Why human CO2 does not change climate – Slide Show
These slides prove human CO2 emissions add only 18 ppm to CO2 in the atmosphere while nature adds 392 ppm. Therefore, everything the UN IPCC and its supporters have told you about climate change is WRONG! Human emissions do not change the climate.
These are my Porto slides revised and expanded. Next, I will add video and text to describe each slide. References and acknowledgments for my slides are given in my Preprint post – Ed
The Porto Climate Conference showed why climate alarmists are wrong on all fronts.
For a full conference summary, read “The Porto Climate Conference: Perspectives and Conclusions” by Nils-Axel Mörner.
Here are Professor Morner’s conclusions about CO2 effects (I bolded the sentence related to my paper):
CO2 as main driver of climate change is a serious mistake [2]. Indeed, it is based on “an elementary and grave error that have until now provided the pretext for misplaced worldwide concern about climate change” [3]. By 2100 temperature is likely not to rise more than 0.3 °C [4]. Human emissions add only 18 ppm and nature adds 392 ppm of today’s 410 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere [5], implying that the temperature effect of human emissions is very small to negligible [4, 5, 6, 7].
Theories are nice but, in the end, data prevails.
A key part of my paper is my slide #5 because it shows the data that supports the physics theory I present.
I found slides 21 and especially 22 compelling.
Thank you for your persistent hard work.
One question:
Rewinding somewhat, but the question arises as to who decided that human activity involving the use of natural resources (fossil fuels) for survival and energy production was not “natural” and that the emissions resulting from this usage should be classed separately from “natural” CO2 emissions?
This separation of “human” CO2 from the use of natural resources is at the core of the agenda being pushed by eco activists who appear to believe that humans and their activities to survive and prosper are alien to this planet and are nothing other than imposters on earth, an earth the activists wish, through various agendas, to see being returned to nature.
We need to ask why it has become acceptable to agree that human usage of natural resources is now blamed for creating “unnatural” human-produced CO2.
The last time I checked CO2 was CO2 and natural resources were still natural resources, resources that come from nature.
As man also comes from nature, man’s use of these resources is also natural, and therefore CO2 emissions arising from the natural useage of these natural resources are as natural as any other class of “natural” CO2 emissions whether they emimate from wildfire or man made fire.
The environmentalists have spun a pretty good yarn, but it just takes one loose thread for it to fall apart. And it is happening.
Their open and published long term agenda is to depopulate the planet.
In the short term, it is to deliberately wreak havoc on civilisation by recklessly demanding a rapid global transition off of fossil fuels whilst being fully aware that no alternative reliable renewable energy substitute exists.
For those reasons alone, the happy clappy “green activists” should be treated with suspicion.
Hi Dee,
Thank you for your excellent question and comment. The UN IPCC decided to separate human from natural CO2 on the basis of the ecological belief that nature is good and human is bad, as shown in my Slide 13.
The real problem is not the separation of different sources of CO2 simply to follow their effect on atmospheric CO2. The real problem is when they decided that nature treats human CO2 molecules differently than it treats natural CO2 molecules. That is science fiction because it violates the Equivalence Principle of physics.
What is amazing as well as an admission of scientific ignorance is when eco-freaks with PhD’s believe and support the UN IPCC theory. Their error has caused a science problem, an education problem, and a political problem.
You are correct, those in charge of promoting the false belief have an agenda as you described.
Wow, DEE that is probably the most insane thing I have ever read. It is like arguing that if man creates a robot that is bent on destroying mankind, because man is nature therefore we should not come up with a solution to stop the robot. Truly insane. And frightening.
You point out the fundamental flaw in Ed’s logic and model. He insists that Lbn = 392 ppm but seems ignorant of the fact (which you point out) that a part of that 392 ppm originally came from m (man). There is no way to distinguish between CO2 created by man and CO2 once it enters the cycle–they are both just CO2. But Ed insists on still differentiating the two–he thinks he can magically trace the CO2 that was released by man years into the future, and thus ignore everything that happens in the interim. If you think that no reliable energy substitute exists than you clearly haven’t been outside much. Those of us who give a damn about the earth we live on are amazed to hear the reluctance to change our destructive behaviors. If you transition to a cleaner technology, you don’t lose jobs, you simply shift them, and the planet ends up cleaner. Win-win. We were pretty successful in saving the ozone layer by making strong policy changes, but the denialists brains are so polluted by politics and narcissism that they don’t want any more success stories, they want future generations to suffer because it makes them feel self-important.
Stan cannot properly understand the model, so all his comments are worthless. He learned more about political activism in college than about science.
I learned about evidence, Ed. I got my JD from William & Mary, and my MS from professors like William Holton and Peter Hobbs. RIP…If the latter were still alive they’d laugh at your model.
Good for you, Stan. But you sure missed something in your education.
I knew Peter Hobbs very well. If he were alive, he would totally agree with my physics model.
Dear Stan,
Your logic is entirely flawed. It’s amazing that your reasoning is so poor, yet you have post-grad qualifications. Where to start?
Dee is correct; there really is no such thing as natural or unnatural. There is human consciousness & intelligence which can evaluate the impacts of our actions, predict and assess risks; something other species cannot do. You put anthropogenic CO2 into the ‘unnatural’ basket by likening it to a destructive robot.
Your premise depends on the assumption that CO2 is harmful. Why do you not put solar panels and wind turbines and batteries into the ‘unnatural’ category???
All of those technologies involve mining and produce, in James Hansen’s words “staggering” amounts of industrial pollution. Are you sure it’s ‘cleaner’?
Many birds & bats are also being killed by turbines. How is the combustion of ‘natural’ fossil fuels which returns CO2 back to the atmosphere, and which was once ‘naturally’ in the air, unnatural?
The planet is greening, so unlike your ‘destructive’ robot, CO2 is actually having productive effects.
“If we put more CO2 in the air bad stuff will happen” is not a scientific hypothesis, it is propaganda.
Dear Sylvia, if you really think the consequences are ‘beneficial’ then you clearly have your head in the sand. You need to go take a first hand look at the arctic and oceans to see for yourself how ‘beneficial’ it is.
I *do* put solar panels and wind turbines etc into the ‘unnatural’ category, so once again you are mistaken. Whether they are cleaner or not is a strawman argument since that is not the issue here, so please read up on logic and critical thinking before you lecture me.
Stan, obviously you don’t think that the currently occurring biodiversity explosion in the arctic is not beneficial?
Plankton increasing, fish increasing, seals increasing, polar bears increasing.
Hans, you may want to give citations for your assumed facts. And please refrain from cherry picking. That’s pretty easy to do–eg., “ammals, birds and fish living in the High Arctic experienced an average 26 percent drop in their populations between 1970 and 2004 due to the loss of sea ice, according to a new report from The Arctic Species Trend Index, “Tracking Trends in Arctic Wildlife.”” (from Scientific American May 2010)
Even if I were to accept your assertion (I don’t) it obviously is not necessarily beneficial. If the population of disease carrying mosquitoes increase 1000% in your neighborhood, would you consider that beneficial? If the population of one large species (hypothetically, say bears) increases 10% in the high latitudes but decreases 90% in the mid latitudes, is that ‘beneficial’?
Stan, without any doubts or reservations, a warmer climate has more benefits than a colder climate. That was also already the opinion of Joseph Fourier.
Actually there is a resource available to produce energy that does not add CO2 to the atmosphere like fossil fuels. Unfortunately, environmentalists are more afraid of it than of carbon. I’m sure you can guess that I’m talking about nuclear energy. There is technology available that can make the use of nuclear power safe by not using high pressure vessels, but governments want their weapons and won’t fund the use of these technologies. There is LFTR and other fast thorium reactor technologies that can be fully developed which are certainly more reliable than solar and wind power and more abundant than hydro and geothermal power. It’s just too bad the anti-nuclear activists in the 70’s stopped that from being a reality from ignorance.
Im an environmentalist, and I totally agree with you. My father was a nuclear physicist and so I had the benefit of hearing the hard facts about nuclear when I was a kid in the 70’s rather than the fear. Which is not to say nuclear is without its problems (like waste…) but all technologies have their problems. Which is why it’s equally important to talk about conservation and not just changing our sources.
Ed, it really is quite simple. Say some of the CO2 produced by man gets absorbed by the ocean. According to you, once that happens, it is no longer “manmade” That is why your logic is flawed. If it is not manmade, then you have to explain how nature increased its part from 280 to 392. Just saying “because it is warmer” is not sufficient. That’s circular reasoning.
Peter had no issue with climate change. How do I know? Cause I spoke with him on a daily basis, even when, as just an incoming grad student, I was skeptical about “global warming”. it took 3 years of studying the hard data and physics to convince me that AGW was correct.
Dear Stan,
So, you think every CO2 molecule has its history written in it, like a blockchain. That means you need a UN demon to read the history of each CO2 molecule once it enters the atmosphere. That is pseudoscience. It is your logic that is flawed. You contradict the Equivalence Principle, so your physics is wrong.
No, I do not have to explain how nature decided to increase its inflow. What happens outside my model is not relevant to my model. My model uses UN data to prove nature’s inflow now adds 392 ppm to the atmosphere. It has no need to explain why.
Here is where we stand in this discussion. I have a simple model based on physics. It has only one assumption, that outflow equals level divided by residence time. It exactly replicates the 14C data for CO2 outflow. Therefore, until someone shows a better model that also replicates the 14C data, my model is the only model available.
What do you have? Nothing! You have no system definition, no physical equations, no listed assumptions, and no theory. You have no theoretical prediction that can be tested with data.
So, if you wish to put on your scientist hat and make a useful comment, start by defining your system, deriving your equations, and making a prediction that can be tested. Until you have done that, all your handwaving comments are irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
I am sorry you wasted 3 years convincing yourself to believe in a false religion rather than learning physics. Your comments prove you have not yet learned physics.
By the way, since you are a meteorologist, you should be familiar with Murry Salby’s textbook, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate,” and some of his lectures on YouTube. See https://edberry.com/?s=salby.
Are you aware that my model is the same model that Salby presents? I made its derivation simpler and showed that it accurately simulates the 14C data.
Ed, neither you nor Salby understand the Carbon Cycle. Ferdinand (below) lists some of the reasons your assumptions are wrong. He points out one possible reason your model ‘fits’ the C14 data, but really that data is irrelevant, it would only be relevant if we had continued blowing up nukes after the 60s so that you had more data to view. No, we cannot ‘record the history of CO2 molecules, but we don’t have to. All we have to do is recognize that inflow from humans delivers *new* (not recycled) CO2 to the atmosphere each year, which is why some of “nature’s’ contribution ultimately comes from *man* Your model does not acknowledge this, which is why both it and your analogies fail. It is also why you cannot explain the increase from 280 to nearly 400, instead you prefer to hide behind a jumble of equations based on false assumptions.
Dear Stan,
Thank you for your comment.
You say, “some of “nature’s” contribution ultimately comes from “man.”
Yes, if we were able to track carbon molecules. But that is not enough. To make your point, you must show that the human CO2 absorbed by nature changes inflow or outflow.
Dr Ed,
Fantastic! My favourite slide is #16. Unfortunately, we are surrounded by socialists who possess their own truths on all things – Not.
Good on you Dr Ed, truly Good on you!
Cheers
Rod Packwood, PhD, Physics, B’ham UK.
I totally agree upon the fact that human CO2 cannot represent more than 5% of the total atmospheric CO2 (there are other simple demonstrations, e.g. Cabon 13 proportion in fossil carbon vs natural carbon).
But this does not demonstrate that man is not responsible of the 300 to 400 ppm increase : you just demonstrate that man made CO2 is replaced by oceanic CO2 in the atmosphere.
We need a explanation of this 300 to 400 ppm increase (ocean temperature increase cannot justify more than 15 to 20 ppm of atmospheric increase).
Very compelling argument, thank you. Your graphs would do well if the axes were labeled.
-Cheers
Dear Dr. Ed,
I did react already several times on your theory and could make a response to your slides of many pages long, but I will restrict myself to only slide 9, where the main problem lies:
“Lbn = 98 (ppmv/year) * 4 (years) = 392 ppm”
That is the reverse of the definition of residence time which is:
Volume / throughput = residence time
392 ppmv / 98 ppmv/year = 4 years.
You do reverse that to obtain the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not only is that circular reasoning, it is completely wrong:
If there is no inflow at all, your formula gives zero natural CO2 in the atmosphere, which is impossible, as that violates Henry’s law.
You can take a sample of seawater in a flask and shake that with the air above the water sample and measure the CO2 level in the atmosphere: at 16ºC, that gives 290 ppmv with zero input flow. Confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples taken all over the oceans, with a temperature dependence of about 16 ppmv/ºC.
Shake the whole ocean surface (by the wind) at an average temperature of 16ºC and you measure 290 ppmv (before the industrial revolution), despite of 98 ppmv circulating through the atmosphere over the seasons, with a temperature dependence of 16 ppmv/ºC. That is confirmed by 800,000 years of ice core measurements.
The CO2 level in the atmosphere hardly does depend of the inflows (neither do the outflows), both level and fluxes depend of temperature. The pressure dependence of natural inflows and outflows is an order of magnitude smaller that the temperature dependence.
That is the first fundamental problem.
The second problem is that at no moment in time there is 98 ppmv extra natural CO2 in the atmosphere. In your scheme all inputs are bundled to one inflow. In reality that are several inputs and outputs operating at the same time and more important: the main antagonists are vegetation and oceans which operate in countercurrent. In spring/summer a lot of CO2 is absorbed by vegetation while at the same moment a lot of CO2 is released by the oceans. In fall/winter the reverse happens. The net result is that vegetation wins: globaly CO2 is down to -5 ppmv in (NH) spring/summer, up to +5 ppmv in fall/winter. Thus the natural extra CO2 level is not more than +/-5 ppmv around the trend, leveling off to +2 ppmv at the end of a full cycle:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_MLO_trend.jpg
Human emissions are about 4.5 ppmv/year, that is near equal to the + side of natural CO2 and 200% the end result. Thus there is no reason that human CO2 can’t reach higher levels than 4.6% in the atmosphere.
Again proven by observations: based on the 13C/12C ratio the current level of human CO2 is now around 9%, despite a dilution by the high-13C deep ocean circulation.
I fear that the rest of your presentation in Porto is based on these wrong basic assumtions…
Dear Ferdinand,
Thank you again for your comments, both past and present.
Regarding your first challenge:
As you are aware, my Eqs. (1) and (2) in slide 9 have their origin in the step from Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) in slide 8.
An equation is an equation, and we can write it in several ways:
Inflow = Lbn / Te
Lbn = Inflow * Te
Te = Lbn / Inflow
We use the form that allows us to calculate one unknown from two variables. Therefore, my Eq. (3) on slide 9, that you reference,
Lbn = 98 (ppmv/year) * 4 (years) = 392 ppm
Is legitimate use of the equation. It is not circular reasoning and it is not wrong.
We can demonstrate its relevance in analogies, such as a bucket of water with a hole in the bottom.
(Outflow will equal f(level) / Te, where f(level) is a “strictly increasing function of level” that equals level in the atmosphere.)
Inflow indeed sets a balance level. The level will always move towards its balance level. When it reaches its balance level, outflow will equal inflow. My explanation of the balance level is a legitimate description of the process.
By contrast, your challenge claims to set Inflow equal to zero. However, your challenge examples are all examples where Inflow is greater than zero. Therefore, your challenge fails to contradict my equations.
Regarding your second challenge:
Clearly, my use of 98 ppmv inflow and outflow for natural CO2 is an annual average that ignores the inter-annual changes. Also, I am using the UN data because my goal is to challenge the UN theory rather than its data.
Indeed, the fraction of human CO2 may be higher than 4.6% in some months of the year, but that does not contradict my Eq. (3) on slide 9 that shows the ratio of the human to natural inflows sets the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere.
The interpretation of 13C/12C data depends upon the model used for its interpretation. The physics theory is compatible with 13C/13C data.
In summary, my presentation shows that the UN theory is based on false logic and invalid physics. Therefore, it cannot be used to support the UN claim that human CO2 is responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppmv.
In addition, I present an alternative theory (following and supported by Murry Salby, Hermann Harde and others).
The only assumption in this alternative theory is that outflow = level / Te. All the other equations and their conclusions are based on this one assumption. Remarkably, the equations based upon this simple assumption exactly replicate the 14C data. That is a milestone that no other theory has reached.
Is this alternative theory perfect? Probably not. But it is more nearly perfect than any other theory.
[It is getting difficult to determine which reply is to which comment. Therefore, I am numbering this comment as FE1. Have to start someplace. I will add numbers to other comments as I think necessary. – Ed as admin]
Dear Dr. Ed,
Mathematically you can reshuffle the basic formula of the residence like that, but it doesn’t make sense at all.
Te = Lbn / Inflow is the calculation of the residence time.
First: there are two parts in Lbn: the basic level which is 290 ppmv for the current ocean surface temperature, even for zero input and the extra level caused by the natural inflow(s). Any extra CO2 in the atmosphere starts at that level. Thus you can’t reverse the formula without taking into account that there is already a basic level in the atmosphere.
Second: the extra inflow is not from one massive flow, but countercurrent from two main flows: vegetation and ocean surface.
That the inflows are countercurrent, isn’t a problem for the calculation of the residence time, as that always gives the exchange rate of CO2 molecules between reservoirs, no matter the time stamp within a year.
However it does matter for the buildup of any extra CO2 mass (=pressure) in the atmosphere, as that is the total sum of all inputs and outputs at any given moment of time. The real formula for any (natural) buildup then is:
Lbn = Lb(equilibrium) + inflow(oceans) + inflow(vegetation) – outflow(oceans) – outflow(vegetation).
Over a year that gives a down to -5 ppmv in NH spring and summer to an up of +5 ppm in fall and winter. Not +95 ppmv at any moment in time.
Why? Because the processes that govern the main seasonal fluxes, including the outputs into vegetation and oceans, are governed by temperature and hardly influenced by any pressure change in the atmosphere, thus the outputs are near independent of what the inputs do. That is where your comparison with a river and lake totally fails…
“However, your challenge examples are all examples where Inflow is greater than zero.”
If I take a sample of seawater in closed vessel and measure the CO2 level in the above air, I do measure 290 ppmv at 16ºC with zero inflow… That is not the case for the oceans where some 20 ppmv/year (40 GtC) crosses the atmosphere between equator and poles, but that doesn’t change the equilibrium. Here what happens for 1ºC temperature increase:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
“Clearly, my use of 98 ppmv inflow and outflow for natural CO2 is an annual average “.
Yes, but that doesn’t fit the fact that the output – at equilibrium – is the same as the input: according to your example, the output needs the full pressure increase to reach the same flux as the input, but there is never such a huge extra pressure increase, only +/- 5 ppmv, even negative in spring and summer, while vegetation sucks lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere…
“that does not contradict my Eq. (3) on slide 9 that shows the ratio of the human to natural inflows sets the ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere.”
It does contradict the input ratio: since about 1985 the human fraction in the atmosphere is continuous over 5% and currently at about 9%. Again proof that your theory is wrong:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/fract_level_emiss.jpg
where FA% is the fraction of human CO2 in the atmosphere, based on the 13C/12C ratio. FL% is the fraction in the ocean surface and tCA total CO2 in the atmosphere calculated and observed.
There is only one interpretation possible for the 13C/12C decline: fossil fuel use. The only other low-13C source is vegetation, but that is more sink than source, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere…
“my presentation shows that the UN theory is based on false logic and invalid physics”,
I fear, based on wrong assumptions… The main point is that your – and several others – theory is based on the residence time, which is largely temperature driven, but has zero influence on the decay rate of any extra pressure in the atmosphere above the (temperature driven) equilibrium, whatever the source. The real decay rate for a CO2 mass peak is about 50 years, not 4 years, an order of magnitude slower…
“The only assumption in this alternative theory is that outflow = level / Te.”
Which thus is wrong, as near all outfows are temperature driven and only slightly dependent of the CO2 level in the atmosphere (factor 10)…
” the equations based upon this simple assumption exactly replicate the 14C data”
Which is pure coincidence. The fast decay rate of the 14C data is by the fact that what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic ratio of 1960 (peak) and later, what returns from the deep oceans is the isotopic ratio of some 1000 years ago, less than half the 1960 peak. That makes that the decay of a 14CO2 peak is 3-4 times faster than of a 12CO2 peak. Here for the (estimated) situation in 1960:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/14co2_distri_1960.jpg
[Comment Stan1]
“The real decay rate for a CO2 mass peak is about 50 years, not 4 years, an order of magnitude slower…”
Ive seen 100 years as an estimate, which doesn’t seem farfetched. According to Ed, once CO2 is absorbed by the ocean it becomes ‘natural” so we don’t have to account for its origin. As you point out, of course we do, it is exactly what explains why there has been an increase from 280 to 392 ppm…which Ed of course is unable to explain using any theory that ‘nature’ is responsible for the increase.
Stan, [this is comment FE2]
The 100 years (and more) is from the Bern model. That gives different decay rates into different compartments (which is right), but also for each compartment a saturation level, which is only true for the ocean surface, not in sight for the deep oceans for the far future and non-existent for the biosphere.
The observed overall decay rate of all compartments together is about 50 years and after 60 years of accurate measurements still going strong…
If ultimately all human emissions until now would sink in the deep oceans, that would increase its C content with about 1%. In equilibrium with the atmosphere that would give 293 ppmv instead of 290 ppmv…
Dear Ferdinand, [Reply to FE1]
Thank you for your comment.
Let me say to begin, I think your side has much better arguments than the one’s you present in this comment. For example, the comment by Jacques-Marie.
My answers to your points in this comment merely postpone all of us addressing the point made by Jacques-Marie.
*“First: there are two parts in Lbn: the basic level which is 290 ppmv for the current ocean surface temperature, even for zero input and the extra level caused by the natural inflow(s). Any extra CO2 in the atmosphere starts at that level. Thus, you can’t reverse the formula without taking into account that there is already a basic level in the atmosphere.”
You began this subject by saying, “If there is no inflow at all, your formula gives zero natural CO2 in the atmosphere, which is impossible, as that violates Henry’s law.”
A math equation can have a zero value even if nature will never have a zero value. If nature really had a zero value, then nature’s addition to atmospheric CO2 would be zero. The world is full of examples where a valid mathematical equation can go to zero even though this never happens in the real world. I think you should drop this challenge because it gets us nowhere.
*“Second: the extra inflow is not from one massive flow, but countercurrent from two main flows: vegetation and ocean surface. …
However, it does matter for the buildup of any extra CO2 mass (=pressure) in the atmosphere, as that is the total sum of all inputs and outputs at any given moment of time.”
We can address this subject by using the integral of inflow and the integral of outflow over each year.
*“The real formula for any (natural) buildup then is:
Lbn = Lb(equilibrium) + inflow(oceans) + inflow(vegetation) – outflow(oceans) – outflow(vegetation).”
I disagree. I believe you are making the subject unnecessarily complicated.
*“thus, the outputs are near independent of what the inputs do.”
We agree on this sentence. The outflow is independent of inflow. The outflow depends only on level and the residence time that is a function of surface properties.
*“That is where your comparison with a river and lake totally fails…”
No, the lake analogy doesn’t fail. I agree the lake analogy is not perfect because there is a reservoir of water below the level of the dam. I use it only because most of the public can relate to it. A better analogy is a bucket with a hole in the bottom. Another analogy is the sea bath used by Salby.
*“If I take a sample of seawater in closed vessel and measure the CO2 level in the above air, I do measure 290 ppmv at 16ºC with zero inflow.”
No, you don’t. The CO2 level is supported by the inflow of CO2 into the air balanced by an equal outflow of CO2 into the water. You are confusing zero inflow with zero NET inflow.
*“It does contradict the input ratio: since about 1985 the human fraction in the atmosphere is continuous over 5% and currently at about 9%. Again proof that your theory is wrong:”
I disagree. The inflow ratio sets the balance ratio in the atmosphere. Your data is irrelevant to this issue.
“There is only one interpretation possible for the 13C/12C decline: fossil fuel use.” Salby presents the counter argument.
*“The main point is that your – and several others – theory is based on the residence time, which is largely temperature driven, but has zero influence on the decay rate of any extra pressure in the atmosphere above the (temperature driven) equilibrium, whatever the source.”
The residence time can be a function of many factors, for example, the amount of phytoplankton in the oceans.
*“The real decay rate for a CO2 mass peak is about 50 years, not 4 years, an order of magnitude slower…”
I disagree. You have no theory with equations and data to back up your statement.
“The only assumption in this alternative theory is that outflow = level / Te.” – *“Which thus is wrong, as near all outflows are temperature driven and only slightly dependent of the CO2 level in the atmosphere (factor 10)…”
I disagree.
*“the replicate the 14C data … is pure coincidence. The fast decay rate of the 14C data is by the fact that what goes into the deep oceans is the isotopic ratio of 1960 (peak) and later, what returns from the deep oceans is the isotopic ratio of some 1000 years ago, less than half the 1960 peak. That makes that the decay of a 14CO2 peak is 3-4 times faster than of a 12CO2 peak.
Your claim ignores the fact that nature supports a 14C level of 100%. This accounts for your argument, so your argument is redundant. The simple physics model indeed simulates the decay of 14C-CO2 toward its balance level.
If you wish to counter my replies, I will likely ignore your counter because I think we have thoroughly discussed the issues in your comment.
Dear Dr. Ed,
Of course there is an “input” and an “output” if you measure a single sample in a closed container, but in general that is seen as a “static” equilibrium, not what we are talking about for the dynamics of the atmosphere – oceans/biosphere interactions.
Nevertheless, there is a basic CO2 level present in the atmosphere, thus any extra net CO2 input must start from that base, not from zero.
“We can address this subject by using the integral of inflow and the integral of outflow over each year.”
Yes, the sum is +/- 5 ppmv over the seasons ending at +2 ppmv at the end of the year. Human emissions are twice as high one-way, thus larger than the end result of all in/out flows together…
“The outflow is independent of inflow. The outflow depends only on level and the residence time that is a function of surface properties. ”
Dr. Ed, this is the crux of the matter: the main outputs hardly depend on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, they mainly react on temperature, which indeed drives the residence time. A change of 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere has little measurable effect on the seasonal amplitude, thus on the in- or outflows.
All what the 30% CO2 increase does is increasing the net sink rate which is the difference between all inflows and all outflows together: from about 0.5 ppmv/year to over 2 ppmv/year, while the total cycle still is 98 ppmv/year. As human emissions show a similar increase at double the amounts, humans are largely responsible for most of the increase in CO2, not the 98 ppmv, as that is more sink than source.
The residence time does move a lot of CO2, but doesn’t remove any net CO2, the extra level in the atmosphere does remove CO2, but that is at a lot slower pace than the residence time…
“The inflow ratio sets the balance ratio in the atmosphere. Your data is irrelevant to this issue. ”
So if a theory doesn’t fit the data, then the data are irrelevant?
” Salby presents the counter argument.”
Dr. Salby is completely wrong on that point: there are indeed only two sources of low-13C: fossil organics and recent organics. The latter are a proven net source for O2, thus a proven sink for CO2 and thus preferentially 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 behind in the atmosphere. Thus the only source of the 13C/12C ratio decline in atmosphere and ocean surface is the human use of fossil fuels:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.jpg
“You have no theory with equations and data to back up your statement.”
For a linear decay rate of a disturbance to a process in dynamic equilibrium, the e-fold decay is calculated as:
decay rate = disturbance / effect
decay rate = level above equilibrium / net sink rate
In 1959: 25 ppmv / 0.5 ppmv/year = 50 years
In 1988: 60 ppmv / 1.13 ppmv/year = 53 years
In 2012: 110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = 51.2 years
Seems very linear to me…
“I disagree”
Your formula is:
outflow = level / Te
In 1959 the level was 315 ppmv
in 2018 the level is 410 ppmv
There is no evidence that Te changed much over the past 60 years, thus the outflow in 1959 must have been 30% smaller than in 2018, for which is zero evidence in the temperature driven seasonal cycle…
[Reply to Stan1 and FE2]
Dear Stan and Ferdinand,
Now you are getting carried away. The subject is what caused the increase from 280 to 410 ppm? Or, to use modern data, from 320 ppm in about 1965 to 410 now?
I admit I have not addressed the subject of what caused the increase.
BUT, neither have you. Your comments about the 100 years for the human CO2 to peak, etc, are not supported by any data, or theory, or equations.
If we are to have a rational scientific discussion, we need at least to keep it scientific.
Here are the facts we must deal with:
(1) The UN arbitrarily decided that some 15 percent of human emissions would be trapped in the atmosphere forever. That is the UN theory or idea.
(2) The UN inserted its idea into its climate models.
(3) The UN climate models then produce an output that shows the climate-model resulting CO2 outflow using the UN theory.
(4) The UN arbitrarily decided on the format of the Bern model and its 7 curve-fit parameters.
(5) The UN did the curve fit and produced numbers for the curve-fit parameters.
Where did the UN get its format for the Bern model? It arbitrarily moved the flows attached to the deep ocean and the inner ocean in the original Bern model and connected them to the atmosphere level.
The UN the rearrangement of flows and levels produced a piece of junk now called the Bern model. The folks responsible clearly don’t understand systems models.
That is why the Bern model is a piece of junk science. That is why its predictions are nonsense.
And you are arguing nonsense as you try to explain the 3 residence times in the Bern model when there should be only one residence time connecting the upper ocean to the atmosphere.
With the UN nonsense as your base, you have no valid arguments.
I will stand aside while you organize your thoughts to bring this discussion back to a scientific base.
Dr. Ed,
I think I have made it clear that I don’t like the Bern model as good as I don’t like your model, based on the residence time.
The residence time is very fast, moves a lot of CO2, but doesn’t remove any extra input (as mass) from human or volcanic CO2 at all.
The Bern model at this moment is as fast as the linear decay model, but will fail in the (near?) future as there are built-in saturations of the deep oceans, which are not in sight for a long time and non-existent for vegetation.
The linear decay model fits all observations, including the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, the mass balance, the 13C/12C sink rate, the oxygen balance,…:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg
More scientific background from Peter Dietze (1997!):
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Ferdinand,
I agree with you upon the fact that with a mean ocean temperature of 16 °C, we should have an atmospheric concentration of 290 ppmv.
So, how do you explain the current 400+ ppmv (still increasing) concentration ?
(Personally, I don’t have any satisfactory explanation : See my previons comment : sept 26 at 1.55 PM)
Jacques-Marie,
The “set point” of the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere is a matter of temperature of the surface. For the current average ocean surface temperature of around 16ºC that is about 290 ppmv. That is the start.
Both input fluxes and output fluxes are mainly driven by temperature changes: seasonal changes are the largest for temperature and size (+ and – 30 ppmv vegetation, – and + 25 ppmv ocean surface over the seasons back and forth), followed by the continuous flux from equatorial deep ocean upwelling towards polar sinks (about 20 ppmv/year).
The seasonal changes show very little amplitude change over the past 60 years, thus are hardly influenced by 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere. What did change: the small residual increase of CO2 at the end of the year, after a full seasonal cycle and a full year of equatorial – polar (deep ocean) exchange.
That means that the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere reduces the input from the oceans and increases the output into the oceans (and vegetation). Any change in CO2 pressure in the atmosphere (pCO2) changes the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface. The in/out fluxes are directly in ratio to the pCO2 difference.
Humans emit about 4.5 ppmv/year. That adds to the total pCO2 of the atmosphere. The pCO2 difference with the ocean surface (and water in plant alveoli) goes down at the upwelling places and goes up for the sink places at the same temperature of the surface. That gives less natural inflow and more total outflow. That is Le Chatelier’s principle at work.
The net extra sink is surprisingly linear in ratio to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium over the past 60 years: about a factor 0.02, or an e-fold decay rate of about 50 years or a half life time for any extra CO2 of about 35 years. Too slow to remove all human CO2 in the same year as emitted, but much faster than the Bern model that the IPCC uses.
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
Where the dark purple line is the increase in the atmosphere calculated with the above decay factor. The large variability in sink rate is the effect of fast temperature changes (Pinatubo, El Niño) on tropical vegetation, which levels off to about zero in 1-3 years around the trend. Over the past 60 years, that is only noise of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90+ ppmv trend.
Dear Dr Ed,
You are confusing two mechanisms,
1. One is the exchange of fossil Co2 in the atmosphere with non-fossil Co2 in the oceans which has a time constant of four years as is shown by the nuclear tests.
2. The second is the leaking out of the excess amount of co2 above 290 ppm into the sinks which happens with a time constant of 39 years (eg Dietze, climatesceptic)
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/co2afname.gif
Indeed is the current ratio of fossil co2 only 5 percent due to the mixing effect, however, the total human amount is 409-290 =119 ppm. Consider in Europe the difference between the amount of money in Euros in your wallet and the eurocoins from the different countries. The amount in your wallet is governed by a completely different mechanisme than the ratio of the individual coins.
Dear Hans,
There is no evidence for the second mechanism. There are no such sinks.
Oh dear, try studying this physics law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fick%27s_laws_of_diffusion
I am leaving this conversation.
Good bye.
Dear Stan and Ferdinand and others,
In my opinion, the only valid open question in our discussions above is what caused natural CO2 emissions to increase enough to raise the CO2 level from 280 to 392.
Hermann Harde answered that question in his excellent 2017 paper that you can read here:
Harde, H., 2017a: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change. 152, 19-26. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787, 2017a.
Also here:
https://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf. 2017a.
I will now work on a simple explanation of Harde’s theory and possibly add a slide or so to address his explanation.
Here is my summary of our discussion so far.
First, my slides 13 through 22 prove the UN theory is wrong. This proof is independent of the physics model. Therefore, in the future, I will move slides 13 to 22 to the beginning and address the physics model after the UN theory.
Second, even if you could prove the physics theory wrong, this would not prove the UN theory right. So, unless you can show my invalidation of the UN theory is in error, then you must agree that the UN theory is wrong.
Third, as I have already noted above, I believe Harde’s explanation for why natural CO2 emissions increased fills the gap that I left in my present slide presentation.
Dear Dr. Ed,
It goes wrong in slide 15:
“UN did not tell you natural CO2 emissions totaled 26,000. So UN logic fails.”
They didn’t need to tell that, as natural CO2 sinks totaled 26,000 + 117 – 185 = 26,068 ppmv
As there are no substantial human caused CO2 sinks, the full difference between total input and total sinks is due to the human input and so is the increase in the atmosphere.
If an accountant presents the company’s ledger with only the company’s incomes and doesn’t mention the large(r) losses, he/she probably will not be an accountant for long…
I always wonder why so many brilliant people with a lot of knowledge don’t understand the simplest form of a budget that most housewives/men know from experience: if you spend more money than you earn, then you are in trouble. No matter how large that income is…
Further slide 18: Munshi compares the derivatives of human emissions with that of the increase in the atmosphere. Problem is that he compares a straight line with a slope but without much noise to a lot of noise (caused by short term temperature changes) and a smaller slope:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Of course there is no correlation between noise and non-noise, but that says nothing about the correlation between the originals, which is near perfect:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Why? Because both emissions and increase in the atmosphere increased slightly quadratic over time, which gives straight slopes in the derivatives:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
As you can see, the temperature induced variability around the CO2 trend is not even visible (+/- 1.5 ppmv for the extremes).
With this, I have proven that you didn’t disprove the IPCC for the human cause of the CO2 increase, but I do disagree with the IPCC for its Bern model and the effect of the CO2 rise…
More about Harde follows…
About the work of Hermann Harde:
I wrote a full, illustrated response to his work here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
Main points:
– Using the residence time, or even the decay rate of the 14C bomb tests excess, doesn’t say anything about the time needed to reduce an extra bulk CO2 injection – whatever the source – above the temperature controlled steady state of the oceans with the atmosphere.
– Using the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as base implies a steady state of zero CO2 in the atmosphere, which is not realistic.
– Using only natural emissions without taking into account the natural sinks violates the mass balance.
Besides that, the “temperature fits almost all” solution violates about every single observation in the atmosphere, oceans and vegetation, while the human cause fits them all. Like the mass balance, the decline of δ13C level (in atmosphere, ocean surface and vegetation), the pre-1950 change in 14C, the changes of pH and DIC in the ocean surface, the change in oxygen balance and last but not least Henry’s law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater.
Thus sorry, not a good reference…
Ferdinand Engelbeen’s statements are mostly wrong and misleading.
I hereby suggest some corrections with reference to my text and slides from the Porto Conference
https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/10._camille_veyres.pptx
slides 1 to 12 and in the additional slides 25, 27, 28
https://www.portoconference2018.org/uploads/1/1/7/3/117342822/porto_conference_volume_2018_revised.pdf pages 24-28
Those documents support Most of Ed Berry’s views.
Correcting Ferdinand Engelbeen statements
Statement by FE: “I did slide 9 …completely wrong zero natural CO2 in the atmosphere … Henry’s law”
Correction: According to IPCC (AR5, figure 6-1, page 471, my slide 3) the absorption by cold-surface oceans and by vegetation (net of the 24 hours respiration which cannot be seen at Mauna Loa) is, every year, about one fifth of the CO2 of the air.
Hence the simple equation dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 where y(t) is the CO2 in the atmosphere and f(t) the sum of the CO2 inputs to the atmosphere.
Whether it is 4 years or 5 years does not matter here, and lines (1) to (3) of Ed Berry’s slide 9 are correct, because the above simple equation is linear and y(t) is the sum of its several parts yi(t) each corresponding to a different input fi(t) to the atmosphere.
There are and have always been inflows fi(t) (and the zero natural inflow idea is pure obfuscation) because
(1) the deep oceans carry carbon from high latitudes to the intertropical upwelling and to the temperature driven intertropical outgassing and
(2) because organic substances in soils do rot.
My slide 4 shows the dependence of the partial pressure pCO2 on DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) and on temperature T.
Both variables are important, and one can NOT conjure Henry’s law: indeed, absorption at high latitudes and outgassing from intertropical oceans are a function of both T and DIC.
Statement by FE: “You can take a sample of seawater in a flask … 290 ppmv with zero input flow “
Correction: The DIC must be specified! It is in the range 1900 micromoles to 2600 micromoles per kg of seawater and is quite variable with latitude, depth, and season. (See figures 14 (pCO2), 19 and 20 (DIC or TCO2) of Millero 2007, Chem. Rev., 107, in free access at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr0503557)
See my slide 4.
+1°C means +4.5% on pCO2 and +1% on DIC means +13% on pCO2
+5% on psea water CO2 may mean +25% on the outgassing which is proportional to the difference of the partial pressures in sea water and in air: example : 500 (sea water) – 400 (air) = 100 and
525 (sw) – 400 (air) =125
Statement by FE: “The CO2 level in the atmosphere hardly does depend of the inflows … first fundamental problem”
Correction: the simple equation dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 shows that y(t) is a weighted sum of the inputs f(x) because
y(t) = y(0) exp(-t/5) + exp(-t/5) Integral from 0 to t of [exp(x/5) f(x) dx]
The CO2 level in the atmosphere is the sum of the past and actual inflows and indeed depends on those inflows!
Statement by FE: “both level and fluxes depend of temperature”
Correction: Indeed, the ocean outgassing is the main provider of carbon to air and vegetation and soils: see my slides 3 to 11!
Statement by FE: “The second problem … the end of a full cycle”
Correction: the Mauna Loa increments between a month and the same month of the previous year, January to January, May to May etc. are shown on my slide 6 and prove that the CO2 of the air is, for 95% of it, driven by the temperatures and is a simple straightforward consequence of the temperatures.
See also my slides 25 and 27: there is no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and CO2 increments as shown on slide 27, and as proved in papers by professor Jamal Munshi Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Updated (July 5, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2997420 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2997420
The stories of FE on seasonal changes at Mauna Loa are hardly relevant: it is well known that the Seasonal absorption of CO2 by vegetation has increased (in trend) as the CO2 content of the air:
+31% over the 20th century: See E. Campbell et al. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production Nature volume 544, pages84–87 (06 April 2017) http://www.nature.com)
See also the ppm data at La Jolla: the seasonal absorption (max of the ppm – min of the ppm for every year) has a linear trend 8.34 +0.087 (-1969 + t) ppm over 1969 to 2007; the ppm amplitude max -min went roughly from 8.5 ppm in the 1970s to 11.5 ppm after 2004.
Statement by FE: “What did change: the small residual increase of CO2 at the end of the year, after a full seasonal cycle and a full year of equatorial – polar (deep ocean) exchange”.
Correction: This small residual increase is shown on my slides 6 (fact3), 25 and 27: it proves mathematically that the CO2 content of the air is (and must be from mathematical tests like ADF or KPSS) a straightforward consequence of past temperatures that drove and drive natural outgassing and absorption.
Statement by FE: “The seasonal changes show very little amplitude change over the past 60 years, thus are hardly influenced by 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere”
Correction: Not at all! The fertilization by more CO2 in the air is well-proved:
– Campbell +31% during the 20the century (see references above)
– R. R. Nemani et al. Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999, Science, New Series, Vol. 300, No. 5625 (Jun. 6, 2003), pp. 1560-1563 Over 1982-1999 they observed a +6% increase of the net primary production of the land vegetation while the CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory increased by 7.8% , with “significant growth stimulation in both the tropics and the northern high-latitude ecosystems”… “… Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints on plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation… Our satellite-based estimates of NPP, by contrast, show significant growth stimulation in both the tropics and the northern high-latitude ecosystems..”
– Pretzsch, H., Biber, P., Schütze, G., Uhl, E., Rötzer, Th., Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870, (2014) Nat. Commun. 5:4967, DOI:10.1038/ncomms5967
“Based on the oldest existing experimental forest plots in Central Europe, we show that, currently, the dominant tree species Norway spruce and European beech exhibit significantly faster tree growth (+32 to 77%), stand volume growth (+10 to 30%) and standing stock accumulation (+6 to 7%) than in 1960” while the CO2 increased from 320 ppm in the 1960 to 390 ppm in 2010.
– Zaichun Zhu et al. Greening the Earth and its drivers, Nature Climate Change (April 2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3004 http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/files/2016/04/zhu-greening-earth-ncc-2016.pdf
“we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics,” while the CO2 increased from 340 ppm in 1982 to 387 ppm in 2009
– Numerous papers of Pfr Myneni R. http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/ http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/people/professors/prof-ranga-b-myneni/myneni-publications/ on the greening of the Earth
– Randall J. Donohue, Michael L. Roderick, Tim R. McVicar, and Graham D. Farquhar Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments, GRL, vol. 40, 3031–3035, doi:10.1002/grl.50563, 2013 “Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) … Satellite observations … in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments … analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.”
– Graven HD, Keeling RF, Piper SC, Patra PK, Stephens BB, Wofsy SC, Welp LR, Sweeney C, Tans PP, Kelley JJ, Daube BC, Kort EA, Santoni GW, Bent JD. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960, Science, 2013 Sept. 6; 341(6150):1085-9. doi: 10.1126/science.1239207. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1085.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2013/08/07/science.1239207.DC1/Graven.SM_Revised.pdf
report on airborne measurements made in the 2010s and in the 1960s: “An increase in [seasonal] amplitude at least as large as that detected at Barrow is found over a wide range of pressures and at all latitudes north of 45°N. The change in seasonal CO2 amplitude north of 45°N is about +5 parts per million (ppm) at all pressures, representing a 57 ± 7% increase at 500 mb since 1958 to 1961 (~0.9 ± 0.1% year−1 over 50 years) [this is like figure 5 right at La Jolla]. The seasonal CO2 amplitude increase is smaller between 35° and 45°N at 500 mb, 26 ± 18%, whereas there is no distinguishable amplitude change south of 35°N”.
Statement by FE “That means that the extra CO2 pressure … Le Chatelier’s principle at work.”
Comment: indeed, see my slides 7 and 8 (fact 4)
Statement by FE: ” based on the 13C/12C ratio the current level of human CO2 is now around 9%, despite a dilution by the high-13C deep ocean circulation…. There is only one interpretation possible for the 13C/12C decline: fossil fuel use. The only other low-13C source is vegetation, but that is more sink than source, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere…”
Correction: see my slide 9 fact 5
The observed delta13C at Mauna Loa or South Pole is driven partly by fossil fuel emissions ( a smooth effect over time) and partly by strong outgassing during the El Ninos (with very characteristic wiggles over time) : indeed due to isotopic fractionation in sea water in the early 1990 according to the 1995 paper of Lynch-Stieglitz, with at that time -7.5 per mil in the air, delta13C were -9 per mil for CO2, +1 per mil for HCO3, -1 per mil for CO3, +2.5 per mil for carbonate shells.
Strong oceanic outgassing at -9 pm –(-7.5 pm) = -1.5 pm below the delta13C of the air is very obvious from the plots of delta13C versus time: the El Ninos produce a dip in the delta13C
The delta13C of the non-anthropic or naturally outgassed part of the air for a 1/e lifetime of 5 years is indeed the delta13C of the ambient air 60 years before, “consistent” with an average of the turnover times of (1) the vegetation and soils reservoir, say an average of 30 years, and (2) of the deep ocean reservoir, say 100 years and more.
Statement by FE: “The net extra sink …The large variability in sink rate is the effect of fast temperature changes (Pinatubo, El Niño) on tropical vegetation, which levels off to about zero in 1-3 years around the trend. Over the past 60 years, that is only noise of +/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90+ ppmv trend”
Corrections: FE assume that there are no natural sources but sinks …and that all the increase of the ppm is due to fossil fuel emissions: as already said, my slide 27 and papers by Pfr Munshi show that there is no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and ppm increases at Mauna Loa or at South Pole and that the CO2 of the air is a consequence of the temperatures mainly between the tropics (slides 6 and 25).
FE suggests a tale along the line of the fraudulent deceptions debunked on my slide 10 : any transfer function with 1/e decay time of 50 years (FE) or 80 to 100 years (Bern and Hamburg transfer functions of IPCC) or even the instantaneous decay of 50% (the tale of a 50% airborne fraction) can be put forward, and their observed gross ineptitude explained by natural fluctuations … not of the natural sources (94% of the input according to IPCC AR5 page 471) but of the so-called “sinks”.
The reality test, is, as reminded on slide 10, the Chinese coal surge 2000 to 2010 : +40% on emissions, but no change other than the El Nino wiggles on the observed dy/dt at Mauna Loa.
UPDATE
New Slide 24 shows the Harde (2017) curve fit of historical CO2 concentration versus surface temperature. Read his paper for details. The central idea is this curve does not follow the standard surface-pressure versus ocean surface temperature because temperature affects both inflow and outflow.
I offer Slide 24 as an explanation of how natural CO2 inflow can easily increase enough with temperature to increase the level from 280 ppm to 410 ppm and beyond.
New Slide 25 shows the key references with links.
Dr. Ed,
That graph violates Henry’s law for the ratio CO2(atm) to CO2(aq).
Not only that, in the whole period from 10,000 years ago to today, there were long periods that the temperature was higher than today (the Holocene “optimum”, the Roman period, the Medieval period,…) all with CO2 levels around 270-280 ppmv). Doesn’t fit Harde’s graph.
Further: an increase in temperature indeed increases the inflows (and decreases the outflows), but as that increases the pCO2 in the atmosphere, that is reversed at about 16 ppmv/K, that is all increase you can have from a temperature increase…
Wow Camille,
A lot of “corrections”, which need – again – pages of reactions…
Unfortunately, several of your graphs within the slides didn’t open, maybe because I have an older (2013) powerpoint program. Do you have the same as .pdf file? The full Porto report doesn’t have all details.
Let’s start with your comment, based in your slide 3 (in part Dr. Ed’s slide 9):
First:
– How much C is in the different compartments is not of the slightest interest for the CO2 level in the atmosphere, as long as it isn’t exchanged with other compartments.
– How much C is exchanged between different compartments is not of the slightest interest for the CO2 level in the atmosphere, as long as what goes out is the same amount as what goes in.
– Only the difference between what goes in and out does change the CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Human CO2 is one-way additional, thus anyway always add to the level in the atmosphere.
The balance between natural inputs and outputs over the past 60 years was always negative in each year, except for a few months during El Niño’s.
Thus no matter that Human CO2 is only 1% of all CO2 fluxes on earth it is responsible for (near) the full CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
—————-
I do agree to drop the diurnal respiration and part of uptake by vegetation, as that isn’t measurable in the bulk of the atmosphere and most approaches for the residence time show around 5 years.
“Hence the simple equation dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 where y(t) is the CO2 in the atmosphere and f(t) the sum of the CO2 inputs to the atmosphere.”
Which in my opinion is simply impossible, as that violates Henry’s law:
For the current average ocean surface temperature, the CO2 level should be 290 ppmv, no matter static (for a single sample in a closed space) or for the full dynamics of the oceans.
Let’s use the basic pCO2 measurements of your slide 4:
If the total ocean surface would cool down to 0ºC (ice house earth?), thus effectively removing any equator-poles flux and no seasons anymore (all land is frozen!), then the pCO2 of the oceans would be around 150 μatm (effectively measured minimum near the poles) and at equilibrium, still around 150 ppmv would be in the atmosphere.
If the total ocean surface warmed to 30ºC (Cretaceous?) then the oceans would be around 750 μatm (effectively measured maximum at the equator). That means a CO2 level of about 750 ppmv in the atmosphere at equilibrium.
Thus even without any additional natural input or output there is a basic “static” level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is directly responding to the average ocean surface temperature. Your and Dr. Ed’s formula doesn’t take that into account.
Next:
“y(t) is the sum of its several parts yi(t) each corresponding to a different input fi(t) to the atmosphere.”
As already mentioned before, that approach is right for calculating the residence time, but completely inappropriate to calculate the level from inputs and residence time.
Point is that several inputs and outputs act together but in countercurrent to each other: while vegetation sucks lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere, the oceans emits lots of CO2 at the same time, with as result that the level doesn’t increase: the “y(t) is the sum of its several parts yi(t)” in spring/summer is down to -5 ppmv, not +75 ppmv (all inputs added)…
The residence time isn’t influenced by the direction of the flows, but the atmospheric level is…
Further, in that formula, you imply that there are outputs at about the same level of the inputs, because without outputs there is no residence time. Problem: natural outputs currently are larger than natural inputs (measured all over the oceans and the greening earth). Thus the real world dy/dt caused by natural inflows and outflows together is negative…
It’s getting late here, more tomorrow.
Dear Camille,
Expanding the residence time – volume discussion:
The formula for the residence time is:
RT = Volume / throughput
When inputs and outputs are not too far from each other:
RT = Volume / inputs
as good as
RT = Volume /outputs
or more exact:
RT = Volume / (inputs + outputs)/2
RT is independent of the sign of the fluxes.
Now take it reverse:
Volume = inputs * RT
or:
Volume = outputs * RT
Which is the opposite of reality: the output flows are negative for volume, which plays no role in the calculation of RT, but must be taken into account for calculating the volume.
For any change in volume at any moment in time the change in level depends of the momentary input flows minus the momentary output flows:
dL/dt = (f_in(t) – y(t)/5) – (f_out(t) – y(t)/5))
That means that y(t)/5 plays no role at all:
dL/dt = f_in(t) – f_out(t)
Now it gets interesting:
f_in and f_out are completely independent of the residence time (they produce the residence time!), but both depend of the momentary CO2 level in the atmosphere.
If we may forget the seasonal fluxes for one moment (will be addressed next time), the only deep ocean – atmosphere exchanges are between the upwelling zones (the main one in the Pacific before the coast of Peru), and the downwelling zones (the main one in the N.E. Atlantic). These are the largest natural ocean CO2 emissions and sinks and that produces the largest continuous CO2 flux through the atmosphere.
The lowest pCO2(ocean) measured near the poles was around 150 μatm the highest pCO2(ocean) measured was at the equator around 750 μatm.
The outflux at the equator is directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between ocean and atmosphere:
X GtC/year = f(750 – 400)
The opposite at the polar sinks:
Y GtC/year = f(400 – 150)
At equilibrium X = Y and is about 40 GtC/year flowing continuously between equator and poles, based on the “thinning” of the human contribution of low-13C CO2 by the high 13C CO2 from the (deep) oceans:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
Where the discrepancy before 1970 probably is from vegetation, which was more source than sink, while after 1990 it is an increasing sink, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio. That isn’t taken into account here.
The 40 GtC/year is independently confirmed by the rapid decay of the 14C level from the atomic bomb tests, as what returns from the deep oceans is the isotopic composition of centuries ago with low-14C, but what did go in (in 1960) was the peak 14C by humans, a doubling.
The exact amount circulating from equator to poles is not of interest, as that doesn’t influence the volume/pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere as long as X=Y.
So what happens if the overall temperature of all ocean surfaces increases?
As you have calculated, the ocean’s CO2 input increases with about 4% for 1ºC temperature increase and at the opposite side, the CO2 output decreases with about 4% for the same temperature increase, that gives a disequilibrium between inputs and outputs of about 8%. That is about 3.2 GtC accumulating in the atmosphere. Thus in year 1, the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases from 400 to 401.6 ppmv.
That means that in year 2, the CO2 input is not 4% extra, but some 3.6% extra, as the pCO2 difference oceans – atmosphere somewhat decreased. the same (but opposite) at the poles.
In the next years, the increase in the atmosphere decreased to ultimately zero, when a new dynamic equilibrium between deep ocean upwelling and deep ocean sinks is reached. That is at about 16 ppmv/ºC increase in the atmosphere, not by coincidence exactly the same increase as for a “static” sample (*) or “static” ocean:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
The ocean surface temperature increase 1850-2018 thus may be responsible for about 10-15 ppmv of the 110+ ppmv increase in the atmosphere. The bulk of the increase is from the human contribution.
More next time…
(*) I know, the pCO2 of the oceans not only depends of temperature, it also heavily depends of its C concentration (DIC). Still the overall temperature dependency is about 16 ppmv/K, as seen in 800,000 years of ice cores and in over 3 million seawater samples.
Reply to some points of Ferdinand Engelbeen September 29, 2018 and September 30.
“Human CO2 is one-way additional, thus anyway always add to the level in the atmosphere”.
And so did and does the natural outgassing which about 16 times greater than today’s fossil fuel emissions and which, between 1958 and 2018, has increased (my slide 8, fact 4) from say about 63 ppm/year to 78 ppm/year.
“Thus no matter that Human CO2 is only 1% of all CO2 fluxes on earth it is responsible for (near) the full CO2 increase in the atmosphere.”
This is an unproven and unsupported statement debunked by simple math: the temperature driven increase of the natural outgassing over the last 60 years from 63 ppm/year to 78 ppm/year had a much greater effect.
In addition, note that fossil fuel was 1% of the total influx in 1949 -1950 and is now only about 5.6% = 9.5 Gt-C/ (160+ 9.5) Gt-C.
“Hence the simple equation dy(t)/dt = f(t) – y(t)/5 where y(t) is the CO2 in the atmosphere and f(t) the sum of the CO2 inputs to the atmosphere.” Which in my opinion is simply impossible, as that violates Henry’s law:
This simple equation is indeed the DFEFINITION of the residence time taken here as 5 years.
IPCC picture AR5 page 471 says ocean outgassing grew since “preindustrial” from 60 to 80 Gt-C/yr ; vegetation grew by 31% from 95 to 120 (daily respiration included) during the 20th century.
Elementary probability shows the link between life time and probability of survival : consider a bag of marbles where one randomly takes a marble out and then puts a marble in : the probability of survival of a given marble after m draws is, with n marbles in the bag,
(1-1/n)**m which is about exp(-m/n), or exp(-1/5) when one fifth of the marbles in the bag have been drawn.
What you call “Henry’s law” (in sea water the temperature dependence of the carbonate equilibrium is the main driver) is for sea water explained on slide 4 (fact1) and explains the changes of f(t) with temperature.
“For the current average ocean surface temperature, the CO2 level should be 290 ppmv, no matter static (for a single sample in a closed space) or for the full dynamics of the oceans. ”
Unproven statement, likely a byproduct of the computation leading to the graphic
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
“If the total ocean surface would cool down to 0ºC … If the total ocean surface warmed to 30ºC (Cretaceous?) … there is a basic “static” level of CO2 in the atmosphere that is directly responding to the average ocean surface temperature. ”
The content of the air is the weighted sum of the outgassing as it is simply
exp(-t/5)( y(0) + Integral from 0 to t of [f(x) exp(x/5) dx ])
and the faucet that controls outgassing (the natural part, 95% of f(t)) is mainly the intertropical temperature where most of the outgassing takes place.
“that approach is right for calculating the residence time, but completely inappropriate to calculate the level from inputs and residence time.” … “The residence time isn’t influenced by the direction of the flows, but the atmospheric level is…”
Talking cannot disprove the maths of the previous paragraph.
Regarding the The seasonal swing of the CO2 content of the air refer to
Chauncey Starr Atmospheric CO2 Residence Time and the Carbon Cycle, Energy Vol. 18, No. 12. pp. 1297-1310, 1993 – Appendix by Michael B. Guthrie and Scott P. Smith, School of Engineering, Stanford University
The seasonal swing of the carbon content of the air as a function of the monthly time series of the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) and of La Jolla (CA) (LJO) has best linear fits
5.55 + 0.0061 (x-320) (MLO), 8.58+ 0.057 (x-328) (LJO) and 1.52 + 0,011 (x – 320) at the South Pole observatory (SPO).
The yearly “swing” went up by +8.7% at MLO and by +27% at LJO while the CO2 content of the air increased by +25%, hinting again to the fertilization by more CO2 in the air. Over a time span of a decade, y(t) is approximately the solution of
dy(t)/dt + y(t) / a = c + d Cos(2 π(t-0.1)), y(0) = y0
that is
y0 exp(-t/a) + a c (1- exp(-t/a))+ a d (Cos (2 pi (t – 0.1))+ 2 a pi Sin(2 pi (t – 0.1)- exp(-t/a)) /(1 +4 pi² a²)
The (2 d) peak to peak seasonal modulation of “outgassing minus absorption” modulates y(t) with a swing of
0.15 (2 d), close to (2d) ( 2 a² π /(1+ 4 π² a²)).
The observed swings suggest (2 d) values of 30 Gt-C (SPO), 85 Gt-C (MLO), 120 Gt-C (LJO 1969), 165 Gt-C (LJO 2007), reflecting the environment of the observatory (ice, ocean, land and ocean) and for La Jolla the fertilization by more CO2 in the air.
“Further … without outputs there is no residence time. … Problem: natural outputs currently are larger than natural inputs (measured all over the oceans and the greening earth). Thus the real world dy/dt caused by natural inflows and outflows together is negative…”
All outflows (océans, vegetation) are natural and their sum is to be considered which is (about) a fifth of the content of the atmospheric reservoir.
“The formula for the residence time is: RT = Volume / throughput … RT = Volume / (inputs + outputs)/2 … RT is independent of the sign of the fluxes.”
No ! In the equation the output is y(t) / 5: you may replace 5 by 6 or have a time variable output like (1- a (t-t0)) y(t)/5 ; no big change! The residence time is mathematically independent of the inputs f(t) and reflects only the output.
“Now take it reverse: Volume = inputs * RT”
No! y(t) = 5 f(t) – 5 dy(t)/dt ;
orders of magnitude: 5 x 80 ppm= 400 ppm much greater than 5 x 2 ppm = 10 ppm
“or: …. for volume, which plays no role in the calculation of RT, but must be taken into account for calculating the volume.”
By its very definition residence time is volume/output
“For any change in volume at any moment in time the change in level depends of the momentary input flows minus the momentary output flows: … dL/dt = f_in(t) – f_out(t)”
” …. f_out are completely independent of the residence time (they produce the residence time!), but both depend of the momentary CO2 level in the atmosphere.”
No! the residence time is the ratio y(t) over output(t)
“If we may forget the seasonal fluxes … At equilibrium X = Y and is about 40 GtC/year flowing continuously between equator and poles, based on the “thinning” of the human contribution of low-13C CO2 by the high 13C CO2 from the (deep) oceans:
No! IPCC (AR5 figure 6-1 page 471 and AR4) says 80 to 90 Gt-C/year, not 40, for the ocean to air exchanges (see my slide 3); there is no and has never been a static equilibrium due to the century long transit time in the deep ocean between subduction and obduction. Please see slide 7
“ .. .http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/deep_ocean_air_zero.jpg
” So what happens if the overall temperature of all ocean surfaces increases? ”
The temperature along the icepack does NOT change very much as long as there is ice; the surface of the “cold absorbing surface ocean” may change slightly year to year and of course it changes along the seasons.
There are Sea Surface Temperature maps!
Regarding the location of the oceanic in and out gassing you may look at pp 53-66 in
[Barry, 2010] James P. Barry, Toby Tyrrell, Lina Hansson, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Jean-Pierre Gattuso Atmospheric CO2 targets for ocean acidification perturbation experiments, pp. 53-66 in Guide to best practices for ocean acidification research and data reporting Edited by U. Riebesell, V. J. Fabry, L. Hansson and J.-P. Gattuso. 2010, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
“As you have calculated, the ocean’s CO2 input increases with about 4% for 1ºC temperature increase …
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_temp.jpg
… More next time…”
This is a nice tale but sea surface water moves from intertropical zone along the gyres: it outgases between the tropics, then equilibrates with air between 20 and 40 degrees of latitude, then at higher latitudes it becomes much colder and pumps CO2 from the air and this carbon is subducted as said on slide 5, fact 2.
Dear Camille,
Let’s start with the main point of discussion: the ratio between human input and natural input:
“And so did and does the natural outgassing which about 16 times greater than today’s fossil fuel emissions and which, between 1958 and 2018, has increased (my slide 8, fact 4) from say about 63 ppm/year to 78 ppm/year.”
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.
Human emissions are small, but one-way. Natural additions are huge, but two way and currently more sink than source. The net 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.
Increase in the atmosphere = natural emissions + human emissions – natural sinks
In 1960:
0.5 ppmv = 63 ppmv + 1 ppmv – 63.5 ppmv; nature net = -0.5 ppmv
In 2012:
2.35 ppmv = 78 ppmv + 4.5 ppmv – 80.15 ppmv; nature net = -2.15 ppmv
No matter how much natural CO2 is emitted, even if it was 1,000 ppmv over the seasons, the few ppmv from humans is fully responsible for the increase, not how much natural CO2 is cycling in and out.
Of course you know the definition of residence time. If we may expect that any CO2, whatever the origin, has the same chance to be exchanged with a CO2 molecule from another reservoir, why is that in the above equations the human emissions, net sinks and increase in the atmosphere all increased over a fourfold, but natural CO2 emissions and sinks only increased with 24%? That violates the equality of CO2 of whatever origin in the sinks?
The simple answer: the natural cycle is mainly driven by temperature changes and differences: seasonal, year by year, equator – poles.
The removal of any extra CO2 out of the atmosphere into other reservoirs is mainly driven by pressure changes. That influences the difference between natural inputs and outputs. The response time is a factor 10 slower than for temperature changes…
“Unproven statement, likely a byproduct of the computation leading to the graphic”
Proven by 800,000 years of ice cores. Here for the 420,000 years Vostok ice core:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
Where the discrepancies are mainly from the different lags of CO2 and the 8 ppmv/K is for Antarctic temperature changes, translating to about 16 ppmv/K for global temperature changes.
“exp(-t/5)( y(0) + Integral from 0 to t of [f(x) exp(x/5) dx ])”
The residence time is the result of temperature dependent fluxes and volume in the atmosphere. You can mathematically reverse that formula, but that doesn’t give you the volume, as you use the residence time, which is temperature dependent.
Make all oceans as warm as at the equator and the outflux at the equator gets zero, as the pCO2 difference between oceans and atmosphere gets zero. Despite that, the CO2 level in the atmosphere would be 750 ppmv.
In the real world (see the Vostok ice core), the basic level of CO2 in the atmosphere depends of the average ocean surface temperature and above – or below – that of the difference between inputs and outputs.
“The residence time is mathematically independent of the inputs f(t) and reflects only the output. ”
The definition is volume/throughput, which depends of input ánd output, in equilibrium about equal, therefore one can use volume/input or volume/output alike.
Which doesn’t change the point that volume starts at the temperature controlled equilibrium and from that level on from the difference between inputs and outputs.
“IPCC says 80 to 90 Gt-C/year, not 40, for the ocean to air exchanges … there is no and has never been a static equilibrium due to the century long transit time in the deep ocean between subduction and obduction. Please see slide 7”
Doesn’t matter if it is 40 or 90 GtC/year, as long as as much is absorbed as emitted…
There was and is a dynamic equilibrium between atmosphere and surface of the oceans, including the deep oceans with a (long) lag over the past 800,000 years at 16 ppmv/K.
“This is a nice tale but sea surface water moves …”
Of course the surface water moves and emits or absorbs CO2 with temperature and DIC, but where it exact happens and with what speed is not important.
What is important is that if the pCO2 of the oceans is higher than of the atmosphere, it emits CO2 and reverse for cooler waters and that the dynamic equilibrium tries to get the same pCO2 in the atmosphere as the (weighted) average pCO2 of the ocean surface. Once that equilibrium is reached there still will be a lot of CO2 transport between equator and poles, but that is the (pre-industrial) base, not influenced by any other inputs or outputs, even not by the (mostly seasonal) residence time.
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., 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)
Dear Camille,
Some clarification on:
“f_in and f_out are completely independent of the residence time (they produce the residence time!), but both depend of the momentary CO2 level in the atmosphere.”
The whole problem in this discussion seems to be that different processes are at work, which react different on temperature changes than on pressure changes.
Seasonal temperature changes are the cause of massive CO2 changes, but are hardly influenced by CO2 pressure changes (will be discussed further in a separate part)
The continuous CO2 flux between equator and poles is driven by temperature differences and hardly influenced by pressure changes.
Both do influence the residence time, which is not much influenced by the increase in pressure: if you average the different estimates for the residence time at:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-part-3/
in two halves, one half of the oldest, the other half of the newest estimates, there is a small increase in residence time, which points to a rather stable throughput in an increasing volume.
As calculated before, the temperature dependency is about 16 ppmv/K, by far not enough to explain the 110 ppmv increase in the past 165 years.
So what is the pressure dependency?
Over the past 60 years, the net sink rate averaged within the noise is about 0.02 (a tau of ~50 years) compared to the extra CO2 pressure above the temperature controlled dynamic equilibrium. Highly linear over the full period. That gives the decay rate for any extra CO2 (whatever the source) above equilibrium in the atmosphere.
Using that decay rate, the increase in the atmosphere is nicely within the (temperature induced) noise of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
Over the past years of near constant emissions, due to the economic crisis, there is a slight drop in the increase rate in the atmosphere, as CO2 levels still increase and thus the net sink level increased.
The sink level doesn’t depend of the emissions of one year, but on the total CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium, whatever the cause.
The above graph was the base of Munshi’s claim that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Of course, there is no correlation between a noisy increase, caused by temperature variability and a near straight slope. Human emissions indeed are not responsible for the noise, they are responsible for the slopes only of both emissions and increase in the atmosphere…
Dear Camille,
About the influence of DIC on in/outflows: indeed a change in DIC in the upwelling (or a change in total volume) will have an influence on the outgassing. Again that is countered by an increase of pCO2 in the atmosphere, so that a new equilibrium is reached at a higher CO2 level, redistributing the extra CO2 over reduced inputs and increased outputs. Here for a 10% increase in DIC:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/upwelling_incr.jpg
I don’t expect such an increase in DIC at all from the deep oceans, as the DIC level of the deep oceans doesn’t change that rapid (more over centuries than over decades). Over the past 60 years probably negligible…
Hi Ferdinand – it’s good to read your comments again. They are always informative – and CORRECT. The problem here, though, is that too many issues are being simultaneously addressed and this is allowing the focus of the argument to be shifted.
Ed
I’m going to adopt a much simpler approach than Ferdinand. I have an issue with slide 3. I’m not sure what the UN says about the increase in atmospheric CO2 but your representation in the slide is not what the IPCC claim (and I’m not fan of the IPCC – nor is Ferdie if I remember correctly).
I think we can broadly agree that the first 2 bars representing the inflow and atmospheric concentration are broadly correct, so I have a question for Ed.
Ed, you seem to have an issue with the fact that human CO2 only represents about 4.5% of the total atmospheric concentration. Given that human CO2 represents about 4.5% of the Total CO2 inflow – and assuming this has been the case for a few decades – what proportion of human CO2 would you expect in the atmospheric concentration? And could you clarify if you believe this falsifies the IPCC position.
John Finn,
Thanks for your comment…
Indeed too lengthy on too many subjects, so my latest comments are for one subject at the time. Then the length per comment is smaller, but that gives too many comments… What a mess…
Dear Camille,
Here a comment on:
“This small residual increase is shown on my slides 6 (fact3), 25 and 27: it proves mathematically that the CO2 content of the air is (and must be from mathematical tests like ADF or KPSS) a straightforward consequence of past temperatures that drove and drive natural outgassing and absorption. ”
That did cost me years of discussion with Bart/Bartemis and others (including defenders of Dr. Salby), as the “proof” is based on an entirely spurious correlation…
First have a better look at the variability of both T and dCO2/dt in the graph of your sheet 6: there is a 100% synchronization between these two. So I have as much right to say that dCO2/dt drives T as the reverse. Both claims are wrong. Why?
First have a look at the influence of temperature variability in the original variables:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg
Influence of the 1991 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño: about +/- 1.5 ppmv around the trend, about 4 times the variability in temperature.
Next: if you take the derivative of one variable and not of the other, you remove most of the trend of the first variable and enhance its noise but also: you shift all the variability with 90 degrees backward, which synchronizes both variability’s, which makes it an entirely spurious correlation.
Then you integrate the whole bunch to obtain the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere based on:
d [CO2](t) /dt = a AT(t) + b
Which is impossible: a small sustained offset from an arbitrary base level temperature would produce a fixed influx of CO2 until eternity, without any negative feedback of the increasing CO2 pressure in the atmosphere…
Moreover, you do integrate all variability ánd the slope, but variability and slope are from different processes:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
As the graph shows: the change in dCO2/dt is fully synchronous with the opposite change in δ13C/dt, while dT/dt is earlier in time, again with a similar variability. The opposite dCO2/dt and δ13C/dt changes prove that (tropical) vegetation is the main reactant on previous dT/dt changes, which slope is about zero, only with a slight offset from zero.
Thus while near all variability of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by the influence of temperature variability on vegetation, temperature is not responsible for the slope in dCO2/dt, as vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2 over time: the earth is greening…
So in short: compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt not T with dCO2/dt, or you are comparing apples with oranges…
Extensively explained here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_variability.html
Statement FE Sept. 30, 2018 5:48 AM “ First have a better look at the variability of both T and dCO2/dt in the graph of your sheet 6: there is a 100% synchronization between these two. So I have as much right to say that dCO2/dt drives T as the reverse. Both claims are wrong. Why? “
Comment: that T drive the outgassing is clear from the physics: see my facts 1 and 2 and it has been stated by Wang Xuhui et al. and by Wang Weile et al. (references above)
Statement FE Sept. 30, 2018 5:48 AM ‘dCO2/dt is fully synchronous with the opposite change in δ13C/dt, while dT/dt is earlier in time, again with a similar variability. The opposite dCO2/dt and δ13C/dt changes prove that (tropical) vegetation is the main reactant on previous dT/dt changes…”
Comment: time series tests show that it is not dT(t)/dt but T(t) which is relevant for the correlation.
If T(t) is higher as usual, its derivative dT/dt has been positive in the preceding months …
The synchronism of the series dCO2/dt and δ13C/dt is a proof that El Ninos drive low delta13C out of seawater and possibly droughts (or 1997-1998 fires in Borneo (?)) drive low delta13C from equatorial forests)
Statement FE Sept. 30, 2018 5:48 AM “near all variability of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is caused by the influence of temperature variability on vegetation”
Comment: NO ! see fact 1 slide 4: a +1°C sea surface temperature increase means +4% on pCO2 and possibly +20% on some parts of the outflow whose total is 80 Gt-C/year according to IPCC.
Statement FE Sept. 30, 2018 5:48 AM: So in short: compare T with CO2 or dT/dt with dCO2/dt not T with dCO2/dt, or you are comparing apples with oranges…
Comment : NO ! see above the references to text books on times series and Unit Roots Cointegration. There is mathematically no other valid correlation than that of dy(t)/dt and T(t)!
It is just maths!
see also M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming, Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 173-188, doi:10.5194/esd-3-173-2012, 2012
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/173/2012/esd-3-173-2012.html
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C118/2013/esdd-4-C118-2013-supplement.pdf.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/24/pro-agw-economists-try-to-discredit-skeptics-succeed-in-discrediting-fellow-warmists/
nd for a very rough check Pehr Björnbom Rekonstruktion av Murry Salbys teori för att koldioxidökningen är temperaturdriven, 2013-06-24, http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rekonstruktion-av-Murry-Salbys-teori.pdf
In Time series analysis one has to avoid being fooled by trends and apparent correlations (see http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) and by vaguely parallel increases. Since the 1990s there has been much progress. Useful references are for instance
G.S. Maddala & In-Moo Kim, Unit Roots Cointegration and structural change, Cambridge University press, 1999, 515 pages
Richard Harris, Cointegration analysis in econometric modelling Prentice Hall, 1995 176 pages
Soren Johansen, Likelihood based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models, Oxford University press, 1995, 265 pages and its companion Workbook on cointegration (161 pages, 1998, Oxford U.P.)
The cointegration tests (ADF, KPSS etc. ) and other tools are today built-in in several mathematical software packages like R or Mathematica. Hence statements like “ increase in the atmosphere is nicely within the (temperature induced) noise of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere” are disproven.
Being fooled by apparent “common” trends in times series is today no longer permissible in the 21st century. (See my slide 6/35 fact 3).
Given that the editors of the journal Hade’s paper appeared in had to eat crow and admit they had foolishly allowed publication despite the absence of proper review (Harde chosing his own reviewers, among other stupidities…) I’m surprised Ed feels comfortable citing it, considering this ‘alternative’ approach is too simplistic, based on false assumptions, does not account for proper carbon cycle reservoirs etc. Several published commentaries in the same journal fully expose all the inadequacies of Harde’s approach.
Dear Stan,
I am going to require you prove your assumed “facts” in your comment above about Harde. You seem to have “information” not available to the public.
Please prove all your claims or admit your claims are wrong.
Ed
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
In reviewing the Reply, the reviewers felt that Harde’s argument is “…too simplistic, based on invalid assumptions, ignores a whole body of observational evidence, and cites selectively literature that has long-time been disproved”. The experts confirm the suggestion by Köhler et al. (2018) that “…the paper be withdrawn by the author, editor or publisher due to fundamental errors in the understanding of the carbon cycle.” Most importantly, the expert reviewers clarified that Harde (2017) does not contribute to a seemingly open scientific debate or provides an alternative view. In contrast, it “…contains many mistakes, misconceptions and omissions and ignores a vast body of scholarly literature on the subject” (quotes from the reviews).
Dear John,
Thank you for sending the link to the discussion.
The issue comes down to whether we accept the opinions of “expert reviewers” or our own analysis the accuracy of Harde (2017) compared to Kohler (2017).
The issue is whether we agree with the journal’s decision to not publish Harde’s rebuttal to Kohler, thereby blocking a scientific discussion that happens to disagree with the opinions of “expert reviewers” or we agree with the principles that used to exist in atmospheric science that allows publication ideas that conflict with the predominant opinion.
If the former prevails, Einstein’s relativity would not have been published. A lot of good science would not have been published. And even when faulty science has been published, like say cold fusion, we learned a lot from the efforts and discussions that eventually showed the proposed original idea was wrong.
The reason we are able to have this discussion on this website is that I do not restrict comments that disagree with my opinion. One thing I am not willing to do is to accept the opinions of so-called “expert reviewers” on either side of the scientific debate.
It is no secret that climate science has been politicized. It is no secret that scientific societies, universities, and journals have been politicized. It is no secret that some scientists have taken the political position in climate science that pays them well. Such politics tends to lead to Lysenkoism, which we do not want to happen.
In conclusion, we are not here to promote our opinions based on other people’s opinions. We are here to argue the science of our personal opinions.
Therefore, I reject Stan’s argument as well as the journal’s argument for rejecting Harde’s reply to Kohler’s comment because the arguments are based on opinions rather than science.
Personally, I trust my own expertise in atmospheric physics and I will argue on that basis. I hope that everyone who comments on this website does the same. Argue the science as much as you wish but do not argue your position based on the opinions of “experts.”
Dr. Ed,
I do agree with you that the publisher should have published the response of Hermann Harde too, eventually together with a rebuttal.
Problem with Hermann Harde’s response is that he simply repeats the same (wrong) arguments while the other side in their first comment leading to the retraction was far too lengthy and not all that clear.
Hermann Harde bases its theory on the same residence time as you (and several others like Dr. Salby) do, thus the same reasoning as is discussed here. The temperature driven residence time only moves a lot of CO2 back and forth, but doesn’t change the amounts in the atmosphere. Only the difference between all inputs together and all outputs together changes the CO2 level of the atmosphere and that is pressure driven. An order of magnitude different…
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/Harde.pdf
the fact that Harde got to chose his own reviewers ought to give you pause before citing his paper, Ed. I know your familiar with that process. I guess you dont care about how real science works.
Dear Stan,
I gave you a warning. I said you are always welcome to present your views on science. But you are not welcome to make accusations that do not relate to science and about which you know nothing.
Here’s how the review process works. When you submit a paper, the journal requests or allows you to submit a certain number of reviewers. Journals differ in minor details but it is normal procedure to enter a list of reviewers.
This list submitted by the author had no bearing on who the editor selects for reviewers. So, you are wrong that Harde “selected” his own reviewers. Generally, so I am told by an insider, an editor will make sure the author’s selections do not get to be reviewers.
Now, what about Kohler? Did he select his own reviewers? No, but maybe the editor selected the so-called “expert reviewers” from the well-known list of people who can be guaranteed to side with the IPCC.
Stan, you just don’t get it. You could have simply asked me how the review process works. But, no. You had to make accusations that are unwarranted and incorrect and that have nothing to do with the science we discuss on this website.
You wrote, “the fact that Harde got to chose his own reviewers ought to give you pause before citing his paper, Ed. ” “I guess you dont care about how real science works.”
Well, I do care about how real science is supposed to work. You don’t. Therefore, I am terminating your access to comment further on this website.
I would like to come back to the discussion between (and with) Camille and Ferdinand :
I think that there is an agreement upon the following formula : d[CO2]/dt = 1,7 T + 2
(don’t focus on the numbers, but only on the basics)
where T is the ocean temperature anomaly compared to 1979
If we apply this formula based upon last year (instead of 1979) temperature (which is now stable), then T=0, and the equation becomes d[CO2]/dt = 2 (ppm/year), which roughly fits the reality (still increasing).
The questions are :
– What is the explanation for this 2 ppm/year increase while ocean temperature is constant (and probably DIC too ?) ?
– Will that stop ? Shall we reach an equilibrium ? When (It seems that we have not even reached an inflexion point) ?
A possible explanation is that this is a question of cinematics : the residence time increases because the sinking process is too slow for the speed of the anthropic supplementary input.
But I am not quite satisfactory with this explanation, because this sinking process shows to be very quick for seasonal variations.
Jacques-Marie,
In short: the residence time of about 5 years with its huge CO2 in and out fluxes (total about 150 GtC – 75 ppmv in ánd out) is temperature controlled.
The decay time of about 50 years for any extra CO2 residing in the atmosphere above the temperature controlled equilibrium (sink speed: 2% of the extra ppmv) is pressure controlled.
The bulk of the seasonal CO2 fluxes is temperature driven and as long as there is the same temperature harmonic over the seasons, the same amount of CO2 is released and absorbed by the oceans and to a certain extent by vegetation. The latter may have expanded with the extra CO2, that expands the seasonal cycle, but doesn’t not necessary influence the level in the atmosphere. The same for the equator – poles flux which is largely driven by the temperature difference between these two.
All together, that makes the residence time of around 5 years.
As long as there is no change in the temperature cycle, that doesn’t change the atmospheric CO2 content to a large extent, only some natural variability, which is currently +/- 1.5 ppmv and also temperature driven. The “set point” of the CO2 level in the past 800,000 years was also temperature driven by the ocean surface. A change of about 16 ppmv/K from the solubility of CO2 in seawater (with a natural “speed” of 0.02 ppmv/year!).
On the other side, the reduction of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere, whatever the source (volcano’s, humans), does only slightly influence the natural CO2 emissions from the oceans in (NH) spring/summer – a little less – and the absorption in fall/winter – a little more. No pressure induced change in the decay of vegetation, except for some increased mass, but a little more uptake in spring/summer. It is that difference that changes the amount of CO2 absorbed by oceans and vegetation, no matter the momentary release of human or other one-way CO2 in that year.
As human emissions over the past 60 years increased slightly quadratic, the increase in the atmosphere did the same and so did the net sink rate. As the sink rate increased at average half the speed of human emissions, the residual CO2 increase in the atmosphere also was half human emissions, so currently just over 2 ppmv/year.
If human emissions should halve, the CO2 level in the atmosphere wouldn’t increase anymore as emissions and sinks are equal.
In the past 60 years, the pressure related process showed to be very linear: at 2% of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above the temperature controlled equilibrium. Or an e-fold decay rate of about 50 years or a half life time of about 35 years for any extra CO2 above the equilibrium.
Thank you Ferdinand
But where do you get this 35 years half life from ?
On an other hand, the anthropic CO2 has not always been continuously increasing (it has now even been constant for last years), while the atmospheric CO2 slope has always been positive (for the last 60 years) (you even say “quadratic” if you ignore the temperature incidence) : compare both curves. Why ?
Lastly, would you say that : if the anthropic injection is 4 ppm/year, half is absorbed by oceans + vegetation, while half remains in the atmosphere (thus increases the mean residence time, e.g. from 5 to 6+ years) until the 35 years half life decay rate absorbs it ?
Jacques-Marie,
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
For any extra CO2 in the atmosphere, the ratio can be measured, at least over the past 60 years. As the figures show, the e-fold decay rate is quite stable over that time frame, so we may assume that the same decay rate will go on for a long period in the future (unlike the IPCC’s Bern model):
For 2012:
decay rate = 110 ppmv extra in the atmosphere / 2.15 ppmv/year net sink = 51.2 years
It takes thus 51.2 years to drop the 110 ppmv extra to 1/e of that extra level.
The half life time then is around 35 years (51.2 * 2 / e) to half the extra 110 ppmv to 55 extra ppmv or 345 ppmv in the atmosphere, if there were no further human emissions.
Human emissions didn’t increase, but still were larger than the net sink rate of around 2 ppmv/year, thus CO2 levels kept increasing in the atmosphere. With increasing extra CO2 in the atmosphere, the sinks increased somewhat, so the increase in the atmosphere with constant emissions did slightly decrease:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2B.jpg
The calculated increase in the atmosphere is based on the above 35 years half life time. The variability around the calculated value is the effect of short term temperature variability (Pinatubo, El Niño) on mainly tropical vegetation.
If human emissions remained the same at around 4.5 ppmv/year, one can calculate at what CO2 level human emissions and net sinks are equal: 4.5 / 0.02 = 225 ppmv above equilibrium or 515 ppm. If they increase, then there is – still – no limit in sight.
If we would half the emissions, then there wouldn’t be an increase anymore and if we would stop all emissions, the level in the atmosphere would drop with the decay rate down to equilibrium at about 290 ppmv.
Ferdinand,
Half life time is equal to 1/e folding time times ln(2).
Ferdinand,
I am not sure that you can reason this way :
Suppose that the current concentration is 800 ppm : there would not be any upwelling, but only sinking (PCO2air > PCO2water everywhere).
And the net sinking rate would then be (at least) in the order of 90 ppm/year (not your 2,15 ppm/year) : there is no reason why the sinking rate would decrease.
… thus, the decay rate would then very probably be much shorter.
Dirk Visser,
Bedankt!
Getting older and forgetting too much that I learned many, many years ago…
Jacques-Marie,
The 90 ppmv/year is the seasonal flux which is temperature driven, but is always two-way in and out. That is the point in debate: that makes the residence time, but doesn’t remove or add substantial amounts of CO2 over the years (except from longer time temperature changes).
The 2.15 ppmv/year is the sink speed, which is human emissions minus the residual increase in the atmosphere, which is the difference between all natural inputs together and all natural outputs together. That is what makes a change in the total volume CO2 in the atmosphere.
That difference between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere depends of the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. If that pressure halves, the sink rate will halve too and will get zero when the equilibrium is reached, while still 90 ppmv CO2 is going in and out over the seasons…
Camille Veyres’ slides for the Porto Conference are now in a new post:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/porto-conference/eleven-facts-you-must-know-to-avoid-being-deceived-by-the-agw-science/
You may now move your comments on Camille Veyres’ slides to this new post.
Just to clarify, the outflow of a coffeefilter is only proportional to the coffeelevel in the filter and only indirectly related to the amount of water you are pouring.
Back to atmospheric CO2: at 290 ppm there is no net outflow into the ocean (per Henry’s Law), but still a CO2 exchange with the ocean caused by biological activity.
Do not confuse this large exchange with net CO2 outflow from the atmosphere.
Dear Dr. Ed and Camille,
In summary:
Using the reverse formula for the residence time for estimating the resulting volume from an inflow is only appropriate if all in/out flows are unidirectional, not if several of the main fluxes are counter-current.
Most natural CO2 cycles are temperature dependent: seasonal, year by year and decadal to multi-millennial. There was a long time dynamic equilibrium of about 16 ppmv/K over the past 800,000 years. The removal of any extra CO2 in the atmosphere above that dynamic equilibrium is a pressure dependent process, which is of a different order than the temperature dependent processes.