Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Follow Sea Surface Temperature: A Note from Lance Endersbee
Posted by jennifer, September 16th, 2007 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Dear Colleagues,
Following is a chart showing the definite physical relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and sea surface temperatures.
It can be regarded as the experience curve of reality.
I used CO2 data from Mauna Loa as it is at a higher elevation and well mixed.
I used recent global average sea surface temperatures based on satellite sensing as they are the only reliable data we have on average SST.
I used a 21 year moving average of SST values as the oceans breathe carbon dioxide in and out with the El Nino and La Nina cycles.
The net result is a clear firm relationship.
It is what would be expected from the solubility curve of CO2 in water.
The little bumps on the line can be traced to volcanic events.
I note that the oceans scavenge excess CO2 from volcanic events within about 2 years.
This chart shows that it is physically impossible for man-made emissions of carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere.
It proves that CO2 is not a pollutant.
Lance Endersbee
Former Dean of Engineering (1976-1988) and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monash University
————————–
And Jen is reminded of a note from Arnost, dated March 29, 2007 and entitled ‘Why Are There No Major “Spikes or Troughs” in the Official Direct Measurements of C02?’ click here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001976.html
And this guy is an ex-Dean of engineering !!
Wow.
So has he done a mass balance or even checked the literature. Of course not
Ignores the isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ignores the work of documenting the absorption of CO2 by the oceans. Ignores the Southern Ocean shutting down as a sink.
Has he pondered the magnitude of volcanic emissions versus fossil fuel combustion.
And is CO2 more soluble in water or less as temperature rises.
No wonder there’s earthquakes.
Next.
More hand waving. If we get enough hands waving, it will counter global warming.
Luke and SJT,
Nice to see both of you confirming the epithet summarising your comments here as “stupid is as stupid does”.
You have lost the argument but I suspect it may take another decade for it to register.
Was that another mild tremor.
Interesting CA post on SST measurements from March entitled ‘Buckets and Engines:’
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1272
Dear Dr Enderbee,
Thank you for your entry and analysis. I don’t image you will read the feedback or that you will take much notice of the immature and sneering comments by Luke and SJT. This is their standard response to anything that does not support their own world-view, and has come to be the most predictable, boring and negative aspect of this blog.
Yorkie
Obviously Yorkie you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden and other utter nonsense too. So why have comments – do you think it’s fine to proliferate arrant nonsense?
Do you actually have any substantive comment to make Luke?
Why are there no spikes?
And when, exactly, has the southern ocean shut down as a sink? Could it be that you have a brain capable of registering a hypothetical event, and an extreme one at that, as if it were fact?
What is that equation again, Luke? (Cream bun + net porn) x (substance abuse + purple science) x intellectual sloth = dark foreboding + H2SO4.
Luke did make some points of substance. Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to be able to understand them, nor follow up what he is saying when they don’t.
Jeez Ian – how many times have we been over this.
If you look at monthly Mauna Loa data you can see the boreal biosphere annual wiggle. He’s shown annual. Volcanic eruptions are small compared to anthropogenic emissions.
Another interpretation of Endersbee’s graph is that CO2 greenhouse warming causes SSTs to warm.
But of course we all know from stats 101 that correlation isn’t necessarily always cause in effect. Logic also equally applies to his proposition which offers no other substantiation.
There is a good deal of literature that shows where the increase in CO2 is coming from and what the oceans are sinking. Ignoring that in such a discussion is simply unscholarly – do I really need to point that out to you after all the discussions held?
If you want to fully understand the CO2 trend data and all the little spikes you need a full SST and biosphere model. But gee we can’t have models can we – so we prefer to stay in these incredibly stupid correlation style arguments which mask about 4 happening at once.
Singer has already said, correlation is not causation.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
“What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time tempera-tures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation.”
I think we all trust Singer here, don’t we?
Although he does then go on to do exactly that in exactly the same paper, a few paragraphs on
“It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of cli-mate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.”
I have a couple of spreadsheets full of Mauna Loa data, Luke, and there are things in there that even Ralph Keeling didn’t notice, so spare us all the mock condescention.
And you still have not given an adequate response to why the 1998 El Nino produced a three fold increase in atmospheric CO2 when there was no comparable increase in emissions. Ergo, two thirds of that annual increase could not be traced back to any anthropogenic source.
And you still have not provided any explanation as to why the Mauna Loa temperature record does not show any correlation with the Mauna Loa CO2 record. This natural range of variation sure does mess up the spin, doesn’t it?
Any sign of that southern ocean shut down yet?
Well duh gee Ian dat’s a hard one. Hmmmm maybe coz it’s an island surrounded by varying SSTs.
And if you had a mother of an EL Nino you might expect some ocean and biosphere degassing – like duh !
See you still haven’t learned anything but basic linear regression – but I guess that’s all they teach boofhead accountants hey?
Southern Ocean shutdown – well yes actually
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5832/1735
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37774
Try to keep up gramps.
I fondly remember the thread that Jen linked to at the bottom of the lead post… I remember that I did little or no work for a couple of days. Nearly got into a bit of doo-doo. And doo-doo is a good segue into something that should have come out in that thread.
Luke mentioned at the top of the thread that the southern oceans are “shutting” down as a carbon sink. It it’s probably more the case with the northern oceans. Over the last 20+ years there has been a worldwide decrease in phytoplankton and especially so in the northern hemisphere:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton2.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0815oceancarbon.html
Phytoplankton is the basis for the vast majority of sea life. Phytoplankton gets eaten by the zooplankton which gets eaten (or is) krill etc etc.
Which brings me to the doo-doo. Krill feed on phytoplankton near the ocean surface at night, but sink deeper in the water column during the day to hide from predators. There they defecate, and this then sinks – carbon sequestered. I remember skimming through an article some time back which suggested that the amount of zooplankton / krill feces was underestimated in the biological carbon pump – sorry but can’t find it…
Now if, as per the above, there is a decrease in phytoplankton, which inevitably must lead to a decrease in zooplankton, this would then mean that less CO2 gets absorbed. (Interesting supporting article here – and there are others like:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/science/ci_6786269?nclick_check=1 )
I don’t necessarily hold with the proposition that a 0.3C or so increase in SSTs would so affect the phytoplankton that they would decrease… So what is the cause?
There are a couple of obvious possibilities – one is that the (esp. in the Antarctic) phytoplankton is reacting to an increase in UV as a consequence of the ozone hole: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/aqecosys.html
Another is oil film and surfactant pollution:
http://www.gesamp.org/documentextern/RS75%20summary.pdf
“As early as 1935, Galtsoff et al () found that growth in cultures of diatoms, which are important components of the phytoplankton, was inhibited by high concentrations of oil. Russian workers have also found that various diatom species are sensitive to kerosene and fuel oils (). Recently, researchers have found that water extracts of various crude and fuel oils and dispersants may inhibit growth of phytoplankters (), or affect the rate of photosynthesis ()” from:
http://www.fordfound.org/elibrary/documents/0216/027.cfm
But probably the most logical cause is a reduction in ocean upwelling – reduction in iron and nitrogen from the depths… And this has little to do with global warming as the cycles take hundreds of years.
Given that phytoplankton photosynthesis represents 50% of global total (i.e. plants etc), a reduction of 10% then seems significant. Probably measured in gigatons of CO2 not absorbed.
I think that this is another slant on the reason that CO2 is increasing without fluctuation.
Anyhow, its late… maybe more later.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – remember changing ocean chemistry will also have an effect on plankton.
And as for the SOuthern Ocean :-
Oceans absorb CO2 at the surface and transport it downwards, eventually storing the gas in the deep ocean. However, the increased winds are churning the Southern Ocean and bringing up the stored CO2 from the deeps up to the surface. As the surface becomes more saturated with CO2, it absorbs less and less from the atmosphere.
More vortex side-effects !
FRAUD, FRAUD & MORE FRAUD is beong exposed and acted on.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2091
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2086
Its good to see the same characters here belching CO2 as they power their PCs on the way to Armeggedon. Gore & Hansen will eventually swing for what they have been up to. Gore is to address Australian fund managers on how to invest in his Investmtent Co.
AGW, the Greatest Criminal Scam in Human history.
And its unravelling…
cheers.
FRant, Rant and more Rant
Fascinating NevKet
Now before they take you to court for libel, can you explain how the above are fraudulent:
Noun: fraud
1. Intentional deception resulting in injury to another person
2. A person who makes deceitful pretences
3. Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage
If you think it’s unravelling you’re wanking yourself.
Icecap had an entry on Endersbee this week.
A few questions:
Why compare an anual CO2 increase with a twentyone year moving average sea surface temperature. A so strong filter will correlate anything.
And why did this enormous outgassing not happen in the Eemian?
And where does all the fossil fuel CO2 go?
questions questions
I’m spending more time with debunking cold side extremists than warm side extremists.
[...] http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/09/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels-follow-sea-surface-temper... [...]