by Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics – also published in NewsWithViews
The genius of Al Gore
Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:
- Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
- Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.
What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.
Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of “science deniers,” some with misinformed PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.
The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.
Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.
Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.
Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong. Nature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the changes in Atmosphere CO2.
The Logical Fallacy of Climate Change
Climate alarmists tell us climate change causes bad stuff to happen, and if bad stuff happens, they claim it is our fault. The alarmist logic goes like this:
If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.
This alarmist claim is the well-known logical fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent.” Here is an example that illustrates this logical fallacy:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
The logical error is to assume that every result has only one possible cause. Shrinking glaciers do not prove we caused them to shrink.
The relevant climate change questions are about cause and effect.
The relevant climate change questions are not whether the climate has changed. Climate always changes. The only relevant climate change questions concern cause and effect:
- Do Human CO2 emissions significantly increase Atmosphere CO2?
- Does Atmosphere CO2 significantly increase climate change?
Climate alarmists must prove BOTH answers are YES. Otherwise, they lose their case.
This article shows why the answer to the first question is NO. A future article will show why the answer to the second question is also NO.
Why Human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change.
Fig. 1 shows why nature’s CO2 emissions, not Human CO2, are the major cause of the observed change in Atmosphere CO2.
All numbers in this article represent amounts of CO2. CO2 units are in parts per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2. Gigatons of Carbon (GtC) convert to ppmv using: 1 ppmv of CO2 = 2.13 GtC.
In the middle of Fig. 1 is a box that represents the CO2 in our atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere in 2015 was 400.
Land and Ocean CO2 emissions into the Atmosphere total about 100 each year (plus or minus ten percent). An almost equal amount flows from Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2 each year (References:Â CDIAC, 2016; IPPC, 2007a; IPPC, 2007b).
Let’s use an analogy to help understand Fig. 1. Let water in a lake represent Atmosphere CO2.
Two large rivers flow into the lake. One river represents Land CO2. The other river represents Ocean CO2. Together, they supply about 100 units per year to the lake.
Lake water spills over a dam. The inflow of 100 raises the lake level until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow.
Similarly, the flow of Land and Ocean CO2 into our Atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere. Increased Atmosphere CO2 increases CO2 outflow to Land and Ocean. Like the lake, Atmosphere CO2 is at equilibrium when outflow equals inflow.
If inflow exceeds outflow, the lake level (Atmosphere CO2) will rise until outflow equals inflow. If outflow exceeds inflow, the lake level will fall until outflow equals inflow.
The dam separates the CO2 spill into two parts. One part goes back to Land. The other part goes back to the Ocean.
Fig. 1 includes the much longer CO2 cycle where Land CO2 becomes Fossil Fuels. Human CO2 emissions complete this CO2 cycle by returning Fossil Fuel CO2 to the Atmosphere.
A small river, with a flow of 4, also flows into the lake. This small river represents the Human CO2 flow into our Atmosphere. This small river adds only 4 percent to the Land and Ocean flow of 100 into the lake. This small river raises the total flow into the lake to 104. This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104.
The contribution of Human CO2 to the new lake level (Atmosphere CO2) is only 4 percent of the lake level above the dam, or only 4 percent of the total flow into and out of the lake. Ninety-six percent of the CO2 flow into and out of our Atmosphere is due to nature.
Fig. 1 shows a scenario where the total inflow into the Atmosphere equals the total outflow, and where the Human CO2 contribution goes to Land to support vegetation growth. Because inflow equals outflow, Atmosphere CO2 will remain constant, whether Atmosphere CO2 is 400 or 300 or any other value.
Salby (2016) comes to the same conclusion. Salby (2012) authored the comprehensive textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.”
Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.
Temperature controls Atmosphere CO2.
Salby (2015) shows, directly from data and with no hypotheses, that Temperature sets the rate at which Atmosphere CO2 increases or decreases. This means temperature sets the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Fig. 1 indicates the Temperature effect by the symbol for the Sun.
If the Sun, cloud cover, or ocean currents change to increase temperature, the increased temperature will cause more Land and Ocean CO2 to flow into Atmosphere CO2. This will increase Atmosphere CO2 until outflow balances inflow.
Temperature is like the accelerator in your car. Atmosphere CO2 is like the speed of your car. Atmosphere CO2 follows Temperature – like the speed of your car follows your accelerator. Press down, your car speeds up. Let up, your car slows down.
Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2.
Climate alarmists present their case.
Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.
Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:
- From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
- Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
- Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
- Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.
Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:
During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.
Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.
The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.
During the 260-year period (during which we have reasonable measurements), Human CO2 caused “at most” 1/152 or 0.7 percent of the 113 ppmv rise in Atmosphere CO2.
“At most” is because Salby (2015) “Atmospheric Carbon: Why its not pollution and Why humans cannot regulate it,” shows that Temperature controls the rate of change of Atmosphere CO2, and the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Under that scenario, Land and Ocean emissions and absorptions will adjust to neutralize the effect of Human CO2 emissions, and the effect of Human CO2 on Atmosphere CO2 will be ZERO!
The Atmosphere does not know whether its CO2 came from Land, Ocean, or Human CO2 emissions. No matter what the source, the greater the total Atmosphere CO2, the greater the flow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2. Therefore, Atmosphere CO2 will seek the same balance level with or without Human CO2 emissions.
Global Warming alarmists claim Land and Oceans will continue to absorb the same amounts of atmospheric CO2 with our without human emissions. They reject physics 101 which tells us the rate of absorption by Land and Oceans will increase as atmospheric CO2 increases. If that were not true, there could be no “balance of nature” that the alarmists admit exists. Balance only occurs when flow rates are proportional to concentrations.
Land can absorb CO2 from the Atmosphere while Ocean provides CO2 to the Atmosphere. Fig. 1 shows this scenario where Land absorbs ALL Human CO2 emissions while Atmosphere CO2 remains constant.
In 2015, Human CO2 emissions were 4 percent of Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Therefore, Human CO2 emissions caused “at most” only 4 percent of the rise in Atmosphere CO2.
A small river with an inflow of 4 cannot cause an outflow of 104. Yet this is what climate alarmists claim happens. The following tale illustrates the absurdity of the alarmist case:
An elephant crosses a bridge. A mouse, riding on the elephant’s back, says to the elephant, “We sure made that bridge shake, didn’t we?”
The alarmists’ case is a shell game. They would flunk physics.
Earlier publications that argue the same position I have argued, include Rorsch, Courtney, & Thomas (2005), Siddons & D’Aleo (2007), Courtney (2008), Spencer (2009), Wilde (2012), Cox &Â Cormack (2013), Caryl (2013), Rust (2013), and Evans (2017).
Three more reasons Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.
Fig. 3 shows Atmosphere CO2 scaled to fit Human CO2 emissions and the annual change in Atmosphere CO2 (References:Â NOAA, 2016; CDIAC, 2016; IPCC, 2007b).
Salby (2016) makes the following three arguments using Fig. 3.
- Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002 due to China’s contribution (Oliver, 2015). Yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
- Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 (jagged line) do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions. (Also, Courtney, 2008.)
- In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Munshi (2015) and Munshi (2016) compared the annual change in atmospheric CO2 with annual human CO2 emissions. His detrended statistical analysis shows their correlation is zero.
Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.
Conclusions
Climate alarmists claim Human CO2 causes ALL the increase in Atmosphere CO2. Their argument fails because they omit Land and Ocean CO2 emissions that are many times greater than Human CO2 emissions.
Climate alarmists also omit how Land and Ocean CO2 emissions and absorptions balance Atmosphere CO2 with or without the presence of Human CO2. Temperature sets the equilibrium Atmosphere CO2 independent of Human CO2 emissions.
Here are three more reasons Human CO2 does not cause ALL the rise in Atmosphere CO2:
- Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002, yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
- Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions.
- In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.
Most public climate alarmist arguments use this invalid logic:
If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.
Such arguments are invalid because they do not prove Human CO2 caused the change.
If we stopped all Human CO2 emissions today, it would not change future Atmosphere CO2.
References
Caryl, E. 2013: The Carbon Cycle – Nature or Nurture? No Tricks Zone. http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/#sthash.vvkCqrPI.dpbs
CDIAC, 2016: Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2013.html
Courtney, Richard S, 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York.
Cox, Anthony, & Cormack, Bob, 2013: AGW and CO2: If Humans are not responsible for the CO2 increase then there can be no AGW. The Australian Climate Sceptics. http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/defective-agw-science.html
Evans, Richard, 2017: Why the CO2 increase could be natural. Â https://chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/an-argument-why-co2-increase-could-be.html
Harde, Hermann (2017): Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. Global and Planetary Change 152 (2017) 19-26. http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/HardeHermann17-March6-CarbonCycle-ResidenceTime.pdf
IPCC, 2007a: Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=95
IPCC, 2007b: Report 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf – Oceans Land Emissions = 100
Munshi, Jamal, 2015: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Anthropogenic Emissions: A Note. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
Munshi, Jamal, 2016: Responsiveness of Atmospheric CO2 to Fossil Fuel Emissions: Part 2. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438
NOAA, 2016: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Olivier, Jos et. al., 2015: Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2015-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2015-report-98184.pdf
Rorsch, A; Courtney, RS; Thoenes, D; 2005: The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle. E&E, V16, No2.
Rust, J H; 2013: Phase Changes For Global Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Heartland Institute. http://blog.heartland.org/2013/03/phase-changes-for-global-temperatures-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Salby, Murry, 2015: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-co2-follows-integral-of-temperature/
Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide, video. http://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-Atmosphere-carbon-18-july-2016/
Siddons, A; D’Aleo, J; 2007: Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases. http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Carbon_Dioxide_The_Houdini_of_Gases.pdf
Spencer, R; 2009: Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
Wilde, S; 2012: Evidence that Oceans not Man control CO2 emissions. Climate Realists. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9508
Dr. Ed,
Only a short reaction on what Bart said:
Bart's whole theory is based on one graph: the nice fit between temperature changes and CO2 rate of change changes, using an arbitrary factor and offset. One can fit exactly the same graph by attributing all variability to temperature variability and (near) all slope to human emissions.
The main difference is in the decay rate for any excess CO2 above equilibrium (whatever that equilibrium is): Bart's theory needs a very fast decay rate for any disturbance and the equilibrium is fully determined by temperature. My "theory" needs a moderate decay rate (~50 years e-fold rate) where there is a small influence of temperature on the setpoint and the variability (at 16 ppmv/K), not fast enough to remove all human emissions the same year as emitted, but fast enough to follow temperature over centuries to milennia…
How to decide? Have a look at the observations: human emissions fit all known observations, Bart's theory none…
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_ori…
On a very short note:
Bart's theory is:
dCO2/dt = T – To
That implies that whatever the amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere, the additional amount added over time to the atmosphere for a one-time temperature offset remains the same until eternity.
In reality, dCO2/dt is not only temperature dependent, but also pressure dependent. Bart's formula only is right for To, the start of the release at a temperature jump (or slope, or…). Once CO2 is released, the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere increases and as for any (dynamic) equilibrium between any gas above and in a liquid, a higher pressure in the atmosphere gives either more flux into the liquid or less release from the liquid until equilibrium is reached again for the new temperature. According to Henry's law, a new (dynamic) equilibrium is reached at ~16 ppmv/K.
The huge influence of pressure on CO2 fluxes totally lacks in Bart's theory…
Forgot to add the graph of my "theory"
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
The 40 GtC/year is the permanent CO2 flux between deep ocean upwelling near the equator and the sink places near the poles. That quantity is based on both the 14CO2 decay rate after the peak caused by the atomic bomb tests in the 1950's and the "thinning" of the human 13C/12C "fingerprint" by the deep ocean – atmosphere CO2 exchanges.
Any temperature change of the ocean surface waters has a temporarely effect on the momentary CO2 in/out fluxes, which level off by an appropriate response to the changes in the atmosphere caused by these fluxes.
Bart:
"Emissions also have a long term trend, but as it is already accounted for by the temperature relationship, it is not needed."
That is wishfull thinking: "my theory is good, so you don't need another explanation", while another theory (backed by all observations) shows the opposite view: human emissions explain almost the whole increase and temperature explains all the variability, but has little effect on the increase…
Bart, I have followed your posts here on Dr. Berry's site and can see that you are a very bright fellow. I appreciate your contribution and thank you for it. People like David Appell are amazing in their shallowness and yet the man holds a PHD in Chemistry. WOW! You wonder how rigorous the process is or isn't to obtain a degree of that magnitude. In his case it wasn't very strenuous. It couldn't be. Thanks again, Bart!
PS I would be remiss to not thank Dr. Berry on his very thoughtful article on CO2. The logic does appear to be irrefutable. Thank you, Dr. Berry for your contributions on the topic!
Occam's Razor, Ferdinand. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Your hypothesis requires tortured, multi-leveled, decoupled interactions, and casual dismissal of what would have to be a colossal improbability in the remarkable match of the trend in temperature to the trend in the CO2 rate of change.
"That implies that whatever the amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere, the additional amount added over time to the atmosphere for a one-time temperature offset remains the same until eternity."
No. It is a local (in time) equation. Over the time required for THC overturning, it would be modified, but it is sufficient for use over relatively short timescales.
Henry's law only applies to the short term dynamics equilibrating the atmosphere with the ocean's surface. There is a much longer term dynamic involving equilibration of the surface oceans with the ocean depths.
"The huge influence of pressure on CO2 fluxes totally lacks in Bart’s theory…"
No, it is all there in the toy model above.
Occam’s Razor? What is the simplest – but still correct – answer to what happens in the atmosphere: human emissions which are average double the observed increase in the atmosphere and fits all known observations or assuming that temperature is the main driver in one process that "fits" all, but violates every single observation?
With only two "assumptions" I can fit the same graph: that the setpoint for the ocean – atmosphere CO2 "steady state" obeys Henry's law for the solubility of CO2 in seawater at 16 ppmv/K and that any CO2 pressure above the steady state has an e-fold decay rate of ~51 year, as observed over the past 57 years of accurate measurements. Further an arbitrary factor for the short term CO2-T relationship (4-5 ppmv/K) in (tropical) vegetation that fits the observations.
That shows exactly the same varibiality and slope as your arbitrary factor and offset, be it with a better fit in amplitude…
The graph is enlarged over a shorter period to enhance the view on the synchronisation around the 1991 Pinatubo and 1998 El Niño:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
Where RSS-CO2 is the CO2 rate of change variability/slope according to Bart's theory, based on the RSS satellite record.
dCO2/dt(obs) the observed CO2 rate of change.
emiss-deriv the rate of change of the emissions.
emiss-CO2-deriv the rate of change as calculated from the extra pressure in the atmosphere above the momentary steady state equilibrium, that is the human influence.
and last but not least the combination of the human influence + the natural, temperature caused variability…
Bart, there is nowhere any mention of the influence of an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere in anyone of your formula's and what you wrote is contradicted by real life measurements:
"Suppose, e.g., that r = 0.01. Then, 1% of the integrated H goes into that atmosphere, not 50%, and the great majority of the anthropogenic input goes into the oceans."
This is completely unphysical. Human emissions are mixed into the bulk of the atmosphere and what is going into the deep oceans is not 99% of human emissions, but a total quantity (as mass) of about 50% of human emissions (it may be -50% to +150% in any year) composed of what is in the atmosphere in that year as human/natural mix.
If at some early year, humans were 1% of the atmosphere and humans add 10 GtC into the 600 GtC of the atmosphere of that year, the mix gets 16 GtC from humans and the atmosphere increases to 610 GtC, of which is 2.6% human.
Some 5 GtC is removed at a lot of places (mainly the deep oceans), wich then is composed of 0.13 GtC from human origin, 4.87 GtC from natural origin, leaving 15.87 GtC human in an atmosphere of 605 GtC, still with 2.6% human.
97.4% of human emissions thus remains in the atmosphere (and are largely responsible for the increase), but as every year about 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is replaced by CO2 from other reservoirs, human CO2 is redistributed over all reservoirs over time.
Based on the 13C/12C ratio drop, human emissions currently represent 9% of the atmospheric CO2…
The simplest answer is clearly that the temperature anomaly record is an affine match to the CO2 rate of change, and all you have to do is integrate that relationship to reproduce the CO2 record. Human inputs are not needed, and would skew the result if included.
You take that relationship, and arbitrarily remove the perfectly matching trend in temperature, and replace it with human inputs. That is the lowest information portion of the signal, and so it is not difficult to find a match. But, you have removed something that is clearly there, and already fits. It is tortuous logic.
"Bart, there is nowhere any mention of the influence of an increased CO2 pressure in the atmosphere in anyone of your formula’s…"
Yes, there is. That is the point of the (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) terms. They equalize the partial pressures of the oceans and atmosphere.
"This is completely unphysical.
No, it isn't. The oceans hold many times more CO2 than the atmosphere. The rest is just how the math works out.
The rest of your post is just assertion.
Bart,
I didn't remove the temperature – CO2 relationship, I only used the established relationship, which is 16 ppmv/K, not k(T-To). That is Henry's law, backed by over three million seawater samples. That works for a single sample in static equilibrium as good as for the worldwide oceans in steady state.
The perfect match with temperature is only in the variability, not in the trend and both are from different processes: near all variability is the response of (tropical) vegetation to temperature (and drought), while vegetation is a net sink for CO2 over periods of 1-3 years. That is shown by the opposite CO2 and δ13C rate of change variability with a lag after the temperature rate of change:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_im…
There is no trend in the temperature derivative, only a small offset and thus dT/dt doesn't cause the slope in dCO2/dt.
There is zero evidence that temperature drives CO2 beyond the above 16 ppmv/K over the past 800,000 years.
Using temperature, not the derivative, gives you a false comparison as the correlation is between T and CO2 or dT/dt and dCO2/dt, both with a lag, not between T and dCO2/dt.
The integral of T is a non-physical entity.
Again, in your formula, there is zero room for the effect of an increase of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That violates one of the fundamental laws of physics. The moment that there is an extra input of CO2 into the atmosphere, whatever the source, the pCO2 in the atmosphere increases and both less CO2 is emitted at the deep ocean upwelling places and more is pushed into the deep ocean sink places (and in plants). That is a negative feedback, which equalises any temperature increase of the ocean surface at 16 ppmv/K.
Your formula should be:
dCO2/dt = k(T-To) – k2(pCO2(t) – pCO2(to))
Where dCO2/dt gets zero when
k(T-T0) = k2(pCO2(t) – pCO2(to))
or ΔpCO2/ΔT = k2/k = 16 ppmv/K
That is for any change in ocean surface temperature, no matter if that is static or dynamic…
Bart:
That is the point of the (r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1) terms
According to your theory, tau1 is very short and only temperature related, not pressure related.
If tau1 is pressure related, it can be easily calculated:
Currently that is a net sink rate of ~2.15 ppmv/year for a pressure difference of 110 ppmv above steady state. Or:
110 ppmv / 2.15 ppmv/year = ~51 years for a linear process, which the sink rate shows over the past 57 years.
Too slow to remove all human emissions (as mass) out of the atmosphere, the same year as emitted…
As your theory is that temperature is the only influence, there is no influence of pressure and thus no pressure related sink rate.
In that case the natural CO2 fluxes must have increased a fourfold over the past 57 years in lockstep with human emissions, observed increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate (or you violate the equality of CO2 for the sinks, whatever the origin). Theoretically possible, in real life not supported by any observation…
Dear Ferdinand, Bart, Richard, Rajivgandhi, and others,
Thank you for your recent and excellent comments. I will return to the discussions shortly. Meanwhile, I would like to bring to your attention the recent published paper by Hermann Harde.
Harde’s paper shows in excruciating scientific detail why Murry Salby is correct and it supports my position in this post, where I have used a much simpler explanation.
The above comment was a new reply, as the original reply was lost, due to moving the blog to a new server… Dr. Ed retrieved the original, thus here it is again:
Bart,
The formula's [note: r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)] are about quantities, not pressure, which finally after full equilibrium indeed will get to some 1:50 ratio between the atmosphere and the deep oceans. The cause of the partitioning is an equilibrium in pressures, not quantities, quantities is the result. If the oceans were half the current volume, the partitioning would be 1:25 at the same equilibrium pressure…
Then the following part:
A+O = A(0)+O(0) + integral(H)
and A := r*O
where r ~ 1/50
Next step:
A := A(0) + integral(H)/(1+1/r)
That is only true for the endpoint, not for the first year or any year before equlibrium between the atmosphere and the deep oceans is reached.
Then you use the endpoint to "prove" that the change after 1 year can't be right:
"So, if r is approximately 1:1, we get about half the integrated anthropogenic inputs going into the atmosphere."
and
"r is not even close to 1. The oceans ultimately hold vastly most CO2 than the atmosphere, and r is therefore a very small number."
That is just a matter of time and pressure buildup. There is no reason at all that an extra shot of CO2 in the atmosphere is removed at a 1:1 ratio from year one on. If we may assume a constant human emission of 6 GtC/year into the atmosphere starting in year one:
In year one, extra CO2 in the atmosphere: 6 GtC, that is ~3 ppmv or ~3 μatm above steady state. According to the remarkable linear net sink vs. extra pressure ratio in the past 57 years (0.02) , that gives an atmosphere/ocean increase ratio of 98:2, far from the current 1:1 and very far from the ultimate 1:50…
In year 2, we get 3 + 2.94 = 5.94 ppmv [or] μatm extra pressure in the atmosphere. That gives a new partitioning of the extra input of that year to ~96:4.
After many years, the partioning gets 0:1, when the extra pressure in the atmosphere is sufficient to push 3 ppmv/year (6 GtC/year) extra in the sinks. That is at 150 ppmv (3 / 0.02) above steady state…
Of course, human emissions started quite small, but over the past 57 years, the ratio was – just by coincidence – about 1:1 as human emissions increased slightly quadratic over time (a fourfold since 1959) and so did the extra pressure in the atmosphere and thus the net sink rate with as result an about 1:1 ratio between atmospheric increase and sink rate in the oceans (and partly vegetation).
If human emissions ceased today, the 1:50 partitioning may be approximately reached after 5 half lifes (for an observed ~35 years half life that is 175 years). Far faster than the IPCC expects, but a little longer than in a few years…
Of course, temperature also plays a role by changing the level at which the steady state is reached, but that shifts not more than with 16 ppmv/K, or 10-16 ppmv since the depth of the LIA, not 110 ppmv as observed…
"That works for a single sample in static equilibrium as good as for the worldwide oceans in steady state."
The worldwide oceans are not in steady state. The boundary conditions are continually changing, with surface temperature being one of them.
"Again, in your formula, there is zero room for the effect of an increase of the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere."
Again, completely, totally, and utterly wrong. The terms in A-r*O are explicit invocations of Henry's law, and quickly equalize the partition between oceans and atmosphere. That is not where the long term build-up comes from. It comes from time of equlibration with the deep oceans.
"The formula’s [note: r*O-A)/((1+r)*tau1) and (A-r*O)/((1+r)*tau1)] are about quantities, not pressure…"
It is the pressure induced equilibration from Henry's law. Your outlook is shaped by assuming that the only temperature dependent variable is r. And, if that were approximately 1:1, and the only variable that changed with temperature, you would be correct in your assessment. But, it is not even close to 1:1, and you are ignoring other temperature dependencies.
The characteristic time of exchange with the deep oceans is also temperature dependent, as expressed in this model as the temperature dependence of tau2. When you consider that, an imbalance in inflow and outflow results, leading to a persistent build-up in concentration of the surface waters, which ineluctably produces a persistent build-up in atmospheric concentration.
"The alarmist case predicts that Human CO2 emissions cause ALL of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. I have proven that is impossible. Therefore, the alarmist case is wrong. Period."
With respect, thats a sort of obtuse type of logic that dosnt
have strength. Theres possibly some latin term for it.
What i would like to ask is this.
Would you feel your idea would be buttressed by evidence that
showed a similar large rapid rise in
CO2 concentration, in say, the last eight out of ten occasions biosphere temps were this high?
In other words, a bit of a clear record that most times, as best
as science can work out, when
the biosphere temp gets to what it was in say 1900, , that threshold unleashes an extraordinarily fast rise in CO2.
Would such buttressing be comforting to you?
Or irrelevant?
And briefly,
If, concurrently, land sinks are
increasing , and ocean sinks are increasing , and atmospheric sinks are increasing, where is the input for this increase in all three?
Dear Li,
Regarding your first question, my argument does prove that human emissions cannot be responsible for all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. The proof is in the fact that natural emissions of CO2 are almost 20 times human emissions. There is no "obtuse" logic involved. It is simple physics.
Regarding your second question, I do not need past similarities to help my argument because I am using known and recognized laws of physics. However, your suggestion that the present rate of CO2 increase has been faster than previous rates of CO2 increase is not based on data because you are using two different kinds of data. It is well known that CO2 diffused through ice cores. This will make any fact increase of CO2 look much slower.
More to the point, Ice-core data show CO2 was about 180 ppmv about 18,000 years ago. When our earth warmed out of the last great ice age, CO2 concentration rose to 280 ppmv according to ice cores. Did the warming stop the natural increase of CO2 at 280 ppmv?
Climate alarmists assume it did, and further assume that the increase above 280 ppmv was caused by human emissions. These are two giant assumptions that have no proof. On the other hand, my simple model, that uses simple known physics, shows that the human contribution to the increase above 280 is only about 4 percent of nature's contribution.
My argument is all in the physics. If you understand the physics, you will understand that my conclusions are correct.
Dear Li,
What evidence shows ocean sinks are increasing? Ocean temperature sets the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2. If ocean temperatures were decreasing, the oceans would absorb more CO2 and atmospheric CO2 would decrease. The only way atmospheric CO2 rose to 400 ppmv was for the equilibrium level to be 400 or above.
The fact still remains that human input is only about 4 percent of natural input of CO2 into the atmosphere. The alarmists have not proven that the human 4 percent can dominate nature's 96 percent.
For all we know, the temperature increase that warmed the earth out of the last major ice age, may have set the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 at 1600 ppmv, and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is still seeking its equilibrium level.
One of your lines of argument is:
Here are three more reasons Human CO2 does not cause ALL the rise in Atmosphere CO2:
Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002, yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions.
In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, the rate of increase of Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.
Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.
The last sentence is wrong. The points you have made only show there is annual variability in the amount of CO2 absorbed and emitted by the natural sinks and sources. It doesn't show that over time the land and oceans have not been net absorbers of CO2. Your argument is a non sequitur.
Even correlation is not enough proof.
“Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global
warming” by M Beenstock, Y Reingewertz and N. Paldor
The spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values
Authors
Jamal Munshi
VPSRight
https://niflheimmedia.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/cl…
When I first read this theory I thought that it was rubbish, I'm now coming round to it. What Ed is saying essentialy is that the atmosphere has an equilibrium CO2 determined by temperature. This kind of makes sense. Consider a sealed bottle half filled with coke. Raise the temp, solubility goes down CO2 diffuses into the gas from the liquid. If we inject more CO2 into the bottle (top) increasing the gaseous part diffusion will restore the balance. If we have an infinite liquid reservoir (ocean) it will return to its previous (non human intervention) state. The only problem with this scenario is if CO2 effects raises the temp of the bottle. If it does then this will release further CO2, increasing the temp etc until the bottle explodes. The fact the Earth doesnt explode would suggest either CO2 doesnt raise temp or that other negative feedbacks come into play ie land vegetation sinks etc come into play.
Ed how do you explain that the NASA chart for historical CO2 shows CO2 at about 380 higher that it has been for say 400,000 years. Previous highs being 300ppm?
Incredible that someone with a PhD would start by discussing AlGore and then ignore al science including Quere Et al 2016
Dear Alan, Basically, you are correct. The difference is I leave the temperature effect out of my model and only consider the carbon dioxide flow into the atmosphere that results from a change in temperature. I do this to focus on how carbon dioxide behaves after it enters the atmosphere.
As always, I improve my explanation as I learn from my readers. Please see my latest post "A Model for Atmospheric Carbon Dixiode: Abstract" for my improved explanation. My full article will be ready soon.
Hi do you have an oppinion on whether the oceans are presently a sink or source of CO2. If a source how do you counter claims of decreasing pH of the oceans?
During 1989, the Mount Pinatubo eruption caused a decline in decline in ocean temperatures and an increase in CO2 going into the oceans, hence less going into the atmosphere. Well understood ocean dynamics are the reason when the human emissions are steadily increasing while the increase of CO2 is more variable. The biggest increases in CO2 in the air come during El Nino years, while lesser increases occur during La Nino years or a year with a volcanic eruption.
Take a look at the NASA graphs on ppm of CO2 added per year. The increase was about 1 ppm per year in the early 60s but has increased to an average of about 2.5 ppm per year as human fossil fuel emissions have increased. During the 2015/16 El Nino, the increase is about 3 ppm/year. Take a look at recent studies of the earth's carbon budget. These detailed budgets are published annually. They are open access and can easily be found on Google Scholar. Search Quere et al. 2016 and carbon budget.
Can you explain how zeroing out the massive human input of CO2 could lead to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, while adding more CO2 from fossil sources could cause a decline? Seems to go against even the most basic ideas of a budget. CO2 was fairly stable between 200-300 ppm in the 10,000 years before humans started burning fossil fuels. That suggests a quasi equilibrium.
Greetings etc.
Bill
The reasoning of Drs. Salby and Berry does not conclude that the end of human emissions would cause an increase or vice versa as you have questioned. Their point is that CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by nature and the uncertainty in our estimates of natural emissions and sinks (about 50 times human emissions each year) has plenty of room to put the puny human emissions in the noise of the estimates. A simple check of this is that the growth of atmospheric CO2 is not correlated to the rate of human emissions. There are three months each year when global sinks outpace all emissions both natural and from fossil fuel. If the sinks were saturated as is assumed by the warmists this would be impossible. Check out Ole Humlum's site Climate 4 you to see his analysis of the rates of emissions and atmospheric content.
Randers Kommune
Lord Corporation
Hello Ed,
You are wrong because you count all the CO2 emissions from the ocean as natural.
In reality, human emitted CO2 molecules are absorbed in the oceans where they remain near the surface where they are exchanged with the atmosphere in the normal carbon cycle until they are sequestered in the deep ocean, a process that takes more than a hundred years.
You are not accounting for the increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans from human emissions being a driver of increased transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere, you call all ocean to atmospheric transfers natural.
Your paper completely fudges the rate at which long term co2 sequestration occurs.
Dear Arkasia,
I will answer your comment from the perspective of my later post:
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/human-co2-not-ch…
You are making a few errors in your argument. First, you are treating human CO2 differently than natural CO2. And by "natural" I mean all CO2 that did not come from humans.
Second, you are neglecting the effect of vapor pressure on the exchange rate. The higher the vapor pressure, which I call the level, the faster the exchange rate.
Third, your claim that human CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of hundreds of years has no physical foundation, as I prove in my later post.
If you wish to continue this discussion, please reply in my later post where we can discuss this in more detail after you have read my later post.
Thanks, Ed
Pingback: Publications - edberry.com
Pingback: apophatic / cataphatic - the crux of mystery