I was fascinated by some of the issues raised and explanations given by Arnost, posted here as a comment late last night in response to a comment from Paul Biggs:
“Hi Paul,
Kudos to you for asking great questions and especially questions that risk undermining your position: I may not be a “solarphile” but by the same token I also believe that there is “something” that we as yet don’t understand which has a significant role to play in the case against CO2.
Food for thought…
Fact: CO2 tends to mix quickly into the atmosphere.
Fact: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have historically increased at a (relatively) steady rate (in line with population growth).
So when we look at the direct measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa or at the South Pole we should not expect to see any major spikes and troughs. And in fact we don’t.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf
But we should expect step increases if there are additional, non anthropogenic emissions. When there are serious volcanic events such as those listed in the following link – we would expect a step increase in CO2 levels ON TOP of the anthropogenic emissions.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
We would expect that there be steps corresponding to other natural events like the fires in Indonesia or even the bushfires we had in Victoria early this summer where 100’s of thousands of square km of vegetation was converted into CO2. The list goes on…
We would logically also expect step increases corresponding to Man’s folly such as the burning of the oilfields in the first Gulf War.
Yet, these don’t appear in the record.
So, the inevitable conclusion must be that there HAS to be a signal that overrides this.
Fact: Atmospheric temperatures have increased and the correlated assumption: ocean temperatures have therefore increased proportionally.
Fact: As water heats up, it has less capacity to carry CO2.
Fact: The key CO2 sampling stations are at Mauna Loa (in the middle of the Pacific), and at the South Pole (in a biologically sterile environment that is surrounded by ocean).
Inductive conclusion: The reason that the CO2 measurements don’t exhibit expected “steps” is that what actually is measured is the release of CO2 from the ocean AND that this release of CO2 from the ocean is a stronger signal that masks the other, anthropogenic/natural fluctuations.
Note: Cape Grim is at the northwest point of Tasmania and with the prevailing weather being from the west, really only measures the CO2 from the Southern Ocean atmosphere.
A bit about statistics:
The principal use of statistics is to identify trends and correlations from a “sample” of one or more (incomplete) data sets. It is perfectly acceptable, or even obligatory to exclude outliers from a sample so that any derived trends are not (potentially) distorted.
On this basis, it is perfectly acceptable to discard the data as per Beck as contaminated and unrepresentative.
Unfortunately, science is not statistics.
In fact science is the antithesis of statistics. It is perfectly acceptable in statistics to exclude the observed relativistic perturbations of Mercury’s orbit (using SJT’s favourite example) from an estimation of (not theory of) the force of gravity.
In science this is not the case. It is in the method of science to either show that the observation is flawed or to account for the observation as “data” – and you can never arbitrarily “discard” inconvenient “data”.
So we come to Beck.
I would suggest that nobody disputes the CO2 measurements reported as per Beck’s analysis. What is in dispute is whether these are “representative”.
What Beck does is to bring to light the fact that a “uniform” increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions does not exit. And if you think about this – this is a rational proposition. Given that the Mauna Loa/South Pole observational data shows “uniformity” this means that there HAS to be some other and stronger signal that masks the non-uniform anthropogenic (and natural) increase in CO2 emissions.
Now to Glassman as per the other thread.
In view of the above, his [Glassman’s] argument has merit. In a cooler environment, CO2 saturated surface water is naturally sub-ducted into deeper and even colder layers which can cope with more CO2 (via the oceans “conveyor belt”), and then brought back to a surface environment (where the water is warmer than that originally sub-ducted). Since in a warmer environment, and this surface is already saturated with CO2 (and therefore can’t hold any more CO2), this will result in a degassing i.e. release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Given the above, it is plausible that as the water warms and as it gets CO2 rich, water from below the ensuing CO2 degassing is potentially in excess of any anthropogenic/natural emission. This therefore masks the anthropogenic/natural emission signal as measured at Mauna Loa/South Pole.
Given the length of time that the oceanic conveyor belt can take to do the circle, this is also a great explanation for carbon dioxide lagging temperature in the ice core data.
There is a big question that needs to be resolved however: Is the ocean already saturated with CO2 throughout the entire water column and in equilibrium?
If it is, then the CO2 in the surface water can not “sink” with it.
As I said, this is food for thought, I am not going to make any further conclusions/guesses at this point.
It’s too late… readers can extrapolate on this and make their own.
Cheers, Arnost
——————————
** There has been minor editing of the orginal text/comment to make it hopefully easier to read.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“But we should expect step increases if there are additional, non anthropogenic emissions. When there are serious volcanic events such as those listed in the following link – we would expect a step increase in CO2 levels ON TOP of the anthropogenic emissions.”
If they were of similar magnitude. The anthropogenic CO2 far is far larger than volcanic.
“One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a ‘Snowball Earth’ state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/
Arnost can get a few answers by having a good look at Gaia. Mother Earth has a vigorous kickback when it comes to both oceans and climate.
Nope – disagree on some aspects and answered Arnost with some published work on the ocean issue on the original thread. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001971.html
We know the addition into the atmosphere has been fossil fuel combustion, a big slug has gone into the upper ocean, and associated chemistry changes make the ocean’s capacity as an ongoing sink in the short term (100 years)in some doubt. (which means atmospheric CO2 buildup would increase faster)
The rapid contemporary (200 years !)spike injection of CO2 into the atmosphere is not really relevant to ice age cycles.
CO2 from vulcanism is a minor consideration in the current scene.
The oft quoted 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources is a statistic that distorts what actually happened in the case of Pinatubo.
Consider – if we accept the 7 G/t per annum number, this means that the monthly anthropogenic emission is about 600 M/t.
From below the total CO2 emission from Pinatubo was between 42 – 234 M/t
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/wolfe/
The below says that there were “at least” 42 M/T CO2 released in the immediate days BEFORE the eruption.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf
These numbers tell me that if we take the mid point of the Wolfe numbers, then this is equivalent to almost 25% of that months “anthropogenic” emission. If we take the maximum amount, then this is equivalent to about 40% of that months “anthropogenic” emission.
If CO2 mixes so easily, surely a 20 – 40% increase in CO2 emission in a SINGLE month would at least cause a blip in the Mauna Loa graph?
The question remains – are the “official” CO2 results distorted by some other factor?
The interesting thing is that following the Pinatubo event, the rate of increase in the measured CO2 at Mauna Loa decreased over the next couple of years. It is accepted that the globe cooled a little bit as a consequence – and so maybe the oceans? Possibly leading to their capability to absorb more / release less CO2?
Statistics aside – I am puzzled that the Mauna Loa / South Pole / Cape Grim measurements are so smooth given the chaotic nature of the biosphere.
cheers
Arnost
P.S. Jen, I’m extremely flattered – thank you.
This is the monthly 1991 CO2 (ppm) Mauna Loa detail.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat
The Pinatubo event was 15 June 1991.
MLO 1991 01 354.85
MLO 1991 02 355.66
MLO 1991 03 357.04
MLO 1991 04 358.40
MLO 1991 05 359.00
MLO 1991 06 357.99
MLO 1991 07 356.00
MLO 1991 08 353.78
MLO 1991 09 352.20
MLO 1991 10 352.22
MLO 1991 11 353.70
MLO 1991 12 354.98
MLO 1992 01 356.09
MLO 1992 02 356.85
MLO 1992 03 357.73
This is why I find this interesting – no blip upwards… the trend is downwards for the next six months – in line with the “normal” trend.
cheers Arnost
Arnost – 234 Mt Pinatubo against 7000 Mt anthropogenic = 3% annually of the combined total – and that doesn’t take into account what’s absorbed into the biosphere and oceans – you wouldn’t notice it I reckon – although you could get the individual data from the sites and see – may be there !!
Monthly data says:
1989 352.76 353.07 353.68 355.42 355.67 355.13 353.90 351.67 349.80 349.99 351.30 352.53 352.91 352.94
1990 353.66 354.70 355.39 356.20 357.16 356.22 354.82 352.91 350.96 351.18 352.83 354.21 354.19 354.19
1991 354.72 355.75 357.16 358.60 359.34 358.24 356.17 354.03 352.16 352.21 353.75 354.99 355.59 355.62
1992 355.98 356.72 357.81 359.15 359.66 359.25 357.03 355.00 353.01 353.31 354.16 355.40 356.37 356.36
1993 356.70 357.16 358.38 359.46 360.28 359.60 357.57 355.52 353.70 353.98 355.33 356.80 357.04 357.10
1994 358.36 358.91 359.97 361.26 361.68 360.95 359.55 357.49 355.84 355.99 357.58 359.04 358.88 358.86
Eruption June 15 1991 to August.
What you do see in the Mauna Loa graphs is the boreal biosphere doing its seasonal thing – hence the annual wiggles.
The reason the graphs are so smooth is that the global circulation does a good job of mixing things up and that globally the natural processes are in some sort of balance, so the continual additions are from human activity with a seasonal biological wiggle background. What you’d expect.
It has been said that the 1ppm annual increase has gone to 2ppm recently with a new high of 390ppm average concentration. Accelerating rate of increase.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSL162759420070216
And how much CO2 went into the stratosphere vis a vis the troposphere?
Luke
I took your numbers as per above and I took the Mauna Loa site numbers (from my link above) for a similar period (as they’re slightly different?) and graphed them both.
To the naked eye – no discernible change in trend for 1991 (there is one for June / July 1992).
Eyes are usually exceptional at spotting trends – however these are the slopes.
J – J J – A
1989 0.59 1.32
1990 0.97 1.41
1991 1.01 1.99
1992 0.26 2.47
1993 0.66 1.97
1994 0.88 1.4
So contrary to expectations, statistically the trend in fact is the most negative for June – July 1991. It is the second most negative for Jul – Aug after 1992 (which is probably some correction for the previous month – also an outlier).
So a 20 – 40% increase in monthly CO2 has no statistically discernible (positive) effect.
If you consider that volcanic ash etc would have suffocated tens of 1,000’s of sq km of vegetation – thus instantaneously removing their ability to absorb CO2 – this would also be a multiplying effect on the CO2. So the net increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably even higher.
Interesting – what?
cheers
Arnost
You have to think what other major influences could impact CO2 in any year – El Nino would change sea surface temperatures around globally in different ways. Obviously a pronounced surface warming later in the year in the eastern to equatorial Pacific Ocean.
The influence of El Niño on the equatorial Pacific contribution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation
Richard A. Feely
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, Washington
Rik Wanninkhof
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida
Taro Takahashi
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York
Pieter Tans
Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
Nature, 398, 597–601 (1999)
Copyright ©1999 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Further electronic distribution is not allowed.
——————————————————————————–
The equatorial oceans are the dominant oceanic source of CO2 to the atmosphere, annually amounting to a net flux of 0.7–1.5 Pg (1015 g) of carbon, up to 72% of which emanates from the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Houghton et al., 1994; Tans et al., 1990; Takahashi et al., 1997). Limited observations indicate that the size of the equatorial Pacific source is significantly influenced by El Niño events (Feely et al., 1995; Wanninkhof et al., 1996; Murray et al., 1994; Feely et al., 1987; Inoue and Sugimura, 1992; Goyet and Peltzer, 1994; Archer et al., 1996), but the effect has not been well quantified. Here we report spring and autumn multiannual measurements of the partial pressure of CO2 in the surface ocean and atmosphere in the equatorial Pacific region. During the 1991–94 El Niño period, the derived net annual sea-to-air flux of CO2 was 0.3 Pg C from autumn 1991 to autumn 1992, 0.6 Pg C in 1993, and 0.7 Pg C in 1994. These annual fluxes are 30–80% of that of 1996, a non-El-Niño year. The total reduction of the regional sea-to-air CO2 flux during the 1991–94 El Niño period is estimated to account for up to one-third of the atmospheric anomaly (the difference between the annual and long-term-average increases in global atmospheric CO2 content) observed over the same period.
Full article: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel1868/text.shtml
Luke
I’m not sure what relevance this article has. Just spent an hour trying to figure it out. Can I have a hint?
Since you did post it however, can’t resist a snipe.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/paleoclimatology/
It looks like the GISS modelers ignored it when modeling the Pinatubo event. The 91-94 extended El Nino does not appear to be acknowledged in the model at all – it’s all about aerosols and how they caused the cooling. I also like the fact that both the observed temp and water vapour values decline at the end of the graphs while the model(s) happily hockey stick up.
cheers
Arnost
Did I post it? I haven’t seen it.
The 1991-1994 sea surface temperatures were likely used which would encompass the El Nino aspects. The bit at the end – jeez – who knows – don’t be too picky – there merely showing the models behaved reasonably – maybe if you ran them for longer they would have come back together again. You can’t get every little wiggle right and you’d be very sus if they did.
The UV – NAO interaction is fascinating though. I wonder if the contrarians have pondered that.
The relative importance of solar and anthropogenic forcing of climate change between the Maunder Minimum and the present
Author(s)
RIND David (1) ; SHINDELL Drew (1) ; PERLWITZ Judith (1) ; LERNER Jean (1) ; LONERGAN Patrick (2) ; LEAN Judith (3) ; MCLINDEN Chris (4) ;
Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Columbia University, New York, New York, ETATS-UNIS
(2) SGT Corporation, New York, New York, ETATS-UNIS
(3) Naval Research Laboratories, Washington, D.C, ETATS-UNIS
(4) Meteorological Service of Canada, Downsview, Ontario, CANADA
Abstract
The climate during the Maunder Minimum is compared with current conditions in GCM simulations that include a full stratosphere and parameterized ozone response to solar spectral irradiance variability and trace gas changes. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Climate/Middle Atmosphere Model (GCMAM) coupled to a q-flux/mixed-layer model is used for the simulations, which begin in 1500 and extend to the present. Experiments were made to investigate the effect of total versus spectrally varying solar irradiance changes; spectrally varying solar irradiance changes on the stratospheric ozone/climate response with both preindustrial and present trace gases; and the impact on climate and stratospheric ozone of the preindustrial trace gases and aerosols by themselves. The results showed that 1) the Maunder Minimum cooling relative to today was primarily associated with reduced anthropogenic radiative forcing, although the solar reduction added 40% to the overall cooling. There is no obvious distinguishing surface climate pattern between the two forcings. 2) The global and tropical response was greater than 1°C, in a model with a sensitivity of 1.2°C (W m[-2])[-1]. To reproduce recent low-end estimates would require a sensitivity one-fourth as large. 3) The global surface temperature change was similar when using the total and spectral irradiance prescriptions, although the tropical response was somewhat greater with the former, and the stratospheric response greater with the latter. 4) Most experiments produce a relative negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO) during the Maunder Minimum, with both solar and anthropogenic forcing equally capable, associated with the tropical cooling and relative poleward Eliassen-Palm (EP) flux refraction. 5) A full stratosphere appeared to be necessary for the negative AO/NAO phase, as was the case with this model for global warming experiments, unless the cooling was very large, while the ozone response played a minor role and did not influence surface temperature significantly. 6) Stratospheric ozone was most affected by the difference between present-day and preindustrial atmospheric composition and chemistry, with increases in the upper and lower stratosphere during the Maunder Minimum. While the estimated UV reduction led to ozone decreases, this was generally less important than the anthropogenic effect except in the upper midstratosphere, as judged by two different ozone photochemistry schemes. 7) The effect of the reduced solar irradiance on stratospheric ozone and on climate was similar in Maunder Minimum and current atmospheric conditions.
Perhaps we should approach this issue from another angle. According to wikipedia, “The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 trillion metric tons. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10 18 kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5×1015 kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate. The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27×1016 kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003×1018 kg.”
So that is 5,148,000,000,000,000 tonnes of which CO2, at 358ppm in June 1991 was, 1,842,984,000,000 tonnes. It is a little easier to comprehend in Gigatonnes at 1,843 Gt of total CO2 with the 2ppm drop from June to August 1991 amounting to 10.296 Gt. In contrast, Mt Pinatubo emitted only 0.234 Gt or 2.27% against the trend of the flux.
So no spike should be recorded because the volumes involved in most volcanic events are insignificant.
But these numbers do bring us back to the whole question of actual global mean CO2 versus the Mauna Loa proxy. The difference between Mauna Loa in 2004 (378ppm) and the reported continental clean reading for western Europe in 2004 (354ppm) was 24ppm which translates to a massive variance of 123.55 Gt CO2 which is 17.65 years worth of total claimed anthropogenic CO2 emissions (ie, 7 Gt/year).
At the very least, if we are to start levying a tax of $30/tonne of CO2 then we need to do some serious account reconciliations to get a handle on this $3,706,560 billion discrepancy. It is not “small change”, being 3706 times greater than the entire Australian annual GDP.
In this case I will undertake the work and waive my hourly rate and take a modest percentage instead. Agreed?
Thanks Arnost et al. It was worthwhile posting Beck’s paper after all – I didn’t expect it to produce another thread.
Clearly there is some way to go before we fully understand the carbon cycle.
As for ‘solar irradiance’ – the IPCC classify the ‘level of scientific understanding’ as ‘low,’ other solar factors aren’t currently considered.
More to discuss soon – the Lyman et al ‘ocean cooling’ paper is being ‘corrected’ – so the cooling will be gone – it will be interesting to see if the correction produces a further warming, or a levelling off.
Ian: I can’t face the calcs but I feel you are really closing in on the jackpot. The enormity of hosing down the fire is starting to sink in everywhere. How long will it take?
To Paul’s point and worth a read:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 248 (2006) 1–14
Climate change and solar variability: What’s new under the sun?
Edouard Bard a,⁎, Martin Frank b,1
a CEREGE (UMR 6635), Collège de France, CNRS-Université Aix-Marseille, Europole de l’Arbois BP80, 13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 4, France
b IfM-GEOMAR, Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel, Wischhofstrasse 1-3, 24148 Kiel, Germany1
Received 29 December 2005; received in revised form 26 May 2006; accepted 9 June 2006
Available online 17 July 2006
Editor: A.N. Halliday
Abstract
The Sun has an obvious effect on climate since its radiation is the main energy source for the outer envelopes of our planet.
Nevertheless, there is a long-standing controversy on whether solar variability can significantly generate climate change, and how this
might occur. This is a crucial issue not only in the field of paleoclimatology, but also for predicting the future of the Earth’s climate,which
will be subject to perturbations by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Indeed, if climate changes due to the Sun were large and rapid, this
would make it more difficult to extract the anthropogenic effects from precise records of instrumental data over the past century. Hence,
Sun–climate relationships have never been so controversial as today, forming a debate that often escapes the scientific arena.
Here, we provide a review of this problem by considering changes on different time scales, from the last million years up to recent
decades. In doing so, we also critically assess recent claims that the variability of the Sun has had a significant impact on global climate.
The different studied records also illustrate the multi-disciplinary nature of this difficult problem, requiring knowledge in several fields
such as astronomy and astrophysics, atmospheric dynamics and microphysics, isotope geochemistry and geochronology, as well as
geophysics, paleoceanography and glaciology.
Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes—such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming—remains
unproven andmost probably represents a second-order effect.Althoughwe still require evenmore and better data, the weight of evidence
suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of a fewcenturies, similar in type to the
fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.) followed on by the
Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.).
http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/evo_cli/UPL13816_Bard06EPSL.pdf
Luke: I have huge problems with this new stuff. Bard and Frank are essentially counting sunspots that can emit all manner of radiation at their peak. However we on earth are mostly oblivious to even the largest change up there in terms of light and heat on the surface here. More importantly all life as we know has evolved to cope with those changes regardless.
This is my yardstick for measurement system sensitivity. The magnitude of any change we are hunting must be relevant to life itself and at this point of time. Gaia would have all species hunting sunspots if it were any other way.
Sorry mate I can’t stand the cheek of these odd fellows.
Well their conclusion is inconclusive !
Ian is spot on. On deeper consideration, I realised that there was a big flaw in the Pinatubo example. By my calcs the Pinatubo CO2 imput would have increased the atmospheric CO2 by probably less than .1ppm. This signal could well have been hidden.
Luke, pull your socks up – the skeptics are doing your job!
The premise in the thread starting post was simply that the atmospheric measuring stations are measuring the oceanic CO2 flux – which therefore is so strong that it overwhelms all other signals. The conclusion that I was trying to hint at was that the throw away line that the current global warming is caused by the Medieval Warm period may actually be worth a bit more evaluation. And that there consequently is something in the carbon cycle that we don’t understand.
I have come up on this piece by a high school student. I think that she’s done an exceptional analysis that is very pertinent the this thread, and has come up with something that will cause the consensus climate scientists a bit of a headache if correct.
I’m not going to steal her thunder – the link below opens with her conclusions, and I recommend that you read them through to the end to see her logic develop.
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id19.html
And to all you out there who are quick with the ad homs – tone it down WRT her please.
cheers
Arnost
Arnost: Pull your own socks up and ask your self what the majority of people in the developed world were doing around 1940.
I should have studied harder Arnost – pretty impressive effort and rational conclusions.
Maybe I should go back to school!
Helloooo Arnost – I told you the tiddly % CO2 Pinatubo story first – obviously you don’t read me. Most don’t read I know. Oh yuk – it’s Luke’s guff – parse /delete next comment – that’s why abuse is easier 🙂
And don’t confuse gross fluxes with nett flux – what’s the equilibrium situations – CO2 is also being sunk. Without humans it tends not add 100ppm in 100 years or so. We’re actively disturbing the equilibrium.
Your URL – not bad for a raw student – commendable effort in understanding – but alas may not pass a thing called “the reviewers”.
Hey,
I told about volcanoes first, with the RC link. Maybe he just missed it by accident.
OK it was SJT then. I defer.
Am in the process of taking a closer look at the Mauna Loa data set and am wondering if there is a more detailed set than the monthly means?
My understanding was that at least two readings are done each week so is there a set of weekly means?
Anyone?
Luke
Am absolutely flat chat, but … Can I please ask for your rationalle for posting the Feely et al link yesterday evening? Can I have that hint?
This reasonably recent paper has the same thesis and suggests possible ENSO correlation with MWP & LIA and supports some of Glassman’s thesis.
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/eesc/staff/cturney/docs/TurneyElNino14Coffset.pdf
Can I please ask you to have a good read of it and comment?
To save time and a distraction… I know that tne Mann 2000a modelled reconstruction suggests much weaker historical ENSO than what is in the paper so to save time,
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/chapter-diaz.pdf
cheers
Arnost
like I asked Luke, does he actually read any of it?
Feely ? Simply that El Nino events can make a bif difference between ocean CO2 flux between years. Like more than volcanoes !! SO you need to factor quite a few things in your analysis of CO2 wiggling ! Warmer water in EL Nino events (central to eastern Equatorial Pacific) exchanges CO2 at a different rate to non-El Nino years.
Anyway Arnost – you’re on a roll – you’re thresholding on becoming self-aware and dangerous now you’ve started to model yourself and access Google Scholar. My work on this planet is done.
Ian – re raw data – suggest you email Michael.Raupach@csiro.au who is co-Chair of the Global Carbon Project and ask for some contacts at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) who run the global network. Called networking !
I have read they look for a stable set of readings at Mauna Loa before they do a sample run.
Or even closer to source email PI Ralph Keeling at rkeeling@ucsd.edu
from http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/coop/scripps/co2/co2.html
(NB Ralph not “the” Charles Keeling)
and watch the language Ian !
That is interesting work, Arnost, convey my compliments to her if you can.
The 1998 El Nino is an interesting point because that year had by far the greatest rise in CO2 of the whole Mauna Loa data set. When I plotted the annual maximum and annual minimum CO2 readings and split by decade there was a general rise of 6.51ppm each year and a decline of 5.67ppm and a mean annual increase of 0.84ppm in the 1960’s.
Over the 1970’s the mean annual rise was 6.72ppm with a fall of 5.51ppm and a net increase of 1.21ppm/year.
Over the 1980’s the mean annual rise was 7.53ppm with a decline of 5.93 and a net increase of 1.59ppm/year.
And over the 1990’s the mean annual rise was 7.78ppm with a decline of 6.29 and a slightly lower net increase of 1.48ppm/year. So the amplitude of the fluxes has increased along with the total CO2 levels.
Interstingly, the increase from the October minimum in 1997 to the May maximum in 1998 was a massive 9.1ppm while the decline to the October 1998 minimum was only 5.39, a decline not seen since 1973. And this produced a net increase for that year of 3.71ppm or more than double the mean for the past two decades.
This is a net increase of 19Gt CO2 which is almost three times claimed anthropogenic emissions.
The reduction in the annual decline in CO2 can be explained by drought induced reduction in photosynthesis that did not absorb as much CO2 as in normal years. But that still leaves about 15Gt unaccounted for.
And the standard explanation, that higher El Nino temperatures reduced the absorption capacity of the tropical oceans, does not reconcile with the scale of the CO2 increase.
It should also be pointed out that over the past four decades the minimum CO2 month has shifted from being predominantly October to predominantly September. This is consistent with a shorter growing season with the minimum record month being the point at which transpiration in deciduous forests has ceased absorbing CO2 while respiration continues to emit CO2 and thereby start the annual increasing CO2 phase.
But surely, with increasing temperatures the growing season should be getting longer, not shorter?
The “smoking gun” for a large part of this additional CO2 could well be a larger than normal upwelling of CO2 laden deep ocean water.
Luke
I’m on a roll OK – which at the present rate will lead to me being on the street, both unemployed AND divorced … LOL.
Don’t put your feet up though… Your work is not done – The more I delve into this the more I’m convinced that this whole AGW thing is a crock. (By the way I think you are a huge asset to this site and the principal reason why I follow it – cheers).
I well know the limitations of computer simulations vis-à-vis reality. The discussion between Browning and Dudhia on this ongoing thread WRT climate modeling is fascinating.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1124
So when “models” tell me that the last 1000 years of temperatures is this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm
I choke! I refuse to accept that all the historical accounts of weather that I have read in 100’s if not 1000’s of accounts are wrong because of a computer model?
For goodness sake the principal evidence for the “A” in AGW is a modeled computer simulation using the same filtered / calibrated / statistically “corrected” / massaged / and even “teleconnected” data over and over again! And I’m not talking about forecasting – but hindcasting!
If Mann et coterie say that something is so – it’s a CONsensus. If an astrophysicist / geologist / geochemist / statistician say they’ve missed something – they’re fossil fuel “shills” or “drunk”. Empirical evidence discarded – CONsensus statistically driven computer simulations rule!
I do not like to use Mottyisms – but it’s shonkorama at its best! (Sorry all – will not happen again).
Taking a deep breath…
These are SOME of my problems with the CONsensus.
Models:
http://www.gac.ca/JOURNALS/ClimateChangev30no03.pdf
“In the IPCC Third Assessment Report, none of the international groups contributing projections of future climate had incorporated interactive terrestrial and oceanic carbon cycle models into their coupled models.”
ENSO:
“… climatic periods such as the MWP and LIA were driven by pervasive La Niña and El Niño conditions in the tropics.”
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/eesc/staff/cturney/docs/TurneyElNino14Coffset.pdf
Celestial Factors:
“According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.”
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
http://wdc.cricyt.edu.ar/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/fig3a.jpg
“Empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers.”
http://www.gac.ca/JOURNALS/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf
Observations suggest that celestial phenomena may have been the dominant forcing factor even during the most recent past.
http://www.tp4.rub.de/~kls/scherer-etal-2007SSR.pdf
(Note– this is a big paper – excerpts can be found here : http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Veizer/Scherer_paper/veizer_scherer_paper.html )
See also
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf
……………………………………………..
And we can’t even begin to quantify or even understand the effects of undersea volcanoes (of which are estimated to be 100 x as many as on land) which may drive the ENSO, contribute CO2, and in their own right contribute to the oceanic warming!
Climate science has a long long way to go before it matures and can even begin to rationally explain past climate. To think that we can model it and predict what happens in a 100 years is ludicrous.
Good night – sleep well
Arnost
Arnost: CO2 readings are indeed a fragile thing.
Looking back or looking forward you need to lean on something first hand. All the models and calcs here are 2nd hand, 3rd hand or worse.
Luke “I have read they look for a stable set of readings at Mauna Loa before they do a sample run” has to have faith in fellow man here. So do I and that’s our experience.
A big test of this kind of faith is when you can lie calm, stare up at the big round lamp op theater and listen to the instruments being sorted by assistants in their sterile trays and know you are going to wake up properly mended.
Arnost – nope I was wrong – you’re simply skipping around cherry picking and reading what you want. You have to look for a body of evidence, and because something is intuitively appealing doesn’t mean it’s right, and importantly you need to argue CO2 down as well as “something else” up.
So the cosmic driver – I’m really surprising on how quickly, how totally uncritically people have jumped on this. Read Nexus on curtains for cosmic rays to see how immature this stuff is (if anything other than pixie dust).
And do the cosmic ray boys explain that the biggest mid-troposheric warming on Earth is above Antarctica itself?
So put the brain into gear – what’s the downside of the TAR not have terrestrial and ocean feedbacks – well given the sinks will lessen – means that the TAR is conservative if anything. So work out which side your errors lie on first. And we have a wide range of SRES scenarios anyway depending on the biggest unknown – humanity’s response (or not!).
And you’ve found the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) – well done. Involved in the 50s and 70s being wetter than wet perhaps. But do you think the climatologists don’t know about the IPO? IPO and ENSO like features will provide some background quasi-periodic behaviour but climate change is a much bigger signal than all of that.
Anyway – you’re still locked on “correlation” style analysis – keep looking and decide why all the CO2 physics and MODTRAN are wrong. Why the 3 Philipona papers archived this blog which confirm the greenhouse flux very well are are wrong.
You have to argue CO2 down as well as something else up. No serious AGW person will say that CO2 is the only influence. Just a matter of what, when and how fast.
Strange Arnost – unlike your good self, the more I look, the more I see an increasingly interlocked set of evidence pointing in one direction.
But keep going by all means. Just apply the sneer to everything.
Ian – consider emailing Mike Raupach on your carbon cycle questions ask him ? (above).
It’s also perhaps worth reviewing “How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=81
Have already had reply from Ralph Keeling, will post later, gotogo.
Cripes I didn’t think Ian would actually network with establishment climate scientists – impressive. He’ll have the IPCC email list on his computer before long.
Yes, he is like myself and others. He would like to let them know he will attend the court when they face life for Criminal Fraud against Humanity.
This InterPlanetary Collection of Criminals along with the Gorites and Bob Browns of the world will face the people they sought to disempower and enslave to their crass New Age religion..
Acta est fabula, plaudite!
Ian – I told you to shut the gate when you let yourself out.
lol
More Real climate spin masquerading as science. The fact that C13 ratios have declined in merely evidence of an increase in hydrocarbon emissions since 1850. This is a whole lot different to claiming that this is proof that ALL the increase in emissions since 1850 are anthropogenic.
Note that RC do not go beyond percentages of C14/13 to enable us to actually do the numbers to cross check their claims. Standard operating procedure for them.
If you truly what to get crazy, SO2 from Pinatubo was traced around the world several times by the ozone monitoring TOMS instrument. You could correlate this against the measurements in various places in the South Pacific (use the cdiac site), places like Christmas Island, etc. MLO is not the only relevant record.