Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic (Part 3)
Posted by jennifer, September 25th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
“IN order for increased human carbon dioxide emissions to cause accelerated global warming, the climate models need to assume that carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a very long time, up to 100 or more years.
“Since the IPCC’s task is to prove any global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, they decided to proclaim that carbon dioxide was long-lived in the atmosphere – a fabricated assumption.
“They did this despite the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies (and corroborating empirical measurements) finding that CO2 in the atmosphere remained there a short time. Literally, a fabricated assumption, driven by political agenda, became a cornerstone of fraudulent climate model science. As a result, billions spent on climate models that are unable to predict climate with any accuracy…
Via http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
and via Alan.
From ‘The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so’ by Lawrence Solomon
http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315
Advertisement
281 Responses to “Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic (Part 3)”
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All
One of the problems in recent posts arises from the IPCC’s incomplete budgeting of the carbon cycle.
The atmosphere is like a warehouse, and thanks to David Keeling, Pieter Tans & co, we know the Opening Stock on 1st January every year and the Closing Stock as of 31st December. In 2008 the opening was 383.54 ppm or 814.89 GtC, and the Closing was 385.54 ppm or 818.50 GtC, an increase of 3.61 GtC or 0.44%. That change in the heavenly Stock was the outcome of (1) ALL emissions from both “natural” (including geophysical) and “anthropogenic” sources, including – but generally overlooked – both all respiration (e.g. death & decay, at about 70 GtC p.a.) and also exhalation from all non-plant living matter; the USG’s immaculate EPA conception puts us humans’ annual exhalation at 2.56 GtC for a population that will soon be 7 Billion; probably at least as much is due to all non-human animals and fish; fossil fuel and so-called landuse change account for around 10 GtC p.a.; and (2) all ‘absorptions’ or ‘uplifts’, of which 110 GtC pa via photosynthesis (according to FAO’s Livestock’s Long Shadow, p.85), and “diffusion” into the oceans (anyone’s guess, as not measured).
Given the change in the Stock of only 3.61 GtC in 2008, if TOTAL emissions were say 85 (or130) GtC, then TOTAL Uplifts MUST have been 81.39 (or 126.39) GtC in 2008.
All this is merely book-keeping, and every under-statement of emissions necessarily implies an equal under-statement of Uplifts. That is a step too far for the brain capacity of the Garnaut-Enting-Steffan gang, as they cannot grasp that their demands for a zero carbon economy necessarily means a reduction in Uplifts for feeding us and all those cuddly polar bears and whales.
Garnaut’s double-think on this was splendidly on view at his Emeritus Faculty Lecture at ANU on 14th September and on Lateline on Monday 28th. when he (1) bemoaned Kev’s failure to adopt his 60-90% reduction in emissions from 2000, and (2) called for massive biosequestration, as if that does not happen already in Australia’s wheat and pastoral lands despite his hostility – but which will “wither on the vine” if there’s no rising CO2, as a result of his asinine ETS.
In terms of percentage of source CO2 human contribution is as cohenite calculates, ~3%, and if you do not accept this number, then you must then, logically, reject the IPCC numbers as well.
It’s like a bath that is near the top, but the plug is out. Water is going in just as fast as it drains out. We start pouring in a small extra amount of water, and the bath overflows. The reason it overflowed is because we started pouring in a small, extra, amount of water. However, the water overflowing is mostly the water coming from the tap. It’s not that hard to understand.
Indeed SJT – it’s not at all hard to understand. The fact that the overflowing water is mostly from what was already there and only partly from the new water flowing in is both obvious and irrelevant. Do you suppose they actually can’t understand this, or is it that they don’t want to? I’m not sure if I pity the pure boneheadedness or the self-lobotomisation more.
I have seldom read such moronic rubbish as the latest from even sjt and RW. Water is not a pollutant, neither is CO2, and it is immaterial how you apportion additions from both to either the atmosphere or the bath overflow. Pre-Garnaut (and Stern) economists understood that money like CO2 and H2O is “fungible”, alas no more, least of all in the IPCC with its ludicrous atmospheric “lifetime” estimates of individual molecules of CO2. Name one IPCC jerk who could even define the word “fungible’.
As Alan Barron has said elsewhere today: Doctor Hansen has postulated that the `safe’ upper level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 350 ppm. Policy makers have uncritically accepted this arbitrary figure with many becoming panicked because with current levels of CO2 at 385ppm, the world is facing an immediate threat because the `safe’ limit has been breached.
However, 150 million years ago, when dinosaurs flourished cCO2 levels were much higher than today. This was due to there being an abundance of lush vegetation all over the globe including the polar regions and so life flourished. And what was the carbon concentration then? 2,000 ppm!
Back in the Cambrian period, some 500 million years ago, CO2 levels were 4,800 ppm!
During the interglacial CO2 levels shrunk to 200 ppm and life struggled to survive.
Conclusion: the current level of atmospheric carbon is nothing to be concerned about. Carbon is life affirming, and present CO2 levels pose no threat to life, or the climate. It’s high time [the] arbitrary definition of a `safe’ level for CO2 at 350 ppm was not only challenged, but rejected.
Conclusion: the current level of atmospheric carbon is nothing to be concerned about. Carbon is life affirming, and present CO2 levels pose no threat to life, or the climate. It’s high time [the] arbitrary definition of a `safe’ level for CO2 at 350 ppm was not only challenged, but rejected.
Sure Jim, but not life as we know it.
John F. Pittman September 30th, 2009 at 8:45 am
John, it is more complicated than that. If we zero our emissions today, then the next year the level would be 2 ppmv lower, as we have the same (partial) pressure difference between atmosphere and oceans (and water in alveoles of land plants – ocean plants are already oversaturated). The partial pressure difference between atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 is only 7 ppmv in average, despite an increase of 100+ ppmv, as the increase in the atmosphere is readily followed by an increase in the upper oceans. See Feely e.a.:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
The second year, the pressure difference is not 7 ppmv anymore, but only 5 ppmv, thus the drop in the second year would be only 1.4 ppmv, etc… This would end asympthotic to still high CO2 levels (which is part of the IPCC reasoning for “CO2 is forever”), but another mechanism is helping: a certain level of CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and the deep oceans (directly or via the upper ocean level). Based on the d13C trends, my estimate is that this is about 40 GtC/year, which takes most of the atmosphere/ocean sinks of about 2 GtC to the deep oceans, where it gives a very small addition to the huge amounts present.
That is the reasoning behind Peter Dietze’s 38 years for a halve life time of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. That means that the 100+ ppmv CO2 higher than pre-industrial, or 390 ppmv we see today, will drop to 340 ppmv in 38 years, 315 ppmv in 76 years, 302.5 ppmv in 114 years,… Only a small fraction of the about 400 GtC we emitted in total over time will return from the deep oceans as a slight remainder of the emissions.
SJT wrote:
In order to make this analogy more closely represent climate, we need to make a few changes. Firstly, the level in the tub moves up and down, mainly because both the tap and the drain vary in the amount they carry and these variations are not in synch. Furthermore, the drain also varies it’s rate of draining depending on how much water is in the tub. And the variation in the amount of water in the tub is significantly greater than the amount of exta water we are pouring in. Oh, and the tub is currently only about 10% full, even though we can see the rings around the tub from when it was 90+% full. Despite that, we have people suggesting that overflow of the tub is imminent, and that it’s all down to the extra water we are pouring in.
There – fixed.
cohenite September 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Cohenite, you are right and wrong: indeed the sinks in average have increased, but that is because of the increase in absolute partial pressure in the atmosphere, and therefore a reduction of partial pressure difference of CO2 in the warm parts of the oceans (thus reducing the ocean’s outgassing) and increasing the partial pressure difference of CO2 at the cold parts of the oceans (thus increasing the uptake). But when we stop the emissions, the pressure difference drops too, as I explained to John. That means that the outgassing increases and the sinks decrease…
About the increase in the atmosphere: you still confuse the “quality” of the increase (that is how much % of aCO2 still is in the atmosphere, which is indeed only a few %) with the “quantity”, where 100% of the increase is caused by aCO2.
Think what would happen with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if we stop all emissions: with 0% aCO2, the level will drop with 2 ppmv the first year, etc… thus the emissions were responsible for the increase in the first place.
I have tried to graph the effect of the difference between aCO2 fraction decay and excess CO2 decay, based on realistic exchange rates:
Imagine that we had a pre-industrial atmosphere at 280 ppmv, or 580 GtC and we suddenly add 100 GtC without any further addition (a pulse response…). What happens with the aCO2 and what happens to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Well, here is the graph:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_pulse.jpg
Where FA is the fraction of aCO2 in total atmospheric CO2, FL the fraction of aCO2 in total upper level oceanic CO2 (not important here) and FA/FL their ratio. tCA total carbon in the atmosphere and nCA total carbon of natural origin in the atmosphere.
I think we may agree that if you add 100 GtC aCO2 at once in the atmosphere, that the total increase after that addition indeed is 100 GtC and 100% caused by aCO2 (which means that the fraction FA goes from zero to 14% at once).
In the next years, about 150 GtC/year of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged with CO2 from the oceans and vegetation. The second is less important (aCO2 absorbed at the start of growth largely returns by decay in fall/winter), but the about 100 GtC/yr exchange with the oceans is mostly fresh natural nCO2 (high d13C) as input, while the ocean sinks absorb aCO2 in ratio of what is found in the atmosphere. Thus the fraction FA drops rapidely with the exchange rate of 5.2 years half life.
But what happens with the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere: although 150 GtC/year circulates back and forth over the seasons, that doesn’t change anything in the total quantity, except for the (relative) tiny amount of 4 GtC/yr that is absorbed by the oceans (ánd vegetation in this case). The total amount of CO2 thus decreases slowly, compared to the fraction of aCO2. That gives the remarkable view that the amount of natural CO2 in the atmosphere increases (at the cost of aCO2), while the total amount of CO2 decreases…
I have done the same calculations, but now with the calculated emissions over the past 160 years as base, with the same assumptions of exchanges as in the first graph and added the observed CO2 increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
Seems a near fit (I admit, I have tuned the different exchange flows to make it fit, but these flows are based on existing estimates, thus not far off reality).
And as extra check, with the same exchange rates, I have plotted the calculated and observed d13C levels in atmosphere and upper oceans for the emissions: not a complete fit (some more finetuning needed, maybe including some effect of vegetation), but the general trends are not extremely diverging:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_calc_obs.jpg
Thus please, make a differentiation between the fate of CO2 of human origin still in the atmosphere, which is completely unimportant, and the cause and fate of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is (near) completely from the anthro emissions.
Neil Fisher October 1st, 2009 at 8:03 am
Neil, some correction:
And the variation in the amount of water in the tub is significantly greater than the amount of exta water we are pouring in.
This is not true: the year-by-year variability around the measured trend of CO2 in the atmosphere is +/-1.5 ppmv at maximum around an increasing trend of +2 ppmv/year and emissions of +4 ppmv/year nowadays. In not one year of the past 50 years, the natural variability exceeded the emissions, neither are the drains exceeding the small extra supply (but indeed they increase in ratio with the supply). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The other points: if the increase will have much effect (and if it has _much_ effect, is that beneficial or not), that is a complete different point, and there we may agree to a large extent…
Louis Hissink September 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Ferdinand,
You are being disengenuous – natural source emission is 770,000 MMT, human is 23,100 MMT, making a total 793,100 MMT CO2 emissions, with total Absorption at 781,400 and hence the net increase into the atmosphere is 11,700 MMT.
Of course the natural increase is less than the anthro emissions, since any CO2 we emit is also absorbed into the various sinks – CO2 is not conveniently labelled A-CO2 and N-CO2, (anthro vs natural) so that Gaia then absorbs N-CO2 but refuses to absorb A-CO2.
In terms of percentage of source CO2 human contribution is as cohenite calculates, ~3%, and if you do not accept this number, then you must then, logically, reject the IPCC numbers as well.
Louis, I know that it is very difficult to explain the difference between the amount of aCO2 still in the atmosphere (which is not important) and the cause of the total increase in CO2 (which is important). I’ll try to give another example:
You have 100 US dollar (euro, yen,…) in your pocket. You sell something to a Canadian and receive 20 CAN$. Assuming that 1 US$ = 1 CAN$, you now have $120 (US+CAN) in your pocket. Now you have a lot of transactions (a turnover of maybe $1000 in and out) during the rest of the day, where you give out your money and receive some money, the latter all paid with US$. At the end of the day, the final count is that you have $110 in your pocket, of which 2 CAN$ and 108 US$.
The essence is that only some 2% of your money input is from the Canadian guy, of which is only 0.2% is left in the endresult, but that the Canadian guy is responsible for 100% of the gain from $100 to $110, as without that one transaction you would have had a loss of $10.
How much CAN$ (the composition) are left at the end of the day is a matter of relative height and composition of the exchanges, how much you have earned or lost (the mass) is a matter of difference between all in/out transactions together, not of the composition of the exchanges, neither the height of any individual transaction.
Tim Curtin September 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm and all,
Sorry that I comment so many times. I have had discussions with others for over 2 years now on this topic, it seems one of the most difficult items to explain and understand.
To begin with the start of the thread: the IPCC estimates are NOT about the fate of a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere, it is about the fate of an extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (which can be discussed, but anyway longer than 30 years). All the other short residence times are about the first definition, which means that a single molecule CO2 in average resides some 5 years in the atmosphere. These two items have (near) nothing to do with each other.
Indeed, all natural items from exhaling and decay are included in the endresult, but as seen in the measurements, there is little variation in the natural balance over the years, and nature is an overall sink of CO2. The number of animals/people etc. is not very important in the balance: all food and fodder they turn into CO2 has captured at least the same quantity of CO2 from the atmosphere a few months to a few years before…
For the rest: the effects of the increase, that is a complete different discussion…
Many thanks Ferdinand, much appreciated – however, if I may return to my inventory example we have a stock of atmospheric CO2 of around 800 GtC growing at about 0.41% p.a. as a result of a net addition of 1.5 ppm from net emissions of around 3.6 GtC (in 2008). What I suggest really happens is that it a case of LIFO, or last-in, first-out (not a good idea in the case of milk). But in the case of atmospheric CO2, while it is well-mixed, opportunistic plants will grab the easiest available CO2, which will be the most recently emitted because at the lowest level, not having got up very far before being gobbled by our wheat and rice etc.
There is evidence that indeed [CO2] is somewhat less at below say 2,000 meters, than at Mauna Loa (3,400) – and there is evidence of extra greenery around coal-fired power stations – indeed some of Australia’s best wines come from the La Trobe and Hunter Valleys, home to the country’s biggest coal power stations. So what is likely is that the CO2 at say 10,000 metres is older than that at 1-2,000.
Be that as it may, I am building up a data base on temperatures at various parts of the world relative to [CO2] at those places. What I find is that e.g. at each of nine locations in California there is ZERO correlation between either the gross levels of T and [CO2] since 1959, or between the annual changes in T and [CO2] – but that when the Mean temperature of the nine is derived, suddenly the R2 begins to improve, because of course what are essentially random variations between the individual locations when averaged can produce a bit of a trend, sometimes up sometimes down, (guess which one is preserved by GISS?) but one that is meaningless, given the total absence of any trend in T or correlation thereof with [CO2] at any individual location. The derivation of GMT by NOAA/GISS from adding up and averaging stations is much like the modus operandi of the hockey stick team when combined with cherrypicking (by deleting all stations with negative or nil trends as is the procedure also at CRUT).
Further to my last, I now have 16 California stations in my T&CO2 data base. None shows any valid correlation between absolute levels of T and [CO2], as even when R2 reaches ‘as high as’ 0.2, the regressiona yields Durbin-Watson of less than 2, denoting auto-correlation and hence a spurious result. When as the IPCC theory demands we regress annual changes in T against the annual increases in CO2, eg at Tahoe, there is no correlation at all, with R2= MINUS 0.02.
What appears to be the case is the following. As evident in all IPCC ARs, they rely exlusively on graphic depiction of alleged correlations and never report any regressions at all. Now if we plot both T and CO2 at Tahoe on the same vertical axis, it is quite evident that there is no relationship. But if we plot them on 2 Y-axes, Excel etc create the appearance of a correlation by assuming so many oC per CO2 in ppm. But that is a pure artifact of the software. Regressions all show for all California data (so far) that there are at best only spurious correlations for the absolute T & [CO2] and none at all for dt/dt against dCO2/dt.
The amazing truth is that just as Mann & co long ago abandoned regressions because they could never get r2>0, so also with all IPCC authors and editors without exception, not one of whom has shown any capacity to undertake real scientific analysis of any data. Team Garnaut has to be added to this list of the studious incompetent.
Ferdinand,
You have no way of knowing how much A-CO2 is in the atmosphere – this is the crucial point I make.
You might know how much is produced by man, but unless you have control and quantified every other emission of CO2, it will still be impossible to work out how much of that A-CO2 stays in the atmosphere because it cannot be distinguished from any other source.
Ferdinand,
It’s simply a mass balance issue – ACO2 is ~3% of the total emissions, and will, everything else being equal, remain at that percentage in the atmosphere and anywhere else.
To make your case you have to show how A-CO2 can be differentiated from N-CO2.
Yes, sterling work Ferdinand; But I’m still concerned about a number of issues;
1 The C12/13 ratio decline as a means of distinguishing ACO2/CO2
2 The partial pressure difference applying to vegetation absorption; there is no doubt the biomass is increasing;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/more-oxygen-%e2%80%93-colder-climate/#more-10736
This will cause a greater uptake/sink regardless of partial pressure
3 The real conundrum for me is still the assumed stasis of CO2 emissions and part of that is whether you include human exhalation as natural.
4 Finally there is a distinct flow accounting difference between us; referring to my previous comment about ACO2 being in any one year ~3% of emissions, which is fairly uncontroversial; with all but 1.5% of all emissions reabsorbed then the ACO2 contribution to increase in that year is still 1.5/100 x 3/100 = >100% of the increase being caused by ACO2. Is this illusionary, boot-straping and growing tail wagging constant dog? Consider, both biomass and humans are increasing; that CO2 flux can’t be constant.
Sorry, that should be;
1.5/100 x 3/100 = < 100%
cohenite October 1st, 2009 at 11:13 pm
The main difference between you, Louis and me, is that for me the “emissions” from the oceans and vegetation decay are not emissions, but only part of the CO2 cycle, the turnover, and that only the difference after a year counts in the mass balance. As that is negative, there is no “net emission” by nature.
But regardless of this discussion, the original graph at the start of the thread shows two different definitions of “residence time”, thus the IPCC’s one (about excess mass) and all the other one’s (about individual molecules) are not comparable…
Louis Hissink October 1st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Louis, one can make a differentiation through the 13C/12C ratio, if no other low 13C sources are helping. There is no sign for that, as the oxygen use proves. And aCO2 doesn’t stay in the atmosphere: the atmospheric mix (including a few % aCO2) is absorbed at the poles, but does return only after some 1,000 years. Thus only richer in 13C CO2 from the oceans (in the tropics) replaces aCO2 at a rate of 5.2 years half life time…
All,
As most is said in this discussion, we may move on to the rapidely expanding story of the Yamal hockeystick. We live in interesting times!
Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote:
If we take yearly averages, then you are quite correct. However, even looking at monthly avergaes from CDIAC, we can see that, for instance, in 2000 there is a ~5ppm seasonal difference; 1990 shows ~5ppm seasonal difference; 1980 shows ~5ppm seasonal difference; and 1970 too. Not exactly, and the variation itself appears to be variable, but of that order, would you not agree?
Data from here, BTW: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-co2/maunaloa.co2
I haven’t tracked down the daily measurements, but presumably they would show some variation as well. Assuming your number of 2ppm/year is accurate (I didn’t bother to check and it sounds reasonable from what I know, so I won’t argue) I would say that 5ppm is significantly more than 2ppm – I think two times or more certainly qualifies as “significant”!. If you think 25% is “significant” then the seasonal variation is still signficantly above our contribution (4 + 25% = 5)
This all, of course, brings up the issue of how much we should average – for a quick and dirty look-see at the data, averages are fine, but as I’m sure you know, we should not be using time series averages in any statistical calculations. As William M Briggs has suggested (paraphrased), you don’t ever, ever, do this. That a great deal of the alarmist literature does this very thing is disturbing. That the times series are also non-stationary seems to be ignored as well. None of this is news to anyone who has had more than a cursory glance at the subject – even the most strident alarmist must be aware of the issue, yet it continues unabated.
Hi Neil
I much appreciated your last comments, especially re non-stationarity, in the rare cases where there is some apparent correlation for absolute T on abs [CO2] it is always due to non-stationarity.
I have extended my Mauna Loa analysis showing zilch correlation between [CO2] and temperature there to some 16 or so met stations in California, and 2 in Tasmania, with the same outcome. If you would like to see the Excel outputs, I’d gladly send them to you, if you contact me at
tcurtin@bigblue.net.au
It is not that there has been no warming if only until 2003, but that there is no correlation between such changes in T and changes in [CO2]. If I am right, this is potentially a much bigger scandal than the hockey stick, for given the IPCC’s claim of 95% certainty of a predominant anthro role in warming, R2s that never reach 0.01, in fact are usually negative, are even worse than those in MBH.
Neil Fisher October 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
Neil, you can find even hourly CO2 (raw calculated averages from 40 minutes 10 second voltage samples + 20 minutes of various calibration gases) levels of four baseline stations at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
The average trend over a day, even in the months with the largest seasonal change is below the detection limit of the method (0.1 ppmv) and is used to detect local contamination.
You can use any detailed variability of CO2, but then you are looking at the (local, regional, hemispheric) noise, not at the trend. The seasonal “noise” is much less e.g. in the SH than in the NH and higher at ground level than at altitude. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
That is because vegetation growth and decay is the primary cause of the variability, thus stronger in the NH.
The global average seasonal amplitude is about 5 ppmv (just by coincidence about what is going on at MLO) for a global temperature amplitude of about 1 K, thus about 5 ppmv/K.
The emissions are calculated on the base of sales of fossil fuels, but are only known on yearly averages, while these probably are higher in winter than in summer (except for hot towns with a lot of AC’s at work), thus adding somewhat to the seasonal amplitude.
Thus the shortest comparison possible is over a year. Which levels out the seasonal variations, but still holds the variability of the natural balance: if there is an increase in sink capacity (1992 Pinatubo), there is less increase in the atmosphere after a full cycle and warm oceans surfaces are less absorbing (1998 El Niño), leading to a stronger increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
Even in the monthly variability at MLO, one can see the accelleration and decelleration of the increase speed with temperature (need to update the graph for about a year):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo_co2_seasons.jpg
The influence of temperature on increase speed is obvious (at about 5 ppmv/K, about the same as for the global CO2 flux over the seasons). But that has little influence on the trend itself, except for the (relative) small increase of temperature since the LIA (the very long term sensitivity of CO2 for temperature changes is about 8 ppmv/K). And as the trend is about 2 ppmv/year, 2-3 years are already enough to show the trend emerging from the seasonal “noise”…
Curtin still hasn’t figured out that you want to correlate the effect of CO2 on temperature not whatever he is plotting on his abacus after cherry picking some stations.
ABTW Tim, differencing a noisy signal yields crap, something you learn in the first week of numerical analysis.
Ferdinand, Eli ran across something interesting recently, a paper that claimed that most of the seasonal difference at MLO is from a change of wind direction. In the summer, predominantly from North America, and in the winter from Asia. Lost the link tho. Sorry
Ferdinand,
I have been travelling for the last 2 days and will be on the move between two exploration projects some 2500 km apart for the next 3 weeks, so comments here will be infrequent.
Hence the lack of my comments does not mean I have accepted your reasoning – I just don’t have the time at present to get too involved in the aCO2 and NCO2 issue as I also have the next AIG News publication looming over the horizon as well.
So I will continue this discussion middle November unless I forget all about it.
Ferdinand
One exception: You wrote – “Louis, one can make a differentiation through the 13C/12C ratio, if no other low 13C sources are helping. There is no sign for that, as the oxygen use proves. And aCO2 doesn’t stay in the atmosphere: the atmospheric mix (including a few % aCO2) is absorbed at the poles, but does return only after some 1,000 years. Thus only richer in 13C CO2 from the oceans (in the tropics) replaces aCO2 at a rate of 5.2 years half life time…
In order to substantiate this you need to list the CO2 sources according to their C13 content as measured.
I agree that burning hydrocarbons produces low C13 CO2.
But so also natural methane emissions, and which is greater?
Eli Rabett October 3rd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Eli, thanks for the comment, I have read that somewhere too, but I wonder how large the influence could be, as the CO2 levels at similar altitude quite rapidely are mixed together within days to weeks, but a detailed comparison can give more insight.
Further, CO2 levels and d13C levels go in opposite way in the whole NH, be it more pronounced near ground than at altitude. That points to mainly vegetation as cause of the seasonal variation. Thus one need a quite huge difference between the continents for vegetation growth to make that difference…
Louis Hissink October 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
There are different lists with the d13C level of different fuels, including methane. Here a few of them:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page34.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html
What is important is that vegetation is not a source of CO2, it is a sink, as there is oxygen production (thus CO2 incorporation).
Natural releases of methane don’t need to be enormous, as these have a very low d13C level (-40 per mil and lower), but to be the cause, the d13C level decrease should follow the methane increase in the atmosphere (as indication of natural CH4 emissions). But there is little increase in methane levels over the past decade…
Ferdinand
Jack Barrett’s site makes intersting reading – but his section on the origin of fossil fuels is inaccurate – it’s basically Lyellian lyricism – and if that starting point is wrong, then so any deductions therefrom.
I pointed out in CCnet, in response to Richard Wakefield’s comments about peak oil etc, (read Benny’s CCnets for further information) that while indeed no one has created a natural diamond in the laboratory, no one produced high dalton number hydrocarbons in the lab either from simple increases in P and T. The Abiotic oilers have, however, and the published results are there for all to quibble over. This is simple fact to which no further reactions were published in CCnet.
The main belief is that the earth does not spontaneously generate hydrocarbons from the mantle region – hence no one bothers quantifying emission of CH4 from the ocean floors etc. AGW theory is based on a belief that all fossil fuels are recycled biomass but that assumption isn’t based on experimental evidence but on well argued specious rhetoric based on logical fallacies.
AGW is pseudoscience as a consequence, pseudoscience being one in which expert use of the scientific method is used on unverified starting assumption.
As a result the carbon cycle has to be questioned – and it is significant that the driving force for AGW had its origin in the UK with its Lyellian tradition of using the competence of a legal mindset to establish scientific “facts” in spite of the contradictory physical evidence.
The Barrett/Bellamy list omits the mantle emissions of carbon.
And I would like to see the d13/d12 ratio computed for more than one location too – Mauna Loa is, from a sampling theory POV, not representative of the Earth’s atmospheric composition wrt to CO2 isotopes.
That’s all I will post here on this topic for the time being.
Louis Hissink October 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Louis, the d13C level is known for different places, since about 1980:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg
In ice cores these are measured for the glacials/interglacials and up to near present + in firn. In the upper oceans over the past 600 years. In all cases, there is some influence of temperature on the d13C level, but the spectacular decrease is completely in ratio with the emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Thus in my opinion, there is little doubt that the emissions are the cause of the decline. The alternative that the natural emissions (of methane or other low 13C carbon) are the cause should have been in exact ratio with the emissions, and that is very unlikely…
Ferdinand, thank you for the information, but I have some questions if you don’t mind. You wrote:
Does it not concern you that a global average contains a seasonal signal? Perhaps there is a good reason for this (one that springs to mind would be the land/ocean ratios of NH vs SH), but it concerns me that such a well examined and adjusted record displays seaonal variation when it is supposed to be a global metric. It seems to me that such variation shows a hemispheric bias to the NH. Perhaps, not being on the “inside” this is a trivial question, but I suspect many others here would appreciate an explaination if you know of one.
Secondly, given the statisticians “rule” of never using averages (or filtered data, if you prefer) in subsequent analysis (ref Briggs etc), would you care to comment on the caveats implicit in using yearly averages rather than monthly, or for that matter, daily or hourly numbers? Should we not see the same effects under any averaging conditions (temporal and/or spacial) and if we don’t, should we not suspect artifacts of the process to be responsible, rather than suggesting the filtered data shows us a “truth” that is not apparent in the un-filtered data?
“It’s like a bath that is near the top, but the plug is out. Water is going in just as fast as it drains out. We start pouring in a small extra amount of water, and the bath overflows. The reason it overflowed is because we started pouring in a small, extra, amount of water. However, the water overflowing is mostly the water coming from the tap. It’s not that hard to understand.”
That had to be one of the funniest, silliest metaphors I’ve heard on this subject. In either scenario, the “bathwater” flows out of the tub. Sound like a negative feedback to me (i.e., the “water” doesn’t just keep rising and rising”). And the tub — who established the max volume/height, of the tub itself? Would that be the saturation level of atmospheric CO2 (the point at which additional CO2 can no longer add to any warming)? So we’re protecting the floor beneath the tub? What would that represent – space? oceans?