. It would seem that the patterned rise in global air temperature would be caused by a change agent that shared that pattern. Neither the activity on the face of the Sun, ocean activity or the change in CO2 level matches the pattern of global air temperature rise. A change in the Earth’s relationship to the Sun through orbital deviations might match the pattern. Based upon the mapping of CO2 levels using OCO data I think that increased attention should be paid to the possibility that the increase in levels of broadleaf vegetation due to Global warming may have a dominant role in the rise in CO2 level.
“How is it possible for humans to be the principle source of the rise of the CO2 level if their contribution is only five percent or less of the CO2 total?”
To borrow an analogy from Ferdinand:
Say my wife and I share a bank account that receives no interest but attracts no bank charges. I put in $4,000 a week (I wish!) but take nothing out. She puts in $96,000 a week, but also takes $98,000 out. My deposits are only about 5% of hers, but it ought to be obvious that it is me that is causing the balance to rise by $2,000 a week and not her. Her transactions are opposing the rise.
This is the mass balance analysis that so many seem to find difficult, even though it is ridiculously simple when put in a financial setting, where most people are more shrewd.
dB = change in balance in a week
Dh = deposits by husband
Dw = deposts by wife
Ww = withdrawals by wife
dB = Dh + Dw – Ww
rearranging:
dB – Dh = Dw -Ww
so if I notice that the left hand side is negative (the balance is rising more slowly than the rate I am putting money in) then I know that the right hand side is negative as well (whatever her deposits and withdrawals actually are, she is taking more money out than she puts in). This is because bank accounts obey conservation of money.
The error you are making is only considering emissions and not uptake, but the cause of the increase depends on both emissions *and* uptake.
Your example assumes that the account has only two sources of income. What if there were other unrecognized sources (for example broadleaf vegetation in real life).
In the analogy my deposits represent anthropogenic emissions (anthropogenic sinks are entirely negligible), my wife’s deposits represent total emissions from ALL natural sources, and her withdrawals total uptake by ALL natural sources.
Given this covers all anthropogenic sources, all natural sources and all natural sinks, exactly what unrecognised sources are left? Supernatural sources? Extraterrestrial (in the sense of little green men) sources? Good luck with that.
As I have said repeatedly, in algebra we use symbols to represent unknowns, so we can use symbols to represent total emissions by ALL natural sources, even if we don’t know the mechanism of those sources.
Bill, I have addressed your objection, do you now accept the analogy?
Bill Everett : “How is it possible for humans to be the principle source of the rise of the CO2 level if their contribution is only five percent or less of the CO2 total?….”
The anthropogenic CO₂ flow in to the atmosphere is small compared to the natural flow. On the other hand the natural flow out from the atmosphere is even bigger.
We know that from the balance between the atmospheric CO₂ concentration analysis at Mauna Loa, and the measured anthropogenic CO₂ emitted to the atmosphere. If all that was accumulated in the atmosphere there would have been a lot higher CO₂ concentration measured. Because it is not, a correspondingly amount of CO₂ have been transfered from the atmosphere to the nature (land and oceans) in accordance to the atmospheric CO₂ balance which always is fulfilled :
Inlets + Produced = Outlets + Accumulated
Produced ~ 0 (CH4 and CO are close to zero)
With figures as in the comment above :
Accumulated = Inlets – Outlets =
90 + 60 + 5.5 + 1.5 – (92 + 61 + 0.5) = 3.5 Gtonnes C/year in the atmosphere as accurately measured at Mauna Loa and other stations.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
And, again, you have ignored uncertainties in the measurements.
However I gave you the uncertainties on dC and Ea from the 2020 carbon budget paper, so you know perfectly well that the uncertainties are way to small to cast doubt on the fact that En < Un.
You assume that I have looked at what you wrote. Actually, I haven’t yet bothered to look. I don’t run on Marsupial time.
I gave you the uncertainties on the 12th and reminded you about them several times. If you haven’t been bothered to look it reflects very badly on you that you questioned the uncertainties and then couldn’t be bothered to look at the answers.
Here they are yet again:
Here are the uncertainties from the 2020 carbon budget paper (https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/):
Ea = 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (fossil fuels & cement) + 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1 (land use change)
dC = 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1
As I said, much too small to make a difference to the conclusions.
Do you now accept the mass balance analysis?
Clyde is telling a porky when he wrote
Because on another thread, I gave him the link to the post where I listed the uncertainties:
(link to comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/13/betrayers-of-the-truth/#comment-3268637)
and Clyde’s reply began:
So Clyde evidently had seen the uncertainties I had provided, and is being dishonest now, or he was being dishonest then when he said he had saved my pertinent comments with which to “examining other’s estimates and uncertainties to see how they compare to [mine]”. Note that was acknowledging that I had provided the uncertainties.
Pretty shabby Clyde!
The point of this article was to explore why the pandemic effects could not be seen in CO2 measurements, while NASA has documented substantial declines in nitrogen oxides and surface ozone during the same time. I offered as an hypothesis that the 4% of the total CO2 flux attributable to humans was too small to have a significant influence, even during the time of the year when photosynthetic sinks have minimal influence. This is because the ‘leaks’ between sources and sinks, partially suggested by uncertainties, may allow for mixing.
The dissenting commenters claimed that the Mass Balance approach proved that the increase in atmospheric CO2 couldn’t be anything other than human caused, and that uncertainties in measurements were irrelevant.
I would say that the critical comments I have received roughly fall into the following categories:
1) your result can’t be valid because you didn’t consider my model of Conservation of Mass;
2) you are expecting to see a change so small that is impossible to see when you use a full year, including drawdown, to derive an average value for any particular month.
While some have acknowledged that temperature has a small, but counter long-term impact on CO2, no one has addressed why the two recent El Ninos are clearly evident in both the range and slope of the Fall-Winter ramp-up phase, or why the 30-year record of ramp-up phase range shows a correlation coefficient of more than 0.66. While I didn’t mention it in my article, the ramp-up phase of CO2 apparently reflects the 2008 recession.
To address the issue of Conservation of Mass, Rasmusson provided a detailed, rigorous illustration of the approach, showing the IPCC estimates of nominal values and uncertainty:
“From the fossil fuel reserves the atmosphere have been enriched (measured) by 365 +-30 Pg carbon (C) and by 30 +-45 Pg C from vegetation change since the start of the industrial era.
In all (Ea=) 395 +-75 Pg C have been added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era.”
Unfortunately, he dropped the baton before crossing the finish line!
When he concludes, he writes:
“Since just (C’=) 240 +-10 Pg have been accumulated (measured) in the atmosphere then (Ea-C’=Un-En=) 395 – 240 = 155 Pg C have to be elsewhere in the existing carbon cycle. That figure is found in the oceans as per IPCC.”
He left off the uncertainties for the final calculation! With units and uncertainties, it should be as follows:
Ea-C’ = 395 ±75 Pg C – 240 ±10 Pg C = 155 ±85 Pg C ≈ 160 ±90 Pg C = 160 Pg C ±60%
For the 261 years covered by the IPCC estimates, that amounts to an average of about 0.61 Pg C ±0.2%. This appears to be an unrepresentative estimate that is much too low. That is probably because for the vast majority of the time, the changes were negligible.
A couple of things to note: 1) the estimate for the land-use change uncertainty (±45) is much larger than the nominal value (30)!, which means the sign could change, and 2) at the very least, that means the distribution has to be non-Gaussian; at worst, it is nonsensical and unusable, 3) the amount ending up in the oceans is shown with an uncertainty of ±30 instead of the ±90 I believe is the correct accounting.
There is a 1-sigma uncertainty assigned rather than the 2-sigma uncertainties typically used by more rigorous disciplines. We apparently have to accept as an act of faith that the expert estimates of uncertainty are reliable. However, even a 34% probability that the true value of the amount of CO2 added to the oceans might be as much as 90 Pg larger than the nominal value, is not negligible. If that were the case, then some 90 Pg in the atmosphere, attributed to humans, would actually have a natural source instead of anthropogenic. There is a 16% probability that the uncertainty is larger than 90 Pg.
An alternative estimate, for a more recent interval is also provided by Rasmusson as follows:
Ea-C’ = 8.9 ±1.4 Pg C yr-1 – 4 ±0.5* Pg C yr-1 = 4.9 ±1.9 Pg C yr-1 ≈ 5 ±2 Pg C yr-1 = 5 Pg C yr-1 ±40%
This is apparently from the IPPC report and represents the average values for 2000—2009. The 2 Pg uncertainty is a little less than 1 PPMv per year.
Again, this is the amount estimated to be taken up by the ocean. The uncertainty is approximately ¼ of the amount that the anthropogenic component of the atmosphere is estimated to increase annually.
* [Note: the C’ uncertainty was not actually provided. I have assumed that it is at least 0.5.]
Marsupial provided yet another estimate of the fluxes and their uncertainties, as follows:
“Ea = 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (fossil fuels & cement) + 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1 (land use change) = 11.1 ±1.2 = 11 ±1
dC = 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1”
Thus,
Ea-C’ = 11.1 ±1.2 Pg C yr−1 – 5.1 ± 0.02 Pg C yr−1 = 6.0 ±1.2 Pg C yr−1 ≈ 6 ±1 Pg C yr−1
This estimate of the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans overlaps with the previous one. These seem more in line with what is usually reported, in contrast to the 261-year average initially provided by Rasmusson. However, the Global Carbon Budget 2020 paper says, “Although each term has large uncertainty, the oceanic sink SOCEAN has generally low interannual variability and is likely to remain close to its 2019 value of around 2.6 GtC, …” This is about one-half of the two above calculations of the ocean sink! This raises questions about the mean estimates and/or the uncertainties.
The estimate obtained from Marsupial’s fluxes and uncertainties, for 2010—2019, is about an order of magnitude greater than the initial estimate for the pre-industrial era to the present day! Once again, we are presented with large differences in the estimated nominal values, which don’t fall within the range of the uncertainties. Therefore, we need to be concerned about the accuracies!
Throughout the exchange, these dissenting commenters have maintained that uncertainty is unimportant. Marsupial said, “…the uncertainty on En – Un is bounded by the uncertainty on dC – Ea, which is very small.” Actually, the uncertainty associated with the difference between C’ and Ea is in the range of 1/6 (17%) to 2/5 (40%)! I wouldn’t call that “very small!”
Strictly speaking, the mass balance equation can only be expected to balance when the Carbon Cycle is in equilibrium – which it never is! Short-term imbalances should be the norm. What isn’t known is how quickly the system responds to perturbations in the various source and sink fluxes. To the extent that short-term CO2 recycling is associated with a growing population, there will be an imbalance and thus the cumulative atmospheric concentration will increase. I have detailed a large number of anthropogenic sources of CO2 in my first guest contribution to WUWT, [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/ ] which are not associated with transportation and manufacturing and thus would not be decreased by a cessation of the use of fossil fuels.
I think that I have demonstrated that uncertainties do make a difference and that the uncertainties can potentially account for a significant portion of the increase that is not anthropogenic. It is obvious that humans make a contribution, but I’m still of the opinion that is only a part of the influence, and not the total.
Clyde wrote
“The dissenting commenters claimed that the Mass Balance approach proved that the increase in atmospheric CO2 couldn’t be anything other than human caused, and that uncertainties in measurements were irrelevant.”
This is being disingenuous again, from the article
You WERE questioning whether the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic and the mass balance analysis directly establishes that it is.
This is again disingenuous, the estimates would have to be wrong by 100% before the mass balance analysis ceased to show that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic.
No, that is not correct, mass balance holds whether the carbon cycle is at equilibrium or not. For it not to hold carbon must appear spontaneousely in the atmosphere from nowhere or spontaneously dissapear. Physics does not allow either of those things to happen.
Clyde wrote
Again, this is disingenuous. I have mentioned Bacastow twice, who first noted this correlation back in the mid 1970s, and that much work has been done on this since then (none of which you appear to be aware of). I have also directed you the recent paper by Betts et al no less than SIX times – this paper is essentially a summary paper on the effect of ENSO on the carbon cycle.
To say that nobody has addressed it is ridiculous BS.
Clyde, you can look up all the those accuracy figures in the references we provided. Excel files are also available at :
https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020
I’d repeat that the atmospheric CO₂ balance is in reality always fulfilled, give it a week, a decade or whichever timescale we want to use. If there is a difference between the inlets and the outlets flows then there will be an accumulation over the timescale selected.
All the corresponding amount of anthropogenic CO₂ emitted to the carbon cycle have been, and is at this very moment, partitioned into the atmosphere, the oceans and land.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
Lets talk real life. I refer you to a NASA paper entitled Satellite Detects Human Contribution to Atmospheric CO2. Look at the maps of the US and China and compare them to the climate and vegetation maps of those countries in the World Atlas. You should conclude that the mapped “human contribution” of CO2 correlates with the location of heavy broadleaf vegetation not human activity. This would appear to show that there is no natural balance where CO2 is concerned.
Bill Everett :”… You should conclude that the mapped “human contribution” of CO2 correlates with the location of heavy broadleaf vegetation not human activity….”.
Ok, and we’ll find all the CO₂ corresponding to the combusted fossil fuels in the existing carbon cycle, part in the atmosphere, part on land and the rest in the oceans, where else?
Link to your referenced paper,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070885
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
As I pointed out earlier in the discussion
The text of the paper directly contradicts your assessment
We all know that the biosphere emits more CO2 than anthropogenic emissions, but we also know that it takes up more CO2 than it emits (see the carbon budget paper), so it is opposing the long term rise.
Once again, you have omitted the uncertainties as though they are unimportant.
You said, “… net flow to the nature is, though, accurately calculated from the Mauna Loa atmospheric measurements …” You are implicitly assuming that MLO is representative of at least the northern hemisphere, if not the entire globe. A graph recently posted clearly showed that the shape, mean, and amplitude of Barrow, MLO, and the South Pole annual values were all different. If you are going to rely on a mass balance defense, then you need to make the case that MLO is representative of the globe because all your other numbers are global. You have not done so.
I gave you the uncertainties and you ignored them and ran away, so that is rather disingenuous.
The annual variation in the data from different sites does vary. That is because they result from the growth and dieback of plants and the vegetation is a bit different in Hawaii from Barrow or the South Pole. The growth in the Southern hemisphere is IIRC a couple of years behind that in the North because most of the fossil fuel consumption is in the Northern hemisphere and it takes a year or so to diffuse to the south.
Apart from the seasonal variation (which is expected to differ) the various stations give pretty much the same long term increase AFAICS
The point you are missing is that what Rasmussen presented doesn’t make the case that MLO is representative of the global average and is suitable for use in the global mass balance ‘proof.’
Rubbish, all of the observational data from sites measuring the CO2 in the bulk atmosphere, including MLO, give the same long term trend and only differ in the seasonal cycle for known reasons. The OCO satelite data agrees with them and shows they are representative of the bulk atmosphere, which has been known to be “well mixed” for decades.
Yes, I understand why they are different. You’re engaging in ‘marsupialsplainin’
O.K. now just engaging in insults to evade that fact that you have been given the uncertainties in the fluxes, they show the mass balance analysis is sound, and that you are ignoring them and running away. Pathetic.
See my response above!
I don’t know why you put a “!” at the end of that, given how feeble (and disingenuous) the response was.
Lets cut to the key point
So you concede that, with high probability, dC – Ea is negative?
dC is on average about half of Ea, so the uncertainties on Ea would have to be ~100% for dC – Ea to be positive.
Here are the uncertainties you asked for and are ignoring the answer:
======================================
Here are the uncertainties from the 2020 carbon budget paper (https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/):
Ea = 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (fossil fuels & cement) + 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1 (land use change)
dC = 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1
As I said, much too small to make a difference to the conclusions.
Do you now accept the mass balance analysis?
=========================================
They are one-sigma uncertainties BTW (clearly stated in the paper). The uncertainty in dC is *tiny* – the uncertainty in Ea would have to be so bit that Ea might double before the natural carbon cycle stops being a net sink, so even then the observed rise is 100% anthropogenic.
Clyde : ”….. If you are going to rely on a mass balance defense, then you need to make the case that MLO is representative of the globe because all your other numbers are global…..”.
Clyde, my comments often are expressed as “…. accurately measured at Mauna Loa and other stations …” and that is good enough, but some more wordings about that as follows :
All data in my latest comments above relate to the figure at the very end of the comment by Bud Bromley, June 14, 2021 4:06 pm, http://www.grida.no/resources/5390 . That figure doesn’t show any accuracy data.
Taking accuracy data from IPCC ’s figure 6.1 and table 6.1 in http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf ,
we’ll find the atmospheric measured annual increase to be in average 4.0 ±0.2 Pg C/year from 2000 to 2009.
The fossil fuel and cement production emitted in average 7.8 ±0.6 Pg C/year to the atmosphere.
The net land use change contributed in average with 1.1 ±0.8 Pg C/year to the atmosphere.
Those figures together with the atmospheric carbon mass balance which always is fulfilled, we get :
Inlets + Produced (~0) = Outlets + Accumulated
==>
Anthropologic Outlets (~0) + Natural Outlets – Natural Inlets = Anthropological Inlets – Accumulated
Now for the accuracy we have two cases :
A. Maximum net transfer from the atmosphere to the nature :
Natural Outlets – Natural Inlets = Anthropological Inlets – Accumulated = 7.8+0.6 + 1.1+0.8 – (4.0-0.2) = 4.9+1.6 = 6.5 Pg C/year.
B. Minimum net transfer from the atmosphere to the nature :
Natural Outlets – Natural Inlets = Anthropological Inlets – Accumulated = 7.8-0.6 + 1.1-0.8 – (4.0+0.2) = 4.9-1.6 = 3.3 Pg C/year.
There is a net transfer of carbon out from the atmosphere to the nature (land and ocean), 4.9 ±1.6 Pg C/year, and the accumulation is mainly due to anthropologic emissions. The ocean temperature increase will make the uptake to decrease by 10 – 20 ppmv CO₂/K as from Antarctic ice bore analysis data and theory by :
http://john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm .
See also measurements since the 1950’s by Takahashi, “…. On the basis of about 940,000 surface-water pCO2 observations…….. A net CO2 uptake flux by the global oceans of 2.2Pg C/year is obtained….” :
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Taro_Takahashi/publication/232259896_Global_sea-air_CO2_flux_based_on_climatological_surface_ocean_pCO2_and_seasonal_biological_and_temperature_effects/links/5acce5e9a6fdcc8784091f55/Global-sea-air-CO2-flux-based-on-climatological-surface-ocean-pCO2-and-seasonal-biological-and-temperature-effects.pdf
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
Anders : “….There is a net transfer of carbon out from the atmosphere to the nature (land and ocean), 4.9 ±1.6 Pg C/year….”.
By instead estimate the error by the root-mean-squared method, see
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swrhgnrj/combining_errors.pdf ,
we get the combined error as the square root of the sum of the individual errors squared = (0.6^2 + 0.8^2 + 0.2^2)^0.5 = 1.0 .
I was not aware of that method.
So there is a net transfer of carbon out from the atmosphere to the nature (land and ocean), 4.9 ±1.0 Pg C/year.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
Although in this case it is immediately obvious that the uncertainties are far too small to alter the conclusion of the mass balance analysis without combining them. The anthropogenic emissions would need to be out by a factor of at least two for that to happen, and you can tell that is not the case just from the individual estimates and their uncertainties!
The RMS or addition in quadrature method is only valid for random, uncorrelated variables. It is unlikely that the variables we are talking about are uncorrelated. In any case, I have not seen anyone demonstrate that they qualify for treatment as independent variables.
Clyde, you asked for the uncertainty figures, please make your choice : 4.9 ±1.6 or 4.9 ±1.0 Pg C/year or see the more up to date figures as by Dikran Marsupial, June 15, 2021 11:44 pm.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
The uncertainties are so small that no reasonable means of combining them invalidates the conclusion of the mass balance analysis that the rise in CO2 is 100% due to anthropogenic emissions. The growth rate of CO2 is on average twice anthropogenic emissions, so the uncertainty would have to be ~100% just for the natural carbon cycle to switch from net sink to net source. Quibbling about about the method of combination of uncertainties, when they are obviously too small to make a difference, is an act of desperation.
Focusing only on the fossil reservoir for now we see that there was 450 GtC transferred to the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere (reference). How do you propose that that this 450 GtC would have still transferred without humans?
Bud Bromley…
Thus sorry, you did choose the wrong arguments. The increase in the atmosphere is caused by human emissions. That is based on solid science, to start with the mass balance. All other observations support it and any alternative explanation violates one or more observations…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
About the effect of the increase, that is an entirely different discussion…
How do the sequestration processes of the various sinks screen their absorptions of CO2 so that only the five percent of human CO2 contribution remains in the atmosphere while the ninety-five percent from another source or sources is sequestered?
It doesn’t. This is yet another canard that was debunked decades ago. Read the paper (or read Ferdinand’s website)
Bill, the 5% is additional in mass. It is not about where the human and natural CO2 molecules reside or get absorbed, it is the 5% extra CO2 as mass which is added to the atmosphere, no matter if that comes from humans, volcanoes, oceans or vegetation…
Most of the natural fluxes are temperature dependent. Seasonal for the bulk and continuous between upwelling at the equator and sinks at the poles.
If you add some extra CO2 to the atmosphere, let’s say 5%, there would be little response from the temperature driven processes: maybe a few extra leaves are growing in spring, or a little more uptake in the oceans in cooling seawater in fall and winter. Certainly not 5%, maybe 0.1%.
Than makes that the CO2 content in the atmosphere grows, thus the partial pressure grows with as result that more and more leaves are growing in spring and more permanently stored in wood en debris. The same for the oceans.
That process is near completely CO2 pressure dependent, while most natural fluxes are near completely temperature dependent.
Different reaction of nature to temperature: a residence time of about 4 years for any CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, before being swapped with a CO2 molecule from another reservoir (which doesn’t change the total CO2 in the atmosphere).
Different reaction of nature to pressure: any extra CO2 pressure above the equilibrium pressure for the current average ocean surface temperature (about 290 ppmv) induces an extra uptake of 2%/year of the difference.
That is a decay rate of about 50 years, far longer than the 4 years for the residence time…