Eleven facts you MUST know to avoid being deceived by the AGW “science”

17 Comments

1. Dear Camille,

   In addition to the discussion on the other blog page of Dr. Ed:

   “Revelle’s relation dpCO2/ pCO2 = {8 to 12} d DIC/ DIC
   [applies in a bottle with sea water and air, NOT globally … unless oceans do not move!]

   Before you discount Revelle’s work, look at the ocean data…
   Just as in case for the pCO2(atm) to pCO2(aq) relationship, the ratio between oceans and atmosphere is exactly the same in a closed sample as for the whole dynamics of the oceans.

   Have a look at the DIC evolution over time at different ocean stations:
   https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf

   Take e.g. the increase of DIC in the longest series (Bermuda – BATS) in Figure 3:
   DIC increased from 1984 to 2012 with 1.12 μmol/year or about 30 μmol over 28 years.
   The increase then was from about 2120 to 2150 μmol or an increase with 1.4%
   Over the same time span the CO2 increase in the atmosphere was 244 to 394 ppmv or +14%

   That is the Revelle factor at work: about a factor 10. Ocean chemistry is the reason why the ocean surface has a limited sink capacity for CO2, still 10 times better than for fresh water. That is the only saturation in the Bern model which is true, the other limits are not in sight for decennia or non-existent.

   In every station DIC increases over time while the pH drops. That proves that CO2 enters from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse. If the cause was reverse, the pH in the oceans would increase and if the pH of the oceans would drop for another reason (undersea volcanoes…), DIC would decrease, not increase…

   Reply

   1. Reply to Ferdinand Englebeen
      Statement FE October 1, 2018 AT 9:26 AM: “Given as granted that the natural input increased, there is zero NET addition of natural CO2 to the atmosphere. That is the essence of the discussion.”
      Comment: as long as the output is one fifth of the content of the air (as shown by IPCC AR5 page 471, my slide 3) the natural CO2 in the atmosphere is about five times the input as shown by dy(t)/dt = f(t)- y(t)/5 because the transients dy/dt are much less than y(t)/5

      Statement FE Oct.1, 9:26: “contribution of the natural cycle to the CO2 amounts in the atmosphere is negative for almost all the past 60 years. Thus not responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere”
      Comment: NO ! Even without any any fossil fuel emission the ppm would, over 1958 to 2018, have gone from 5 years x 62 ppm/yr = 310 ppm to 5 years x 78 ppm/yr = 380 ppm
      The change of the ppm is due the temperature driven increase of outgassing (with possible (minor) effects of time variable absorption: see figure 6-12 of IPCC AR5 page 494 and figure 6-9 page 488)(my slide 6 fact 3)

      Statement FE Oct. 1, 2018 AT 1:21 PM
      “The formula to obtain the exponential decay rate of any disturbance to a process in equilibrium is:
      1/e decay rate of the disturbance = height of the disturbance / effect of the disturbance.
      See: Wiki at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay”
      Comment : NO ! this formula dy(t)/dt = – y(t)/(decay time) in ONLY for the case there is no replacement, as for some radioactive material like 40K (that decays into 40Ar or 40Ca producing more than half of the 8000 Bq (desintegration per second) that occur in your body!).
      Here we have replacement as for the marbles in the bag (with replacement) because the ocean reservoir is about 50 times greater than the air-reservoir and with the soils provides replamcent.
      The correct equation is dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/(decay time), or with y(t) = yFF(t) + yNat(t) ,
      dyFF= fFF(t) – yFF(t)/(decay time) and as shown by observation (my slide 6, fact 3)
      dyNat(t)/dt = a AT(t) + b is a function of the temperature anomaly AT(t)
      (see also the additional slide 25: regressions are of course slightly dependent of the locations)

      Statement FE “decay rate = 110 ppmv extra in the atmosphere / 2.15 ppmv/year net sink”
      Comment: As there is replacement the decay rate is not (y(t)- y(0)) / (dy(t)/dt) but
      y(t) / (f(t) – dy(t) /dt)
      and the decay rate is the same for natural and for fossil fuel carbon dioxide.

      Statement FE Oct. 1, 2018 AT 1:21 PM “decay time of about 50 years for any extra CO2 residing in the atmosphere above the temperature controlled equilibrium”
      Comment : Neither plants nor ocean discriminate molecules of CO2 according to their origin, and the decay time is the same for both. No such “extra CO2” can exist as shown by the basic equations reminded above.

      Statement FE Oct. 1, 2018 AT 3:32 AM
      “temperature dependency is about 16 ppmv/K, by far not enough to explain the 110 ppmv increase in the past 165 years.”
      Comment : It is not y(t) but the natural part of f(t) – y(t)/5 that is directly temperature dependent.
      dyNat(t)/dt = a AT(t) + b is a function of the temperature anomaly AT(t) as shown as well by IPCC figures 6-9 and 6-12 pp. 488 and 494 of AR5 . This is proven or supported by the following:
      Wang Xuhui et al. A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations, Nature Research Letters 2014 wrote : “The observed positive correlation between CGR (carbon dioxide growth rate) and temperature reflects the direct impacts of temperature variations in driving variations of tropical carbon fluxes rather than, in reverse, the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 … Thus, the problems present models have in reproducing the observed response of the carbon cycle to climate variability on inter-annual timescales may call into question their ability to predict the future evolution of the carbon cycle and its feedbacks to climate”.
      Weile Wang et al. Variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rates coupled with tropical temperature, PNAS 2013 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/07/17/1219683110.abstract & http://www.pnas.org/content/110/32/13061.full.pdf wrote: “we emphasize that the coupling [of growth of the CO2 content of the air with the temperatures], must be reproduced by vegetation (or other related) models to realistically simulate the current status of the global carbon cycle and project its future changes”. ” … 2/3 of the interannual variance of the CO2 growth rate is explained by the delayed response of the terrestrial biosphere to interannual variations of temperature and precipitation …”

      Reply

      1. Dear Camille,

         Let us rest point 1 about the 20% exchange for this moment to focus on point 2:
         “NO ! Even without any any fossil fuel emission the ppm would, over 1958 to 2018, have gone from 5 years x 62 ppm/yr = 310 ppm to 5 years x 78 ppm/yr = 380 ppm”

         To start with:
         That violates two essential points: the change in solubility of CO2 in seawater and the mass balance.
         Let’s assume that there are no outputs and the input starts at a maximum pCO2(aq) at the equatorial upwelling of 750 μatm, then the atmospheric CO2 would increase to 750 ppmv and then it stops. The outgassing is transient in ratio to the pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere. That is the first problem.
         The outgassing depends of the temperature and the pressure already present in the atmosphere. That is completely independent of the residence time, the residence time depends on outgassing and volume, but at 750 ppmv, the outgassing is zero, thus the residence time is infinite. During the transient response, the residence time increases with increasing volume and decreasing inflow.

         Then the temperature influence:
         Assuming that the ocean surface at the upwelling increased 1 K, that gives:
         An increase in pCO2 from 750 to 766 μatm (+1%).
         An increase in pCO2 difference at the current 400 ppmv in the atmosphere from 350 to 365 μatm (+4.3%).
         For about 40 ppmv/year (surface + deep oceans) inflow:
         40 * 365/350 = 41.7 ppmv/year (+4.3%)
         Assuming that the residence time didn’t change over time (which is not exactly right) that gives in your reasoning:
         40 * 5 = 200 ppmv from the oceans increasing to 41.7 * 5 = 208.5 ppmv.

         The difference then should come from vegetation. Problem: higher temperatures (and more CO2) give more absorption (over periods longer than 1-3 years) and in the case of vegetation, not more CO2 can be released than in previous years was absorbed. The net result there is negative, except for short term temperature influences like an El Niño.

         In total not really the increase as observed in the atmosphere…

         Then the mass balance:
         As the IPCC graph shows: both the oceans and vegetation absorb more CO2 than they release. Even if your reasoning was right, without human emissions, the levels in the atmosphere would drop towards the equilibrium between ocean pCO2 and atmospheric pCO2, which is temperature driven. Part of the inputs are dependent of the local seawater temperatures at the upwelling sites, but also of the pressure in the atmosphere. As the latter increases, the inputs decrease (and the outputs increase). That lacks in your approach.

         Next time point 3…

         Reply

      2. Dear Camille,

         Then we have point 3:
         “NO ! this formula dy(t)/dt = – y(t)/(decay time) in ONLY for the case there is no replacement, as for some radioactive material like 40K (that decays into 40Ar or 40Ca producing more than half of the 8000 Bq (desintegration per second) that occur in your body!).”

         Not at all. Look at the Le Chatelier’s Principle:
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle
         “When any system at equilibrium for a long period of time is subjected to change in concentration, temperature, volume, or pressure, then the system readjusts itself to partly counteract the effect of the applied change and a new equilibrium is established.”

         That is the case for a change in inputs, temperature and/or pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if huge fluxes replace some 20% of the atmospheric CO2 content with CO2 from other reservoirs.

         A. If the overall temperature of the ocean surface increases with 1 K, the equilibrium readjusts itself by increasing the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere with about 16 ppmv.
         B. If the deep ocean upwelling increases with 10%, the equilibrium adjusts itself by increasing the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere so that the input flux is reduced to 5% extra and the outputs increased with 5% extra.
         C. If an external flux, outside the natural carbon cycles put extra CO2 in the atmosphere, the equilibrium adjusts itself by increasing the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere until as much extra CO2 is absorbed by the sinks as is injected.
         As the external flux (human emissions) increased faster than the adjustment speed, the new equilibrium still is not reached.

         The equilibrium reaction to A. is faster than for B. or C. The observed adjustment speed to C. is about 50 years e-fold decay rate. Not the 5 years residence time.

         The kernel of our discussion starts already in the example by Dr. Ed: the river flowing in a lake and another part of the river downstream. In that case the input changes the levels and the output changes according to the level (= pressure) in the lake.

         A better example is that of a factory where the flow of goods (thus capital) gives you the turnover (= residence time) of your capital, but the net gain (or loss) at the end of the year is what most shareholders interests (that is the decay rate of your capital, positive or negative). turnover and gain are only loosely connected…

         Most CO2 in and out fluxes are largely temperature dependent and hardly or not pressure dependent, while any removal of an extra shot CO2 is only possible by a pressure dependent process. Moreover, several processes are in countercurrent: seasonal temperature changes have opposite reactions for oceans and vegetation (where vegetation wins the contest…). Thus at no moment in time there is a full input of all seasonal inflows at work, including their effect on the CO2 level in the atmosphere, thus their outputs.

         Let us use an adjusted lake model to show the differences:

         A lake behind a dam has two input rivers. Both start at an upper lake also with a dam and each has its own generator facilities and spillways. The down lake also has one output river with separated generator facilities (like Canada and the US at Niagara) and spillways.
         One upper lake facility generates power on demand in the morning, while the same power net is provided with power from the downward lake in the afternoon. The other power net does it just reverse: power from the downward lake in the morning and from the upper lake in the afternoon.

         What does that do with the level in the downward lake? Not much:
         The generators except for extreme levels in the lakes are providing power on demand, independent of lake level:
         In the morning you have:
         dL/dt = inflow1 – outflow2
         dL/dt = powerdemand1 – powerdemand2
         In the afternoon you have:
         dL/dt = inflow2 – outlfow1
         dL/dt = powerdemand2 – powerdemand1

         In both cases dL/dt depends of the differences in power demand for net1 and net2, not on the sum of inflow1 and inflow2, neither on the sum of outflow1 and outflow2.
         The residence time still is the same, as that is based on the sum of flows but the residence time plays zero role in the level or level changes.

         Replace in the above morning and afternoon by spring/summer and fall/winter and power demand by temperature and you have the effect of seasonal temperature changes on the fluxes, with very little effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past 10,000 years:
         http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg

         The seasonal temperature changes provide about 75% of all CO2 in/out fluxes, thus 75% of the residence time with very little effect on the CO2 level.
         The main continuous in/out flux is from equator to poles at 25 % of all in/out fluxes, thus responsible for 25% of the residence time. That causes in your reasoning an initial level of:
         40 ppmv/year * 5 years = 200 ppmv. Not really what is observed.

         After these theoretical considerations more concrete points tomorrow on the rest of point 3.

         Reply

         1. Dear Ferdinand,

            I appreciate very much your contributions to the discussion on my website. I noticed this paragraph in your comment above:

            “The equilibrium reaction to A. is faster than for B. or C. The observed adjustment speed to C. is about 50 years e-fold decay rate. Not the 5 years residence time.”

            This is one area where we disagree. I think my physics equations have made it very clear that the rate of adjustment to C is identical to the residence time. When the inflow changes, it sets a new balance level where outflow will equal inflow. The level will move to the new balance level at a rate defined by the residence time.

            In my view, there is only one adjustment time to any perturbations and that is the residence time. I think the so-called “50 years e-fold time” is a figment of the imagination.

         2. Dr. Ed,

            The problem is that the residence time for any single CO2 molecule -whatever its origin – simply is volume/fluxes, whatever the direction of the fluxes and in this case the two main seasonal fluxes are in countercurrent. The net effect is zero level change when countercurrent inputs and outputs are equal. That is the reason why the reverse formula:
            volume = inputs / residence time fails as a large part of the inputs and outputs are the reverse of each other at any moment in time over the seasons.

            The second point where the reasoning fails is that near the full throughput is driven by temperature changes or differences: seasonal, year by year and equator-poles.
            That says next to nothing about the response to an extra input, which changes the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. Different effects for different causes.

            While the individual CO2 molecules from human or natural origin are exchanged alike with the residence time, about 20%/year, that doesn’t apply to the removal of any extra CO2 mass (whatever the origin: volcanoes, humans,…) in the atmosphere: that can only be removed by the difference between inputs and outputs, whatever the amounts that are cycling (thus whatever the residence time). That difference is almost completely pressure dependent, hardly temperature dependent. That is of a different order than the residence time.
            Thus there is no differentiation between CO2 origins, but a lot of difference between the reaction to temperature changes and pressure changes: factor 10.

            If the residence time was responsible for the removal of human CO2, then the residual increase in the atmosphere would be 80% of the human input, as 20% of all CO2 present in the atmosphere (whatever the origin) is “removed”.
            What is observed is that with the current 110 ppmv above equilibrium, about 50% of the yearly extra input in mass is removed…

      3. Dear Camille,

         Further on point 3.:

         The correct equation is dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/(decay time), or with y(t) = yFF(t) + yNat(t) , dyFF= fFF(t) – yFF(t)/(decay time)

         As said in other comments, the exchange of any individual CO2 molecule is exactly the same for human as for natural CO2, but that says nothing about the speed of removal of any extra CO2 (of whatever origin) above the temperature driven dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere…

         dyNat(t)/dt = a AT(t) + b is a function of the temperature anomaly AT(t)

         No, that is derived from comparing apples with oranges. The change of the CO2 level in the atmosphere is the result of human emissions + temperature changes.
         By comparing the temperature with the derivative of the CO2 trend, you are comparing the full temperature change (variability + slope) to the dCO2/dt trend where most of the original slope is removed. That slope was caused by the twice as high human emissions, not by temperature. By integrating temperature, you attribute the full slope in the CO2 derivative to temperature, where the real cause of the CO2 increase is largely removed!

         There is a variability of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90 ppmv trend, where the variability is certainly caused by temperature variability. Or about 4-5 ppmv/K rapid change, which levels off to zero around the trend after 1-3 years. That is all. Temperature is not the cause of the trend, as the increase in temperature 1958-2018 is 0.8 K, good for maximum 13 ppmv extra in the atmosphere. The rest is from the human contribution.

         In your formula, there is no response from the increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, which limits the result of a temperature increase over time. The formula then should be:
         dyNat(t)/dt = a AT(t) – ApCO2(t)
         where ApCO2(t) is the change in atmospheric CO2 pressure as result of the temperature anomaly. dyNat(t)/dt gets zero when ApCO2(t) = a AT(t). That is at about 16 ppmv/K temperature change. There is no term b, as that implies an eternal CO2 influx, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere, whatever the temperature change.

         Neither plants nor ocean discriminate molecules of CO2 according to their origin, and the decay time is the same for both. No such “extra CO2” can exist as shown by the basic equations reminded above

         Agreed on the first part, disagree on the second part: the decay for the first part only is exchange of molecules, without any effect on levels, as long as inputs and outputs are equal and near completely temperature driven. The decay of any extra CO2 above the temperature driven equilibrium is near completely pressure driven and only affects the difference between inputs and outputs. That decay rate is a factor 10 slower than the residence time.

         This is proven or supported by the following:

         The reference only is commenting on the causes of the variability of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the +90 ppmv trend, that is the influence of temperature variability on the year by year increase rate. Everybody agrees on that. See e.g. Pieter Tans in his speech at the festivities for 50 years Mauna Loa (from slide 11 on):
         https://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

         Neither the reference or Pieter Tans doubt that the bulk of the CO2 increase itself is caused by human emissions…

         Reply

2. Dear Camille,

   Another point is about slide 9:

   The δ13C level for natural outgassing that you used is for the ocean surface, which already contains human CO2. As the surface is in close contact with the atmosphere with an exchange speed of less than a year, the δ13C level drops in close ratio with the atmosphere. Here for coralline sponges, which reflect the changes of δ13C in the ocean surface, compared to the δ13C changes in the atmosphere:
   http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
   The δ13C levels in atmosphere (from ice cores) and of ocean surface were rather constant (+/- 0.2 per mil) before the industrial revolution. For the ice cores atmospheric δ13C level, that had only a small change of about 0.4 per mil over the last deglaciation as a result of vegetation growth at one side and ocean degassing on the other side.

   Thus to obtain the real % of human CO2, one need to use the pre-industrial δ13C level of -6.4 per mil as natural input, which is “human CO2 free”. That gives:

   -8.4 = -30*X + -6.4(1-X)
   or
   -8.4 = (-30 + 6.4)*X + -6.4
   or
   X = -2 / (-23.6) = 8.5%

   Strange, the 6% was already higher than the ratio human/natural in the inflows (9 GtC / 170 GtC = 5.3%), the observed ratio of 8.5% gives some serious doubts about the reasoning behind the residence time as driver of the δ13C ratio…

   Reply

   1. As you have said in another comment there is a good synchronism of dCO2/dt and of the negative delta13C spikes which may be explained by the strong outgassing from surface oceans with outgassed CO2 at -1,5 per mil that of the air, during the El Ninos
      In addition the recycling of cabon in vegetation and soils (2500 Gt-C and say 100 Gt-C/year in and out) and in oceans (39 000 Gt-C and say 90 Gt-C/year in and out) implies that the outgassed CO2 has the delta13C signature of the ambiant air some 60 years before.
      Hence the drift is naturally outgassed delta13C makes the relations like
      6% (-30 per mil) + 94% (-7.1 per mil naturay outgassed in 2016 ) be exactly the observed per mil in the air at Mauna Loa

      Reply

3. Dear Camille,

   Then we have slide 12.

   Sigh, not Jaworowski again! Let him rest in peace together with his ideas about CO2 in ice cores from 1992, already refuted by the work of Etheridge e.a. in… 1996 on three Law Dome ice cores, but repeated again in 2007… Here the data of Etheridge’s work:
   http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
   I had a link to the original work, but like everything on the Net – moved somewhere else…
   Jaworowski did know a lot about radioactive isotopes and metal ions in ice cores, but never performed anything on CO2. Moreover, there are too many points he told that simply are impossible, just the opposite of what he said or by reading the wrong column in a table of results…
   See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

   About the ice core smoothing: the resolution of the measurements in air depend of the snow accumulation rate and the period that the pores are isolated from the atmosphere and when they are all fully closed.
   That period is between about a decade (2 out of three Law Dome cores) over the past 150 years and 600 years for the Vostok ice core over the past 420,000 years. The longest ice core to date, Dome C has a resolution of about 560 years over the past 800,000 years. Good enough to notice the current 110 ppmv increase in every ice core, be it with a lower peak.
   See: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/96GL03156 for the Law Dome cores.

   Several problems also for the historical data compiled by the late Ernst Beck:. Not for the methods (with a few exceptions): +/- 10 ppmv, but with where was measured: midst towns, forests, under – in between – over growing crops. He lumped everything together: the good, the bad and the ugly…
   See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

   Reply

   1. time averaging at Law Dome with 1 meter of precipitations per year is not the same as in Vostok with precipations of 5 mm/year
      it is the difference in closing time of air paths for different bubbles of the same slice that is of interest
      smoothing a sinusoid of period 100 years over millenia (Vostok) or over century (ies) Law Dome wipes out the information that could have been in the slice

      Reply

      1. Camille,

         Sorry, the smoothing at Law Dome is only 12 years, not a century, as there is full contact with the atmosphere for almost the whole 72 m depth meters for every pore and only the last meters can give differences in closing time and thus CO2 content.

         At full closing of all pores, the depth is 72 meters, that is with the over a meter ice equivalent snow precipitation about 42 years of summer/winter snow layers:
         http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_firn.jpg

         The CO2 level measured at full depth, both in the last open pores and in already closed bubbles in the ice is the same and about 10 years older in average age, compared to direct measurements at the South Pole. The age distribution as seen by the 14C bomb spike is not more than 12 years, not hundred years.

         I suppose that you are confusing the time difference between ice age and average gas age at the same depth: that can be decades to millennia, depending of the snow accumulation rate, but that is different from the bubble closing spread, which is much shorter. For the average gas age at Law Dome the ice age – gas age difference is just over 30 years.

         Even with the resolution of 560 years for the Dome C ice core over 800,000 years, the current increase of 110 ppmv over 165 years would be noticed as a peak of about 13 ppmv above the rest of the curve. With a repeatability of +/- 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) in all modern ice core measurements, that is not a problem.

         Reply

4. As you have said in another comment there is a good synchronism of dCO2/dt and of the negative delta13C spikes which may be explained by the strong outgassing from surface oceans with outgassed CO2 at -1,5 per mil that of the air, during the El Ninos
   In addition the recycling of cabon in vegetation and soils (2500 Gt-C and say 100 Gt-C/year in and out) and in oceans (39 000 Gt-C and say 90 Gt-C/year in and out) implies that the outgassed CO2 has the delta13C signature of the ambiant air some 60 years before.
   Hence the drift is naturally outgassed delta13C makes the relations like
   6% (-30 per mil) + 94% (-7.1 per mil naturay outgassed in 2016 ) be exactly the observed per mil in the air at Mauna Loa

   Reply

5. Camille,

   The outgassing of the ocean surface already contains human CO2, as there is no reason that the oceanic delta13C dropped over time out of itself. To the contrary, bio-life everywhere, including in the ocean surface, increased over time, thus increasing the delta13C level. Any drop in delta13C measured is caused by human CO2, both in the atmosphere as in the ocean surface.

   I don’t know if your source of the delta13C levels coming out of the oceans is right (or only local), but what is known is that the pre-industrial level in equilibrium between ocean surface, vegetation and atmosphere was -6.4 per mil. That is the average level that did come out of the oceans (after the isotopic shift at the water-air borer and back) with the bio-cycle in equilibrium and probably still is -6.4 from the deep oceans, as the ocean surface hardly plays role in the delta13C change. Thus anything coming out of the oceans is higher in delta13C, not lower, than the current atmosphere.

   The sudden drop in delta13C during an El Niño is proven from tropical vegetation as with temperature and drought conditions that is more source than sink for CO2:
   https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282001%29014%3C4113%3ATCCRTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
   According to that source, the tropical oceans even may be a temporary sink during an El Niño, as the deep ocean upwelling is strongly reduced.

   More tomorrow, as I am moving my PC’s drives from HD’s to SSD’s and that needs more time than I expected…

   Reply

6. Ferdinand, please see point #20 in my article here, explaining why the mass-balance argument (as expounded by Gavin Cawley et al) is incorrectly applied and invalid: https://chipstero7.blogspot.com/2018/09/15-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-human.html

   Reply

   1. Richard,

      First, point #14 is not right:
      – The Revelle factor of about 10% is real and observed. See:
      https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/27-1_bates.pdf
      and compare the increase in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) with the increase in the atmosphere: about 10%…
      The ocean “mixed layer” contains about 1000 GtC.
      – Bolin did say that the mixed layer is a bottleneck for transport with the deep oceans, that is not the same as inhibiting. There is an exchange of about 40 GtC between atmosphere and deep oceans, via polar subduction and equatorial upwelling.
      That explains the “thinning” of the low-13C human “fingerprint” with high(er) 13-C from the deep oceans and it explains the rapid decrease of bomb 14C in the atmosphere: what did sink at the poles was the isotopic level of 1960 (at the peak), what returned the same year was the isotopic level of ~1000 years before, less than half the peak. Which makes that the 14Cpeak reduction was much faster than of a 12CO2 peak…

      Several points in your point #20, which don’t add up:
      This ignores Henry’s law which sets a fixed partitioning ratio between amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere and the amount that will be dissolved in the oceans at a given temperature at equilibrium.

      The CO2 exchanges between ocean surface and atmosphere indeed are fast: less than a year mixing rate, but because of chemistry, that gives only a 10% of the atmospheric change in the mixed layer. For 30% increase in the atmosphere, 3% increase, or on 1,000 GtC present: 30 GtC of the 370 GtC emitted by humans since about 1850. The rest is distributed between atmosphere, more permanent vegetation and deep oceans.
      The latter two need time, as the exchange with the deep oceans is limited and the build up of more permanent vegetation is rather slow. The common decay rate is about 51 years for any extra CO2 above equilibrium.

      that partitioning ratio comes out to be about 1:50

      Yes, but that needs time: a half life time of about 35 years…

      Henry’s law makes it possible for the oceans to have contributed to the CO2 increase (due to a temperature-change) while also absorbing essentially all human CO2-emissions.

      No, as that depends of the temperature (and DIC) in the waters for the pCO2 at the water side and of the pCO2 in the atmosphere.

      For the current average ocean temperature, the dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere would be around 290 ppmv in the atmosphere.
      That is a dynamic equilibrium (“steady state”) as at the equator a lot of CO2 (~40 GtC/year) enters the atmosphere and at the poles a lot of CO2 leaves the atmosphere.
      The temperature dependency of seawater pCO2 is about 16 μatm/K. If the average seawater temperature increases, the CO2 input at the equator increases and the output at the poles decreases, increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere, until the equilibrium is reached again at 16 ppmv/K extra:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg

      Thus while the sea surface temperature probably has increased since the LIA, that may be good for 10-16 ppmv of the increase in the atmosphere, the rest comes from our emissions…

      Except for a few months during strong El Niño’s, in all 60 years of Mauna Loa measurements, nature was more sink than source:
      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

      Reply

7. Ferdinand Engelbeen wrote:

   “what did sink at the poles was the isotopic level of 1960 (at the peak), what returned the same year was the isotopic level of ~1000 years before, less than half the peak. Which makes that the 14Cpeak reduction was much faster than of a 12CO2 peak”

   Could you explain this in more detail as it doesn’t make sense to me. The C14 was in equilibrium before we started the atmospheric nuclear-testing.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.