by Judith Curry
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
The abstract for his talk is here:
PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts
Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.
The podcast for his talk is here. Unfortunately there is no video so you can’t see his graphs. But the talk is very lucid, you can certainly get the point. The entire podcast is an hour, with his formal presentation about a half hour, and questions for the remaining half hour.
This talk was given in June at the IUGG meeting in Melbourne Australia, and apparently created quite a stir. A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months. Some of the results will be in his forthcoming book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate that will be available Sept 30.
Andrew Bolt has some reactions in the Herald Sun:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.
But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise. A good overview article is provided by NASA’s earthobservatory.
Climate models have begun to include an interactive carbon cycle in the CMIP5 simulations. NASA has been trying to launch a satellite to measure global carbon, an effort which remains troubled and plagued by continuing delays.
JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990’s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
Moderation note: this is a technical thread, comments will be moderated for relevance.
Thank you, thank you, Professor Curry, for another moment of truth.
Propaganda artists have manipulated and used good citizens of the once “Free West” by the same bag of “political correct” consensus opinions that once openly controlled the other half of the globe.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
“another moment of truth.”
Thank you, Oliver, for illustrating the mis-named “skeptics” blind, unquestioning faith in the truth of whatever they want to believe.
No paper, no slides, no evidence . . . but that’s not a problem for a true believer.
Only a prejudiced man would color an entire heterogeneous group by the writings of just one data point. Perhaps you are the one trying to see what you just want to see.
Robert, have you actually listened to the podcast?
It’s frustrating that the slides Salby uses can’t be seen, but there is no lack of science in the presentation. I’m at ~18:40 and counting.
I’d suggest you listen before commenting.
Until we can see Selby’s slides, Tom V. Segalstad presented similar material from earlier sources:
Carbon isotope mass balance modelling of atmospheric vs. oceanic CO2
Tom V. Segalstad, Heartland Institute ICCC 2009
Note: Proof from isotopic mass balance slide 12/30
Note Slide 15/30
CO2 & Volcanism (slide 17/30
Under equilibrium Slide 24/30:
<blockquote This means that there will be about 50 times more CO2 dissolved in water than contained in the free air above.
Ocean buffers Slide 28/30
Presentation also at http://www.slideshare.net/stevenfoley/gw-tom-segalstad
Interview Segalstad on CO2 lifetime
Thanks, just spotted your response – should keep me busy.
Selby details the cause/consequence issue raised by Spencer. See links below to similar posts by Roy Spencer on Ocean driving CO2; and The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio
Correction: Murry Salby.
The Syndey Institute has posted the video of Salby’s presentation on YouTube
I do not think this study is really anything new. A study from early 2010 reported very similar information.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide
In truth we do not really know what percentage of total atmospheric CO2 is due to humans because we have no reliable, accurate way to determine this information. The best we can do is to estimate how much CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere and then see if there is a good correlation to the rate that overall CO2 levels are changing. It appears that there is not a great relationship as far as I can tell, but if we use common sense we can tell that people are putting a considerable amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and total CO2 is rising, so it would seem logical that humans are greatly contributing to the overall rise.
er then you havent listened to the podcast. Its worth the time. Educate yourself. then step to the keyboard.
I have listened to the podcast. Have you reviewed the math and the margins of error in the calculations?
think about this sentence:
“so it would seem logical that humans are greatly contributing to the overall rise.”
Think about the word greatly.
Doubtless the amount is higher than it would be without our contribution.
But that’s not the question and not your statement.
Think about this:
“But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions.”
So what may seem “logical” to you, that we are contributing “greatly” depends upon a uncertain assumption “only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused”
So, it would seem there are questions about the assumption that drive your “logical” conclusion. The one who needs to produce error bars is the person making the logical leap. Not the person questioning the logical leap.
we’ll see if his work holds up. But i’d pause before making any “logical” leaps.
I notice that as well. It seems to those who “want” to believe the increase in CO2 is due to man they must assume there are no natural increases that could cause it.
Man contributes 4% of the carbon. That means 96% comes from natural sources. It is easy to see that you don’t need a great increase from natural sources to totally overwhelm any contribution man may be making (a 4.2% natural increase equals the total contribution of man while a 4.2% increase in mankind’s contribution would increase the total by less than 2 tenths of a percent) .
Steve
In this case I believe I chose my wording appropriately and that your comment was “misguided”.
I wrote that human CO2 emissions “greatly” impacted total atmospheric CO2 levels. The term does not denote a specific percentage. It would seem inappropriate to claim that the human contribution is “insignificant”. The conclusion is not dependent to their being no other sources for C12 in the atmosphere as you wrote. If you think about that it is a bit silly. What you refer to matters about measuring the source of the CO2 and not its impact on the climate.
Surely the most salient point is that annual CO2 increases varied from nearly zero to twice the average rate (the slides would be really useful – I wonder if Judith could obtain them!) depending on external factors such as El Niño events. Since industrial CO2 is obviously produced steadily, it doesn’t seem to be a big contributor.
Fail to see how “greatly” is obvious but not “insignificantly” other than a IMO
An atmospheric light C signal can be caused in two ways: an increased input of 12C or a reduced pulldown of 13C. The latter can be easily caused by ecosystem alterations, tipping them from C3 to C4/CAM metabolism. An example would be an increase of dissolved silica in the oceans, giving C4 diatoms the advantage over C3 calcareous phytoplankton. The difficulty here is that diatoms do not export as much carbon to the deep ocean and they would leave an increasing proportion of light C and more C in total… hang on, are we onto something here?
JF
There are two main sources of the 13C/12C decrease: fossil fuel burning and decay in the biosphere. It is near impossible to make a differentiation between the two based on the 13C/12C ratio, as Salby says, but there are two differences: recent carbon contains 14C in ratio with what was absorbed during growth, but old carbon is 14C free. And the oxygen balance can give information if the biosphere is a net source or sink for CO2.
The first was clear: 14C ratios declined in the pre-nuclear tests, so that carbon dating needed correction tables.
The second is also clear: If the oxygen use from fossil fuel burning is calculated, one does find a deficit in the oxygen trend: less oxygen is used than calculated. Thus extra oxygen is produced by the biosphere, there is more CO2 uptake than CO2 release and by preference more 12CO2, increasing the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere. This excludes the biosphere as source of the increase. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/bolingraph.gif
Similarly the oceans are excluded, as the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans is too high, thus any substantial release of ocean CO2 would increase the 13C/12C ratio, but we see a decrease, as well as in the atmosphere as in the ocean surface layer:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
With some literature search, Salby would have known that…
The 14 C calculations are even more discredited….as you know already.
The errors in the measurements and calculations totally discredit the oxygen argument.
Usually you fall back on the Vostok ice core record as your gold standard of how much CO2 increase the biosphere is capable of; not much of an argument but you stuck to it through thick and thin. Now Salby knocks that plank away, you are reduced to even weaker arguments.
Now clearly you have made your mind up and that’s it. The rest of us continue to say that the idea of an overflowing bathtub representing mans 3% overloading the system was always ridiculous from day one.
JamesG, can you give some references to the literature where the errors in the oxygen measurement are that large that they invalidate that the biosphere is a net sink for CO2?
Further, everybody says that the earth is greening, as also seen by satellite observations, is that not true?
What is important about the study is not simply the material, but also the author. Science has historically been slow to accept new findings based on a single paper. As more and more scientists study the question and release their findings the mainstream position shifts. Like CO2 and temperature, there is a lag. 20 years after ulcers were shown to be caused by bacteria, surveys showed 80% of all doctors still believed they were caused by stress.
Judith – I’m curious as to what metric you’re using for determining “technical relevance.”
If it annoys you it is relevant. If you approve, it is left-wing drivel.
One might be tempted to think that Judith’s criteria match yours.
What’s interesting is that she hasn’t clarified whether they do or not.
Well Joshua, that’s science. Judith is letting science do its thing.
Joshua, a blog with a couple hundred comments a day is likely very time consuming. Most blogs this size will not scrutinize every word. Don’t be so self-centred.
Joshua
She doesn’t need to clarify anything to you. It’s her blog and her house. You are the visitor here. Her rules apply. If you don’t like, you’re free to leave.
Venter –
I never thought that she “need[s]” to clarify anything. It’s interesting to me that anyone could even interpret my comment as saying that she “needs” to do something. Of course her rules apply. I’m simply asking that she clarify the rules. As it stand currently, she says that she’s monitoring posts for technical relevance and then allows attack comments from the likes of hunter and Bruce (well, and Robert) that are mostly unrelated to the topic at hand.
Perhaps when you’re a very entitled person, you think that others are saying that someone “needs” to do something when they are only making requests?
Joshua –
Perhaps when you’re a very entitled person, you think that others are saying that someone “needs” to do something when they are only making requests?
Making a request is one thing. Making repeated requests is a demand. Sometimes called “badgering”.
Does your Mommy know you are here acting like a crybaby?
CO2 goes up and down as a function of Ocean Water Temperature and not the other way. This is simple physics. Dr. Salby has a good understanding of simple basic physics. Open a hot and a cold carbonated drink and observe the extreme difference. The huge amount of Water and ice and water vapor and clouds regulate the temperature of earth. The tiny amount of CO2 goes in and out of the water as temperature goes down and up. The tiny amount of CO2 does likely have a correspondingly tiny influence on temperature. The trace of CO2 has a huge influence on how green things grow. We need and like green things. The more CO2 we can get, the better life on earth will be.
Many years ago, there was much more CO2 in the Atmosphere and Earth Temperature was not a lot warmer than now. Earth took a lot of the CO2 out of the atmosphere and stored it for us in Carbon Based Fuels. She almost took too much. We are close to the low level at which green things can;t grow and very far from a high level that is dangerous. The Space Station CO2 limit and The Submarine CO2 limit are in the Thousands. Order of magnitude above what we have now. Earth knows how to regulate CO2. Let Earth do her job as she has always done.
Anyone want to discuss what the pal reviewed literature says about all this?
start here, pick a paper, any paper.
http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=co2+sinks&submit=yes&go.x=10&go.y=12
Thank you, Oliver, for reminding us the probity of Baron VonMonkhofen’s reaction:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/11619461332
Wait. Are we in 2011?
Found that ‘iron sun’ yet?
Dr Curry,
Thanks for putting this up. It is such a shame that it’s not a video- i’d love to see the graphs; it’s very difficult to make a full evaluation of his talk without the relevant graphics.
That said however; this mirrors some work i saw about a year ago that called into question the assuption that only C12 was natural- when in fact some (and in fact a significant proportion) of plants naturally produce (and release c13. I’ll try to dig the article out when i get home.
I think this talk most importantly tackles one of the biggest (and in my opinion most important) assumptions of the cAGW theory- the complete reduction of natural variation and influence on global temperature and co2 levels.
If this work holds up, i think it presents a REAL problem for the cAGW theory. This needs looking at quite thoroughly, by both sides.
munkey,
I guess Dr. Curry should have the slides but has no permission to publish it here. It will probably behind a paywall soon or buy a copy of his book in about one months’ time. Something legitimate for the hard work and non-funded by the big oil, the big coal and remotely from the Government fund to skeptics. But I am such a low lying greedy man getting it without paying.
That the CO2 increase might not be due to human emissions is something I have pointed out here on several occasions. This is a fascinating issue that has been perking along under the radar for a long time. The problems with C12/13 ratios are not new. Plus there are interesting arguments for the mechanism whereby CO2 levels are driven by temperature changes. But Salby’s heavyweight status changes the game.
I have been saying that for years. I agree with you.
For sure under the radar. There is no CO2 category on this blog. And CO2 is the devil.
There’s evidence (no links, sorry) that the atmospheric CO2 rate of change (time derivative – dCO2/dt) is correlating very well with the global temperature. The CO2 lags the temperature.
“If this work holds up, i think it presents a REAL problem for the cAGW theory. ”
If there were such a thing as “cAGW theory,” it might be a problem. But of course you cannot point to any evidence that such a theory exists. It’s just part of the pseudoskeptical mythology.
I doubt very much Salby’s work will be a problem for any actual scientific theory. While it would be interesting if the isotopic ratio were not the reliable fingerprint of anthropogenic emissions it has been thought to be, that is only one of many independent lines of evidence that the current rise in CO2 concentrations is caused by people. One can start with the fact that we are watching ourselves release the stuff by the gigaton.
I guess we’ll see what Salby has when he publishes.
I tend to agree that it is difficult to argue that we aren’t cointributing to the co2 in the atmosphere. The real question, from my rather primitive understanding of the research, is what will this do to the calculated residency times.
It’s the proportion of the contribution and the significance that is of issue here. NO ones denying we’re not releasing co2. No one sane anyway.
“NO ones denying we’re not releasing co2.” On the contrary, no-one’s denying we are”
OOPS!!! that is of course what i meant! mea culpa!
Hang on hang on. What?!?
with cAGW i am referring to catastrophic anthropogenic warming- i.e. the position touted by the IPCC et al that the change in climate we are seeing is;
a) dangerous,
b) man-made
c) linked to human Co2 and finally
d) is preventable
If you have not yet come across this theory i’m sure there are many who could point you in the right general direction.
And those are all entirely false. Even one false knocks cAGW out of the running. All 4 reduces it to farce. And tragedy.
Regardless of what we released why isn’t it charted natural vs. human in total? I think I know but I’ll hear you out.
It’s just evil to wash out natural and compound human co2. If you want to quote 8 billion gigatons you should quote the whole hog of total co2 production over the same time line. The cause wouldn’t like that so it’s all about framing a talking point isn’t it?
This is what science comes down to in the 21st century?
When I see the term “CAGW” I think of this sort of rhetoric. It’s a comment in today’s Deseret News (Utah) accompanying an OpEd by Dr. Barry Bickmore, a local scientist and blogger who supports the idea that calamity will result from “human caused climate change”:
“Scott Mandia | 4:29 a.m. Aug. 4, 2011
MILLER PLACE, NY
Scientists understand that humans are overloading earths atmosphere with carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that builds up like so many blankets, raising the planets temperature. The US National Academy of Sciences, formed by Abraham Lincoln to advise Congress, states that certain scientific theories achieve the status of settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. All major science academies (representing tens of thousands of international scientists) hold a similar position.
Others agree. Military intelligence experts warn that climate crises could topple governments, embolden terrorists and destabilize regions. Health officials say climate change could be the biggest global threat of the 21st century. The property/casualty insurance industry lists climate change as its greatest risk.
For our health, our national security and our economic competitiveness, we need to curb our fossil fuel addiction. Otherwise, well wind up clients of the Chinese, paying top dollar for renewable technologies that we should have invented ourselves.”
This may not be proof that “there is such a thing as CAGW theory”, to you, but it is what most of us, IMO, are referring to, when we use the term.
Why do we do that?
To save the naked animal from the freezing winter.
To save the naked animal from the sweltering summer.
To save the naked animal from a brutish, short life.
To allow the naked animal live as a human by overcoming darkness.
You like naked a lot!
Your seem to personalize CO2 emission by using gigaton. To me personally a gigaton is awesome (ful?) amount. BUt in the context of the atmosphere, given its size, you do the significance math.
Steven asks a good question: what will it do to the calculated residence times? That depends on the assumptions and the rate equations used. I agree with Robert’s snark that we should discuss merits rather than beliefs. So, I propose we discuss assumptions or statements made in the podcast wrt such questions as what effect it would have on the residence time. Note that the effect may well be to support the IPCC model of hundreds of years because the flux increase acts as a lever on our emissions wrt residence time. Another good thought to discuss, would be what if it is worse than we thought, but it is uncontrollable? What would the estinmates of increased risk be for our continued CO2 emissions, and does the work portend to find a real smoking gun for a tipping point?
The assumptions one way or the other and how valid they appear to be will help determine the confidence or for Robert perhaps a thread related post.
There are two significant problems with the AGW argument that increase in CO2 in atmosphere = human contribution:
(a) the residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere is around 5 years
(b) The fluxes (sources/sinks) of CO2 in nature are very large, as are the error bars on their estimates:
fossil fuel burning approx 6.4 Gt per year
Atmospheric flux from natural sources is approximately 200 Gt of which about 90 Gt is ocean and 110 Gt is biomass
Uncertainty on sources/sinks in nature +/- 30 to 40 Gt
The IPCC and AGW hypothesis supporters like to talk about net CO2 because it looks scary, but compared to the actual flux of CO2 and the associated uncertainty the human contribution is actually pretty small. And we know from ice core data that there is strong evidence that warming increases CO2, not the other way round.
“The fluxes (sources/sinks) of CO2 in nature are very large, as are the error bars on their estimates:”
And yet oddly despite all the uncertainty and all the fluxes, the atmospheric C02 keeps increasing and even more oddly it does so in relation to our emissions. At staggering levels of oddness it appears natural sources/sinks were approximately in sync before we started dumping gigatonnes worth into the atmosphere every year.
But I guess you can just slap “Uncertain” on anything.
I don’t think it does “do so in relation to our emissions”. The Mauna Loa CO2 growth rate has been basically constant since at least 1993, while our emission rate has increased dramatically. In fact the CO2 increase has been roughly linear since the 1950’s,with the 1993-2010 rate only slightly higher than the preceding years, while our emissions have seen strongly nonlinear growth. This lack of correlation is one of the chief arguments against a human driver.
David
Can you cite the source of data describing human CO2 emission rates. I am not aware of any reliable information tracking human CO2 emissions over time. it would be interesting to see how the data was complied.
Data is at EIA and CDIAC. In 1993 it was 6172 Gtons C/year, in 2008 it was 8749. The annual rate has increased, but it’s hard to say that the rate of increase has been notably nonlinear.
Emission numbers basically come from accountants – burning C is expensive and well recorded.
Human breathing, farting and human food cosumptions were not accounted for in these official sources. More human, more food (animals and plants, well vegetables for human, grass for food animals including lands and seas) for human, more CO2 production by human.
You might also look at the global carbon fluxes at http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/
which includes an estimate of effects due to land-use changes.
Thank you both for your replies. I was familar with the CDIAC information, which is why I wrote the “reliable” qualifer in my question. If you review how their data is accumulated I believe you will find that their “estimated emissions” are +/- something like 20%. It is a rough estimate of human emissions, but certainly nothing more than a rough estimate
“error bars schmerror bars” only merchants of doubt use them /sarc
Be patient sharper. It will start decreasing soon, when the cooling gets going. I have been waiting for that since ~10 years. It will be priceless.
And don’t even start with the ocean pH.
“before we started dumping gigatonnes worth”
4% of total global co2 input? What percentage of GHG impact does co2 represent and include water as a GHG when you reply?
“At staggering levels of oddness it appears natural sources/sinks were approximately in sync before we started dumping gigatonnes worth into the atmosphere every year. ”
Huh!!!! and we have data for that??? Are you by chance claiming that the CO2 concentrations from Ice Core so fine ( and unaffected by diffusion ) that we can find CO2 concentration in atmosphere with century accuracy? How do you even validate that data? just making such claims makes the whole theory sound like a bunch of scaremongering BS to me.
It isn’t odd at all. It is consistent with the lagged response of CO2 to warming conditions following colder eras. There is no geological evidence whatsoever that natural sources and sinks have ever been in step at any time during the last 500,000,000 years. There reasonable certainty about our production of CO2, but there is very little sound data on sink responses and natural sources are even vaguely near being fully inventoried. The wildly varying “estimates” on atmospheric residence time alone are evidence of this lack sound data: ca. five years to a century or more, forsooth. What this means is very simply that we have only the vaguest ideas of marine and terrestrial productivity. The estimates of volcanic production are the wildest of WAGs since we do not have any thing like a complete inventory of volcanoes, and at least three quarters of the ones we don’t know about are submarine. It doesn’t require agendas or conspiracy to create controversy in such a situation, merely lazy minds wedded to single ideas.
Estimates of CO2 residence time do not vary wildly. It’s just that people will not get their head around the fact that there are two different concepts. Individual C atoms are exchanged on a 5-year time-scale. But a pulse of CO2 lasts for a century or more – not necessarily with the same atoms.
98% of the atoms in your body are exchanged every year. Residence time is a matter of months. But that doesn’t derermine human lifetime.
Nick
Unless I have missed something, I believe the IPCC said that CO2 resident time in the atmosphere was between 50-200 yrs. That seems like wildly varying estimates to me.
I not trying to pick an argument, just trying to understand your point.
John said five years to a century. This is the persistent misunderstanding that I refer to. Five years is the relatively well-established residence time for carbon atoms. Yes, the persistence of a pulse is less well established, and a range of 50-200 years is not unreasonable. The basic issue there is that it isn’t a simple exponential decrease. There are sinks with different time-scales.
These CO2 residence times are all speculations without scientific basis. They are all junk data so far.
Well the problem is that the residence times are based on models, which are based on the assumption that the measured increase is entirely due to man. If that assumption is largely wrong or unfounded then 5 years is as good as any estimate. Freeman dyson estimated 12 years by another means but real data is lacking for all estimate and normally using a model as a substitute for data would be unacceptable practice. However running a model, as Dyson observed, is a lot more comfortable than going in the field and collecting hard data.
I’ve emailed the institute and Prof. Salby to see if any video is available.
Okay. A simple technical question. I’m not quite getting the point about C12 and C13 isotopes and their importance. Can anyone explain it or alternatively point me to a clear exposition for the layman on the web?
Thanks in advance if anyone can help.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Though it’s worth pointing out that this does rely on the assumption that little to no C13 is naturally released.
This assumption is precisely what Salby is claiming to falsify.
Which is exactly my point :-)
Park and Epstein (1961) have some useful information on that. Search Park, Roderic and Epstein, Samuel, Plant Physiology (1961) 36(2):133-138 on the metabolic fractionation of C-12 and -13 in plants.
Thanks- i will
I just spotted a post by Chiefio that has some good links on this
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
Nice find- that highlights the C3 vs C4 in relation to C12 and C13 attribution issues that i was trying to point out earlier.
Interesting that Corn is a C4 metabolism plant and C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13.
The corn yield graph looks like the CO2 graph.
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/pubs/articles/F-L/Kucharik/Kuch2005EarthInt.pdf
Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth’s plant biomass and 1% of its known plant species.[11] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.”
— Wikipedia
“C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants”
“Over the last 100 years we’ve planted one heck of a lot more grasses world wide than ever before. Grasses are often C4 metabolism…”
– Chefio http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
Wow, it shows you that the planet has evolved C4 to get
at the carbon. This scarcity of carbon in air is another
issue that deniers like myself have long thought about.
One big non starting debate is how the Antarctic melts
when you see the seasonal temperatures.
Naomi O. is this the first peer reviewed paper on the other side?
Naa the journal is I’m sure not one of the beloved few.
Many thanks to those who answered this for me. After some reading, I am now clearer on the issues Salby is thinking about. I particularly enjoyed the Chiefio post, Dr. Curry.
Have you listened to the podcast, or are you restricting your commentary to the introduction to the podcast on this blog?
Bizarre threading issues. My question at 8:51 directed at sharper00
Not a threading issue, it appears my comment pointing out there were no technical details to discuss on a “technical thread” was removed.
No I haven’t listened to the podcast. I’d like some definition of why I would want to (beyond nebulous claims of a “revolution”) and then something to actually investigate which the original post admits simply doesn’t exist because nothing has been published.
Well certainly a bizarre response. There were enough claims and reasoning in the podcast to merit discussion of a technical nature. the “restriction” is a fair one.
Why not listen? Maybe you’ll find something that unravels the premise.
Now you are asking others to tell you what you should do? Please don’t listen if that’s your thing. I think that he asked what he asked to inform the audience that your criticisms are based on nothing more than the abstract of the talk.
How about listening to it purely because it’s the subject of the thread that you’re commenting on and that it’s interesting?
Sharperoo is just afraid to think for himself. If its not written on the sacred scrolls Sharperoo is dismissive. Next he will seek the what this means from his high priests at the temple.
On no account listen to the podcast.
What I find curious is the complete frightened / shocked / dazzled tone of voice of the moderator at the end while performing his duty to close off the speech and the discussion. I might be imagining things, but I would guess that this presentation shook his entire basis of reality.
You would be completely wrong. The video was shown on a (little watched) cable channel in Australia, and the host was a well known moderate conservative commentator in Australia who has often expressed skepticism about climate change science.
I too look forward to the publication of Prof Salby’s results, until which event it seems premature to announce a revolution.
Dr Salby said it was published in a journal, but did not name it.
So… the huge increase in concentrations of CO2 we’ve seen were mostly natural but just happened to coincide with the industrial revolution(s)? A remarkable coincidence.
Don’t forget that our own emissions also have to disappear somehow or else we’d have the natural ones + ours.
That is not how it works. You are using a simple reservoir model, thereby ignoring the entire issue of how natural CO2 levels are established. On the proposed flux model it is perfectly possible for CO2 levels to fall even as our emissions rise. Never forget that the natural CO2 flux swamps our emissions.
It’s not remarkable at all. CO2 hockey stick is as bad as the other one.
As Edim points out, the pre-1950 CO2 concentration is a bit of a hockey stick. It is based on ice core data, ignoring all data to the contrary, of which there is a bunch. Nothing in nature is constant but AGW assumes CO2 concentrations are constant prior to around 1800.
There is a large body of pre-1950’s atmospheric CO2 measurements made using the chemical assay method. There about 90,000 measurements over more than 100 years. The method was quite widely used, is reasonably reliable (accuracy about +/-3% as I recall) and shows significant fluctuation in pre-1950’s levels of CO2, including much higher asa well as lower values.
These measurements are completely ignored by IPCC.
On the other hand we have a single measurement station at Mauna Loa on a volcano using a sensor from which 80% of the readings are thrown away because they look wrong. No comparison was ever made between the Mauna Loa measurements and the chemical assay method. That single measurement station on Mauna Loa is the entire basis for the zero sum game of anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of increase of atmospheric CO2.
The sum of all the huge fluxes in nature is assumed by the IPCC to be zero sum hence the zero sum game. If nature = 0 then all change is caused by man.
Can you expand om the ‘80% thrown away because they look wrong’. This is astounding news. As is the idea that the assay method is never used to calibrate the sensor or check it regularly.
“That single measurement station on Mauna Loa is the entire basis…”
No. Please look at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/data/index.php?parameter_name=Carbon%2BDioxide&showall=1
Thanks HaroldW. Some CO2 time series look interesting.
“On the other hand we have a single measurement station at Mauna Loa”
=====
The “continuous” readings at MLO are backed up with periodic “flask” measurements at other locations. There is a pretty thorough analysis of MLO measurements by a well known climate change skeptic here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/ Eisenbach also addresses chemical assay results as well in his article.
All that doesn’t necessarily mean that CO2 is increasing uncontrollably and we’re all gonna die. See Glassman “The Acquittal of CO2” http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
R. Nassar et al. report on an international team measuring:
Inverse modeling of CO2 sources and sinks using satellite observations of CO2 from TES and surface flask measurements
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 6029–6047, 2011 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/6029/2011/ doi:10.5194/acp-11-6029-2011
Supporting Murry Selby’s analysis, the highest fluxes are “South American Tropical Forests”, “North African Grasslands”, while “South and Central Europe” is the biggest sink.
However, I thought Selby to refer to larger subsurface variations.
Stilicho,
Here’s another remarkable coincidence …
The huge increase in concentrations of CO2 we’ve seen just happened to coincide with our actually starting to take CO2 measurements, and on the side of an active volcano no less.
And another one …
The start of the AGW temperature rise just happened to coincide with the invention of the Fahrenheit scale and of the registering thermometer.
Whither everywhere
Wondered carbon sinks unknown.
Please, we need the truth.
==============
Quick and potentially daft question- how are the anthropogenic emission amounts calculated?
I.e. how do we know how much we’re emitting?
Carbon emissions are mostly based on fossil fuel consumption, which is generally pretty well reported, albeit maybe not accurately. Last I knew biomass burning (mostly wood and dung), mostly in poorer countries, was not included. Verification is a major stumbling block in the climate negotiations.
Thanks- i was trying to figure out if the C13 attribution issues would affect these calculations, or to put it another way- to check that the determination of the amount of c02 released into the atmosphere is not ‘generated’ by the (what may be) suspect C13 detections.
RE: “He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa . . .”
I thought this had already been well established – or settled, as it were? Further, wasn’t the misleading overlap of CO2 and temperature graphs one of the major inconvenient truths? Or is this really something new?
Curious . . .
-barn
As far as I know, the consensus is the other way around (Jim D?). CO2 produce more warming than vice versa. Way more. I think 1% hotter sun results in only ~10 ppm increase. Jim D will correct me if I misinterpreted.
I think CO2 does nothing to the temperature. If anything, it causes cooling.
A 1 degree warming of the ocean can increase CO2 by ~10 ppm by Henry’s Law. I will say more on this talk at the bottom. Note that you would have to increase the ocean temperature a lot to get 100 ppm of CO2 as we have in the past century, so we can be sure it is not ocean-warming alone that can account for this (beside the acidification being the wrong sign for the ocean to be the source).
Thanks Jim. Any links for the acidification evidence? Are you claiming that the oceanic CO2 concentration increased?
barn, you are thinking about CO2 versus temperature on the millennial scale, from ice cores, where temperature seems to lead CO2 by hundreds of years. This is a common skeptical argument. AGW deems that to be generally irrelevant on the anthro-forced decade to century scale we are talking about. Many warmers also argue that despite the lag most of the temperature increase is still due to CO2. That is, once the warming starts, for unknown reasons, the CO2 takes over and drives it. This looks like a theory-saving argument but there it is.
Except for the reduction- the drop in temp is sharp, if not sharper than the rise- while co2 continues to rise. I think that invalidates that particular suggestion.
The continued rise in CO2 after temperatures start to drop, as shown by the ice cores, cannot be explained by AGW without aerosols. Volcanoes must cause the temperatures to drop, and since there is almost always a volcano active somewhere, this explanation can be used to explain any temperature change that is not in accordance with AGW.
Inline comments don’t seem to be working.
To Sharperoo at 8.43am:
Actually the estimates of fluxes are themselves based on difference calculations so the uncertainties are even bigger. There is a small net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere each year, but a small change in those huge fluxes (eg due to a rise in temperature) could easily swamp the contribution from fossil fuels. The current IPCC position is based on the very strong assumption that the natural flux is in steady state and any incremental change is therefore anthropogenic. This is neither supported by the data (estimated sizes of flux), the large uncertainties and the fact that CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is very short – 5 years or so. Murry Salby’s talk presents the argument that the observed changes in CO2 flux are actually in areas away from anthropogenic sources.
I was mocked only yesterday when I made the same estimate of natural co2 production, 96%. Considering co2 is less than 5% of the total GHG impact even in warming circles without the magic (make believe) human co2 compounding talking point just how much relative impact could human co2 have??
I love it that he is from CU Boulder, just another layer of social protection from the zealot attack he should expect. What are the odds he’s another right-wing denier at that hot bed of conservative thinking at CU Boulder? I’m sure the TEAM will think of something. -:)
The book that he wrote Curry referenced in the post was co-authored by none other than Pielke Sr.
So that’s the link you are looking for ;).
RE Sharperoo @ 9.06 am says
“Don’t forget that our own emissions also have to disappear somehow or else we’d have the natural ones + ours.”
Residence time of CO2 in atmosphere is around 5 years. Anthropogenic CO2 is being scrubbed and recycled at a very high rate and this is entirely consistent with the large sources/sinks. The natural system can swallow our contribution with hardly a burp.
Without actually listening to the presentation you are going to find it pretty tough arguing some of thepoints. Murry Salby is constrcuting his argument from actual observations from satellites.
“Anthropogenic CO2 is being scrubbed and recycled at a very high rate “
And yet, oddly, not the coincidental natural emissions leading to a net increase. Funny how it can be that human emissions are scrubbed clean after 5 years but the increase just happens to come from elsewhere.
sarcasm fits you badly, sharper00. It may well be that this researcher got all wrong. It may well be that you have a damned good point. It’s not with pot shots that we will discover it.
The natural fluxes are of the order of 200 Gt of CO2 per annum, the IPCC estimate of anthropogenic CO2 is 6.4 Gt. Miraculously, despite the IPCC natural source/sink numbers being deduced by difference, despite their having error bars of +/- 30 to 40 Gt per annum, the IPCC model assumes steady state for the natural system, the natural fluxes miraculously balance out (depsite error bars of +/- 30 – 40 Gt per annum) and voila – miraculously the increase at Mauna Loa is exactly the amount estimated to be added from anthropogenic CO2. The IPCC result is based on an assumption – atmospheric CO2 is in steady state equilibrium. This is probably why they also disregard/ignore the 150 years of reliable chemical assay data for atmospheric CO2 which paint a much more varied picture of atmospheric CO2. Never let data get in the way of your preferred model.
Alternatively, it could be that CO2 in the atmosphere is influenced by huge natural events such as ENSO, PDO and (gasp – surely not) temperature increases. Murry Slaby presents a compelling argument based on real world observations to support this alternative hypothesis. And he has actual data from satellites, not hand waving IPCC estimates.
Not funny sharper00, but indicative of two main possibilities not necessarily exclusive. One is that the temperature is the driving force. Another is that anthropogentic emissions act as a lever to excite the natural state to a higher one. Combined with the satement that it is not controllable could indicate more reason for us to regulate CO2 not less. It will be science that demonstrates what one could or should expect. I think someone seeing this as an automatic out for AGW causing problems, indicates a lack of appreciation of the effect of different rates and how a small input can act as a lever over a long period if it causes a change of state. Those who deal with reactors, including biological reactors, know this leverage effect is typical, not rare.
“Those who deal with reactors, including biological reactors, know this leverage effect is typical, not rare.”
Any reactor that is inherently unstable will eventually over time fail catastrophically. In the case of a biological reactor, evolution tells us that over time this will lead to replacement of the unstable design with a more stable design. Over time, life will evolve so that it stabilizes the climate to ensure its continued existence.
We see strong evidence of this in the paleo records of the past 600 million years. Average temperatures have gone up and down, but have remained between 11C and 22C, with most of the time spent at either 11C or 22C, and only rarely in between.
Current temperatures are 14.5C which if one looks at the paleo records is not a stable temperature. We should expect the temperature to either increase of decrease naturally, until they plateau at either 11C or 22C.
The current interglacial is inherently unstable and according to the paleo records will not last. If we can affect the climate then the question we should be asking is this. Do we want an ice age earth or a tropical earth, because those are the stable climates.
If the sink was not variable how is it the dangerous compounding of co2 hasn’t happened long ago?
I’m sorry the 40% human co2 contribution (current inventory of co2) based on washing the natural contribution with a static sink but compounding human co2 input is pathetic logic. How many unknowns can you fit on head of pin?
You have to totally buy-in that all net human contributions are added to total co2 inventory. How does a pig like that fly in the science community?
Sharper. Use logic and not black and white thinking. Net increase can stop at any time. I am not saying it definately will.
This argument (warmth increases atmospheric CO2) is for sure true… you need only look at the glacial/interglacial CO2 concentrations, and their ~800 year lag behind temperature (ice core data), or el Nino driven variations in the Mauna Loa CO2 trend to see this relationship looks real at all time scales.
The problem with the argument that this accounts for much/most of the post industrial increase in CO2 is that the magnitude of recent rise in CO2 is not what you would expect based on that long term historical record, it is much (many times) greater per degree of temperature change. Roy Spencer made a similar argument a few years back (that warming of the ocean was causing a very large increase in CO2). In any case, the argument is true in part, but does not appear to explain the large majority of the industrial period rise in CO2. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that most of the rise in CO2 has come from burning fossil fuels.
I wrote a brief post related to this subject at WUWT a couple of years back (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption/) which might be of some interest.
The simplest explaination is that the earth releases more co2 when it is warmer.
Industrial co2 is so small and the sink isn’t understood. The retorts on WUWT are more compelling.
Any simple explanation, like warming temperatures have caused the recent increases in CO2, requires consistent behavior between the increase in CO2 due to recent warming and the increase in CO2 that took place in the last (warmer than today) interglacial. The warmer temperatures in the last interglacial did not lead to CO2 concentrations even close to what is in the atmosphere today. Some of the comments on my post at WUWT were thoughtful, some much less so.. The very simplest explanation is that if you add more of something to an existing quantity of that same something, the total increases.
4% or more in this case?
Waht makes you think it is accumulated instead of absorbed by the sink? Does the sink like magic know not to absorb human co2 past a certain point and where is the proof that the (net) growth is coming from humans?
It looks like a logical fallacy.
If you read the post at WUWT, you will see that I estimated about half the emitted CO2 is currently absorbed by the oceans (perhaps with some help from increased plant growth). The sink doesn’t ‘know’ anything; it only reacts to an increase in atmospheric CO2 by absorbing more CO2. This doesn’t seem very surprising to me. Absolute ‘proof’ is hard to come by in life; usually people weigh the available data and adopt the explanation which is most consistent with the data. You seem to me not be addressing the primary argument which I raised in my initial comment here: if the recent rise in CO2 is mostly the result of warming, then the substantially warmer previous interglacial should have produced higher CO2 levels than at present, but did not; the CO2 levels were much lower. It would be nice if you could offer some reasoned explanation for this apparent discrepancy.
The simplest explanation is the we are using different techniques to measure present CO2 levels as compared to how we measure past interglacial’s.
Image that you had a thermometer that averaged temperature over a full year. If you compared this to a standard thermometer reading taken in summer or winter, you would conclude that the summer/winter reading was abnormal, but in point of fact it is simply a result of the difference in the bandpass frequency of the thermometers.
ferd,
Are you suggesting that the true CO2 level during the last interglacial (and during the warmer early part of the Holocene) was actually higher than today? If you haven’t done so already, you may want to download the ice data (the best are the high resolution cores from Greenland and Antarctica) and take a look. The temporal resolution is sufficient to see even relatively brief changes in CO2. It is hard to see how any relatively long period of much higher CO2 could be missed in the ice record.
Keeling (and others) has been taking the biotic out of the biosphere by examining the ratios of Ar/N2 in the atmosphere. The changes in these ratios are reporters of, mostly, temperature changes in the relative solubility of the two gasses in water.
Ar/N2 changes report daily temperature changes, seasonal and longer term steady state levels of these two, ‘inert’ gases as they partition into and out of the aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs.
The saw-tooth pattern Keeling observes in atmospheric, biotic, O2/N2 and CO2/N2 ratios is also present in the non-biotic Ar/N2 ratio.
Blaine, Keeling & Paplawsky (2005) Fig 5. shows the daily response of Ar/N2 to temperature changes
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/5/11899/2005/acpd-5-11899-2005-print.pdf
A nice paper 2008 by Nicolas Cassar et al, shows the lovely season variation in Ar/N2 changes, at different points on Earth.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~galen/Downloads/CassarEtAl_JGR08_inpress.pdf
Now, the changes in Ar/N2, and the correlations with O2/N2, show us something very important; the exchange rates of, THESE’ gases between to aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs is extremely rapid.
We can therefore reasonably infer that distribution of a biotic gas, CO2, is also in rapid dynamic equilibrium between to aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs. Meaning the annual ‘saw-tooth’ pattern first observed by Keeling for atmospheric CO2 does show the rapid biotic/chemical sequestration/release of atmospheric CO2.
However, working out how much CO2 in the atmosphere is due to non-biotic changes, due to burning fossil fuels or to temperature changes, is a complete nightmare. One needs to be able to measure the absolute levels of Ar/N2/O2/CO2, over long (decade) time periods and at large numbers of locations.
Figures 7 and 8 of van der Laan-Luijkx et al., (2010) show how damned hard it is to deconvolute even simple measurements and attempt to work out if you have changes in water/atmospheric temperature and changes is biotic CO2/O2 fluxes.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2566&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Must actually do a bit of work now, but I will leave you with this.
As we know that the atmospheric gases are in rapid dynamic equilibrium between the aquatic and atmospheric reservoirs we can use very simple maths to examine what is going on. Using a steady state approach we can get a handle on the sizes of the overall fluxes of CO2.
At steady state the level of atmospheric [CO2] represents the sum of CO2 influx and efflux. We know that the atmosphere has altered from about 280 ppm to about 395 ppm. Over the last 50 years have increased the influx into the atmosphere by about 40%, by burning fossil fuels. To get to 560 ppm we would need to increase our burning of fossil fuel by 2.5 times. Atmospheric bomb tests show the true t 1/2 of all [CO2]atm is only about a decade.
Doc, I hope you have time to expand on this, thanks for stopping by
There is a problem with this approach: While there is a rapid equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean’s surface layer, the increase in carbon mass (CO2 + _bi_carbonates) in the surface layer is only 10% of the increase in the atmosphere, due to the equilibrium reactions in seawater.
Further, the bomb tests only show the turnover of CO2, not how fast an excess in mass is removed. That is much longer, around 40 years half life time. The first is based on the exchange rate of about 20% over the seasons, while the latter is based on the sink rate, which is only 4 GtC per year (the current difference between human emissions and what shows up in the atmosphere).
I strongly recommend anybody who is interested in Salby’s findings should read Ferdinand’s excellent webpage summarising the evidence for the anthropogenic origin of the observed rise
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Salby is going to have a hard time reconciling his (purported) findings with the observations, particularly the mass balance argument.
Professor Salby’s talk centers around well known effects of temperature on the fluctuations of CO2 ie volcanoes and enso. He says that the IPCC does not know this. There are quite a few climate memes in there as well. I’m not sure this talk is going to cause any stirs outside the blog world.
“He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.”
Does IPCC “knows” this?
Yes. Either he does not know this, or has come up with numbers that are way off the consensus evidence. It’s hard to know which from his podcast.
Grypo,
The consensus is that global warming causes more CO2 increase than the CO2 increase causes warming? Of course we have to agree on the metrics, but I don’t think that it’s the IPCC consensus.
While we wait, I searched for Carbon Cycle on Amazon, and sifting by price gives the following three books. Has anyone any professional feedback on their value?
Kirill Y. Kondratyev, Vladimir F. Krapivin, Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change, Springer Praxis, (hard 2003, paper 2010) ISBN-13: 978-3642056420
T. M. L. Wigley (Editor), D. S. Schimel (Editor) The Carbon Cycle [Paperback] Cambridge Univ. Press312 pages 2005, ISBN-13: 978-0521018623
Christopher B. Field (Editor), Michael R. Raupach (Editor), Susan Hill MacKenzie (Preface), The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate, and the Natural World (Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) Series) [Paperback] 568 pp, Island Press; 1 edition (March 15, 2004) ISBN-13: 978-1559635271
JC,
Can you please state for the record what *specifically* you found “sufficiently important” about this “that we should start talking about” it?
Thanks in advance.
We’ve always been at war with Fantasia.
Wow, I’m stunned.
Folks who read J.C.’s blog might start by reading the posts at RealClimate that explain the evidence — and not just from 13C/12C ratios.
Start here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/
and work backwards to the slightly more technical posts:
Incidentally, the 13C/12C ratio of the ocean is unequivocally *decreasing*, just like the atmosphere. I’ll be curious to see what machinations Salby goes through to explain that (if indeed he mentions it at all — it will be rather telling if he does not).
sharper00 made a very similar contribution, mr Eric.
Judith followed with an interesting link:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
Eric Steig, its great that you came and posted at Judith curry’s blog.
It would be even better if you would actually state the arguments and participate in the discussion here where comments are unmoderated/uncensored.
Of course, you may find your arguments a little more difficult to carry in an open forum like this one where you do not have editorial control and the means to delete and “moderate” comments that you don’t like.
Eric Steig, what did you think of Prof Salby’s talk when you listened to it?
Dr. Steig,
Thank you for dropping by. It is great that our hostess will allow you to speak freely. But that is a characteristic of blogs dvoted to actually studying an issue.
As to Dr. Salby’s work, which none of have read:
No need for a review or revisit of the question? No possiblity of anything new to learn?
Everything is settled, no need to check, just move on nothing to see?
Why would someone from a free discussion blog want to go and be subjected to censorship, by the way?
Dr Steig, I’d like to add my warm welcome to Climate Etc. Others have assumed that you have listened to Professor Salby but I make no such assumption. What I do assume is that you and your esteemed colleagues at RealClimate have read this sentence:
That raises an fascinating question for me. Is it possible for one scientist’s involuntary gag reflex to provoke exactly the same in another scientist, but for opposite reasons?
Richard,
As with many things Bolt writes (although this is more of a trivial error than most), he got it wrong. Salby actually said that not about “‘settled’ science”, but rather when “politicians” and those of a certain bent invoked “*the* science”.
Should we assume that you didn’t actually listen to the presentation yourself?
Thanks for your perspective. I’ve just read this post for the first time and an hour has not elapsed since I chanced upon it and then took the detour to Bishop Hill to read Paul Dennis on the matter, as advised by Judith. From that you can deduce that I have not listened to the podcast. But I did read that summary by Judith, which you say she got from Andrew Bolt, and I also assumed that Dr Steig had read it.
As for the difference you report, it seems a trivial one to me. Invoking the science and saying the science is settled are for me one and the same. But everyone to their own.
The ‘gag reflex’ line is right at the end of the presentation (30mins before Q&A). He did say ‘invoke *the* science’ but went on to say the science is never settled.
As I heard it, Salby was deliberately vague in his condemnations of “advocacy” and characterizations of some involved in the debate about warming due to CO2 emissions.
In fact, it was that lack of specificity that IMO, (with me not being a position to evaluate the science of his presentation) – that places him squarely in an “advocacy” position. It seemed rather clear both from his presentation, as well as in his answers to the follow-up questions, that Salby is not merely presenting science here, but engaging the politics of the debate process in and of itself. He was clearly obliquely criticizing people – perhaps scientists or perhaps scientists as well as politicians – and not simply criticizing scientific theories.
That might or might not be problematic in an of itself (although I would say usually it is), but when he launches such criticisms of individuals, without a full explanation of context, and with indirectness and inuendo, and without specifying who he is referring to so we can distinguish his inuendo from political conspiracies – he does himself a disservice (IMO) and makes it impossible for someone like myself to evaluate his position.
Joshua:
In order to evaluate your objectivity I need to know if you will apply these rules equally to all sides:
“That might or might not be problematic in an of itself (although I would say usually it is), but when he launches such criticisms of individuals, without a full explanation of context, and with indirectness and inuendo, and without specifying who he is referring to so we can distinguish his inuendo from political conspiracies – he does himself a disservice (IMO) and makes it impossible for someone like myself to evaluate his position.”
lets take this:
1. criticism of individuals without specifying who he is referring to
You say that this makes it impossible to evaluation his position and does him a disservice.
Are you prepared to make this same kind of statement about others?
can you guess who Im thinking of?.
I assume you’re thinking of me.
Where did I offer oblique criticisms of individuals without specifying who I was criticizing and giving context for that criticism?
All from the shelter of anonymity. That’s brave.
I’ll never understand how people think that they can determine something about someone’s character on the basis of whether they post anonymously on blogs.
My assumption is that there are people who lack “courage” who post under their names just as their are people with “courage” who post anonymously.
Certainly, there are many people who are publicly recognizable who I think lack courage.
Do you base you assessment of your own courage based on the fact that you assign your name to your posts? Really? That really ranks highly on your list of ways to assess someone’s courage? Really?
So if I beat my wife and posted on blogs under my own name, you’d consider me courageous?
The fact is that you know absolutely nothing about me personally. I’d say your assumption that you does not exactly speak highly for your analytical abilities – although it does suggest that you have some need to pump yourself up. Meanwhile, I’ll stick to people that I actually know and have reason to respect to get feedback on my amount of courage or lack thereof.
What attribute do you assign to people based on their propensity to take cheap shots on blogs by interjecting insults into dialogue between others?
Courage?
Really?
That’s not the first attribute that jumps to my mind.
Joshua –
I’ll never understand how people think that they can determine something about someone’s character on the basis of whether they post anonymously on blogs.
“whether” is immaterial. But “what” is relevant. As in this rearrangement of your words –
people can determine something about someone’s character on the basis of what they post anonymously on blogs.
Which is something you may not have considered even though it’s true.
The fact is that you know absolutely nothing about me personally.
Many of us know more about you than you believe. Including how to sometimes “push your buttons”. You tell us something about yourself every time you write – sometimes it’s something new, sometimes something old. We ALL do that. Assuming you’re different is just self deception.
lolwot –
I just think use of ones real name online is a little pretentious
And I think you’re afraid to use yours.
I don’t need to prove it. Clearly, since he posts anonymously, he lacks courage.
I learned that from Anthony Watts – and the lesson was further reinforced in this thread by Richard.
And in another thread I learned that if fewer people posted anonymously, there would be a higher S/N ratio.
Because, you know the S/N ratio is so high when famous people, like Sarah Palin, opine on various subjects.
or perhaps
Heh. All S, no N there. Nosireebub. Because, after all, we know her name.
Too funny.
I notice a lot of people on this thread are cowardly hiding their middle names and their bank details
I never use the term liberal for progressives – a liberal is for free people and free markets and is not a pissant progressive. The effette was used in relation to progressives threatening to kick the butts of tea partiers. As the progressives are all hat and no cows or guns – it seemed unlikely.
If you click the button on my title – you will be sent to a web page with my full name and title.
Robert Indigo Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
Note that my title derives from Cecil (he spent four years in clown school – I’ll thank you not to refer to Princeton like that) Terwiliger – who was Springfield’s Chief Hydrological and Hydraulical Engineer. Cecil opined that in some cultures it was a sacred calling. Given the importance of water both practically and symbolically there is more than an element of the sacred. Water is scared but carbon dioxide is unholy.
‘Am I some poor merchant of doubt selling shopworn and
threadbare wares on the ebays of the ideas marketplace?
Let me take stock then in a dismal reiteration of my poor
argument that is my faint hope to delude and dismay you.
Unless we can count on some mad and untestable theory,
then the unholy carbon ghost must grasp the photon closely
in warming arms for a period of no less than 80 years or so.
Or until judgement day – whichever comes before the cart.’
a fragment from Song of a Climate Zombie
Is Salby the mad theorist overthrowing the ‘unholy carbon ghost’? We shall see.
Machinations?
I am stunned too Eric. There are multiple lines of evidence that the recent CO2 rise is human caused.
I was stunned by the same thing. Haven’t these people heard of multiple lines of evidence? Like for the Hockey Stick? And for high climate sensitivity? I certainly have, I’ve heard about it again and again and again. Hasn’t ever convinced when I’ve looked into it but I’ve sure heard about it. But I, like Judith, only much more so, am not an expert on the carbon cycle. I cannot help but look forward to the myriads of lines of evidence I’m going to find in this area, with the help of Professor Salby and his loving admirers in the rest of climate science.
If I’m understanding the argument properly the 13C/12C ratio is largely irrelevent. There is no question we’ve put masses of CO2 into the atmosphere. Its one of the few things thats certain. But the argument as I understand it is that you can think of all that CO2 as fully sunk…and then the natural processes (mainly based on temperature?) are releasing it independently.
I believe that is consistent with all your measurements except it would have profound impacts on AGW as its understood.
Recent analysis of RC traffic has shown just how alarmingly high the censorship is. One could hardly expect any such site to provide an objective scientific discussion.
If I be right there are some things about this presentation that seem a bit crook.
Whatever he has discovered that is new, it is not that there is a link between temperature and the carbon cycle or soil moisture and the carbon cycle.
I am also having trouble tracking down his presentation to IUGG 2011 Melbourne. He was slated to speak on July 5th but on Antartic Ozone, but I cannot find when he presented the material under debate. However the program was provisional:
http://www.iugg2011.com/pdf/IUGG2011_FinalEntireProgram.6June.pdf
and doesn’t necessarily reflect what unfolded.
That he should sit on something so important and sell his book on the strength of it, is his own affair, but that he doesn’t seem to be wishing to publish formally for many months seems a little mean.
Alex
What seems mean to my eyes is probably just lazyness or distraction on your behalf. He *did* write this thesis on a paper which has *already been approved and peer-reviewed* for publication. The publication is the thing that will take months itself.
True, he says that the work is a year old, written up six months ago and to be published in 2012.
Alex
The issue with the delay in publishing is probably the length of his paper. You can only publish short papers in Nature, Science, GRL. A more lengthy paper published in JGR or say an AMS journal would commonly take 6 months to be published, although some journals make in press papers available pre publication. And some journals do not allow you to prepublish drafts of the paper on your own website. I am aware that several people have emailed salby requesting a copy of his paper and ppt slides. Lets see if this attention motivates him to do so. He seems to operating in the traditional mode of waiting until the paper is published.
I’ve spotted a few relevant links on the web:
http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2010/Abstracts/Monday%206%20Dec%20-%20Orals/Session_2F/Salby_Changes_of_Ozone.pdf
JoNova has an extensive post here
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-plantary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
Judith,
I thought he said that half of the content would be in his new book prior to formal publication.
Alex
I guess this is the half that isn’t in the journal article, that is how I interpreted his statement.
Yes, Jo Nova has this on the delay to the paper:
“The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming. Salby says he sat on the results for six months wondering if there was any other interpretation he could arrive at, and then, when he invited scientists he trusted and admired to comment on the paper, they also sat on it for half a year.”
From that link,
“The trend in CO2 derives from a hysteresis in its
annual cycle: More is emitted during half of the
year than is absorbed during the other half. The
residual, which accumulates to fo rm the trend,
provides a record of net emission. It is shown
to track the satellite record of global -mean
temperature, which fl uctuates b etween years.
Temperature changes of 0.5 – 1.0 K are attended
by modulations o f C O2 emission as large as
100%. Much the same dependence is exhibited
by isotopic composition. The temperature
dependence o f CO2 parallels that of water vapor,
the dominant greenhouse gas. Such dependence
governs CO2 emission for temperature changes
that are cl early of different origin, including the
eruption of Pinatubo and the 1997-1998 El Nino.”
Why yes, JoNova’s post sure is “extensive” but I question whether it’s any good. Specifically, please comment on whether, to your knowledge, a 2.6% difference in isotope ratio truly makes it “hard to tell their ‘signatures’ apart.”
How “hard” is it, really? Can it be done?
Off hand, I think it can be done, and I think that it’s not even particularly difficult with the right modern instruments.
He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
If you open a warm carbonated drink it expels high pressure CO2
If you open a cold carbonated drink it does not spew much.
Of course there are higher levels of CO2 when the oceans are warm.
It is not possible that a tiny trace gas caused the huge warming’s as we came out of ice ages.
I was just about to post that we should expect some pseudo-response from RealClimate even before Salby’s paper appears in print. Surprise of surprises, Eric Steig has already posted here providing an old blog post published six years before Salby’s analysis came public. Steig’s cited post cannot possibly address the science Salby has done.
I have to wonder if Steig even bothered to listen to the podcast.
“Steig’s cited post cannot possibly address the science Salby has done.”
As far as I can tell, Salby hasn’t done any real science. He appears to have no comprehension of the actual science of the carbon cycle. He doesn’t appear to have read Chapter 7 of the IPCC thoroughly: Figure 7.4 already shows the year-to-year variability that he is focusing on, and he ignores all the discussion made therein which shows that these variations are indeed captured within the existing framework. He doesn’t understand how carbon cycle models work, he dismisses ice cores. He apparently gave the paper to some scientists he knows, but I doubt that any of them were actually carbon cycle experts.The talk is just embarrassing, and it is embarrassing that it is being given prominence on this website. This is just SkyDragons all over again.
As far as I can tell, Salby hasn’t done any real science.
Yes, no science here.
burned!
Lol. ‘M’ needs to get Moneypenny onto the background research. Q won’t be happy that he’s administered another footshooting to the Team
M,
Are you taking debate lessons from Michael Mann? You sound just like him and just as unconvincing too!
Anyone who listens to Salby can tell he has done his homework. He has been sitting on his results for a year trying to find some error in his work. This is an important step in science which is far too often neglected by the Hockey Team. No, Salby seems to be very well acquainted with Chapter 7. He is, after all, Climate Chair at his university.
A little more humility and a little less hubris would help your side think more clearly. And it would help you come across to the public as more thoughtful.
Over at BishopHill’s blog, there is a good technical discussion with Paul Dennis
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/8/4/more-pointed-questioning-of-agw.html#comments
I think that was a bit uncalled for ,Venter. Eric Steig was at least reasonably polite. We should not stoop to their level of snark or we undermine our own credibility.
If Eric Steig were prepared to face critics openly without hiding behind censorship and moderation at Realclimate then I am sure we would all be very happy to engage with him and be polite.
But if, as I suspect, its simply a smokescreen by Realclimate to pop up here, throw out a “the science is settled – come and see at Realclimate” comment and then disappear without making any argument in open forum then I think Venter has a point.
Anyone who has attempted to have a discussion at RealClimate that disagrees with their views will already know that Eric and his pals are certainly not polite and indulge in censorship and “moderation” of comments they don’t like. WUWT had a nice post on the level of deletions at RC. I prefer my discussions to be open and without censorship.
There has to be a large inquiry has to the conduct of
this scientific debate when this nonsense has died a
natural death. I can only see the death coming when
the CO2 ppmv figure actually trends down following
the recent temp declines in the Pacific al nina large
events that have caused the climate events not seen in
a century (that is multi-decadal CYCLES) .
For those that actually listened to the podcast you could not miss
the stunned unease in the questioners voices. I wonder what
they would do- nothing ignore this data point.
Rob,
Eric came on with an uncalled and arrogant post. I replied to it. I see that JC has removed my post as well as another post of mine agreeing with what Ron Cram posted. Yes, maybe they were not technical. So was Robert’s and a multitude of other posts. But they are there.
Dr.Curry, could you kindly clarify?
I am working to esp delete posts that violate blog rules
Judith –
It might help if you clarified what measure you are using to determine “relevance.”
As it stands, without such clarification, one might think that there is reason to question how you determine which posts are sufficiently technical in nature.
I’m happy for you not to delete any that may be calling me a Nazi, or whatever. I think I can look after myself without resorting to that level.
But it does strike me as odd that those who do indulge in verbal bullying and name calling are usually the first to cry if there is any retaliation. I’d just make the point that those who can’t take it themselves shouldn’t dish it out to others.
“I’m happy for you not to delete any that may be calling me a Nazi, or whatever. I think I can look after myself without resorting to that level.”
There is another issue with deletion of posts and responses. It takes the context out of threads. I now read about Venters uncalled for posting without being able to read what it exactly was.
Mind, I am merely a visitor. I don’t make the rules of this blog and I am absolutely fine with that. The above remark was simply for consideration.
I’m reluctant to spend an hour on a podcast when the crux of the issue will be found in a published paper, along with the description of all the technical details, graphs, methods, etc. However, I will try to tune in to at least part of it. At this point, the evidence that the natural variations Salby cites can transiently affect atmospheric CO2 concentrations is plausible, but the claim that they explain long term multidecadal or centennial trends is untenable. Rather, the evidence that the approximately 40 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 since preindustrial times is completely or almost completely anthropogenic is compelling in that it is derived from multiple independent sources. Some are described, with references, in the RC piece by Corrine Le Quere, but other data include the quantitative bookkeeping from industrial emissions records, as well as data on changing atmospheric O2 and C14 levels.
I have no quarrel with Dr. Curry’s decision to bring this topic to our attention, although I’m worried that use of terms such as “wow” or “revolutionize” will turn out in retrospect to signify some naivete about a topic that has been thoroughly evaluated over many decades. Is it possible that Salby, although cited here as advancing only arguments already well known in the blogosphere, has in fact turned up something new? I doubt it, but when his paper appears, we will have a chance to judge. If I have anything to add after visiting the podcast, I’ll comment then.
Well, Fred, it is certainly nice to see you are open to new data!
I certainly don’t have this all figured out yet, but it is apparent Salby has made some new observations. He did not particularly like the interpretation of the data, but has not been able to find anyone in the field who can come up with a viable alternative to his interpretation.
Fred
With all due respect, this is yet another example where you try to sound scientific in your writing, but demonstrate your bias in looking at information based upon what you have written. Let me further explain-
The link you cited is one of the most blatantly misleading articles that could be written on the scientific topic “what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is due to humans. The article states:
1. “all of the recent CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities”
2. “There is a lot of evidence to support this statement which has been explained in a previous posting here and in a letter in Physics Today “ My response- The 1st link is simply incorrect science when it explains that C14 can be used to make this determination, when that is known to be inaccurate due to the unstable ratio of C14 in the atmosphere since the late 1940’s. The 2nd link also fails to describe the problem of using C14 and goes on to explain how we can also use C12/C13. What is absolutely fails to mention is that when using C12/C13 and tree ring data the margins of error in the calculations make them useless for the intended purpose.
Fred writes—“Rather, the evidence that the approximately 40 percent rise in atmospheric CO2 since preindustrial times is completely or almost completely anthropogenic is compelling in that it is derived from multiple independent sources.”
My response- Fred what a crock. That hard evidence certainly does not exist although the conclusion may be correct. We have no data to tell us reliably what percentage of current atmospheric CO2 is due to humans today, last year or ten years ago. For someone to claim otherwise is either being ill informed or an outright lie. The multiple independent sources are what to claim the rise is “ALL or Almost Completely” due to humans.
Fred writes- “as well as data on changing atmospheric O2 and C14 levels.”
My response- Please show how O2 or C14 are used to make this determination Fred. You might be able to make inferences, but certainly not definitive determinations.
Let’s be honest about the science of what we know and are still learning about. We know humans are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. We also know that natural non human emissions vary greatly over time.
I have since listened to the podcast. I have to be tentative because it was audio only without the slides, but as far as I can tell, it confuses short term interannual perturbations with long term trends, despite a contrary claim apparently based mainly on correlation coefficients. The short term fluctuations do involve a variety of non-anthropogenic processes, whereas the rise from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm to the current levels of about 390 (did Salby misspeak and say 380 or did I mishear him?) can only be accounted for by anthropogenic processes – mainly fossil fuel burning and deforestation, with little room for other variables. The C12/C13 isotope ratios are only part of the story, although it is hard to imagine a non-biological (non-plant) source of C13-depleted carbon, and a major non-fossil fuel plant source would require us to believe that plants have been massively decimated since preindustrial days – far beyond known land use changes. The C14 deficit (referenced via tree samples back to pre-atomic bomb days) shows that the emitted carbon is very old (probably more than 50,000 years old given the 5600 year half life of C14), and that age is hard to attribute to something other than fossil fuels. Needless to say, the most direct evidence involves the record of human emissions such that these are about twice what has been added to the atmospheric concentration, and must be accounted for – they can’t simply disappear. The accounting is resolved by the accumulation in known sinks, mainly oceanic, where observed increases in dissolved inorganic carbon and reductions in pH are incompatible with the oceans serving as a net source and require it to be a substantial sink.
I conclude, not unfairly I hope, that Salby’s claims have no merit, and I predict that they will have little impact on scientific thinking about atmospheric CO2 levels.
Fred,
FWIW he did say 380 ppmv and that measurements started in the 60s and then later says 1960.
What I found more troublesome is that around the half hour mark after he has spoken about the linkages between temperature and soil moisture and the carbon cycle he says (nearly verbatim) regarding AR4:
“the behaviour you’ve seen was not known at the time of that report; were it the IPCC could not have drawn these sweeping conclusions that it did”
I do not know what to make of that. Linkage between temperature and the carbon cycle has cetrainly been known for ~50 years (I asked the M. Loa guys some years ago) and a relation between soil temperature and moisture and the cycle is mentioned in AR4 WGI (ch 7?) somewhere or other.
I presume that he hasn’t read the report and he is not well aquainted with previous analysis regarding the CO2 record. He is quite definite in his assertions.
Alex
Fred,
You seem to have accurately summarized the relevant issues. I agree that the argument he advances is almost certainly without merit. There are too many independent lines of evidence which point to the burning of fossil fuels as primarily responsible. Any one of these would be a strong case against Salsby’s argument. Together, they are an overwhelming counter argument.
I must admit that I am a bit surprised Judith highlighted this presentation; the basic idea has been around for a long time, and it is no more consistent with the available data now than it was the last several times it was advanced. There are lots of areas where climate science orthodoxy skates on very thin ice, and where doubt of its validity rests on technically credible arguments; this is not one of them.
To add briefly to my earlier point about the difference between short term CO2 growth rate fluctuations due to temperature changes and their inapplicability to long term trends, if we regress CO2 flux rate against temperature, it will show that a rise in temperature induces a change in flux rate in or out of terrestrial or oceanic reservoirs. This could be an increase in net outward flux if the climate is near equilibrium, or in our current climate, a reduction of net flux into the reservoirs, but this is because the proximity to equilibrium between the atmosphere and the reservoirs has been perturbed. Once the system returns toward equilibrium, the CO2 flux rate will decline back toward the earlier values despite the higher temperature. The time for most of this to occur is probably measured in a relatively few years. Data derived from these short periods can’t be assumed extrapolable to century-long intervals.
I think we ought to contrast this with the statement on British TV by Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society that humans contribute seven times more CO2 than natural sources:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/has-the-bbc-has-broken-faith-with-the-general-public/
What should rankle is the absolute certainty of his statement, not just that it’s incorrect.
Sir Paul Nurse is talking about net contributions. Naturally, gross emissions and gross absorption of CO2 are equal. So, net contributions in that sense are zero. I think he may have been talking about emissions from volcanoes, but I’d argue they are natural too and I would have to agree he hasn’t explained himself very clearly.
An good analogy, of the CO2 build up problem , would be the workings of the a large economy like the USA’s. If exports and imports are equal and opposite then everything is in balance. But if say imports are 2% larger than exports for one month, or even one year, then there is still no problem. But if it carries on for over 150 years those 2% imbalances start to add up.
150 years later, its no good saying that there is no problem because the imbalance in imports is only 1/50 of the total level of imports.
After listening to the podcast, it confirms that aCO2 is swamped by natural flux of the carbon cycle. But we knew that already. Salby pretty effectively pokes holes in the isotope argument (and the RealClimate post), but I am not certain Salby answers all of the relevant questions.
Prior to Salby, we estimated about half aCO2 ends up in the atmosphere. After taking Salby’s observations into account, where is the aCO2 going? I cannot fathom a mechanism by which nature recognizes an zCO2 molecule and automatically sends it to a CO2 sink. Or is the argument that the carbon cycle is so big that any part of human contributions which may end up in the atmosphere are negligible?
I think this is a very interesting subject. Thank you, Dr. Curry for bringing it to our attention. I look forward to the discussion.
You don’t need isotopic arguments to demonstrate that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic; there is a much more straightforward argument. The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 has been smaller than the volume of anthropogenic emissions (fossil fuel and land use) every year for the last 50 years. If the environment were a net carbon source, the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 would be greater than anthropogenic emissions, not less. This mass balance argument establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and hence is not the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric concentrations.
Now if Salby can explain why the annual increase is less than anthropogenic emissions, without anthropogenic emissions being the cause of the rise, then he may have something worth publishing.
Unless the sinks are overriding both and only ‘allowing’ a certain remainder amount to be present- like for example a slowly shifting buffer system.
You can add all you want, but the observed increase will only be what is not handled by said system. It is the shift in the system itself that dictates the free co2, not the amount of emited co2, though this of course assumes a non-saturated system,
The fact that anthropogenic emissions exceed the annual rise established beyond doubt that the natural environment is a net sink. While the natural environment is a net sink it is OPPOSING the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it. This is true regardless of the behaviour of individual fluxes. As I said, any argument that says man is not responsible for the observed rise needs to be able to explain why the observed rise is less than anthropogenic emissions. This isn’t rocket science, it is just conservation of mass.
There are questions in climate science where there is significant uncertainty, but this isn’t one of them.
N.B. looking at the growth rate tells you nothing about the long term trend (hint: what happens when you differentiate f(x) = cx ?). Analysis of the growth rate might tell you what causes the variability around the long term trend, but it tells you nothing about the long term trend as the differencing operation used to get the growth rate makes the long term trend dissapear. It sounds as if that is the basis for this study, but it has been raised before (e.g. by Roy Spencer), it was wrong then as well.
Yet the logic doesn’t flow- 95% (ish) of the co2 in the atmosphere is naturally released- only the rest is anthropogenic.
So your argument only holds water if we ignore the naturally releaed carbon dioxide.
So yes, the earth is a net carbon sink, but the fact that anthropogenic releases are estimated to be higher than the actual amount in the atmosphere proves nothing- except perhaps that the whole system has an exceptionally good capacity to ‘cycle’ carbon.
My buffer example seems to still stand, espeically if there is doubt over the c13 attribution. Unless of course i’m missing something,
labmunkey, your error is concentrating only on emissions. The natural environment takes up more than it emits, and it is the difference between emissions and uptake that governs the rise in atmospheric CO2. If you save $5 a month and your wife saves $95, but spends $98 a month, which one of you is responsible for the rise in your savings?
Hang on- i thought we didn’t KNOW all the natural sources of co2? For example, we’ve consistently underestimated the amount released from the oceans.
Secondly- if the environment takes up more co2 than it emits- pre industrial revolution there should have been no c02 in the atmosphere-you can’t have it both ways. I think you’re making an unfounded assumption regarding the natural rates of emmision and loss.
Further, if your explanation was correct, this would be the first example of a naturally occuring buffer system that is ‘tipped’ by such a (relatively) small adition of co2 that i’m aware of.
I don’t think your logic holds- i’m really not trying to be obtuse here, i just don’t think your explanation is correct.
O.K. in that case, if you think the natural environment is a net source, then explain why the observed rise is less than anthropogenic emissions. If the natural environment is a net sink explain why it is the source of the rise. This isn’t my argument, it was in the iPCC WG1 report and it has appeared in numerous papers on the carbon cycle. This blog is too slow, but I’d be happy to discuss this further at skepticalscience.com, where this issue has already been discussed at some length (quite a lot of it by me ;o).
Secondly- if the environment takes up more co2 than it emits- pre industrial revolution there should have been no c02 in the atmosphere-you can’t have it both ways.
By that logic, the only possibility is for the environmental CO2 fluxes to be precisely balanced — otherwise, the atmosphere would be either 0% or 100% CO2.
If you think it’s not possible for the environment to be a sink of CO2, why would you think the environment could be a source of CO2?
[For anyone who’s genuinely puzzled by this apparent dilemma, consider finding a copy of Bill Ruddiman’s book “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”, which has nice descriptions of how CO2 fluxes change at all time scales, from interannual to tectonic].
You’re missing the boat entirely. We currently emit 30 gigatons of CO2 a year, and the atmospheric concentration is currently rising by 15 gigatons of CO2 per year.
So what’s happening to the remaining 15 gigatons that we emit, that doesn’t end up in the atmosphere???????
Obvious answer: it’s being absorbed by oceans and land. Since oceanic carbon is observed rising, and land carbon can be strongly inferred to as well, it all makes sense. For everyone but Salby, who insists that oceans and land must be losing carbon instead!
dikranmarsupial has it exactly right. Salby is violating conservation of matter. His paper cannot possibly pass peer review.
How do we know how much the natural environment takes up? – genuine question
Mostly by mass balance. We know how much carbon we add to the atmosphere, and we know how much remains in the atmosphere. The missing part is obviously taken up by the environment. Figuring out where it goes in the environment is a little trickier, but roughly half goes into the oceans and the other half into soils and plants.
But what about the total taken up by the environment – not just the CO2 we emit but also the natual emissions? I take your point about the increase in atmospheric CO2 being less than what we emit, but unless we know the totals emiited and absorbed it is hard to understand the errors and sensitivities involved.
But what about the total taken up by the environment – not just the CO2 we emit but also the natual emissions?
Hi, RobB. Guess that wasn’t clear. The environment (currently) takes up a quantity of CO2 equivalent to all of its own emissions, plus about half of ours. Here’s a mathematical way of expressing it:
A = CO2 emitted by human activities (known from “accounting” to within 20% or so)
B = CO2 absorbed by human activities (this is pretty small for now)
C = CO2 emitted by natural sources
D = CO2 absorbed by natural sinks
E = annual increase or decrease of mass of CO2 in the atmosphere; this is easy to measure and is known quite precisely
So, (A – B) is the net CO2 flux to (or from) the atmosphere associated with human activities. Likewise, (C – D) is the net CO2 flux associated with the environment. Finally,
E = (A – B) + (C – D)
Since we know that (A – B) is actually larger than E, we know that (C – D) must be negative, and thus more CO2 is absorbed by nature than is emitted by nature (under current conditions).
Thanks, J, I understand all of that. What I was trying to ascertain were the absolute values in Giga Tonnes of C and D and compared to A and B.
My bad – I found it further up thread. Thanks anyway.
But, your little algebra says nothing about the relative size of C and A-B! C could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than A-B, and you have no way of knowing it! D could totally remove A-B with hardly a flicker of acknowledgement, and still fall behind in keeping up with C. You. Do. Not. Know. Saying “While the natural environment is a net sink it is OPPOSING the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it” is, there is no sugar coating it, STUPID.
Bart writes: Saying “While the natural environment is a net sink it is OPPOSING the rise in atmospheric concentrations, not causing it” is, there is no sugar coating it, STUPID.
Bart, please stop, catch your breath, and think for a moment.
Under current conditions, on annual timescales:
1. The net carbon flux from human sources to the atmosphere is positive.
2. The net flux from natural sources is negative.
3. The magnitude of the former net flux is approximately twice as large as the latter.
4. Carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere.
None of those facts is seriously in dispute.
If one wants to just answer the simple and obvious question “Are human emissions responsible for the observed rise in CO2?” the straightforward answer is “Yes.”
One can make this quite a bit more complicated, because as you correctly note the magnitude of the gross fluxes (e.g., natural sinks) isn’t independent of the atmospheric concentration, so one can’t just say that if we removed all human emissions the net natural flux would still be negative and atmospheric CO2 would be decreasing.
But that’s not really relevant to the question most people in this thread are asking. They want to know what caused the 120 ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 since the time when humans first began burning fossil fuels. This rise — as large as the CO2 rise from the depths of a glacial to the peak of an interglacial — rapidly brought CO2 concentrations to a level never seen in at least the past 800,000 years, and it happened at exactly the time when humans started burning coal and oil. The atmospheric rise was also accompanied by a flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the ocean.
The only reasonable answer to that question people are asking is “human emissions caused the rise”.
J | August 6, 2011 at 8:57 am |
“Bart, please stop, catch your breath, and think for a moment.”
J – please stop, and take your own advice. You are babbling incoherently. See my post at August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am. You are being monumentally obtuse.
No, Bart. I’ve referenced your point from that comment, right here (“One can make this quite a bit more complicated, because as you correctly note…”). Ultimately, what you say there is basically irrelevant to the question people are asking in this thread.
Since you seem to be continually avoiding it:
Humans are burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere. The natural environment (oceans and biosphere) is absorbing some of this CO2, but the remainder is accumulating in the atmosphere. Over the past 150 years or so, atmospheric CO2 has risen by over 100 ppm, to levels much higher than any seen in the previous 800,000 years.
It is not purely coincidental that this rapid 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 — to a level far outside anything seen in the Pleistocene record — occurs at the exact same point when humans began adding large quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
If someone asks “Are human CO2 emissions responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2?”, the only reasonable answer is “Yes”.
“It is not purely coincidental that this rapid 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 — to a level far outside anything seen in the Pleistocene record — occurs at the exact same point when humans began adding large quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere.”
So, now we have cum hoc ergo propter hoc to add to your mounting list of logical fallacies employed.
Your mass balance argument is specious. It is, I am sorry but there is no way to sugarcoat this, dumb. Dumb as rocks. Dumb as toast. Dumb as… anything dumb every done.
So, your whole case rest on a superficial resemblance between slightly quadratic trends in a particular time period (which can always be made to seem affinely similar through appropriate fitting) and an unshakable faith in a measurement process (ice cores) which can never be tested in closed loop fashion.
You are skating on very thin ice, my friend.
J –
It is not purely coincidental that this rapid 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 — to a level far outside anything seen in the Pleistocene record — occurs at the exact same point when humans began adding large quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere.
So now you’re saying that correlation can be presumed to be causation? Really?
Your statement “may” be true, but what evidence do you have – other than correlation? You keep on doing this – and it’s NOT science – it’s just an assumption based on correlation. Just because you can’t think of anything else it could be doesn’t make it so.
Just had another thought on this; though bear with me as i’m writing this in a hurry aas i need to get back to an experiemnt.
Even if the system is a net absorber- it can still ‘present’ c02 into the atmosphere. Think of a pH buffer; there is a set amount of hydronium ions present to give that particular pH. Add more hydronium and the system adjusts to absorb those extra ions, but still presents the same amount to give the defined pH (until saturation- but that’s another point).
Now if you change the temperature, the buffer-point also changes- which in turn presents more(or less) hydronium ions. Now if you add more external hydronium, the buffer system will still adjust to absorb those extra ions while allowing the net hydronium content (or pH) to rise as the temperature changes.
I.e. although you are adding more hydronium ions, it is the temperature change that is driving the net rise in hydronium ions, not the external hydronium ion addition.
I see this as directly analagous to the co2 / earths climate system.
Though of course i could be 100% wrong- but it makes sense to me.
“The fact that anthropogenic emissions exceed the annual rise established beyond doubt that the natural environment is a net sink. ”
Natural emissions exceed the annual rise by a much greater factor. Thus, using the same logic, this would establish beyond doubt that the anthropogenic environment is a net sink.
We in fact see this, as atmospheric CO2 levels peak over areas where there are limited people and are least over areas where populations are greatest.
Your logic is faulty. You are forgetting natural uptake completely and it is the difference between natural uptake and natural emissions that governs the natural effect on atmospheric co2. Note anthropogenic uptake is essentially zero, we have not yet made serious attempts at sequestration.
so there is effectively zero uptake of anthropogenically emitted co2?? really? i find that hard to believe- thought it would certainly add weight to your argument if true. Do you have any evidence for this?? Besides the C12/C13 debacle?
Also- damn, this thread is slow now.
Labmunkey: so there is effectively zero uptake of anthropogenically emitted co2?? really?
No! dikran is not saying that at all. S/he’s saying that there is no anthropogenic uptake, not that there is no natural uptake of anthropogenic emissions.
I’ll pedantically quibble with her/him and say that’s not entirely (though it is functionally) true. There is undoubtedly some small amount of sequestration due to reforestation in North America, for example, but this may well be swamped by deforestation elsewhere, and is certainly swamped by anthro emissions generally.
The point is that if there were no sinks, anthro emissions are should be causing the atmospheric CO2 levels to increase more than they actually do. We know that the terrestrial biosphere and ocean are acting as sinks, however.
As others have mentioned, this refutes Salby more or less entirely. We cannot be emitting more CO2 than is staying in the atmosphere, have nature acting on the balance as a sink, and magically have the increase in atmospheric CO2 be attributable to natural rather than anthropogenic emissions. It’s not exactly that cut and dry, but it’s pretty close.
“…this refutes Salby more or less entirely.”
(Facepalm) see my comment above at August 6, 2011 at 3:24 am.
you are absolutely correct dikran,
we know nature is aborbing more CO2 than it emits. Therefore it doesn’t explain the CO2 rise. The CO2 rise is caused by man, not nature.
Another example of that pristine science principle – “It must be humans because we can’t think of anything else it might be.”
I’m afraid you’re not getting the point.
We know the mass of carbon emitted by humans (A). We know how much mass of carbon accumulates in the atmosphere each year (C). We know that A > C.
Therefore, the carbon flux from “nature” (i.e., everything that is not people) has to be negative.
We don’t know the magnitude of every single natural carbon source and sink, but that’s OK. By mass balance, we know the net natural flux is equal to the difference between A and C.
J
Actually we do NOT KNOW the mas of human emitted CO2–we have very rough estimates–
We know the magnitude of the flux to within approximately 20%. That’s enough to conclude that it is larger than the atmospheric increase, and thus to conclude that the natural component of the earth system has to be a net sink, not a net source. See Ferdinand Engelbeen for details.
J
Actually you are mistaken from what I have read on the topic. We do not fully understand the amount of natural variation, but there is strong evidence that it may be as large as human emissions. I previously posted a study showing that evidence from 2010.
I don’t know where you posted before. But interannual variation in the net flux from natural sources is small in comparison to the magnitude of the flux from anthropogenic sources. This can be seen by downloading the data from Mauna Loa or elsewhere, detrending it, calculating the standard deviation of the detrended data, and comparing that to the anthropogenic flux.
Alternatively, just look at the keeling curve. It keeps rising steadily, through El Ninos and La Ninas, warm years and cold years. There’s small variations in the rate of increase, but it constantly increases.
1)Its still very small – ppms.
2)Extra CO2 is likely helpful towards extra life anyhow.
(1) is irrelevant. Lots of small things are important. Over time, the small annual increases have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by around 35% or so. Whether that’s important or not depends on the role of CO2 in the climate system, not on whether “ppm is a really small number, dude”.
(2) is likewise irrelevant to this thread. Whether CO2 is good, bad, or ugly is irrelevant to the question of whether it’s increasing, and whether combustion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic land use changes are responsible for most of that increase.
…or maybe CO2 at those levels is irrelevant. Compared to the other green house gases it’s are irrelevant. It’s like about one thousandth as important as water vapour is to warming.
“It’s like about one thousandth as important as water vapour is to warming.”
More like a third as important.
lolwot, There is 40,000 ppm of water vapour (at the tropics where it is at a max concentrations) compared to 390 ppm CO2 in the air. The global average is 25 times more H2O vapour than CO2, but H20 is more effective as a green house gas. It amplifies the effect of other green house gases. The earth is warmest close to the surface. This is the most effective location for the greenhouse effect and that is where H20 vapour.
In a lot of places water vapor’s greenhouse gas effect is saturated. Did you forget that argument? it’s one of the skeptics favorites.
Overall CO2 provides about a third of the greenhouse effect, not 1/1000th
J,
What is your opinion on this presentation:
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
“We know that A > C.”
No! You know A > C – D! A > C does not follow!
As the other part doesn’t allow further comments, here is mine:
“But, your little algebra says nothing about the relative size of C and A-B! C could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than A-B, and you have no way of knowing it! D could totally remove A-B with hardly a flicker of acknowledgement, and still fall behind in keeping up with C. You. Do. Not. Know. ”
The basic formula in question is:
E = (A – B) + (C – D)
where E is the increase in the atmosphere and A,B resp. human emissions and sinks and C,D natural sources and sinks.
We know E (measured), we know A-B (calculated), therefore we know C-D.
Over the past 50 years of accurate measurements, C-D was always negative, see:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
Thus whatever the real height of C and D, D was always larger than C. For each year, the exact difference between C and D is known. If for the current year the emissions are 8 GtC, the increase in the atmosphere is 3 GtC, then the difference between C and D is -5 GtC.
It doesn’t make any difference if C was 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 GtC, as in all these cases C-D = – 5 GtC
For C = 100; D = 105
For C = 1,000; D = 1005
For C = 1,000,000; D = 1,000,005
Thus the absolute height of C and D is not of the slightest interest at all for the mass balance and for the fact that humans are fully responsible for the increase. No matter how much natural CO2 circulates through the atmosphere, in all cases nature is a net sink and doesn’t contribute to the increase.
Nature is a net sink because of the anthropogenic input. The anthropogenic input is removed to restore the equilibrium. Without the anthropogenic input, the net sink would be a net source.
When it starts cooling, the net non-anthropogenic flux (sink since the ~1960s) will increase. (C – D) will get more negative and when absolute value of (C – D) is greater than (A – B), the E will get negative.
(A – B) does not drive E
Temperature drives E.
(A – B) drives (C – D). E is determined by the temperature.
I think, Edim, you are saying what I am saying in different words just below. Will they get it? I’d bet against it. Oh, well… We tried.
Edim, you are in part right. But it depends:
In the past 50 (and probably longer) years, (C-D) is negative, that is what is observed. That means that the increase of E is fully attributable to (A-B). Temperature modulates how negative (C-D) is, but over the full 50 years, it was never positive. Thus temperature modulates the sink rate by nature, therefore the increase rate of E, but the trend is (near) 100% from (A-B). Only if temperature has a more permanent increase, that contributes to E. But that is at maximum 8 ppmv since the LIA.
If the temperature gets more and more negative, one need a continuous drop of about 0.25 degr.C per year (!) to completely absorb the (current) emissions.
Nooooooooo!!!
I see I am going to have to talk about this from a systems aspect, something I wanted to avoid because, frankly, I’m not sure who here will understand it.
D IS NOT independent of A+B. The natural structure of systems such as this is as follows. Let S be the accumulation,
S(k) = S(k-1) + E(k)
where “k” refers to the year. D is an ARMA operator on S, so that
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – B(k) + C(k) – D(S(k))
In the simplest form, D might be represented by a simple gain. Let that gain be “d”
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – B(k) + C(k) – d*S(k)
Because this is a linear system, you can break it up into three parts S1, S2 and S3, where
S1(k) = (1-d)*S1(k-1) + A(k) – B(k)
S2(k) = (1-d)*S2(k-1) + C(k)
S3(k) = (1-d)*S3(k-1)
S1 is the accumulation due to A and B, S2 to C. These are initialized to zero at time step k = 0, and S3 is initialized to S(0). Then, S(k) = S1(k) + S2(k) + S3(k) for all k >= 0.
If A(k) – B(k) is bounded to be less than a value, say “M”, for the time period under scrutiny, then we can bound S1(k) as S1(k) <= M/d. If d is really large compared to M, then S1 is going to be really small.
But, that DOES NOT MEAN S2(k) is small, because we do not know what C(k) is!
This static accounting you guys have been doing is simply not up to the task. You have made a conclusion which is in NO WAY justified.
Bart, D is hardly dependent of (A-B), it is (C-D) which depends on sigma(E):
As it looks like that the CO2 cycle of the atmosphere acts as a simple linear first order process, the sink rate (C-D) directly depends of the difference between the current level in the atmosphere (390+ ppmv) and the equilibrium setpoint (around 290 ppmv). As (C-D) is about 4 GtC/year, the influence is distributed over the sources (only the oceans, as volcanoes and vegetation decay don’t react on pressure changes) and sinks (oceans and vegetation). Oceans emit about 90 GtC over one season, thus D may have been reduced with a few %. That is all.
Ferdinand Engelbeen | August 6, 2011 at 8:22 am |
“Bart, D is hardly dependent of (A-B), it is (C-D) which depends on sigma(E):”
Bssst… Wrong. The sinks do not know the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2 (ACO2 and NACO2). They expand for all inputs. That means D can be broken up into two parts: D1, which is the sunk ACO2, and D2 which is the sunk NACO2. So, the question is NOT is (A-B) > (C-D), but is (A-B-D1) > (C-D2).
“If A(k) – B(k) is bounded to be less than a value, say “M”, for the time period under scrutiny, then we can bound S1(k) as S1(k) 0, or to put it in your terms, C(k) – d*S(k) > 0. And since we know S(k), A(k), B(k), from direct measurement, and since d in your equations is determinable from the above, we can also determine that C(k) – d*S(k) <0. So Salby is wrong.
We also know that both C and D are very much larger than both A and B, therefore a small change in either C or D will have the same effect as a large change in A or B.
How then, especially given factors like deforestation, desertification etc, do you imagine that the value of C-D has remained stable enough, even over the last century, to make A-B the dominant player?
Let’s forget about the notation A, B, etc. via which I apparently made this thread less clear rather than more clear, by using different sets of letters in different comments. I wish I hadn’t started that.
It’s easy to see that today (and for several decades now) anthropogenic emissions account for the entirety of the observed rise in CO2.
Two hundred years ago, when humans were first starting to burn fossil fuels, natural variations in CO2 fluxes would have resulted in increases or decreases in atmospheric CO2 that dwarfed the impact of those small, early human emissions.
At some point between 1800 and 1960, a point was crossed over whereby anthropogenic emissions became large enough to produce an ever-increasing accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. I’m not sure exactly when that crossover occurred, but we’re long past it now.
We have only rough figures pre-Mauna Loa, but we know that the variability in the past 50 years of (C-D) are quite modest: +/- 2 GtC (+/- 1 ppmv) around the trend. Thus in the earlier period, when emissions were less than 2 GtC/year, it may have been that nature was a contributor to the increase, or a sink for all human emissions, but in average a sink.
Thus while there may have been huge changes in individual flows, the variability in sink rate is surprisingly small for a natural process (about 2% of the throughput). The main reason of the low variability may be that oceans and biosphere act as CO2 opponents on temperature changes
The main reason of the low variability may be that oceans and biosphere act as CO2 opponents on temperature changes
Having no desire to live on either Snowball Earth nor Jurassic Park, I’m personally grateful for this low natural variability!
You guys do not understand feedback systems. I’m looking at you two like a parent looks at an errant teenager who thinks he knows all about the world, but is unaware of the gaping holes in his logic due to his inexperience. You don’t even realize how foolish you look.
J,
But these huge natural variations somehow self-regulated so as to keep CO2 concentrations within close limits for millions of years?
And then, at some point halfway through the 20th C, these huge natural variations suddenly and coincidentally stopped, did they?
I see.
Ferdinand:
Ferdinand, it’s simply not enough to say ‘may be’.
Unless you can satisfactorily explain such processes, any assumptions you may make will remain just so – assumptions.
Bart writes:
“We know that A > C.”
No! You know A > C – D! A > C does not follow!
You’re getting overexcited and misreading things. Admittedly, it’s partly my fault for being sloppy.
The comment you reply to here was posted by me at 11:35 am, and does not use any term “D”. It was just an ultra-simplified statement that human emissions (A) are greater than the observed atmospheric increase (C).
That’s just a fact.
Now, later (at 3:52 pm) I responded to a post by someone else, and it seemed necessary to break things down a little more, so I posted a different comment involving five terms (A, B, C, D, E). Due to the semi-threaded nature of this comments list, that later comment actually appears higher up on the page. So if you’re reading this from top to bottom, and not paying too close attention, it’s very easy to understand why you might be confused.
I understand the setup perfectly well, J. It is mind-numbingly clear that you do not.
Bart, I have to reply here, as I can’t on the right place.
Bart | August 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm | :
“The sinks do not know the difference between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO2”.
I didn’t say or implied such thing, to the contrary. For any equilibrium reaction the sink rate is directly dependent of the difference in partial pressure between current CO2 and equilibrium CO2. The sink rate is independent of the origin of the molecules.
I don’t see any need to split D. The sink rate is not D (that is the total sink and largely unknown and not of interest here). The sink rate is (C-D), that is the net amount which is removed (and exactly known). That is all what is needed and all what counts. It is the height of (C-D) which depends of the partial pressure difference.
Bart | August 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
“You guys do not understand feedback systems.”
Wow, 34 years experience with feedback systems in chemical plants (including a few nasty runaway reactions) don’t count?
“Wow, 34 years experience with feedback systems in chemical plants (including a few nasty runaway reactions) don’t count?”
I don’t know what you do that you call “feedback”, but you are making an incredibly elementary mistake here, regardless. Your mass balance rules out nothing. Let’s work through an example. I’m not saying this is how CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere, it is merely to show that your assumption is unfounded in general. Let’s work with the hypothetical model I gave in my comment at August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – B(k) + C(k) – d*S(k-1)
(Note: I typed hastily and the sink term should have been written as being evaluated at step k-1)
Suppose at year 0, we have S(0) = 280 ppmv.
At time step k = 100, we have S(100) = 380 ppmv. Let’s ignore the B(k) term for this example (there are no active measures being taken by humans to remove CO2) Suppose A(k) = 0.04*k ppmv/year. A straight accumulation
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k)
would give S(100) = 280 + 0.04*100*101/2 = 481, i.e., the total accumulation would be twice what is observed.
Now, assume d = 0.8. Without considering NA inputs, we have
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – 0.8*S(k-1)
At the end of the period, we have S(100) = 12.5 ppmv (obviously, we’re missing the big chunk due to NA forcing).
Now, add in the NA intput. Suppose C(k) = 214+0.8*k. We have
S(k) = S(k-1) + (A(k) + C(k) – 0.8*S(k-1))
We now get S(100) = 380 ppmv, as observed. The ACO2 input flux A(k) is much smaller than the NACO2 input flux C(k), but the outcome is less than the total accumulation of A(k). Yet, you have assured us that this cannot happen!
In 91 of 100 years, C-D = C(k) – 0.8*S(k-1) is, indeed, negative. It is a net “sink” by your definition. Yet, clearly, C(k) is the quantity driving the major portion of the output. How can this be???
I know your next move will be to huff and puff and say this is not representative of how the actual system works. But, in a very general sense, it is. In any case, that is an argument for another day. First, you folks have to understand that the argument you are making requires A LOT more supporting evidence, which constrains the system favorably for you (but which isn’t allowed because the system would have secondary characteristics that have not been observed), than you have so far believed or proferred.
That makes sense to me as described.
Effectively there is an equilibrium CO2 level being increased naturally. Actual CO2 level must follow that rising equilibrium level. As a result CO2 rises at rate N independently of how much CO2 humans are emitting.
When humans are emitting > N (as they are today) then nature turns into a sink absorbing the excess.
If humans suddenly start emitting < N then nature turns into a source emitting the shortfall.
At all stages the CO2 level rises at rate N independently of whether humans are emitting or not.
Paleoclimate suggest that the natural rate of change of CO2 is negative, except for volcanically active periods (which we are not in). It appears to be about 10 ppm per million years. This is probably the sequestering rate due to weathering and vegetation.
So in essence, even though human CO2 emissions are greater than the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere and nature is a net sink, if human CO2 emissions were to stop, CO2 would continue increasing in the atmosphere at the same rate because nature would change to becoming a net source.
The format of this blog makes replies quite difficult…
Bart | August 6, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – B(k) + C(k) – d*S(k-1)
and
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) – 0.8*S(k-1)
You assume here that the total natural sink is directly proportional to the amount in the atmosphere. That is a bridge too far. When the system was in equilibrium, then C = D = d*S(k-1) where d is about 0.26 for 580 GtC in the atmosphere (if we may assume that the current knowledge of the carbon flow of around 150 GtC source/sink flow is correct).
Now that S increased with over 30%, d decreased to 0.19 for 800 GtC in the atmosphere, if we attribute the total increase in sink rate (4 GtC/year) to the sink. D is simply independent of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are no indications that the natural flows changed by 30% because of the increase in the atmosphere.
There is hardly any change in C or D from the increase in the atmosphere, and there is little difference between C and D because of that. Instead, the sink rate, the difference between C and D, is a linear response to the increase in the atmosphere:
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) + (C-D)(k)
(C-D)(k) = d*(S(k)-So)
S(k) = S(k-1) + A(k) + d*(S(k)-So)
where So is S at equilibrium conditions and d about 0.04 GtC/ppmv difference.
Of course, even a small non-human caused change in C or D changes the balance and may dwarf the human contribution. But there is no need to guess what the imbalance (C-D) is, because we know that quite exactly. And that was always negative in the past 50 years at about halve the human emissions…
lolwot | August 6, 2011 at 11:40 pm |
Effectively there is an equilibrium CO2 level being increased naturally.
After 800,000 years of ice cores knowledge, we know that the natural equilibrium was 290 ppmv at the current temperature.
When humans are emitting > N (as they are today) then nature turns into a sink absorbing the excess.
In this case you assume that 100% of the human emissions are instantly absorbed and the increase is only from the increasing setpoint. That means that the sensitivity of CO2 for temperature is about 100 ppmv/degr.C, which leads to negative values during ice ages and extreme high values during warmer periods in interglacials. Even if you don’t trust ice cores, the first is impossible, the second is not observed in any kind of proxy. The extreme high sensitivity is impossible.
Ferdinand,
Your formula and that of Bart are equivalent. Your disagreement with Bart is due to a misunderstanding of his formula. He has made the formula as simple as possible by rearranging different phenomena appropriately in C and D.
Ferdinand Engelbeen | August 7, 2011 at 6:21 am |
“There is hardly any change in C or D from the increase in the atmosphere, and there is little difference between C and D because of that. “
A statement like this is what makes me doubt your “feedback” cred. You do not understand how natural systems work. In a system such as you describe, no equilibrium would exist.
Pekka Pirilä | August 7, 2011 at 6:42 am |
“Ferdinand,
Your formula and that of Bart are equivalent.”
Indeed, they are (or would be, if he got the sign of the feedback right – currently, his equation is unstable). Ferdinand does not realize his equation is in conflict with his words.
Sorry for the delay in reply, three blogs to respond to and a life beyond the blogosphere sometimes a little too much…
First, I need to go back to what Pekka wrote August 4 at 4:45:
1. An alternative source of CO2 adding CO2 on top of the carbon flux that has maintained the balance.
2. Strong sinks that absorb both half the human emissions and the additional source.
But in fact that doesn’t alter the mass balance, because the strong sinks and the alternative source together only add to the turnover, don’t add anything to the mass balance. The balance still is that natural sinks are greater than natural sources.
Bart’s example is similar, but his interpretation is different:
He says:
The ACO2 input flux A(k) is much smaller than the NACO2 input flux C(k), but the outcome is less than the total accumulation of A(k). Yet, you have assured us that this cannot happen!
That the outcome is less than the total accumulation has nothing to do with the height of C(k), that only depends of the difference between C(k) and d*S(k-1). The difference must be negative over the years, thus a sink measured over the full period, only then is it possible that the outcome is less than the accumulated A(k). Again, all of the height of C(k) is only throughput, except for 9 years in Bart’s example.
Nobody said that C(k) is not the majority of the output, to the contrary, but in most cases more than the output disappears in the sinks.
Further, there is a fundamental difference between Bart’s model and my model: Bart’s model in principle can go down to zero CO2, because there are no constraints, while my formula is linear around a (temperature controlled) setpoint.
And from a practical view: we don’t know the exact height of C or D, but we know (for the past 50 years) that (C-D) = 0.55*A +/- 2 GtC. Thus whatever the height, there is (relative) little difference between C and D.
But thanks for the remark that it must be – d*(S(k)-So), I indeed forgot to change the sign after copying and replacing.
Ferdinand,
It should be clear from earlier messages that I don’t agree with Bart on the conclusions related the real Earth system, but I prefer having also the logic right and mathematics correctly understood, not only the conclusions.
Bart prposed a linearized model that can be right only over a limited range close to the present state of the Earth system. Thus the term d*S(k-1) is also valid only for S(k-1) not far from the present value or from the value S0 that you introduced.
Writing
D = d*S(k-1) = d*(S(k-1)-S0) + d*S0
this term is split to two terms. The first is the one that you prefer and the second is a constant that can be included in C (i.e. C = C1 + d*S0, where C1 is the natural source excluding the contribution of the mathematical trick). That’s what Bart did. That’s just a mathematical trick that makes the formula slightly simpler, while it can lead to such a misunderstanding that you appear to have concerning his message.
The division of the natural term to C and D is done on the basis that D is proportional to S(k-1), not on the basis that it would have all the sinks. C may include both sources and sinks but they are assumed to be determined by something else than S(k-1). Large (i.e. close to 1.0) coefficient d would mean that any additional CO2 due to human influence or some natural process independent of S(k-1) would be removed to a large extent from the atmosphere. As we know that S(k)-S(k-1) is as large as measured at Mauna Loa large d would require a large natural source C1 on top of the constant “trick term” d*S0. That’s a mathematically valid possibility, while it’s not physically plausible taking into account everything else that we know about CO2 in the Earth system.
“there is a fundamental difference between Bart’s model and my model”
There is no difference at all, except that you take “So” to be a constant, and I assume it is time varying. Indeed, it is how I came up with the equation, knowing that S(k) would track “So” when the feedback parameter is “fast”.
You can protest all you like about how realistic the model is but, as Pekka observed, it all comes down to whether the feedback is fast enough. I maintain that, if the ice core data are truthful, it follows that it must be, because otherwise there would not have been strong regulation of the CO2 level in the past.
But, this is beside the point here. The point here is that I have ripped your mass balance argument to shreds. Your claim was that the mass balance proved that the rise was wholly anthropogenic. That claim is revealed as sloppy reasoning and utterly false.
Pekka Pirilä | August 9, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
“That’s a mathematically valid possibility, while it’s not physically plausible taking into account everything else that we know about CO2 in the Earth system.”
On the other hand, it is not physically possible for CO2 to have been regulated tightly in accordance with the ice cores without strong feedback. So, you have something which you believe is not physically plausible versus something which is not physically possible. Who wins that contest?
Bart,
Time scales are essential. In the present case the feedback should be strong over a timescale of years, while the ice cores tell about slower processes.
In the present situation both the large natural source and the mechanism for the very strong feedback are missing. We have just the human contribution and the feedback that is sufficient to compensate for about 50% of the annual human contribution. From the understanding of the feedback mechanisms it could be perhaps 50% stronger, but we miss the source for even that.
Pekka – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is a simple discrepancy which must be laid to rest, or there is no way to conclude anything about the system: how were CO2 levels maintained in a tight range over centuries, given all the random influx and egress from volcanic activity, environmental perturbations, deforestation, desertification, fossilization, agricultural trends, wars, oceanic turnover, continental drift, weathering of minerals, fires, floods, etc…, if there is not a fairly strong feedback holding them in place?
If there is not a strong feedback holding them in place, the ice core measurements are bunk, and we have no basis for believing current levels are unusual. If there is a strong feedback holding them in place, then the current rise is not anthropogenic in origin.
The CO2 narrative sought to establish a scenario by which the rise could be attributed to human emissions. But, the narrative is internally inconsistent.
On Bart | August 6, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
Just in case anyone tried to replicate my math in the above post, I noticed that in the actual script I ran, I had set A(k) = 0.1*k ppmv/year rather than A(k) = 0.04*k ppmv/year.
Bart,
Formally you are right, but the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 has been very regular at a level that cannot have continued for very long. The strength and regularity of that increase requires something that’s really, really exceptional in comparison with earlier history. The human influence fits the requirement, while inventing something natural to do the same is really, really unlikely.
The case for the human dominance is really, really strong.
“…at a level that cannot have continued for very long.”
Cannot? This sounds like a personal inclination rather than an iron law to me.
The strength and regularity of that increase requires something that’s really, really exceptional in comparison with earlier history.”
Assuming the ice core measurements accurately reflect history. And, what you mean, of course, is in relatively recent “earlier” history. Yet, the ice core measurements also indicate a level of stability which is in conflict with the assertion of substantial human influence.
“The human influence fits the requirement…”
On a superficial level. The stress hypothesis also fit the requirement for inducing stomach ulcers. The theory of continental drift was rejected for decades because there was no known driving force.
Too much of climate theory is being based on data which are not nearly as incontrovertible as portrayed. Too many reasonable possibilities are being rejected out of hand on the basis of limited information.
Negative concentrations are not possible and it’s possible to set lower limits limits well above zero.
“Negative concentrations are not possible and it’s possible to set lower limits limits well above zero.”
But, you’re claiming upper limits.
I was referring to history. It’s not possible that the trend has continued for very long in the past at the present rate.
I see. Then, I guess I see your assumption that it is “very, very unlikely” as just that: an assumption. Do you have anything to go on other than a vague sort of feeling?
It all comes back to the ice core measurements. They make you believe that everything was quiescent for centuries before. Yet, it is “very, very unlikely” that, that quiescence was just happenstance, and almost surely because there were opposing forces and feedbacks maintaining it. And, if that is the case, then there was an abrupt change either way you slice it: either there was some sort of burp in the system which altered the equilibrium conditions, or there was a relaxation of feedback which allowed the anthropogenic influx to accumulate. Which is more likely? An sudden addition into the system (perhaps from upwelling of the deep oceans), or a massive failure of part of it?
Of course, the simplest explanation is that the ice core measurements are unreliable, and I suspect that is likely enough, given that there is no way to actually confirm the model for how CO2 is trapped and held over centuries, much less many thousands of years, in an end-to-end fashion. But, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the right one.
I am, oh horror, computer handicapped for the moment, at last I now have a laptop with Excel on board but with a Belgian/French keyboard (azerty), which I am not familiar with.
Thanks for the clear explanation Pekka. I have done more practical work than theoretical, so theory is mainly from 40+ years ago, but it is slowly coming back. Thus my formula and Bart’s are more or less equivalent. Rests the main objection:
I have repeated Bart’s calculation. His main point is that the increase in the atmosphere is mainly from natural emissions, as these are much larger than from human emissions. My objection is that it doesn’t matter, because as long as the natural sinks are larger than the natural sources, whatever the height of the sources, these are only part of the throughput and don’t add to the increase (as is the case in Bart’s example). Before Bart goes through the roof in anger, let us look at the most extreme case in Bart’s example:
All human emissions are completely absorbed within minutes by the nearby forests or oceans. That makes no difference for the flow of natural sources, but that occupies part of the natural sinks, which otherwise would be used by natural CO2.
Thus the formula then will be:
S(k) = S(k-1) + (A(k) – D1(k)) + C(k) – D2(k)
where A(k) – D1(k) = 0 and total natural sinks D = D1 + D2
We measure C(k) – D2(k) in the atmosphere, and the result is that C(k) is larger than D2(k), in quantity about A(k)/2.
Thus in this case the natural emissions C(k) are 100% responsible for the momentary increase in the atmosphere. But that is a false responsability, because the human emissions reduced the sink capacity of the natural sinks, so that a part of the natural emissions remain in the atmosphere. Ultimately, all what happened is that the anthro CO2 was replaced by natural CO2, but the origin of the increase is the reduction in natural sinks by human CO2, not an increase of natural CO2. Only when the difference between C(k) and D(k) gets larger than A(k), only then there is a real contribution by natural CO2.
Our mass balance argument still stands strong.
Next message some comment on the response speed.
Ferdinand Engelbeen | August 11, 2011 at 6:39 am |
Ferdinand – All you are saying, in roundabout fashion, is that, in equilibrium with a purely intregrating system, the anthropogenic input is responsible for any rise. You have dismissed the role of feedback entirely and, in doing so, are insisting on a tautology for how your system so constrained will behave.
But, the constraint is arbitrary, and the system you describe is merely one out of infinite possibilities. We can partition that set of possibilities into two subsets: fast systems (high bandwidth) and slow systems (low bandwidth).
Your purely integrating model falls in the slow set – it is the ne plus ultra of the slow set. Your mass balance argument is really just a correlation which applies to systems in the slow set. It is not a characteristic of the fast set.
It is my contention that the quiescence of CO2 levels, as indicated by the ice core data, indicates that the CO2 regulatory system is a fast one. The reason is that slow system inherently cannot maintain tight bounds on the system output, which would necessarily display random fluctuations similar to a random walk over time lines associated with the settling time of the system.
But, the bottom line is, your mass balance argument fails. It has a crucial “IF” condition which you have left out, to wit: IF the system is slow, THEN (and only then) the mass balance proves that the rise is anthropogenic.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Bart, depends what you call “fast” and “slow”.
The feedback of the CO2 in the ocean’s surface and vegetation on temperature certainly can be called fast (1 to a few years), but limited. The reaction of both on CO2 changes also is fast, but limited for CO2 disturbances: about 20% of the emissions/year for vegetation and only 5% of the emissions/year in the ocean’s surface, due to ocean chemistry.
The deep oceans take the rest of the 50% of the sink rate, which all together gives a half life decay time for an excess amount of CO2 of about 40 years.
That is slow on human scale, but pretty fast on geological scale, the more that many of the other natural processes are much slower, or much smaller in scale or both.
– Volcanoes and vents emit less than 1% of human emissions (even the Pinatubo eruption caused a dip in the CO2 increase, as the cooling by the volcanic dust increased the absorption of the oceans beyond the extra emissions.
– The current increase in the atmosphere is equivalent to burning down about 1/3rd of all land plants. You need to burn a lot of vegetation to give a descernable increase in the (ice or other) records, the more that fresh growth within the following years rapidely uses a lot of CO2.
– Other processes are very slow in change: vegetation area increase/decrease, ocean overturning rate, rock weathering,..
Thus the response to CO2 disturbances is slow enough to support the mass balance argument and fast enough to support the stability as seen in the ice cores.
Well, at least maybe you’re starting to get it now, that the mass balance “argument” is really not an argument at all, but an assertion of the type of system we are dealing with.
No Jim, the mass balance argument rules out the possibility of the rise being of natural origin. It isn’t that we can’t think of anything else, we can rule out the possibility as being inconsistent with the observations. On the other hand, we know anthropogenic emissions are more than enough to explain all of the observed rise (and then some). So if it isn’t natural, and it isn’t anthropogenic, what else could be causing the rise, UFOs?
dikranmarsupial –
I understand mass balance. I also understand the constraints on mass balance – about which you make “assumptions”. I also understand that the carbon cycle is still an unknown and will remain so for some time to come. Why else would you think the OCO spacecraft was important?
IOW, come back with your arguments when you actually have the cycle AND ALL the sources/sinks in the known column. And you don’t have that right now. Therefore – your logic works IF and ONLY IF all your assumptions are correct. The fact that you “can’t think of any other sources” was the thrust of my previous comment. And while you may be correct, but that has yet to be determined.
So – your logic is provisional if not uncertain.
BTW – I did not say you’re wrong – or that CO2 is not increasing – or that humans have no part in the process. I AM saying that I see a LOT of assumptions that may be intuitive to you, but “intuitive” is only one part of science. The important part is the title of a book – “But is it True?” And too often, it’s not.
Science is about determining whether it is – or is NOT – true. Which is why the massive opposition to the Salby paper – before anyone has even read it – is NOT science but advocacy. And ridiculous.
Personally, I’m hopeful, but sceptical. Meaning – IF it’s true, it would scratch “my” confirmation bias – but I have doubts.
Jim, as explained just above here, you don’t need the exact figures for any natural CO2 input and output, because you know the result at the end of the year. The difference between two knowns is a known. And that difference was negative over the past 50 years. Thus nature can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere, it is a net sink.
Thus even without a look at Salby’s paper, he made a fundamental error on this point.
wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… See above @ August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am.
Ferdinand –
I think I’ll wait for the paper.
“…the mass balance argument rules out the possibility of the rise being of natural origin.”
No! See above @ August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am.
Not necessarily, take this hypothetical to explain the arithmetic. Partition the system into anthropogenic, sea (natural) & land (natural) i.e. divide natural into sea and land. Over a given period, if : –
1. Net anthropogenic emission = +1 unit
2. Net sea emission = +1 unit
3. Net land emission = -1.5 unit
The overall net emission over this period = + 0.5 units yet we can see how anthropogenic and sea (e.g. warming) contribute equally to this figure while net natural emission (i.e. sea + land) is – 0.5
Do we really know enough about the carbon cycle, in particular the natural fluxes of CO2, to rule out that some thing like this is going on?
If the question is “is the rise natural or anthropogenic” then the internal partitioning of the natural sources and sinks is irrelevant. Of course some parts of the natural carbon cycle are net sources (e.g. volcanos), but considering them separately just makes what is left of the natural carbon cycle and even stronger net sink. In your hypothetical example, what would happen if anthropogenic emissions were reduced to zero? Atmospheric CO2 would be falling instead of rising.
You are correct when you say. “In your hypothetical example, what would happen if anthropogenic emissions were reduced to zero? Atmospheric CO2 would be falling instead of rising”.
However in my hypothetical example what would happen if if sea emissions over time were reduced to zero? e.g cooling of the oceans. Then CO2 would also be falling even though anthropogenic emissions are rising. Actually I would contend that in both cases the CO2 would remain the same because the net land absorption would probably decrease by 0.5 units.
The point here is that it’s an error to view the natural sources and sinks as one homogeneous system. They are not, they can behave independently over time but obviously the situation is far more complex than a simple partitioning of natural into sea and land..
The isotopic argument never made any sense to me. Here’s why:
Basic thermo: there exists a theoretical state called equilibrium, which when talking about the CO2-Water system depends on temperature. Anybody who’s ever opened a warm can of soda understands that CO2 pressure goes way up with rising temperature.
So it’s completely uncontroversial that rising ocean temperature will raise the equilibrium CO2 concentration.
A consequence of bacis thermo, Le Chatelier’s Principle, says that if you push CO2 into this system, equilibrium will be shifted slightly, but most of the CO2 will disappear from the gas phase. Again, this is very basic stuff.
We also know the following (h/t Thinking Scientist):
So what does the isotopic ratio tell us that we don’t already know? We already know the fluxes, and the isotopic composition tells us something about the transport processes, but the equilibrium is what it is. If, indeed the equilibrium is being shifted by the temperature, the isotopic composition doesn’t shine any light on that process; only the transport processes involved.
_____
If, in fact this turns out to be valid, it implies a very low climate sensitivity to CO2, although it also implies another positive feedback mechanism. So in reality, we could be seeing more natural CO2 than anthro, and yet the anthro could be leveraging some of the natural CO2. So it’s not at all clear what this implies for sensitivity to anthro carbon. This theory could end up incorporated into AGW theory without disturbing it.
The isotopic ratios tell you something about the source of the CO2. See, for example, Ferdinands blog or real climate cited herein or look at this summary
http://www.uga.edu/sisbl/stable.html
and yes, evaporation is very slightly higher for heavier isotopes, but the differences btw C12/C13 are ppm anyhow.
Fred,
I have always respected you and your insight, but you are giving this blog too much credibility; this is another of Judith’s whole charade of “this is interesting! Maybe I will put it on my blog and reserve judgment to avoid any criticism of myself, but pretend it has validity.”
I pointed this out with Loehle’s piece too. It is a dumb game she plays and everyone else sees it.
Chris,
It’s always possible that she will break down and actually answer straightforward requests like that posted at: http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-93861
She might surprise you and actually go on the record as to why this is “wow”-worthy, “sufficiently important”, etc.
Could you explain to an interested layman why this isn’t interesting to you? Seems to be extremely interesting to me.
What’s the alternative, Chris? To pretend it doesn’t have validity? Listen to the podcast and you will learn why people think Salby has blown a hole in the isotopes argument. Salby’s work has not been replicated yet, so Dr. Curry can’t totally embrace it. But it is interesting to anyone who has an open and questioning scientific mind. Too bad that excludes many climate scientists.
Chris,
Hearing a first year grad student talk about a real scientist’s charade, on her own blog site, is rude even for you.
You manage to squeeze in ‘charade’ and ‘pretend’ regarding Dr. Curry’s motives all in one paragraph, and follow it with characterizing her as ‘dumb’ in the next.
Nothing acts as a ‘tell’ of someone dodging an issue much better than to impugn their motives and sincerity.
hunter,
I’m sorry if it is “rude” but Judith Curry is a publishing climate scientist. She has a PhD. She is in a in a position to make judgments on various claims, and she also influences a lot of peoples opinions based on her credentials. There is no excuse for over-hyping every new opinion out there. It also takes much less than a grad student in the field to spot some of the bad work recently discussed on this blog (but believe it or not, even without a PhD, we do actually pay tuition for a reason).
The evidence CO2 increase is due to humans is overwhelming. The isotopic signature discussed in Dr. Steig’s link is but one. So is the oxygen decline in the atmosphere. The carbon uptake by the ocean and land is another proof that they are not acting as long-term sources. The point made in the video that the CO2 is “dynamic” and influenced by many processes- temperatures, clouds, etc may be true but is not the least bit convincing in the context of the long term trend. CO2 has fluctuated between ~180-280 ppm over the last million years and done so at considerably slow rates. The feedback influence from temperature is on the order of 10 ppm per degree (if pressed, I will find a reference, there was a good one a couple years ago but I forgot the name). In contrast, CO2 has risen ~100 ppm in ~1 century and at absolute concentrations much higher than in the Quaternary. Did the clouds suddenly shift into a completely new regime so as to create this rise? Was the trend from 0 to 0.8 C anomaly causing the ~100 ppm CO2 increase; if so, the sensitivity of CO2 concentrations to past conditions would be much, much higher.
I am tired of people treating every new idea as if it is really a big deal, ONLY because it has something to say against “AGW.”
Chris,
I am tired of sophomoric (look it up) behavior from people like you.
The evidence is not overwhelming. It is strong. Nor is the evidence that CO2 is the primary forcing of the climate.
Your side has never explained the clear lag between increased temps and CO2 increases in the historical record.
As to the paleo record, the only thing clear is that it has huge error bars, iss full of noise and is not complete or reliable.
What I and many skeptics are tired of is being treated rudely, of seeing people like Dr. Curry or Spencer or Pielke treated shabbily, of skeptics being told we are mentally or genetically deficient, or that we are actually crypto-nazi deniers.
This idea, if true, is in fact huge because it would be yet another line of evidence that the AGW movement has been leading us down a rabbit trail.
we already know that flood, storm, droughts are not impacted significantly, in contra to AGW beliefs. If we can determine how much of the increase in CO2 is simply driven by the slight warming we have experienced, then we can, happily conclude that even less of the hysteria and fear mongering of your profession is something to worry about.
Already 69% of Americans believe that climate scientists are committing fraud. I would suggest that your behavior at the bottom food chain, and Dr. Steig’s at the top, only increase that percentage.
Hunter, someday when you get your GED and really buckle down to basic math and introductory science, you may be able to pull off this sneering superior act. As it is, though, your painful insecurity and overpowering (and justified) feelings of inferiority scream out of every snide, whiny, rude remark.
You “skeptics” have murdered dozens, compared scientists to Nazis, threatened to rape children and waved nooses in scientists’ faces. Your hypocritical concern with the “rudeness” of people calling you out on your incompetence and sloppiness again reads like an expression of your own guilt and insecurity.
So is the oxygen decline in the atmosphere. The carbon uptake by the ocean and land is another proof that they are not acting as long-term sources.
I’m probably saying huge mistakes, but these aren’t compelling evidence that the source of CO2 is “man-made” at all (although I’m not really much skeptical about it, I do worry about rigor and integrity of logical arguments). These arguments are only evidence that CO2 is increasing.
CO2 has fluctuated between ~180-280 ppm over the last million years and done so at considerably slow rates.
This is the best counter argument so far, and I find it quite compelling. The dear doctor’s thesis is that these records aren’t too trustworthy, that the ice cores for instance have a natural process of “smoothing out” the isotopes, so that when they are read, you get to see a smoothed historical graph, and not “the real thing”.
The feedback influence from temperature is on the order of 10 ppm per degree (if pressed, I will find a reference, there was a good one a couple years ago but I forgot the name)
Stil do you agree this is a point still pretty much in research? I’d love to see those sources to check the method to which they arrived at that number.
I am tired of people treating every new idea as if it is really a big deal, ONLY because it has something to say against “AGW.”
They are far more fascinating than the boring ones. But that’s just human nature.
“…of the order of 10ppm per degree…”. Chris’s figure (for the change in atmospheric CO2 per degree change in temperature) is within the range calculated for ocean water temperatures in 1999 by J. Ahlbeck, who concluded:
“…a temperature increase of one degree celsius will increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the range of 8 ppm (150 m layer) to 18 ppm (600 m layer). The influence of the assumed layer thickness is great in the beginning, but for thicker layers the influence will level out. If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm. For a very long time scale (ice ages and interglacials) the whole water volume may be in equilibrium with the atmosphere…”
Ahlbeck, J. (1999) at http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
Even at the high end of this range, it is difficult to attribute more than a tiny proportion of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 to the rather limited amount of global – or oceanic – warming actually observed during the last century or so.
I hope Prof Salby has taken this aspect into account in his forthcoming publications.
What is not accounted for in the calculation of 8-18 ppm / 1 C is the mixing rate of the ocean. The bottom of the oceans contain vast quantities of dissolved CO2 at about 4C. When this wells to the surface in the tropics it absorbs vast quantities of (missing) heat, increasing in temperature by about 20C while releasing CO2. How much CO2 is released is not known, because the mixing rate is not known. At the same time, CO2 is absorbed and sinks towards the poles, to reappear 800 years later at the equator.
Chris,
Yes, the argument has virtually no technical merit. Few who have examined the available data, and given it some thought, would argue otherwise.
That is still no reason to be offensive. Being offensive serves no purpose.. unless you want to make sure people don’t like you. I wonder, do you imagine that makes your arguments more effective?
Chris
I am not writing that humans are not putting CO2 into the atmosphere or that it does not contribute to warming.
If you can not acknowledge that we do not know what percentage of total atmospheric total CO2 is due to humans, then you are not being truthful.
Chris Colose,
I apologize for interrupting, you being so busy with your crude baiting of our gracious host here at Climate Etc. May I have a moment with you? I am sure Judith wouldn’t mind my interruption.
I empathize with you. It is probably difficult being in the back of the bus now when, prior to the events culminating in climategate, you were used to being up front of the consensus climate bus guiding the bus driver.
For background on the bus analogy I reference my transcript of a portion of Professor Murray Salby’s talk on ‘Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources’ given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011,
Chris Colose, you are projecting yourself as highly erudite in the issues of CAGW. Therefore I implore you to teach us the benefits of your learning versus Salby’s. Please do as Prof Salby implores (my transcription) in his talk at the Sydney Institute:
Look forward to your discourse specifically toward Professor Salby. I am sure we all can learn from it. Thanks.
John
John, thank you for your transcript of these statements.
Judith,
You are most welcome. I have more transcripts of the last 10 minutes of his talk where he summarizes and concludes. I will try to interject them into the dialog as it develops.
Thanks for this very wonderful place. Being here causes me to imagine the intellectual salons of turn of the century Paris and Vienna. : )
John
Salby said, [. . .]Excluding discourse from the equation isn’t science, its advocacy. [. . .]
When I’ve tried to ask questions about the contradictions in Climate Science over at RC I’ve always been censored. That seems to prove that the science is truly settled, as far as RC is concerned.
The question I’ve asked is this: If climate science is settled, then why spend 1 penny more in researching climate? There can be no value in researching something that is already known.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to take this money (100 billion and counting) and use it to put people back to work, increase the tax roles, pay down the debt and make the economy more competitive?
Why pay people to research settled science? Put them to work doing something productive. Something that generates value. Building infrastructure rather than red tape. There is plenty of red tape already.
Chris – My response to this post is somewhat similar to the one I gave regarding the Loehle/Scafetta paper. It is sometimes frustrating to see a post focusing on claims by a cited author that are almost certainly spurious, but the subsequent discussion can be useful in several regards. It can help identify flaws in the claims through appropriate reference to data. It can help us (or at least me) review the evidence in my own mind to ensure that I’ve interpreted it correctly. It can give us insight into the latest climate blogosphere fad that is circulating, before it has a chance to be replaced by a new one. And finally, it can expose uncertainties in our own minds that require us to await further details to be sure we are not overly confident in our conclusions.
Like you, I don’t see anything cited in this post that is likely to change our understanding of the dominant role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in mediating the rise since preindustrial days, but I’m willing to wait things out to see if something unusual turns up. As I said before, I wish words like “wow” and “revolutionize” had not been used, because they impart an importance to Salby’s claims that can’t be justified by anything so far presented here or elsewhere in the literature or in the blogosphere.
Although not directly in response to your comment, I’ll add that evaluating the Salby claims emphasizes the need for us to make a distinction that is routinely neglected in attempts to distribute attribution between natural and anthropogenic contributions – timescale. Without doubt, changes in internal climate dynamics, particularly those such as ENSO that involve upper ocean heat redistribution, contribute to variation in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. What they cannot easily do, however, is perpetuate a trend in those concentrations, because they themselves go up and down over much shorter timescales than the long term trajectory from preindustial days to today. Over that long interval, we have more than enough evidence to implicate anthropogenic activities as almost the sole cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. The ability of internal dynamics to modify concentrations on shorter timescales would not conflict with these conclusions even if the short term variations were greater in amplitude than they appear to be. The apparent conflict between natural and anthropogenic roles in climate change can often by resolved by relegating each to its appropriate timescale.
Fred,
OT but a technical point regarding one of your favorites, OA.
I suggest you read the essay attached:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/lessons-of-the-pool/#comment-20919
And btw, speaking of Loehle/Scafetta, none other than Willis Eschenbach took L/S to task at WUWT for what he said was improper use of stats. So indeed, the discussion can be valuable even if the paper isn’t. I actually learned some useful techniques from that thread.
Of course, it also shows that Willis is more interested in getting to the bottom of things than scoring points for his team. A little more of that on both sides of this issue would help a lot.
I completely agree…although the comments on this thread are lively
Chris, that’s actually a very bitchy comment of yours. What the hell do you want? Judith found this talk to be interesting and wanted a discussion about it. She made it clear she has very little understanding about this particular subject, not that she would “reserve judgement” about it.
So people take it as they want. You imply that this argument has no validity whatsoever. That’s great Chris, could you enlighten us why? These discussions could be so cool if people actually engaged them rather than diss them.
Luis,
See my response above to hunter. Also, I am glad people want to discuss things, even things that are “well known” like how the greenhouse effect works. It encourages understanding, and we all (including myself) pick up interesting insight.
But I am tired of all of these types of threads devolving into how everything is uncertain, everything is important, and every new claim needs to be thought through thoroughly and “rebutted.” Good discussion can be generated without the need to post obvious nonsense in order to get people thinking. Perhaps the idea that good discussion can only be encouraged by the back and forths of every new “AGW is wrong!” paper is testimony to the lack of climate knowledge or interest out there.
The fact is that we know the CO2 increase is due to humans. We know gravity is real. We know evolution happens, and I’m tired of people insulting the ones who actually study and work on the technical nuances of these topics under the Galileo-dressed “science is about questioning!” Some work is just junk, such as Loehle and Scafetta’s curve fitting game. Judith Curry has the knowledge to spot these issues, and despite the “if” contained in “If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science,” she knows her quotes will get spread around and looked at closely. She has the training to actually comment on the topic as well, even if she is not a carbon cycle expert.
That is how I feel. Of course, you are free to disagree and JC is free to run her blog as she sees fit.
Well Chris you can’t save the internet. This is the place where millions of people come to discuss things, to tell the neighbour netizen “how wrong he is” (or worse, how stupid he is), and of course you’ll always have newcomers, prejudiced people, stupid people, intelligent people, you name it.
And so of course these kinds of “posts” will always appear time and time again. And they are excellent for people to learn stuff if there are good conditions for those discussions, namely that the moderation isn’t biased (at least that the people don’t feel it is biased), and that there is a varied range of perspectives from the commentators.
The second one is the hardest to achieve, I think, because sites or blogs do tend to be balkanized (in that regard, I avoid commenting on both WUWT and on RC, since I would be pretty much marginalized and bullied in both of them right on the spot). It’s not even people’s fault, this is a universal phenomena in the internet.
For the record, I wish I had Fred’s patience here. I am sure I am just constantly frustrated at the internet, and the things people believe about science.
Then go spend time reading
http://www.envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/pubs.html
I just now seen one of Gavin’s post, highlighting the same point I made above to hunter about the sensitivity of CO2 rise to temperature. He found a reference though…
[Response: Yes. Having now listened to the podcast, I thnk he has done a regression of growth rate to temperature (and soil moisture) over the recent period. The sensitivity he then derives is projected back using the 0.8 deg C warming over the 20th C. However, this is ludicrous – the sensitivity in the recent period can’t be more than say, 1 ppmv per 0.1 deg C. Projected back you would have say a 10 ppmv (max) change over the 20th C. Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. Salby’s sensitivity appears to be 10 times too large. Someone might want to have a look at the data and redo the regressions, but the physics is screwy. – gavin]
Chris
You conclude- “the sensitivity in the recent period can’t be more than say, 1 ppmv per 0.1 deg C.”
How exactly did you make this determination?
It’s gavin doing the calculation, not Chris Colose, but it seems pretty obvious how.
If we have, say, a drop of CO2 in the ice ages from 280 ppmv to 180 ppmv, and the temperature drop is 6C, then the derived sensitivity of CO2 to temperature change would be 100ppmv/6C, or 16ppmv/deg C.
That would be over a long period of time. Over shorter periods, the transient response would probably be more like 10ppmv/deg C. (see his Frank et al reference).
That would be 1ppmv/0.1 deg C.
Lots of nuance left out there, but it’s plain that Salby is well off.
Also, anyone care to address dikranmarsupial’s point about mass balance? Since we’re emitting MORE than the CO2 that is ending up in the atmosphere, clearly the oceans and land must be acting as a net sink. So how can they be acting as the source?
It’s not just the isotopic signature, or the decline of atmospheric oxygen concentrations – which is the signature of the source of the CO2 being combustion… It’s also this simple mass balance argument.
I’m going to predict that credulously rushing to promote this is going to be a real embarrassment to Dr. Curry. Even if on publication we discover that Salby is making a more subtle point than something that “could revolutionize AGW science”, hyping it now as such will have been an embarrassment.
Gavin’s argument makes the fallacy that all temperature change is externally forced. If the temperature change is caused by natural internal variability, then this argument is not useful.
Gavin’s argument makes the fallacy that all temperature change is externally forced. If the temperature change is caused by natural internal variability, then this argument is not useful.
Huh? Unless I’m completely misunderstanding something, the claim that Gavin is rebutting is that the observed CO2 flux is primarily caused by temperature change. It doesn’t matter whether that temperature change is caused by the Sun, fossil fuels, internal variability, or invading Martians. A warming planet will produce a positive CO2 flux; a cooling one will produce a negative flux. How does the CO2 flux know whether a given temperature change is externally forced or a result of “natural internal variability”?
Of for pete’s sake, Gavin is only saying that the paleo record during just the past few ice age cycles seems to constrain the “sensitivity of CO2 to temperature” to far less than what Salby seems to be implying.
What is fallacious about that? And note well: Salby is talking about the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature. It’s how he is attempting to explain the CO2 rise, not the temperature rise, which he appears to accept.
Gavin’s is the fallacy that CO2 is the driver of climate, not albedo, not land use changes, not changes in hydrologic flows, not solar variability.
That would be a large fallacy.
Hunter writes: Gavin’s is the fallacy that CO2 is the driver of climate, not albedo, not land use changes, not changes in hydrologic flows, not solar variability.
That has nothing to do with the issue here. Salby says that the flux of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere is primarily determined by the earth’s temperature. Gavin (correctly) points out that if a relatively small temperature change of the past century caused the observed 115 ppm change in CO2 concentration, then much larger changes in past global temperature (e.g., glacial/interglacial temperature changes) ought to have caused swings in CO2 of 500-1000 ppm. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
Gavin’s point seems quite reasonable. Dr Curry suggested there’s a fallacy in Gavin’s argument, one somehow related to the difference between internal vs external temperature forcing. It would be interesting to learn how the CO2 flux knows whether a given global temperature change is due to the “right” kind of temperature forcing.
Judith Curry,
Gavin’s argument does not rely on the attribution to temperature change at all. There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 can rise close to modern values (from preindustrial) as a response to < 1 C rise in temperature in less than a century. None. Zilch. The "uncertainty" card will not win the hand here; there are more than enough paleoclimate events in the past that would pick up on a CO2 feedback sensitivity this high. It does not matter if internal variability, anthropogenic, or magic dust fairies caused the warming. We know the land and oceans are acting as a sink; we have isotopes; we have O2/N2 ratio dropping…Please see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-7-1.html
C'mon.
JC writes: “Gavin’s argument makes the fallacy that all temperature change is externally forced. If the temperature change is caused by natural internal variability, then this argument is not useful.”
Please justify this claim. I have no idea what you’re basing it on.
Now this is a very good argument by Gavin. I’ll be waiting for a response on that.
Although we haven’t seen the graphs themselves, I believe Salby’s argument was based on analysis surrounding know and well measured events such as Mt Pinatubo and La Nina.
Perhaps we need to question the accuracy of proxy reconstructions to get historical temperatures. There’s a lot of scope there for complete wrongness.
These carbon sequestration calcs are only based on the temperature sensitivity of the solubility of CO2 in water. The total turnover of CO2, on an annual basis has been estimated in the range of 200Gt., +- 40%. aCO2 is estimated at about 6-7 Gt lately. What are the mechanisms involved in absorbing and desorbing these quantities of CO2? They can’t simply be solubility. So chemical reactions must be involved- formation of carbonates and other carbon containing compounds, biomass reactions, etc. All of these reactions are also temperature dependent both in absorbing and desorbing CO2. ; From thermodynamics, chemical reaction rates approximately double for a change of 10 degK. So, a 1 deg. C change in temperature would cause a 2-3% change in reaction rate. Applied to 100 Gt, that puts all the increase in CO2 since 1800 in the observed range. With uncertainties of 40% or more it is hard to be more accurate.
Nothing requires that all these reactions occur simultaneously or at the same rates. Sequestration in the deep ocean could be very slow, but has a long time to work. There is plenty of room for cycles, similar to the PDO or AMO but chemical in nature, to absorb and release CO2 over long periods. Given the many uncertainties involved it seems pretty cavalier to assume that the earth’s carbon cycle has been determined and that the increase in CO2 is unequivocally caused by human emissions.
philc, a key chemical mechanism is equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans. This doubles about every 25 degrees C, leading to the 10 ppm per 1 deg C number. It is Henry’s Law that plays a big part over the oceans, at least. I don’t know of situations where this law can be violated on long time scales. It should be quite a tight constraint and it comes from chemistry.
J,
CO2 as the primary driver of climate is the issue. The AGW promoters have claimed for years that CO2 has very long residence times in atmosphere. That is now being questioned, as well as if temperatures lead CO2, as the record seems to indicate, or if CO2 drives it, as AGW claims.
Understanding how CO2 actually operates is fundamental to the question.
If the understanding of isotopes is incorrect in the consensus, then that is significant.
I don’t think Gavin has grasped the issue correctly, at least he has not addressed the isotope issue at all.
Someone might want to have a look at the data and redo the regressions, but the physics is screwy.
Only if you assume the data is accurate and all other things are unchanged. Even a small change in the deep ocean upwelling will lead to large quantities of dissolved CO2 being heated 20C+, or large quantities of CO2 being removed from the atmosphere at the poles.
Modern instruments have a different bandpass than do ice cores. You can’t compare them reliably to determine if one is unusual as compared to the other, unless the sample interval is sufficiently long. We do not have sufficient length of data in the modern records. This is better covered in signal processing theory.
Mr. Schmidt needs to check his Internal Hubris Alarm — it seems it must be broken, it should have been sounding loudly after he wrote ‘but the physics is screwy’.
It would be a point of professional courtesy to assume that Dr. Salby, an acknowledged professional whose specialty is Atmospheric Physics, has not made some goofy ‘grad student claims to have discovered the theory-of-everything’-type mistake. After all, he wrote a/the textbook on Atmospheric Physics and while it is possible that there can be a disagreement about the physics involved, calling his carefully considered result ‘screwy’ physics is certainly out-of-line. It might be better for Dr. Schmidt to admit that he simply does not yet understand the points Dr. Salby made in his short, rather preliminary, presentation, quite possibly because of the lack of visuals and the general nature of the talk–or, if he did understand, but disagrees, to state that. But this type of bad manners never serves well.
I am simply a long-term observer of the scientific sideshow known as the Climate Wars. I have seen several comments here and elsewhere asking ( in many different ways) ‘Why would Salby sit on his results for a year, then send them for comment to trusted friends, waiting another six months, if his results are so important?’ I have just this morning googled ‘Murray Salby’. The answer is obvious from what one finds with this simple exercise. He might as well have announced sighting the Planet Nibiru heading for Earth. Over 800,000 google hits and rising fast. I envision he knew he was risking his career and professional reputation. I’m sure, once his paper has been published, that he will explain something along the lines of spending a year checking and re-checking his assumptions and calculations, looking for where he may have made a misstep. Satisfied, he sends his results to respected friends, on the QT, saying in effect, before ‘before I put my career on the line, before I throw my hat in the Climate Wars ring, would you side-check my work?’ Apparently, their answers encouraged him. His paper reportedly has passed peer-review and is scheduled to be published. We are to understand that some data are under embargo. A fascinating story — I look forward to the paper when it comes out, and the effect it will have on the Climate Wars saga. I just love the way real science works.
Kip Hansen writes: It would be a point of professional courtesy to assume that Dr. Salby, an acknowledged professional whose specialty is Atmospheric Physics, has not made some goofy ‘grad student claims to have discovered the theory-of-everything’-type mistake. After all, he wrote a/the textbook on Atmospheric Physics and while it is possible that there can be a disagreement about the physics involved, calling his carefully considered result ‘screwy’ physics is certainly out-of-line.
This “dispute” or whatever you want to call it isn’t really about atmospheric physics. It’s about the carbon cycle. Has he ever done any research at all on anything related to the carbon cycle? I’ve read his list of publications and there’s nothing even remotely related to it.
J –
Not sure where you’re coming from but your point has no validity. Salby is an atmospheric physicist. Just what do you think an atmospheric physicist does? What kind of education do you think an atmospheric physicist might have? AND – why do you think the carbon cycle is not part of that education and experience?
I worked with atmospheric physicists for the best part of 40 years and, frankly, you’re making an ass of yourself. Those on your side of the dance floor may buy into your smear job – if they’re ignorant and/or stupid. But don’t expect ALL of us to do so.
Notice – I did NOT say he’s got it all right – that remains to be seen. But the mob scene to discredit him by any means possible is a good indication of the fear level among your compatriots. And a good indication that he may just be onto something.
Kip,
Your views are a testament to the scientifically independent orientation. It can be a testament because of the existence of this open blog site (and others like CA/BH/WUWT/etc, etc, etc) where we can hear such words as yours.
Thank you sincerely.
John
We KNOW that the amount of CO2 in the oceans has increased. How? Because the pH has decreased (that is measured) because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the decrease in pH matches what is expected from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Anyone trying to claim that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to warming of the oceans has to get through that one.
Eli,
“”” We KNOW . . . ”””
Is that the Royal we?
John
Why yes, glad you noticed. See the Royal Society report on ocean acidification
Chris
You say YOU KNOW the increase is due to humans.
We know that humans are emitting lots of CO2, we also know that natural variability of CO2 can be equal to human emissions and vary over time.
How do you KNOW what percentage of the change is due to
humans vs. due to the changes in natual emissions?
What measurement method do you say we can use in Aug. 2011 to determine what percentage of total atmospheric CO2 is human caused? Can we walk through the math?
Let us put it very simply, with made up numbers. In one year, nature emits 6 tons of CO2 and humans emit 2 tons of CO2. The total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere for that year is 1 ton. This means that 7 tons of CO2 was absorbed by carbon sinks. So all 6 tons of the naturally produced CO2 was absorbed by carbon sinks and 1 ton of the human produced CO2 was absorbed by those same carbon sinks, and we thus know that the increase of 1 ton of CO2 is due to human emissions.
Is that simple enough for you all? If the increase in CO2 is less than total emissions by humans, then the increase is all accounted for by human emissions.
Holly- Unfortunately the real world is NOT your example. In the real world we know that natural CO2 emissions vary over time. We also know that humans are emitting CO2 but can only estimate how much. We have no reliable means to determine what percentage of atmospheric CO2 is human caused at any specific point in time.
Given what I have written above to be true(and it is) how do we know more than rough estimates??? We dont
You are making an argument from ignorance. You don’t know these things so you assume that no one else does; but scientists do things like figuring out how much CO2 is being emitted.
You want to know how they do it? Read the real reports by real scientists, including their footnotes and the things they link to. But that would be hard work, wouldn’t it?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-7-1.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
As Salby stated human emission of carbon is well documented due to its expense.
Holly,
You would be closer to the mark if you said, “In one year, nature emits 100 tons of CO2 and humans emit 2 tons of CO2. The total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere for that year is 1 ton. This means that 101 tons of CO2 was absorbed by carbon sinks”
Of course, you’d then have to explain just how total natural sources managed to track total sinks within 1 ton/year, for many thousands of years.
And if you have to invoke a negative feedback mechanism to explain that apparent stability, then you’d have to further explain why that negative feedback mechanism hasn’t swallowed up the recent anthropogenic component.
Easy, c4 co2 absorption mechanism is an energetic vacuum.
Ppmv is nothing but a residual indication of the performance of this vacuum mechanism. Nature offers a sink that can rapidy follow any wayward source spikes.
That is a simple but incomplete to the point of being an inaccurate response
With a PhD and a couple or three US$ bucks, or Europa Euros, you can get a cup of coffee at a few places.
Throwing your bona fides from The Academy onto the table gets you negative points in many environments. Zero is usually the highest point value attainable.
It’s what you know and how to apply that knowledge in a manner that advances the technical issues at hand that gets positive points in productive environments.
Blockquotes failed in the above comment. Here’s the quote:
Fossil fuel burning approx 6.4 Gt per year
Atmospheric flux from natural sources is approximately 200 Gt of which:
about 90 Gt is ocean
about 110 Gt is biomass
Uncertainty on sources/sinks in nature +/- 30 to 40 Gt
Not only uncertainty. Even small variations in natural sources (3-5%, which are a given, it can not be 100% constant) are like is 6-10 Gt/year.
You both forget one thing: against natural sources stand natural sinks, We only have rough estimates of the height of the sources and sinks and of their year by year variability, but we have quite exact figures of the difference between natural sources and sinks and their variability: that is the difference between the human emissions and what is measured as increase in the atmosphere.
That shows that in the past 50 years the natural sinks were (near) always larger than the natural sources. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The current emissions are around 8 GtC (4 ppmv) per year, the current sink rate about 2 ppmv and the (temperature caused) variability in sink rate is +/-1 ppmv around the trend. Thus human emissions are about 200% of the increase in the atmosphere, about 200% of the sink rate and about 200% of the variability in sink rate.
No matter if human emissions are 3% or 0.3% or 0.03% of the natural sources, the former are additional, while the latter only circulate in and out, without any contribution tot the total mass of CO2. That is turnover not addition,
The system is the atmosphere and does not include oceans and land. We measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The addition is inputs minus outputs.
We measure net changes in the oceans by monitoring pH.
Thanks Judith for bringing to our attention Murry Salby’s critically important presentation. I understand Murry Salby to say that net CO2 variations are the difference between large natural sources and sinks dominated by temperature and soil moisture, with anthropogenic emissions forming a small contribution. He clearly explains and adds recent satellite data to similar materials from other researchers. Look forward to his graphs & paper.
Geologist Tom V. Segalstad at CO2web.info emphasizes similar issues regarding large natural CO2 flows as highlighted by Murry Salby. See Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.
Jo Nova posts Blockbuster: Plantary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans .
She links to figure: Tom Quirk: Sources and Sinks of CO2
She links to Roy Spencer’s posts along similar lines: “Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason?” See Fig. Mona Loa dCO2/dT (Fraction of emission “showing up” in atmosphere)
Also: Spencer Part2: More CO2 Peculiarities – The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio
The flea climbing the elephant trunk has been getting very agitated over the “hockey stick” rate of climb apparently associated with the rate of temperature increase on his travels. I wonder what he will think when the elephant takes a drink and then decides to trumpet?
David,
I had a discussion with Segalstad on a sceptic conference in Brussels,.He speaks about the fast residence time of CO2, But that only says how much CO2 is going in and out of the atmosphere over the seasons (about 20%) but that doesn’t influence the total amount of CO2 after a full cycle, if ins and outs are equal, Only how much is added or removed over a year is important, not how much circulates, And that is far less (about 4 GtC/year) than what is circulating…
And as already said by others: dCO2/dT says nothing about the cause of the trend, because you have effectively removed the trend by taking the derivative…
Ferdinand
Thanks for the graph. However, I understood Selby to examine the natural sources and sinks and rate of change of CO2 and show that they were much larger then anthropogenic emissions. Furthermore, the CO2 variations did not correlate with anthropogenic emissions, but with temperature and soil moisture. I look forward to his presentation and publications.
Have you read Spencer’s discussions etc?
David,
Indeed I have had discussions with Dr. Spencer on the same topic. The error both Spencer and Selby make is to look at the rate of change, which is influenced by short term temperature changes (and precipitation) with a ratio of about 4 ppmv/degr.C (based on the 1992 Pinatubo cooling and the 1998 El Nino warming. But most of the temperature changes level out over time. Any consistent warming has an influence of about 8 ppmv/degr.C over very long term (ice ages, interglacials, MWP-LIA). By far not enough to explain the 100+ ppmv increase. The current trend has an extremely good correlation with the emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
but far less with temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1900_2004.jpg
where temperature changes of halve the scale have little influence on CO2 levels.
Thanks Ferdinand
From Selby’s talk, he mentioned CO2 dependent not just on temperature but also on soil moisture. The latter can vary with clouds and thus with the 21 year Hale cycle modulating cosmic ray variations, and also with cosmic rays themselves as we traverse galactic spirals. e.g. see WJR Alexanders work which shows precipitation, runoff and floods correlating with the 21 year Hale cycle, but NOT evaporation. Similarly, see Henrik Svensmark on cosmoclimatology. Selby also noted major variations with el Nino and volcanoes.
Thus temperature variations driving CO2 is expected (necessary), but not the total picture. i.e. cAGW still “Not Proven” by Scotts legal code. Rather, there is growing evidence per Selby of much larger natural fluctuations.
Happy hunting
Ferdinand Engelbeen
See Fred H Haynie The Future of Climate Change http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
He provides fascinating detailed analyses of CO2 variations showing the CO2 sub components varying with the respective polar ice. Note particularly the dramatically different shapes for CO2 pulses between Arctic, Tropic (Mauna Loa) and Antarctic (slide 10), as well as the isotope depletion (Slide 11.) I find Haynie’s detailed analysis of natural drivers more believable explanation than the overall anthropogenic emissions fit. Please find periods where there are major swings in the various parameters and then test for how well they fit.
David,
I have read Fred’s work already some time ago. The problem with his approach is that it relies too much on curve fitting/comparison, but with little or no process evaluation.
Based on the ice coverage – CO2 level match, he thinks that the main change in seasonal CO2 levels is from ocean sinks. But if you look at the 13C/12C record, it is clear that growing vegetation in spring (and rotting in fall) in the NH is the main cause. The same for the % of human influence on the d13C ratio, etc…
Dr. Curry,
It is impressive that you are willing to permit fellwo scientists who challenge the climatocracy be heard. Thank you.
It is amazing to see the reactionary responses of the AGW community.
Roy Spencer links to:
The monthly C13/C12 ratio data from Mauna Loa (1990-2005) are available here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2c13/flask/month/mlo_01D0_mm.co2c13
The monthly Mauna Loa CO2 data (1958-2007) are contained in the 5th file listed here:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends
Love this topic, but am very busy today.
Here is a pair of figures from a steady state model of atmospheric CO2.
The first is a plot of anthropogenic carbon vs. Keelings [CO2].
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/AnthropogenicCarbonvsKeelingCO2.jpg
This shows that the pre-Industrial [CO2] was in the order of 280-300 ppm. It also shows that there is a step in the relationship, probably caused by either temperature, anthropogenic changes to the biotic capacity or more likely that the efflux of CO2 from the atmosphere is of an order greater than 1 (i.e. has a first-order and second-order reactions).
I tried to do a fit to explain the pre-Industrial [CO2] = 295 ppm, 590 GT total atmospheric carbon, and the increases seen by Keeling, 380 ppm, 763 GT total. Using this fit I get t1/2 CO2 efflux of 29 years.
I can get quite reasonable fits using t1/2’s of between 7-35 years, with slightly different intercepts for the pre-industrial levels.
One cannot get a fit using longer t1/2’s.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/SteaystateCO2fittedtoKeelingCurve.jpg
The actual t1/2 is near a decade;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg
A point to remember. Think of CO2/C in the biosphere as body heat. You lose body heat all the time and use themogenic reactions to maintain it in a reasonable range.
As well as heat being circulated, it is lost to the body and regenerated.
Every mineralized carbon atom, coal, oil, methane, insoluble carbonate is lost to the biosphere. What is also lost is the carbon that falls to the bottom of the oceans, the raining ‘shit’ fog that covers wrecks like the Titanic/Bismark, is destined to form sedimentary rocks with a high carbon content. This is an efflux from the system, is the most part gone. Gone for good, except in geological time. Carbon is lost to the biosphere all the time.
The primary inputs into the system are from CO2/CH4 released from anearobic microorganisms, vents and vulcanos, introducing pre-fossil, fossil and primordial carbon back into the biosphere.
You may note that all of the Carbon cycle diagrams, like this one:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.svg
all miss, or play down, the mineralization efflux and volcanic influx of Carbon out of and into the biosphere. I guesstimate that the natural efflux/influx , mineralization/vulcanism, vents and CO2/CH4 rock leakage, rate is about 22 GT y-1.
The oceans act as a carbon buffer, but plants will drag CO2 out of the atmosphere until they are CO2 limited, which brings us to about 280 ppm. At these levels, carbon fixing is hugely inefficient, with at least a third of all the redox potential being lost on mis-fires. Over geological timescales, the biosystem will drag CO2 down to 280-300 ppm. A rapid input of CO2, either from burning fossil fuels or from a big volcanic event will cause a short term rise in atmospheric CO2, followed by a rapid sequestration.
One need only fit Keeling’s CO2 to the known release of anthropogenic CO2. Fit Keeling’s CO2 line-shape to known anthropogenic CO2 and you can work out the efflux.
An excellent discussion of how bomb-generated 14C is used to constrain carbon cycle components, and related issues, can be found here.
A relevant excerpt:
“It has been erroneously argued that the observed atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 19th century may be due to an ongoing natural perturbation of gross fluxes between the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. That the increase is in fact a predominantly anthropogenic disturbance, caused by accelerated release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, has been elegantly demonstrated through 14C analyses of tree rings from the last two centuries…[references follow]”.
Recent comments here and in other threads raise questions about the choices Judith Curry makes in citing claims of a “contrarian” nature as the starting point for some discussions. If this were my blog, my choices might be different, but she has reasons for her choices that I’m prepared to accept.
I have some thoughts about those reasons that I’ll mention here. I assume she may be reading what we write, and so she can correct me when I misrepresent her.
I believe Dr. Curry is very angry at the IPCC leadership because she believes they betrayed her and other scientists who took the IPCC conclusions on faith, repeated them, and then found out that some in the leadership had been cooking the books. That made her and others feel foolish, and she appropriately resented it. She still accepts many basic climate science principles but no longer believes that the most important IPCC conclusions should remain unchallenged. She routinely issues those challenges in the form of the topics she posts, and the implicit challenge that all of us should make our judgments without blind acceptance of the pronouncements from authority or their implied certainty, just as she is prepared to do based on her own expertise.
I came to read the IPCC reports fairly late in the course of my own climate science learning curve. If I had never read them, I would have come to conclusions that were 95 percent similar to the conclusions in AR4 WG1 (with less confidence in WG2 and 3). I believe the strong role of anthropogenic contributions to climate change with potentially significant adverse impacts (global warming and ocean acidification) is well documented by a large array of independent evidence. Regrettable behavior on the part of some prominent IPCC figures would not change that. That the IPCC and climate science (and scientists) are very distinct entities deserves constant emphasis and reemphasis. It is never acceptable in my view to promote the view that we can judge one from the other.
But she is saying, “Well, if you believe that, can you effectively refute THIS CHALLENGE, and THIS ONE, and THIS NEXT ONE? Which is why we see many of the posts that appear here.
Well, can we?
Almost certainly yes – not in the minds of anyone with unalterable opinions, but in the perception of readers who come here looking for answers rather than arguments. It is those readers who are our audience, and to whom, in my mind, we have an obligation to be well informed, truthful, and as objective as possible.
I hope to continue trying to do this. I will refer to the IPCC from time to time as a source of information, but not authority. There is more than enough evidence available without IPCC reports to address all the challenges that arise here.
Every one of these topics deserves more space than we can give it. Anyone expecting me to use this comment to document my conclusions about the entirety of anthropogenic climate change will be disappointed, but I have addressed individual points on many past occasions and will continue to do so in the future. I expect that will lead me often to agree with Dr. Curry, but at times to disagree with her on certain points – less about basic principles than on measures of uncertainty that she sees as more impactful than I do – but that’s a good reason to keep these exchanges going, and on a professional and courteous basis. It’s also a good opportunity to learn while helping others to learn as well.
Well said, Fred. I always read your comments and even if I don’t always agree with them, I always find them intellectually challenging and informative. I just wish some of the visiting scientists would adopt your unvarying politeness.
Fred,
That’s a thoughtful response. I would be more sympathetic to that narrative if it actually had the productive qualities that Judith probably does at the end of the day intend. However, I’ve seen no evidence of such. If you have, that’s wonderful and I’d love to know about it.
The threads I’ve read at length seem to be largely “skeptic” echo chambering and backslapping, with admirable contributions of sanity by you, Pekka, and a few others. The “technical ‘skeptics'” that Judith so relentlessly pursued for an audience fall largely in with the former, and only rarely in with you in the latter.
While it may be true that Judith intended this blog to be a place where climate science was strengthened in trials by fire, its impact so far has been to bury the field under garbage (I believe that Judith has a T-shirt with a related theme). I see this blog cited approvingly by “skeptics” online, and it has without exception been in the context of dismissing, ridiculing, or otherwise attacking the mainstream. Whenever I myself have tried to cite it or Judith’s writing at say Climate Audit in a reinforcing or supporting role (to say nothing of her actual publications), these efforts are dismissed. No matter how hard Judith tries to earn her “skeptic” bona fides and proclaim herself an outsider, when she has the temerity to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic warming and the threat it poses, she’s written off behind her back as a “warmer”.
She may believe she’s building bridges between “skeptics” and the mainstream, but so far these bridges have been decidedly one way.
It may seem like an echo chamber, but that is just because your ears are ringing from the believer echo chambers you have dwelt in most of the time.
I would suggest that the first fallacy to deal with is CO2 = ghg=AGW.
The AGW is generally defined to mean “any impact”.
That is a meaningless definition.
Yet when skeptics point this out and and suggest that ‘dangerous impact’ be used instead, we are treated rather poorly.
When we point out that on things like OA for instance, the reality is that the idea fails when actually measured, we get endless repeats (echo echo echo) of the same misleading work regarding ocean pH.
If climate science is science it is strengthened when it is challenged. Because the bad ideas are tossed out and replaced with better ones. Not because those who believe in the bad ideas win.
Yet the latter has been the case in cliamte science for far too long.
Your attribution of motive regarding what is allegedly said behind Dr. Curry’s back is just an example of fallacious assertion.
Sorry but the behavior of some climate scientist is questionable not just the IPCC and you forget how often those scientists are at the heart of the IPCC reports , indeed their often the lead authors. There is no simple split between the two.
Fred writes “Well, can we? ”
The question I would ask you, Fred, is this. Is the science settled with respect to CAGW? That is, has CAGW been proved, scientifically, beyond any doubt? Or do we skeptics/deniers have a case that CAGW is very far from proven? What I find diffficult to get my mind around, is that people like yourself are convinced that CAGW is a problem, yet, as Girma points out, there is almost no observed data to support this contention . Such observed data as we have seems to show that CAGW is NOT a problem.
You don’t need to prove a threat beyond doubt. A credible threat is enough without requiring specific disaster to be beyond doubt.
Observed data certainly doesn’t show that CAGW is not a problem. You can only conclude a change is safe if a) it’s happened before without consequence or b) you understand fully what will happen. Neither is the case.
CO2 levels are going to more than double in a mere couple of centuries. There is no known example of that ever happening in the past. Such an unprecedented perturbation to the carbon cycle is a serious threat given that the carbon cycle is a key part of the environment.
lolwot –
You don’t need to prove a threat beyond doubt. A credible threat is enough without requiring specific disaster to be beyond doubt.
You do if you’re demanding that the ec0nomies of all the nations on the planet be rearranged to accomodate your undefined and undefinable fears.
You can only conclude a change is safe
That’s a foolish statement. “Safe” is a meaningless word. It implies that nothing bad will ever happen. And that notion is insupportable in any context.
CO2 levels are going to more than double in a mere couple of centuries.
That’s another “assumption”. You seem to operate on a LOT of unwarranted assumptions – and not very muchin the way of solid information.
“You do if you’re demanding that the ec0nomies of all the nations on the planet be rearranged to accomodate your undefined and undefinable fears.”
Uh what? I am talking about CAGW, not an economic rearrangement. If you can’t even stick on topic then I won’t bother pointing out your other errors.
lolwot –
Uh what? I am talking about CAGW, not an economic rearrangement.
Just what do you think is the purpose of CAGW? What do you think Kyoto – and Copenhagen – and Cancun were about? Are you really that obtuse? C’mon, man – I thought better of you than that.
Lolwot@Aug5 7.36pm:
[ Dr Curry, I’m sorry—I know this isn’t technical, but I hope you’ll allow me to reply to Lolwot’s assertions.]
Lolwot—-your comment is disingenuous beyond belief.
‘Economic rearrangement’, as you call it, is absolutely a live issue.
Here in Australia, our government has announced that a carbon tax, with carbon priced at $23 per tonne, will be implemented eleven months from now.
This government [ Labor] describes the tax and the ETS to follow, as the greatest transformation of the economy in Australia’s history.
But Australia’s economy is probably one of the most carbon-intensive in the world, considering almost all of our electricity is coal-fired, and coal is our biggest export earner.
No one in the government or the AGW scientists who have their ear, and have a Climate Science Commission and a running campaign going to re-educate us, will even address any questions raised on the science, or questions on which renewables will provide the base load power that coal now provides, and what products will replace the massive loss in export income we will suffer.
Our AGW scientists [ the only scientists given any respect in Australia] respond to questions on the science or the scientific process by shutting down any pesky questioners with ‘the science is over’—‘the science is settled’—‘the science was settled decades ago’—as do most AGW climate scientists.
I only mention this, because you and some other warmists pretend that if only we just do the right thing and ‘believe’ in AGW, everything will be all right—- when the truth is that a country like ours stands to lose its prosperity, our children’s futures and our standard of living for the foreseeable future—- all on the strength of the scientific conclusions that your AGW scientists have so little confidence in, that they’re afraid to have them scrutinised and questioned by other scientists.
That’s hilarious. I presume you are arguing that excessive taxation is going to destroy your children’s future — there’s not something magical about taxing carbon as opposed to taxing property, or income, or restaurant-going.
So how heavily is Australia tax burden, and how much will a carbon tax add?
Taxes as a percentage of the GDP (all figure from wikipedia): 27.1%
Top ten countries from the WEF competitiveness rankings:
Switzerland — 30.3%
Swenden — 46.4%
Singapore — 14.2%
United States — 24%
Germany — 37%
Japan — 28.1%
Finland — 43.1%
Netherlands — 39.1%
Denmark — 48.2%
Hong Kong — 13%
Even including the two city-states, one of which is part of China, 7 of the 10 ten economies in the world have a heavier tax burden than you. The only large state-state on the list with a lower tax burden is the US — you can ask Standard & Poor if we’re a good example to emulate.
The Australia plan is accompanied by offsetting tax cuts, but we’ll ignore those for the moment. The expected revenue from the tax is $4.2 billion in the first year. That’s about 0.3% of the GDP, taking Australia to the dizzying height of — 27.4%. Still less than seven out of ten of the world’s top economies.
Meanwhile your unemployment rate is 4.9%, and your public debt is 22.4% of the GDP. I think you’ll be OK.
Robert –
I think you’ll be OK.
That’s arrogance/hubris.
Unless you live there, you haven’t a clue about conditions “on the ground” and all you’re doing is regurgitating numbers.
I suspect that nobody cares what you think.
Robert:
Good to see you’re amused, but are you sure you know what you’re talking about?
Do you honestly believe the only tax impact that matters is the total tax burden—regardless of the type of tax, type of economy—the energy available etc?
At present, 93% of our electricity is coal-fired, and other than gas temporarily, all we can resort to after coal is killed off is renewables. We have almost no hydro, and Labor rules out nuclear for the foreseeable future.
So maybe you can tell me which renewables are ready , or will be ready in the foreseeable future, to provide base load power for industry—certainly not wind, solar or geothermal.
We do have low unemployment, but that’s the result of the very well-run economy left to the previous Labor government by the conservative government before them in 2007 —the economic conditions that allowed us to ride out the GFC with little damage.
It’s also a factor of our labour-intensive mining industry —the industry that will take a huge hit on its competitiveness from the carbon tax.
We have a two-speed economy, and the mainstream economy is suffering a crisis of confidence due to this carbon tax, among other things.
Coal is our biggest export earner, and the carbon tax and ETS to follow, are the start of the slippery slope for that as well.
Most of our big export earners are carbon-intensive, and many are likely to go offshore to competitor countries, with no carbon tax and less efficient industries.
We will probably have to import cement from China, where its production produces nearly twice as much in CO2 emissions, as its production in Australia does— a net rise in global emissions—not a fall.
China will probably get its coal from countries that are more price competitive, but have lower quality and dirtier coal—more CO2 emissions—not less.
In fact we’ll have to import almost everything we now manufacture , because we’ll be unable to compete with our high wages v the low wages in Asia, and a carbon tax on top of that.
There’ll be an increase in global emissions —not a decrease.
I know you couldn’t care less about all this, but whatever country you look at, prosperity is needed to fund the huge technological challenges ahead—and the US and Canada will find they have similar problems.
If the science is settled, and this is the fundamental issue of our times, then why are AGW scientists so desperate to shut down debate on core aspects of it?
Why are warmists already so angry about Professor Murry Salby’s paper, without even seeing it?
What dangers from the past have been demonstrated from CO2 increasing?
As to your prophecy for the future ppm of CO2: bunk. You have no way to know what CO2 ppm will be in 100, much less 200, years.
More importantly, you have no idea of what he impact of that increase will be on those people.
Finally, you have no right to impose costs on us today for your guesses about 200 years out.
“What dangers from the past have been demonstrated from CO2 increasing?”
When has CO2 ever increased this fast in the past? That’s the point. Coupled with CO2 affecting climate. This isn’t some irrelevant little change that’s being made to the carbon cycle.
“As to your prophecy for the future ppm of CO2: bunk. You have no way to know what CO2 ppm will be in 100, much less 200, years.”
I can easily see where CO2 is heading at it’s current rate and how much fossil fuels exist for humans to burn through. A doubling will be easy as pie, we are already about 30% of the way there.
“Finally, you have no right to impose costs on us today for your guesses about 200 years out.”
Where did I talk about costs? I am pointing out the threat from CAGW is well established. If you don’t want to do anything about that threat, fine, but don’t deny it exists.
“Finally, you have no right to impose costs on us today for your guesses about 200 years out.”
Read Stephen Gardiner “Climate Change, the Perfect Moral Storm” on this.
——————–
This means not only that one generation is not motivated to accept the collectively rational outcome, but also that the problem becomes iterated. Since subsequent generations have no reason to comply if their predecessors do not, noncompliance by the first generation has a domino effect that undermines the collective project. . .
The upshot of all this is that in the case of climate change, the intergenerational analysis will be less optimistic about solutions than the tragedy of the commons analysis. For it implies that current populations may not be motivated to establish a fully adequate global regime, since, given the temporal dispersion of effects – and especially backloading and deferral – such a regime is probably not in their interests. This is a large moral problem, especially since in my view the intergenerational problem dominates the tragedy of the commons aspect in climate change.
Second, insufficient action may make some generations suffer unnecessarily. Suppose that, at this point in time, climate change seriously affects the prospects of generations A, B and C. Suppose, then, that if generation A refuses to act, the effect will continue for longer, harming generations D and E. This may make generation Aʼs inaction worse in a significant respect. In addition to failing to aid generations B and C (and probably also increasing the magnitude of harm inflicted on them), generation A now harms generations D and E, who otherwise would be spared. . . .
Third, generation Aʼs inaction may create situations where tragic choices must be made. One way in which a generation may act badly is if it puts in place a set of future circumstances that make it morally required for its successors (and perhaps even itself) to make other generations suffer either unnecessarily, or at least more than would otherwise be the case.
. . . climate change is not a static phenomenon. In failing to act appropriately, the current generation does not simply pass an existing problem along to future people, rather it adds to it, making the problem worse. For one thing, it increases the costs of coping with climate change: failing to act now increases the magnitude of future climate change and so its effects. For another, it increases mitigation costs: failing to act now makes it more difficult to change because it allows additional investment in fossil fuel based infrastructure in developed and especially less developed countries. Hence, inaction raises transition costs, making future change harder than change now. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the current generation does not add to the problem in a linear way. Rather, it rapidly accelerates the problem, since global emissions are increasing at a substantial rate such that generation D would be kept below some crucial climate threshold, but delay would mean that they would pass that threshold.
If passing the threshold imposes severe costs on generation D, then their situation may be so dire that they are forced to take action that will harm generation F – such as emitting even more greenhouse gases – that they would otherwise not need to consider. What I have in mind if this. Under some circumstances actions that harm innocent others may be morally permissible on grounds of self-defence, and such circumstances may arise in the climate change case. Hence, the claim is that, if there is a self-defence exception on the prohibition on harming innocent others, one way in which generation A might behave badly is by creating a situation such that generation D is forced to call on the self-defence exception and so inflict extra suffering on generation F. Moreover, like the basic PIP, this problem can become iterated: perhaps generation F must call on the self-defence exception too, and so inflict harm on generation H, and so on.
———————————
Rabbit,
Let me summarise my response to you. The problem you mentioned has not existed.
Don’t waste your life on a non-existing problem and do some real sicentific work such as why N2 radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere does not have to obey radiation laws.
Quadrupole emission/absorption + collisional induced dipolism. Still about as vanishingly weak as the rest of your nonsense
For those interested a href=”http://www.google.com/search?q=Nitrogen+absorption+atmosphere&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#pq=nitrogen%20ir%20emission%20atmosphere&hl=en&cp=21&gs_id=30&xhr=t&q=Nitrogen%20collision%20induced%20absorption&qe=Tml0cm9nZW4gY29sbGlzaW9uIGlu&qesig=eHoO_lYceavfLW4FYlEXow&pkc=AFgZ2tnQ-ev9-OjVj-AMG8Odeb7-M0fCmBNhfzgCqDcCSp6-5zMS7NP5kdXyL7zNMd5BcmKdxbp0oYHR_StLa-ElJ7EHM7Cq-g&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&hs=FU5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&biw=1204&bih=766&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Nitrogen+collision+in&aq=0v&aqi=g-v1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5d738012b56afd96″>i the details
I am new here and somehow got this from Eli Rabbit. I don’t know what he is trying to say. Collision-induce dipole emission/absorption is indeed weak and broad banded. Nonetheless it is real. I don’t have a clue what it contributes to the radiation balance, but simple collision energy transfer from CO2 to ?N2/O2 is enough to spread and trap heat in the atmosphere and allow LTE modeling of radiation.
Jay, It doesn’t contribute anything significant. See Comment by Sam NC @ 10:09 August 7
Jay,
N2, H2, and such gases can become good greenhouse gases in high density (and preferably lower temperature) regimes, and are on gas planets, or Titan (Saturn’s moon). They are not on Earth. Sam refuses to accept that but he is simply wrong. He continues to reference vague “radiation laws” but all of this is described in basic radiation literature and textbooks.
Rabbit & Chris,
You denied N2 energy content is nonsense. You guys are real deniers of real energy in favor of unreal CO2 super overblown radiation heat flux.
N2 energy content is given almost exactly by equipartition at atmospheric temperatures, e.g. 5/2 RT per mole where T is the local temperature and R the gas constant in whatsoever damned units you want. Eli’s favorite is ft-lb/(oz-mol Rankine).
The point is that it cannot get rid of this energy by IR or Visible radiation. Your statement about N2 radiation in the Earth[s atmosphere not having to obey radiation laws is irrelevant and a fine example of how knowing the question to ask means that you have 80% of the answerhas a lemma that some questions such as yours have no meaning because they are based on a set of false assumption.
The odd types of radiative emission that are allowed simply are too weak to have any effect other than a couple of nice papers by folk like Walt Lafferty..
Keep this up please. It’s amusing.
Eli Rabett:
Is it your contention then, that coal and oil should never have been used as energy sources —or that we should have stopped using them in the 1950s ?
If so, do you believe the developed countries would have been as innovative ?
And what energy source would have powered all of the industry and technological advances since then—and who would have decided what was acceptable and what wasn’t, and how would global compliance have been achieved?
Do you think that with that nobbling of development , there would have been the incentives to innovate?
If you think you know now, what’s best for future generations far removed from now, why do you think the thinkers of the fifties or earlier didn’t likewise design our lives for us in what you think would have been a better way?
How can you be so certain that future generations would not say we panicked on very little information , ignored the many unknowns and allowed ourselves to be diverted from real and pressing problems of poverty, much of it caused by lack of energy—to chase a phantom problem that could be resolved as technological progress followed the wider prosperity achieved as poor countries developed?
“Finally, you have no right to impose costs on us today for your guesses about 200 years out.”
With “hours” in place of “years” this is pretty much the argument of the captain of the Titanic, who was under enormous pressure to reach New York on time.
Fred,
The IPCC is made up of those ‘other sources’ you claim are so much better.
What happens to those sources when the IPCC uses them?
What I don’t understand is this: if I dump 1 gallon of water into a pool and the water level increases by 1 gallon, it’s hard to argue they aren’t connected, even if other hoses are going into the pool. Thus, since we dump 10 GtC into the atmosphere, and the amount increases by a fraction of that amount, how can it be that we’re not responsible? Is there an explanation of why CO2 would have increased by that much even if humans were not dumping CO2?
I am by no means writing that humans have not raised atmospheric CO2 levels. I am saying we do not know, but make assumptions as to how much humans have impacted total atmospheric CO2.
To simplify the idea– if 95% of atmospheric CO2 is natural but we do not know how much overall the natural emissions amounts change over time, but we do know they change, it is easy to see that a 10% change in natural emissions would have potentially great change to total CO2.
For someone to state that WITHOUT A DOUBT I AM SURE 100% (or almost 100%) of the rise in emissions is due to humans seems unsupportable.
To all the posters who believe we KNOW all the increase in CO2 is due to humans- I say we do not even KNOW how much CO2 humans are emitting. We have at best rough estimates of human emissions.
Using another example- imagine you have a pond with several streams filling it with water. You have noticed that several of these streams seem to fill the pond at different rates over the year. Let’s say you then turn on your hose and add it to fill the pond. After a while if you notice the pond has filled do you know it was due to the hose solely, or did the streams feeding the pond change what they were adding, or did the rate of evaporation/loss change? It might have been your hose, and it clearly had an impact, but can we say with certainty how much?
“To all the posters who believe we KNOW all the increase in CO2 is due to humans- I say we do not even KNOW how much CO2 humans are emitting. We have at best rough estimates of human emissions.”
To the contrary, we have accurate fuel records showing that the CO2 from the burnt fuel has been very close to twice the increase in atmospheric CO2 over more than the past two centuries. Unless you have evidence contradicting this data, you are just pulling random statements out of thin air.
I dunno, racerx.
Maybe a lot of the commenters on this blog have difficulty with the concept of conservation of mass? Or with basic arithmetic?
I don’t actually believe that. I think if you posed this question in abstract terms, most of the commenters here would be able to get the answer quite right:
Given:
C = A + B
A > C
Is B positive or negative?
Obviously, in this formulation, A is the anthropogenic flux (well known), B is the natural flux (not easy to measure directly), and C is the net change in mass of atmospheric CO2 (well known).
But because some people are deeply emotionally invested in rejecting anything related to “anthropogenic global warming”, they struggle to grasp what would be obvious in any other context (like your swimming pool, or a bank account).
Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 represent > 100% of the observed annual increase in atmospheric CO2. If someone can’t acknowledge that fact, it’s a good sign that you probably shouldn’t take them seriously.
This offering from Dr. Curry should help put to rest the idea that most of her readers (except the Sky Dragons! of course, we’re not like “them”!) accept the basic principles of anthropogenic climate change, and are just focussing on uncertainties like climate sensitivity and the like.
With the least provocation, many will quickly glom onto an argument that “could revolutionize AGW science”: that we aren’t even the principal cause of the atmospheric CO2 increase.
As to not getting something as simple as that algebra, one need only look as far as this pretzel logic to see the contortionist efforts that are made to convince oneself that somehow B > 0. Dreadful.
And all of this without even seeing Salby’s actual work…
Not nearly as telling as those beleivers dismissing the work before it is published, or slandering the author without ever hearing from him prior to today.
You are probably right. Some of us are just dumb aerospace engineers. We probably do not understand math. LOL
We probably do not understand math.
Rob, I’m quite sure you understand how to multiply and exponentiate numbers you obtain from a random number generator.
I seriously doubt however that you have a clue how to obtain numbers having any bearing on future climate.
Your premise;
C = A + B, C = B + A, C – A = B?, C – B = A?
It’s a fallacy. You already know that B is undefined (you said so) but certainly B > A is likely.
C – B = A
B > C could make “A” a negative number, this doesn’t follow since we know that it is a positive input. It gets worse;
Why does it fail? Because “B” is an elephant and “A” is a peanut at the zoo. “A” can be completely eaten at the zoo and “B” could still drive “C” higher.
The real fallacy that matters is that “B” isn’t treating “A” like a peanut which in fact it is in your equation. “C” is going up or down regardless of what “A” is doing. The fact that co2 fluctuates while “A” is a relative constant proves the point;
AGW co2 compounding is a failed idea. How could C – A = B If you claim to know both C and A by measurement while not knowing what B is???? It’s really because A isn’t that important to C but you will never accept this because of your bias. If you stand with C – A = B that is a joke but so is agw compounding.
There are better arguments to make, using rate of change numbers given the scale of B is the first issue. The real failure is thinking on a daily operating basis B can’t swallow A in a relative heartbeat and either way C really doesn’t change much because of A. It’s an essential fraud argument to AGW.
Finally, why would co2 fluctuate at all if “A” was like magic compounding? Where does it go when it’s declining?;
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
Does “B” have some sort of bowel movement process where it gives back “A” once it swallows it and pushes in rocks, plants and soil?? Is that the claim? Face it, most of the co2 even a few months ago is done gone! This is all co2 accounting Sophistry and nonsense because if NOAA for one, listed all the co2 inputs on a single chart with all the sink functions few of the AGW minions would get excited. That’s why it’s framed this way and the idea that a percentage of current C is all or even a good chunk of past A isn’t based on any observational evidence. It’s totally counter to how the carbon cycle works.
A needed fiction for a cause, nothing more.
Any other snark about who is serious and who isn’t?
Very little of the carbon in the carbon cycle is contained in the atmosphere and therefore it cannot contribute to GH warming even if the rest of the consensus argument is valid. If the pulse time constant assumed is wrong (too long) then most of the anthropogenic carbon released will be sequestered in the soil, water, etc. Arguments about conservation of mass are meaningless unless we can better constrain the natural flux(es).
Very little of the carbon in the carbon cycle is contained in the atmosphere and therefore it cannot contribute to GH warming even if the rest of the consensus argument is valid.
Very little of the arsenic in the ground is in this beverage, and therefore drinking it cannot impair your health.
One of the challenges faced by climate scientists is keeping a straight face when confronted by the stupidity of skeptic logic.
Now, you’ve changed your variables. But, the argument is still dumber than toast. See my post at August 6, 2011 at 3:24 am.
But, the argument is still dumber than toast.
Your toaster teach you that line?
J
these are nets. The increase in conc has no bearing on the total value
of a minor input.
There is no relationship. It might be that the extra minor input is directly
sinked with a time lag of five years by those C4 scarity eaters.
What is it that stops your thought process here?
Ah I know. A common mistake that Salby is attempting to
bust and that is ‘constant background processes’. That would
foul up your thinking. Like the constant never changing by even a tiny
amount – the sun, background cosmic rays, and tada …
global circulation sea and land temperature and soil moisture,
all constant so we can blame the nasty industrialists.
Go google Le Chatelier’s Principle.
Near as I can tell the argument is an analogy to a buffered acid/base solution. So imagine you’re pouring some small amount of hydrochloric acid in a buffered solution. You won’t change the pH at all, really. Now suppose you lower the concentration of the buffer. That will result in a higher pH.
The idea is we’re doing both these things at the same time, and that folks are looking only at the pH of the system and the fact that we’re adding HCl and saying “the ppm of hydronium ions is increasing, we’re adding hydronium ions to the system, therefore we’re responsible for the increase.” The author’s retort would be “the buffer change controls everything.”
The Japanese have a GHG observing satellite up, they launched it about the same time as the failed nasa one. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html
Ill have to wait till there is something substantive to read on this before im likely to change my beliefs in the origin of the co2 rise. Ive been convinced that fossil fuels are largely responsible…. but
I certainly have my doubts about some of the CH4 accounting ive read(with cattle) it seems we only look at one side o the equation, whats emitted. But last time i checked ch4 had an atmospheric life of 7years, before it breaks down to co2 and h2o, but the C origin is ignored(last time i checked, cows eat plants, plants photosynthesis) So with a change in the total mass o cattle on the planet being able to possibly cause a perturbation, it should be neutral after 7 years. Its not stopping taxing going ahead, this does cause me some pause.
It’s not quite so simple for various reasons having to do with the chemistry and the circulation in the atmosphere, Also the 7 years is not the time that all the methane breaks down, but the half life, so half is left after ~7 years, 1/4 after 14, etc.
Thanks for that Eli, but i would like to get to the bottom of this, its a Q thats irked me for some time, and the few papers ive come across on it, dont adequetly to my mind acount for the origin of the C.
We input N, P, K & S. And the N can be from fossil fuel sources, but thats for protein, and aids in photosynthesis, but the C would be atmospheric in origin? And with the seven year half life, established herds should not be a contributor to a rise in CH4(most herds would be 50 plus years old, new herds could contribute, but there contribution should have deducted the natural breakdown of organic matter’s CH4)
I doubt you will read this, i will persue it with the local agricultural science organization here… but a link addressing this would be appreciated.
maybe a weee bit off topic ;-)
King, Eli doesn’t think so because among other things, herds have been growing at enormous rates. FAO should have the data, although it might be easier to look in the international statistics part of the US Statistical Atlas at http://www.census.gov
RacerX and few others have nailed it. Discussions of isotope ratios and uptake and emission of CO2 by all the various and sundry physical and biological processes are distractions to the simplest and most compelling line of evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is primarily anthropogenic – to wit, comparing the expected concentration increase based on anthropogenic emission rates with the actual increase over a given period of time.
Based on production and usage data for various fossil fuels, we can reasonably (though not perfectly) estimate the mass of anthropogenic CO2 emitted to the atmosphere in a 1, 5 or 10 year period. We can also, with reasonable accuracy, estimated the total mass of the atmosphere. It is then nothing but simple math to estimate how much the anthropogenic emissions should have increased the anthropogenic concentration. From what I understand, the actual concentration increase is always less than what would be expected from the mass of emissions. No need to get sidetracked by isotope ratios, natural sinks and sources, paleoclimatic conditions, etc. – Heck, you don’t even have to worry about what the actual pre-industrial average was since we are only looking at the change over a given period of time.
Admitting that we are emitting Gt’s of CO2 into the atmosphere and thus affecting the atmospheric concentration of CO2 doesn’t mean that you also have to agree with the IPCC on the climate sensitivity to CO2, that CO2 is the primary cause of warming in the late 20th century, or that warming of a few degrees C will result in really bad things happening. It just means you are admitting that when you add a chemical to a solution, you expect the concentration of the chemical in solution to change.
Not that simple. I agree that the isotopes don’t mean anything, but your model has no sinks, and we know that isn’t true by simple mass balance. If what you’re saying were true, CO2 would be rising twice as fast.
That’s my point and RacerX’s point. Based on the mass of anthropogenic CO2, emissions in a five year period, we can calculate the expected increase in atmospheric concentrations. Since the expected increease is greater than the actual increase, the increase is primarily due to anthropogenic sources and the oceans and biosphere are acting as sinks.
Sure there are probably fairly substantial error bars on the estimates of annual anthropogenic emissions (+/- 15-20%, maybe) but that doesn’t prevent one from making the calculations. Also there is no doubt that processes primarily control the flux from various natural sources and sinks and we have a lot to learn in that area.
Bob- when you write “primarily” or even put a qualifier like “probably or most likely” I would agree. It is when people claim “100% for certain” that their claims appear unsupportable
BobN – This is horribly fallacious reasoning. i can’t believe so many people who believe themselves smarter than the average bear are falling for it. See my comments interspersed above.
BobN,
Were those isotopes meaningless when they were used to shut down lines of inquiry regarding the origin of the CO2 inthe atmosphere?
Or were they only meaningless when they impled a vastly shorter t1/2 for CO2 in the atmosphere than the climatocracy needs? O are they only worhtless now that it might be that CO2 effluxing from oceans as they warm a bit could account for a substantial amount of CO2?
Scientists would welcome this being clarified.
Which tells a lot about those climate scientists who are dismissing this from the start.
Have ANY of you comprehended Salby’s argument?
Please tell us his mistake.
Is his point about the natural variation of
0 to double annual co2 increase misguided?
Comment on how the new satellite data is irrelevant.
Please leave other off topic issues and get to the point of the paper.
This is no place to for counter arguments not related to the correlation
of the annual c02 increment (NOT) to steady human emissions.
You said :
curryja | August 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Reply
I am working to esp delete posts that violate blog rules
Yet you allowed this?
Oliver K. Manuel | August 4, 2011 at 7:17 am | Reply
Thank you, thank you, Professor Curry, for another moment of truth.
Propaganda artists have manipulated and used good citizens of the once “Free West” by the same bag of “political correct” consensus opinions that once openly controlled the other half of the globe.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Judith don’t pretend that you’re some conscientious observer, a conscientious or thorough one would wonder why there are so many issues with what he had to say. Even little lies like “Satellites have complete global coverage” wrong… and “Prior to the satellite era only 35% of the earth has coverage for instrumental records” wrong… Please tell me why is this such an important podcast?
Just for clarification, that’s a different Robert.
I agree with some of his sentiments. I would not agree that Dr. Curry is “pretend[ing]” to be a “conscientious observer” although like many of us, she is probably more affected by her own biases and cognitive dissonance than she is aware of.
I do doubt this thesis’s impact on AGW, but I can hardly point fingers as to the practice of calling attention to new ideas or observations and saying “It’s early days, but what if?” Blogs are a good place for that sort of speculation.
When it comes to this comment, I agree it fails the test of relevance:
“Propaganda artists have manipulated and used good citizens of the once “Free West” by the same bag of “political correct” consensus opinions that once openly controlled the other half of the globe.”
But there is a much bigger problem with it. Dr. Curry has often written of her concern for the credibility of mainstream scientists, and or the positive impact “skeptics” can have on the discussion. If you believe those propositions, then presumably “skeptics” also have to be concerned about their credibility — if they lose credibility, they will not be able to make any positive contribution.
In the wake of Brievik’s mass murder of 74 people at a summer camp, preceded by the release of a manifesto denouncing climate change as an “eco-Marxist conspiracy,” the association of climate “skeptics” with the far right has become incredibly toxic to any credibility “skeptics” might hope to wield outside the closed systems of Beck and Limbaugh. Taking a hard line on comments pontificating on right-wing nonsense unrelated to climate change would be an excellent start in trying to create a corner of the climate “skeptic” universe that might one day be clearly disassociated from those “skeptics” that write letters to climate scientists telling them to gargle razor blades.
Thank you.
I have been trying for months to make that point to Judith, although admittedly, with far less eloquence.
Perhaps she’ll be able to hear it from you.
Robert,
You return to your vile slander about the Norwegian killer like a dog to his vomit.
You explain tous the similarities between the unabomber’s writing, gore’s writing and the eviro movement.
You explain Pol Pot’s desire to ‘pastoralize’ Cambodia and the enviro desire to deindustrialize society.
You explain to us hansen’s endorsement of “Time’sUp!”, the call to global destruction of technological infrastructure.
And finally explain to us why a certain early 20th century charismatic politician and his deeply seated green credentials are not at the heart of the enviro movement.
Your disgusting fact-free slimeball attack in trying to associate a demented lone actor spouting words to justify his mass murder to skeptics is only matched by your shameless ignorance of the roots of the enviro movement.
What does that have to do with the posted topic?
Only that true believers can wander off track in ways indistinguishable from the severely mentally disturbed.
OK, get back on track
The science has not changed, i.e., temperature drives atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
What the proponents of AGW have argued is that man over the past 60 years has turned that science on its head, i.e, increasing man-made CO2 emissions drive temperature.
All Murry Salby has done is to show that arguement is nonsense, the science has not changed – temperature continues to drive CO2.
You cannot blame humanity for rising global temperatures, nor can humanity control levels of atmospheric CO2.
I’ve just read Jo Nova’s piece about this, and I think it’s very good indeed – at least for a layman like me. I’m not saying anything about the value of Salby’s piece – others more qualified than I will make that judgement. But it makes sense of what I had difficulties grasping from the podcast: at least I know now what Salby is saying.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/
I’ve just read Jo Nova’s piece about this, and I think it’s very good indeed – at least for a layman like me.
Michael, Jo Nova’s piece completely misses the point. The temperature/CO2 feedback accounts for much of the year-to-year variation in the rate of the atmospheric CO2 increase, but it doesn’t account for the increase itself.
Basically, humans burn fossil fuels, resulting in a flux of CO2 to the atmosphere. Some of that excess CO2 is soaked up by the ocean and biosphere, while the rest of it accumulates in the atmosphere. Over the course of the ENSO cycle, the ocean and the biosphere are able to take up a little more, or a little less, of that anthropogenic CO2 than they do in an “average” year. But the ever-increasing mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is obviously due to human emissions.
I don’t think it misses the point of Salby’s lecture. If you think it is missing a point that you happen to believe, well, that’s your prerogative, but it isn’t relevant to my comment.
The Nova piece is terribly wrong. It might fairly represent what Salby is saying, but if so it makes him terribly wrong too.
This is some McLean ENSO nonsense all over again but this time with CO2.
When you realize how solid the science is that CO2 rise is human caused, you can read articles like that Nova one and spot all the little propaganda tricks. The careful omissions, the wordplay. Fascinating, but not in a good way.
lolwot,
The attribution of motive to skeptics, when it is the cliamte scientists who were caught in cliamtegate, is a bit hypocritical on your part. You can say many things about Jo Nova- and obviously do- but I would suggest taht implying she is a liar, as you do, is really a demonstration of either bigotry on your part or ignorance of what she is actually saying.
What is fascinating is when certain climate scientists and their supporters defend lying, palying with data, ratinolizing secrecy with data, distorting the null hypothesis, etc.
Just to follow up on my last post, here’s my question:
1. we know that atmospheric carbon is increasing (over the past few years) by about 5 GtC/yr
2. we know that humans are adding about 10 GtC/yr
3. thus, non-human sources must be subtracting about 5 GtC/yr
this would confirm that humans are the cause of the increase.
what am I missing?
Your argument is basically valid, and in my view the strongest reason to believe that the increase is mostly, if not totally, due to human activities. The logic is, however, not fully solid, as there is another alternative. This alternative is very unlikely in my judgment, but still an alternative. It requires two factors:
1. There must by another additional source of CO2 on top of the carbon fluxes that have maintained the balance.
2. There must be sinks that can absorb both half of the human contribution and all of this additional source. This means that the natural processes that act to return the CO2 level back to its “normal” level must be very strong, not only strong enough to absorb half of the deviation, but much more than that.
I haven’t seen any serious proposals on, how these two requirements would both be satisfied. On the contrary, there are many publications that tell that the natural processes could balance approximately that part of the human contribution that doesn’t stay in the atmosphere. At the same time it’s clear that the carbon cycle is not known accurately, but there are uncertainties that add up to an significant part of the annual increase of the CO2 concentration.
Pekka if I may, 1. Salby noted in his podcast that the earth has been warming since the little Ice Age and continues to do so today. Warmth leads to increased CO2, so there is your additional source. 2. While he declined to elaborate in that podcast, though he indicated that he would do so at some point, he posited that the was a source of negative feed back when of necessity would lead to a dampening of the effect. He, as do many others, see this as a necessity or else the whole process would roar out of control at the least provocation. So yes he to see the alternative has at least the qualities that you do. Only he finds it not unlikely, but necessary.
Warming leads to increased CO2 release from the ocean, but the effect is far too weak. The total solubility of CO2 (total dissolved inorganic carbon) in sea water has been studied, and the equilibrium CO2 concentration of the atmosphere rises very little, when the water temperature rises by one degree. This alone cannot explain more than few percents of the increase. The weakness of this effect is the explanation also for the fact that the process does not roar out of control. In the main stream thinking this is a small part of the positive feedback.
How about other changes to the oceans? We’re sitting at about half the pre-industrial fish and plankton populations. Could that alter the equilibrium?
Pekka if I may, 1. Salby noted in his podcast that the earth has been warming since the little Ice Age and continues to do so today. Warmth leads to increased CO2, so there is your additional source. 2. While he declined to elaborate in that podcast, he posited that the was a source of negative feed back which of necessity would lead to a dampening of the effect. He, as do many others, see this as a necessity or else the whole process would roar out of control at the least provocation. So yes he too see the same alternative which has at the least the two qualities that you do. Only he finds it not unlikely, but necessary.
Actually the flux can be anywhere from 3.5 to 7GtC/yr over the last 10 years … supposedly.
Using an average when the swing is so huge is dodging the import questions that Salby is trying answer … what actual causes such massive swings.
The important question has an answer: The swings are in the sinks. In warmer El Nino years the ocean sink reduces resulting in a larger atmospheric CO2 rise and in colder La Nina or pinatubo-style years the sink is larger resulting in a smaller atmospheric CO2 rise. And I bet there’s a similar effect on vegetation. The longterm trends for these things fall under carbon cycle feedbacks and they are far from ignored.
So the earth has warmed up as much as an El Nino or so, therefore that causes more Co2 in the long run, just like an El Nino causes more CO2 in the short run.
Sounds right. Temperature leads, CO2 follows.
yes the more we warm the earth up, that may reduce the CO2 sinks resulting in higher CO2 and even more warming
Or warming just causes more Co2. As it did in the Eemian.
CO2 was lower during the Eemian.
But it too rose 100ppm without human interventian after temperature rose.
And that brings up another interesting point. Why was CO2 in the Eemian so close to extinguishing plant life? Why did CO2 in the Holocene start out higher?
But it too rose 100ppm without human interventian after temperature rose.
It rose from the trough of the previous glacial to the peak of the interglacial. That corresponds to a temperature change about ten times larger than the 0.8 C we’ve seen in the past century. If CO2 flux is dependent on temperature, why would temperature changes that differ by a factor of 10 produce the same CO2 increase?
J, one thing to remember is that the LIA was deleted from Mann’s Hockey Stick as well as the MWP. Recent evidence from Greenland suggest a 4C drop to the depths of the LIA. That means a possible 4-5C rise the depths of the LIA.
And since there is a lag …
The Eemian never got more than 3C above our current temperature.
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
But as the temperature during the Eemian was higher than today, one should expect CO2 levels to be lower than during the Eemian, but they are near 100 ppmv higher…
Ferdinand,
We don’t know that. I disagree that CO2 levels were 100 ppm lower during the Eemian. Professor Salby disagrees too.
Ferdinand, CO2 did not go up before the MWP.
And why did the Holocene start 100ppm higher than the Eemian?
Each summer has more co2 than the previous winter. Co2 is not driving the seasons. Co2 is a reaction to heat an vegetation.
You are missing the fact that the natural fluxes are not nearly well enough constrained to make this leap……….and are by default assuming they are constant, or at least their net differences are constant at zero. We know that atmospheric CO2 is rising by about 5GtC/year. This means that the total of all fluxes is 5. There is an infinite number of solutions that can add up to a net 5 into the atmosphere.
What you are missing is the ~190 GtC/yr that cycles through the oceans and land mass, with an uncertainty of about 40 GtC. The mechanisms of that cycling are largely unknown and unstudied. We don’t even have enough data to analyze whether or not there might be oscillations in that cycle. Given all the known cycles in the climate(PDO, AMO, ENSO, etc) forgive me if I think that a 1-2% change in the global carbon cycle over a period of 50-100 years is probably more than likely.
“The mechanisms of that cycling are largely unknown and unstudied.”
By you, certainly. But not by scientists. “Carbon cycle” pulls up 138,000 results on Google Scholar. “Carbon sink” — 21,100. “Soil respiration” — 32,600 articles.
You are missing that you do now know how much overall non-human sources are adding and subtracting separately. Because the net sinks expand with accumulated volume (nobody can deny that), you can simply have the subtraction tracking the adding, and human contributions could be no more than bit players.
Bart you’re on a mass balance mission.
I hope it will get the “settled” scientists re-search the problem.
I speculate we won’t have to wait too long for significant atmospheric CO2 decceleration evidence.
An assumption of constant background processes.
The big arrows as Salby says MAY PERHAPS vary
in their net outputs.
There is a well known process control theory that says
something like (it’s being 25 years since I graduated B.E. chem Eng)
a 3 per cent input has no impact, the signal is washed out by other
much larger varibles.
By the way a 1 in 100,000 molecule trace on a trace of man made
contribution having an effect (whatever the amplification sign)
on the atmosphere would imply a grossly unstable system, one that
would have venus’ed out billions of years past.
Even with the challenge on having no actual slides, original source transcripts and video I have taken a stab at a tentative takeaway from Prof Salby’s talk.
My understanding from Salby is the GCMs used in AR4 and since have not included in their framework the main sources of atmospheric CO2 and their changes on the timescales of satellite and Mona Loa. Observations are used to support that critique. He evaluates CO2 changes backward before satellite and Mona Loa in support of the critique of the AR4 GSMs. To me it looks like the GCMs are misleading and continued high emphasis on them by the IPCC with its so-called consensus science is even detrimental to more open scientific discourse.
In support of my understanding I have transcribed below Salby’s description the IPCC climate modeling framework (GSMs) at the ~28:56 min mark of the podcast of his talk ‘Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources’ given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011.
John
Salby is wrong. Future atmospheric CO2 is not determined entirely on human emissions. If it was there would be no discussion about carbon cycle feedbacks in the IPCC reports.
I can’t see anything that Salby mentions that isn’t already known and factored in.
Write it up, submit it, publish your rebuttal.
I look forward to your contribution.
Good luck lolwot.
John
John,
Don’t hold your breath.
I don’t need to publish a rebuttal. It’s already been published (see AR4)
“As you’ve seen emission from natural sources is integral to observed changes of CO2. Its contribution hasn’t been recognized, nor is it represented in climate models. ”
This quote is one of many that demonstrates that Salby does _not_ understand the state of the art on carbon-cycle models (or even the state of the art several decades ago). And apparently has not read chapter 7 of the IPCC (or needs serious reading comprehension lessons). For example, see 7.3.2.4 Interannual Changes in the Carbon Cycle: “Since the TAR, many studies have confirmed that the variability of CO2 fluxes is mostly due to land fluxes, and that tropical lands contribute strongly to this signal (Figure 7.9).” One of the supports for this assessment? “(3) ocean model simulations (e.g., Le Quéré et al., 2003; McKinley et al., 2004a) and (4) terrestrial carbon cycle and coupled model simulations (e.g., C. Jones et al., 2001; McGuire et al., 2001; Peylin et al., 2005; Zeng et al., 2005).” How can you read that and claim that emissions from natural sources, and their contribution to interannual variability, have not been recognized or included in models?
(oh, and the whole 13C thing has been known for a long time: “(2) consistent relationships between δ13C and CO2 (Rayner et al.,
1999),” – or, google “13c global carbon cycle model”)
Much like the SkyDragons debate, it makes it really hard to have a conversation about real uncertainties in climate science if we’re stuck arguing about whether the greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics or whether the last century’s rise in CO2 concentrations is mainly due to natural causes. These are issues that were resolved half a century ago. Saying “If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science” is like saying “wow, if the analysis on that Moon hoax site regarding a waving flag holds up, that could revolutionize our understanding of the history of space flight.”
Yes, one of the truly scary things out there is a possible drying out of the Amazon basin with the associated release of carbon from decaying tropical forests.
“While it may be true that Judith intended this blog to be a place where climate science was strengthened in trials by fire, its impact so far has been to bury the field under garbage (I believe that Judith has a T-shirt with a related theme). ”
This is one of the nastiest, misguided claims it’s been my displeasure to read here. Congratulations on your breathtaking incivility. Talk about garbage.
You seem to be missing some context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjTRgHWTMs&feature=player_embedded#t=19s
Pokerguy,
I second this. There is absolutely no need for such disrespect. “Breathtaking incivility” is spot on.
Michael, re; “garbage” there was some inside ribbing there, no disrespect or incivility intended. See the video link above.
So don’t explain it to me, apologise to Judith.
If she’s taken offense, she can say so. She’s more than capable of standing up for herself. Go whiteknight on someone else’s behalf.
Yup. She definitely has guts (isn’t anonymous, for a start), and also politeness – perhaps too much to take you to task for your incivility. See, this is why your blog draws so few responses and you have to come here to play.
JC,
Can you please state for the record what *specifically* you found “sufficiently important” about this “that we should start talking about” it?
Thanks in advance.
Thingsbreak, I am starting a new thread tomorrow to discuss blog related issues that you, chris and fred have raised
I appreciate that you’re going to post about some of the meta-issues raised in this thread, and I am genuinely looking forward to it.
That’s a different kettle of fish from what I’m asking, though.
You called this presentation was “important”, exclaimed, “wow”, that it could “revolutionize AGW science”, etc. You created a “technical” blog post about it.
Yet there are no data or analyses to discuss. You’ve offered exactly nothing in terms of specifics of why you personally believe this is so important and potentially revolutionary. Other than “not IPCC”, what explicitly are you saying is “important” about this?
I think this dicussion is 1000x more important than say Cool Dudes — the anti-White Male thread.
JC:
What from a science perspective (not “he used to be a colleague” and not “Not IPCC”) from Salby’s presentation do you feel was worth saying wow, it’s so important that we should talk about it, it’s potentially revolutionary to the field, etc.?
(I apologize if you actually managed to answer this at any point during the last couple of days. I understand that your time is precious and you choose which comments to respond to with great care…)
I’ve got a pretty satisfactory answer for your question, tb, from Judith’s response to your question, as quoted in her ‘Editorial Decision’ thread., two whole days ago. What about her response there fails to satisfy you?
=================
Well, I’ve considered some more, and I can see that with your focus on ‘he used to be a colleague’ and ‘not IPCC’ instead of ‘potentially revolutionary’ you are likely to be insatiable.
Enjoy your repast. Digest at leisure.
===========
Does anyone know which journal the paper will appear in? I suspect it may be E&E.
Take a look at salby’s web page, and see what journals he publishes in, definitely NOT E&E
http://www.envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/pubs.html
I have looked at Salby’s publication record (which is very good); however the carbon cycle seems rather outside his primary expertise, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he were to depart from his normal choice of journal. It is well known that volcanic eruptions and e.g. ENSO are well correllated with the growth rate; it is also well known thatthis tells you precisely nothing about the long term trend as the differencing operation used to obtain the growth rate obliterates the long term trend. The mass balance argument is also well known, and established beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment is a net sink, and hence is opposing the observed rise. As a result I would be very surprised if a mainstream climate journal would accept it if its conclusions are as suggested here (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if E&E accepted it though).
It isn’t hard to get published in a non-climate journal where the editor likes mavericks. And in a non-climate journal, the editor has to depend on suggested reviewers by the author (eg, his friends) and doesn’t know where to find a real expert reviewer. So occasionally, climate contrarian papers that have no scientific standing can actually get in print in respectable journals.
No I have to differ with you, Mister M. It’s simply not possible for climate contrarian papers that have no scientific standing to find their way into print in respectable journals. Because the moment such an event might have been deemed to occur the journal concerned would no longer be held to be respectable. You seem to losing the plot, in more than sense of the word.
G&T
dikranmarsupial –
I have looked at Salby’s publication record (which is very good); however the carbon cycle seems rather outside his primary expertise, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he were to depart from his normal choice of journal.
Salby IS an atmospheric physicist with apparently longer experience with saellite data than most climatologists. And I think if you look carefully at his pubs, this isn’t all that far from what he’s done for the last 25 years or more.
You’re picking nits where ther are none.
He’s wrong anyway. It doesn’t matter that he’s an atmospheric physicist. When someone is this wrong discussion invariably turns to finding out how it could happen.
Dikranmarsupial suggests in this case it could be because the carbon cycle is outside his primary area of expertize.
lolwot –
Dikranmarsupial suggests in this case it could be because the carbon cycle is outside his primary area of expertize.
Well, since his paper has been peer reviewed and will be published, I would suggest that that reason is noting more than another form of hand waving dismissal with no validity.
Not saying Salby is right – but you lack any evidence that he’s wrong so your eagerness to trash him just confirms your CAGW Church membership.
Peer review is no guarantee that a paper is correct, never has been, never will be. It is the only the first step in the acceptance of a paper. The next step is to wait to see if there is any correspondance published, and then a wait to see if it collects citations. Essenhigh’s paper published in Energy and Fuels is aa good example. It also purports to show that man is not responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2 (in this case because the residence time of CO2 is only about 5 years). It is a peer reviewed paper, in a respectable journal, but it is nevertheless wrong. It wouldn’t have been published in a mainstream climate journal as the reviewers would have known why residence time is irrelevant (it is adjustment time that is relevant).
Now as it happens, I did more that wave arms, I gave a specific argument that demonstrates that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 (the mass balance argument). This same argument also explains why Essenhigh’s paper was also wrong.
It is best to avoid throwing round insults (“CAG” church membership”) as it doens’t help your argument when it turns out that there was evidence presented that Salby was wrong, you just didn’t see it.
Jim Owen says
Well, since his paper has been peer reviewed and will be published, I would suggest that that reason is noting more than another form of hand waving dismissal with no validity.
On what basis do you say it has been peer reviewed and will be published? It is now over 12 months from the talk and Salby has already indicated that he was having trouble with the review process.
There is no reason to believe that carbon sinks have a linear relationship to temperature. A 1C warming now would allow for a lot less plant growth then a 1C warming when the world is half covered with ice.
Amen, and that’s not the only non-linearity that effects sensitivity.
The realistic discussion of this would be rather boring to many. Ie where Salby has gone wrong, the multiple lines of evidence that CO2 rise is human caused, etc.
But the fantasy discussion – always premised on the exciting idea that the subject might prove man-made global warming wrong – is popular to a certain clientele.
Dr Curry seems to provide just enough information to facilitate the exciting fantasy discussion, but not any more that might risk the boringly realistic discussion happening.
As an example I note that the discussion is predicated on a summary by Andrew Bolt and not a summary by Dr Judith Curry. I realize the podcast and abstract was not sufficiently lucid enough that a summary could be quoted from Salby, but letting Andrew Bolt frame it? Really?
Makes things very difficult because as these fantasy discussions go it never matters what the scientist is actually claiming, only what the skeptics interpret them as claiming.
Lets assume Bolt fairly summarizes Salby (if we have to review that then this thread is trashed anyway).
In which case Salby has made a number of errors. The prime error being that he’s confused causes of short term variation with causes of longterm variation. He’s pulled a bit of a McLean ENSO-temperature error here. Salby hasn’t raised anything new, he’s just misinterpreted things that are already known.
Second he wrongly claims isotopes are the only evidence for CO2 rise being human caused. In fact there are multiple lines of evidence and in sum it’s overwhelming. Salby doesn’t appear to have considered anything other than isotopes.
You don’t need to be an expert on the carbon cycle to understand this or where Salby has gone wrong.
lolwot,
Your gift of prophecy is one that we should all appreciate more.
Please tell us what else you can already fully understand and critique before you read it.
Have you considered a career in financial management and investment advisory services?
If there’s enough information for Andrew Bolt to summarize it and enough information for this thread to exist to discuss it, then why do you think there isn’t enough information for me to conclude Salby is wrong?
Because there’s considerable doubt that you’ve ever been right?
Anything related to cimate change framed by Andrew Bolt can almost be garanteed to be wrong.
Most Australian readers would know to take a Bolt pronouncement with a massive dose of salt, but Judith may not be aware of his well-known proclivity for his …um….interpretation… of facts.
One person’s “bug” is another blogger’s “feature”.
Amusing to see E&E derided again. Wait and see my friends…….Not so long ago, EE “isn’t in ISI so must be no good”, Whoops now it is. So it must be good, yes? And is Salby all about Beck, EE author scoffed at by everyone? Jo Nova links to Quirk, guess where his papers were published. “Always be polite to young ladies, you never know who they might become”
Dr. Salby’s states that CO2 response to temperature is much higher than the ice core indicates. This does not mean that the mass balance will not or does not work. I thnik that it is not much ado about nothing, but may be more important on how we model sinks, and even how we veiw long term CO2 temperature changes. I thnik we need the paper.
Looks like we could all learn something from the IPCC report afterall.
7.3.2.4 Interannual Changes in the Carbon Cycle
“The atmospheric CO2 growth rate exhibits large interannual variations (see Figure 3.3, the TAR and http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/carbon_budget). The variability of fossil fuel emissions and the estimated variability in net ocean uptake are too small to account for this signal, which must be caused by year-to-year fluctuations in land-atmosphere fluxes. Over the past two decades, higher than decadal-mean CO2 growth rates occurred in 1983, 1987, 1994 to 1995, 1997 to 1998 and 2002 to 2003. During such episodes, the net uptake of anthropogenic CO2 (sum of land and ocean sinks) is temporarily weakened. Conversely, small growth rates occurred in 1981, 1992 to 1993 and 1996 to 1997, associated with enhanced uptake. Generally, high CO2 growth rates correspond to El Niño climate conditions, and low growth rates to La Niña (Bacastow and Keeling, 1981; Lintner, 2002). However, two episodes of CO2 growth rate variations during the past two decades did not reflect such an El Niño forcing. In 1992 to 1993, a marked reduction in growth rate occurred, coincident with the cooling and radiation anomaly caused by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991. In 2002 to 2003, an increase in growth rate occurred, larger than expected based on the very weak El Niño event (Jones and Cox, 2005). It coincided with droughts in Europe (Ciais et al., 2005b), in North America (Breshears et al., 2005) and in Asian Russia (IFFN, 2003).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-2-4.html
So, Murry Salby is suggesting that recent warming has induced an increase in CO2 levels rather than the other way around?
However, past interglacial periods have been slightly warmer than this one. The Eemian period (the previous one ~100k yrs ago) was a couple of degrees warmer, sea levels were a few metres higher, but CO2 levels were still below 300 ppmv .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
Do you unreservedly believe anything Wikipedia says on subjects related to climate change?
Peter317,
Not unreservedly. Wiki is an extremely useful resource and its often the first place I’d look, but it does pay to double check. For instance if I’d like to provide a reference that CO2 levels are now much higher than in the Eemian period I would give:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw1.html
And as for conditions themselves 100k yrs ago:
http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/lite/index.html
Have you any evidence that Wiki have it wrong? If so, I’d be happy to edit the Wiki entry if you can show credible evidence that they have.
I didn’t say Wiki had it wrong, just that it’s not to be trusted – and I tend to take with a pinch of salt any climate-related postings which reference Wikipedia articles.
A certain gentleman with the initials WC appears to spend an inordinate amount of time editing Wikipedia articles – so much so that it’s a wonder how he manages to get anything else done.
Peter, here the plot of the Vostok ice cofe CO2 vs. temperature (proxy):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Vostok_trends.gif
That is around 8 ppmv/degr.C
A similar plot is available for the MWP-LIA transition from the higher resolution (40 years average gas age) Law Dome ice core, again about 8 ppmv/degr.C.
The current short term response of the CO2 sink rate on temperature variations is about 4 ppmv/degr.C around the trend.
Conclusion: temperature is not the cause of the 100+ ppmv increase of the last 1.5 century,
Ferdinand
Re: “about 4 ppmv/degr.C”
Is that the net or the gross variation?
e.g Spencer finds “7,100 mmtC/deg. C.” in the southern ocean.
I understood Selby to say that natural sources and sinks are much larger, vary much more, and have much higher uncertainties than anthropogenic emissions.
See NASA on Carbon Cycle for conventional perspective.
See also Jim Goodrich on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide variations
“This increase fluctuates 6.3 ppm on an annual cycle with the highest in May and the lowest values in October.”
These annual variations are clearly temperature driven. The longer term variations also look much closer to temperature variations than anthropogic variations. Spencer shows variations from e.g. from 0 Gt/year to 7.8 Gt/year.
David Hagen,
Firstly its important to remember that, globally, there is no such thing as summer and winter. All UK cricket lovers will know that the summer months in Australia are the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.
Still, the Northern Hemisphere does dominate as that’s where most of the land is and that’s where there are the most trees and other vegetation.
Yes, there is a noticeable annual sinusoidal variation, which as you say produces a maximum in April and a minimum in October. So, it looks like you might be shooting yourself in the foot with this argument. Doesn’t it show that the warm NH summer months are causing a reduction in CO2 rather than an increase?
tempterrain,
When is the maximum for the global temperature? I think in July.
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-temperature-update.html
Do you know when the maximum is for the average sea temperature?
I would say later. Sept/Oct maybe?
tempterrain
Conventionally CO2 is driven by N Hemisphere biomass. However, Spencer probes the possibility that it is actually driven by the southern hemisphere ocean. The highest CO2 in May would indicate that “summer down under” dominates, not the No. hemisphere growing period. (I lived in Oz for 9 years, so appreciate the importance of proper orientation.
So I encourage you to check out the phase relationships between CO2 variations, the ocean’s thermal lag and solar variation, and see who’s “dancing” and why! I see the case is still open – and trending towards greater natural variation!
Annual variation in CO2 mixing ratios in the southern hemisphere are about nothing. The long term increase in the southern hemisphere lags that in the north by a few years, as would be expected if the excess is being driven by emissions in the north. See the cdiac.ornl.gov
Can that one.
Think about it. There’s a lot more land in the NH, therefore a lot more vegetation to soak up the CO2 in the (NH) summer months. The SH has more ocean, therefore more outgassing of CO2 during the (SH) summer months. The tropics are rather neutral on yearly timescales.
So yes, a decrease in CO2 during the NH summer is to be expected.
And, overall, an increase in the long-term average CO2 concentration is to be expected with warming.
And thus there IS a global summer and winter as
shown by the wiggle in the conc co2 curve.
The global temperature varies over the year with about +/- 0.5 degr.C, mainly due to the NH, which has most land. I had calculated a global CO2 variation of about 5 ppmv, but have no problem with the 6.3 ppmv of Roy Spencer.
That means that the short-term (seasonal) influence of temperature on CO2 levels is about 6.3 ppmv/degr.C.
From ice cores (even relative high resolution ice cores like Law Dome) we see an 8 ppmv/degr.C influence on very long periods. Thus the recent warming may be responsible for maximum 6 ppmv since the LIA (~0.8 degr.C rise), the rest is from human emissions.
Indeed we only have a rough idea of the variability and height of the different natural inflows and outflows, but we have a pretty good idea about the total of all natural inflows and outflows together, which is a net sink over the past 50 years, with a natural variability of +/- 1 ppmv around the increasing trend in sink capacity. The current emissions at 4 ppmv by far exceed the increase in the atmosphere at 2 ppmv, including its variability.
Ferdinand
Re: “maximum 6 ppmv since the LIA (~0.8 degr.C rise), the rest is from human emissions.”
Except that does not account for the total sources and sinks, only for the difference. See Selby on how actual sources and sinks are much larger, and the apparent CO2 is only the net difference. The fact that it varies much much more than the anthropogenic emissions indicates that the natural trends dominate the CO2 variations, and probably the decadal and centennial trends as well. e.g. see Loehle & Scafetta (2011). for a separate analysis .
Check out the correlation of CO2 variations with anthropogenic vs with temperature, volcanoes, enso, PDO/AMO, Hale cycle, galactic cosmic rays, the 1480 year cycle etc. etc. I think you will find that correlations of CO2 with natural causes are much higher than to anthropogenic emissions.
As before, cAGW “not proven” with growing evidence that natural causes dominate.
You are assuming that the response to low frequency components is the same as that to high frequency components. On what data do you base this assumption?
The data from ice cores show a 8 ppmv/degr.C sensitivity for (very) long periods (centuries to millennia), while over the past 50 years, the sensitivity of the year by year variability in sink rate around the trend is about 4 ppmv/degr.C. The seasonal variability gives globally a change of 5 ppmv/degr.C.
There are no data for mid-long periods (decades to centuries), but it would be quite strange to see a huge change in sensitivity for such periods. Even if that was right, it would show up in medium resolution ice cores.
Yes, I would be interested in seeing an explanation of how the sensitivity could be O(10 ppmv/K) at both interannual and Milankovich timescales, but O(100 ppmv/K) at decadal to century timescales. That explanation would take some creativity, I think.
J,
The explanation is easy. We don’t know atmospheric CO2 variations at ‘Milanković’ timescales. There are many problems with CO2 data from ice cores (bubbles not gas-tight over 1000s of years, contamination, dating…).
Sure. If you throw out all the data that could contradict your hypothesis, then it can’t be falsified.
Virtually all actual scientists working in this field accept the ice core measurements. The model being debated here would imply truly massive swings in CO2 between glacial and interglacial conditions (on the order of 1000 ppmv fluctuations). There is no evidence for that.
J,
Just given the massive changes in biomass volume etc, especially between glacials and interglacials, how do you explain the apparent lack of massive swings?
J,
I don’t completely throw all the ice core data out. Tempearature is likely pretty accurate. Dust too. Dating is somewhat problematic.
But gas data can not be good for physical reasons. It’s simply not plausible.
Just given the massive changes in biomass volume etc, especially between glacials and interglacials, how do you explain the apparent lack of massive swings?
There are swings of approximately 100 ppmv. This corresponds nicely to what would be expected from models (see, e.g., the EPICA Challenge) and is not unreasonably different from the sensitivity observed at shorter time scales, as Ferdinand Engelbeen noted.
Lots of things change between the glacials and interglacials, and some of them have opposing effects on carbon fluxes. I’m not going to try to track down the latest and greatest on this, but a 2002 paper by Brovkin et al. shows that, at the last glacial maximum:
* The atmosphere held ~400 Pg carbon (compared to ~600 preindustrial / interglacial)
* The terrestrial carbon pool (soils and vegetation) held ~1300 Pg C (versus ~1900 preindustrial)
* The ocean held ~40,100 Pg C (versus ~38,300 preindustrial).
So, basically, during a glacial the land loses carbon, the atmosphere loses carbon, and the ocean gains carbon. I don’t know if that picture has changed in the past decade.
Edim,
Most of the objections against ice cores I have read were based on the papers of Jaworowski/Segalstad of 1991. Most of the objections were already refuted in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome.
There may be some minor problems left:
– A small fractionation of the smaller molecules at closing time, but for CO2, that is less than 1.2 ppmv/200 ppmv.
– Migration of CO2 through the ice core: in “hot” (-23 degr.C) ice cores: a broadening of the resolution with 10% to 100% at depth, that means that the resolution is 22 years to 40 years instead of 20 years for the Siple Dome ice core. But that doesn’t change the average level!
There is no migration in the “cold” (-40 degr.C) Vostok and Dome C ice cores over 420,000 and 800,000 years. If there was the slightest migration, the nice ratio between CO2 levels and temperature (proxy) of 8 ppmv/degr.C over glacials and interglacials would fade over time for each 100,000 years period further back.
J,
You said: “The model being debated here would imply truly massive swings in CO2 between glacial and interglacial conditions (on the order of 1000 ppmv fluctuations). There is no evidence for that”
But then in your reply to me, you said: “Lots of things change between the glacials and interglacials, and some of them have opposing effects on carbon fluxes.” etc etc
I think you may have answered your own question there.
Ferdinand, why is land use change and deforestation not the most important change in all this?
The addition of so many billions of people and the deforestation, desertification, urbanisation etc that followed, is surely the most massive change the system has had.
It’s funny that you have to even pose that first sentence as a question.
As usual we are guessing at what the exact claim is. I decided to just go with Bolts interpretation as the official skeptic line on this matter – ie that Salby is claiming that the evidence for CO2 rise being human caused has been refuted – but the downside is that even if I successfully prove that wrong skeptics will claim I have errected a strawman because Salby never said that…(even though that’s what half the skeptics “took home” from it)
Such is the waste of time refuting these vague claims
Such is the waste of time refuting these vague claims
so don’t do it!!
We don’t know the Eemian CO2 concentrations. We only have very crude estimates, IMO. If it was really a couple of degrees warmer (I believe it was), then I expect that the CO2 concentration was higher than today (very likely).
That’s not what the ice core records show.
They show less than 300ppmv
You didn’t listen to the podcast, did you.
I know. It’s amazing that people believe it. Bubbles in ice are air tight over 1000s of years? There are other problems as well (contamination, dating…).
I mean gas-tight or sealed.
Edim,
If ice cores weren’t gas tight, how do you explain that one still finds 100 ppmv CO2 difference between warm and cold periods, each warm period separated by some 100,000 years cold.
If there was even the slightest migration, wouldn’t the differences have flattened to one long average of 210 ppmv (90% of the time at 200 ppmv, 10% at 300 ppmv). Or worse, we should see that the current high level of near 400 ppmv migrates all the way to the bottom of the ice core?
How do they know it was a warm period or cold period? There is much plasticity and elasticity in ice and pressure also changes it.
oxygen isotope ratios among other things
Thank you, but how accurate is it? With archeology they have radiocarbon dating but often when you read or follow a story in archeology they don’t seem to put much faith in the radiocarbon date. I hope its not CO2 levels or it would just be circular.
No, it is independent. OTOH, that’s kink of a how does Eli know that Judith Curry exists question.
Ferdinand,
I don’t have an explanation for that. I would have to think about it and do some research. There could be many explanations (absorption, diffusion, chemical reactions, clathrates…). I am just speculating, but various artifacts are not to be dismissed.
This is a good argument. If diffusion continued through time you would expect the further back in time you went in the ice cores the less you would see differences in the levels of the gas concentrations until at some point you would have a constant concentration. There is no evidence the diffusion is occuring.
I guess the next logical questions to ask are how compressed does the ice have to be before the diffusion stops. How long does that take. What does this do to the measured co2 maximum concentrations.
For those who asked, and especially for those who roasted Dr. Curry for her “wow” comment and others. The host of the broadcast used similar words and wording to express the night and to wrap up the meeting. He also expressed similar wants to what many of us want: the paper. As Chris C is tired of certain things, perhaps others are similarly tired but of different things.
I think that it does call certain assumptions to task, but it will have to do quite a bit to destroy a mass balance approach. Perhaps it does. Since we don’t have the paper, I find it hard to fault those who question or ask what does it mean. I do find much to dislike with the ad homs. I also think that many of the negative points addressed that were ad hom were less than useless. Fred had some nice comments.
Those who fault Dr Curry for providing enough information to have an interesting if not fatastical discussion should have read her comment: But the talk is very lucid, you can certainly get the point.
Dr. Curry, it appears your specualtion was ill founded; you should have stated some of you can certainly get the point. Though I don’t think that that excuses those whose point it seems is to be to hoist you on a petard of their own making. YMMV.
More from the IPCC report:
“Since the TAR, many studies have confirmed that the variability of CO2 fluxes is mostly due to land fluxes, and that tropical lands contribute strongly to this signal (Figure 7.9). ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-2-4.html
Looks like a lot more is known about the carbon cycle than is widely thought on this thread. In fact I dare say on most topics a lot more is known about the issues than blog commenters think. It’s a given that people, myself included, are lazy to learn of course, but why are people projecting their own ignorance on scientists? I know little about the carbon cycle either, but I don’t presume it’s all a mystery.
I think blogs are widely conditioning folk into assuming scientists don’t understand anything. Blogs are focusing all the time on unreliable passing fads like some McLean paper or Salby podcast that imply the science is so shaky that it’s being overturned every day.
Yet look at the above link and all the information on it about the carbon cycle. When is that ever conveyed in a blog post? You don’t see stuff like that very often, eg a post about figure 7.9 in the above link for example. But I bet this Salby podcast will spawn numerous blog posts.
With the discussion biased in such a way no wonder so many people go away thinking nothing is known on various subjects and thinking that each new fad overturns manmade global warming. No wonder noone bothers to check what the IPCC report says on a subject if they have been conditioned into believing the knowledge doesn’t exist.
Educational blog posts about the big picture, or even encouragements to RTFM are simply not popular. Say all you want about realclimate, but that blog did at least – while there were ample layman level topics to go into – educate people about what a forcing is, what a feedback is, what radiative forcing is, etc.
Sadly there are entry-level limits to detailed subjects where it’s hard for laypeople to understand them. But what’s wrong with writing blog posts as a lecture would be where facts are asserted? Open discussions where people just make up their own minds are easy for the audience, but a school that let the pupils decide what was true would never work.
lolwot –
More from the IPCC report:
If he’s not right, you “may” have a point – maybe.
If Salby is right then the IPCC report is little more than fire starter or TP.
In a recent discussion here, it was said that CO2 increase was something like 95% anthropogenic. So while I’m somewhat sceptical, I’m also open to the possibility that he might be right.
Can you say the same? Or will you cling to dogma long past its useful life?
What you are not grasping is that I know why he’s wrong. I don’t just suspect it, I know what mistake he’s made.
Then please let us in on the secret. We’re ALL dying to know.
It’s not a secret, it’s all over this thread. The large natural component in interannual CO2 variation does not explain the longterm trend.
It’s similar to how ENSO is a large component in interannual temperature variation, but similarly does not explain the longterm trend.
Additionally the amazing discovery that skeptics think has been made to be a game changer has been known for decades. See the IPCC report discussing it:
“The atmospheric CO2 growth rate exhibits large interannual variations (see Figure 3.3, the TAR and http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/carbon_budget). The variability of fossil fuel emissions and the estimated variability in net ocean uptake are too small to account for this signal, which must be caused by year-to-year fluctuations in land-atmosphere fluxes. Over the past two decades, higher than decadal-mean CO2 growth rates occurred in 1983, 1987, 1994 to 1995, 1997 to 1998 and 2002 to 2003. During such episodes, the net uptake of anthropogenic CO2 (sum of land and ocean sinks) is temporarily weakened. Conversely, small growth rates occurred in 1981, 1992 to 1993 and 1996 to 1997, associated with enhanced uptake. Generally, high CO2 growth rates correspond to El Niño climate conditions, and low growth rates to La Niña (Bacastow and Keeling, 1981; Lintner, 2002)”
This stuff is old hat. That so many skeptics thought it might be a gamechanger that El Nino and La Nina dominate interannual CO2 variation just goes to show how out of touch they are with the science.
lolwot –
You might want to have along talk with CH.
And I believe Salby touched on this in the podcast – you might want to listen to that.
The Pacific Decadal Variation – of which ENSO is a part – does explain the ‘recent warming’. Recent warming happened between 1976 and 1998. Most warming happened in 1976/77 and 1997/98 – fast warming due to ENSO and not slow warming.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
There is a discussion here by Kyle Swanson –
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
The essential concept – difficult as it is – is that the ‘shifts’ are chaotic bifurcation in a complex and dynamic Earth system. Butterfly wings that shift the globe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
1976/77 and 1997/98 are ENSO ‘dragon-kings’ – meaningful outliers at points of chaotic bifurcation.
‘We develop the concept of “dragon-kings” corresponding to meaningful outliers, which are found to coexist with power laws in the distributions of event sizes under a broad range of conditions in a large variety of systems. These dragon-kings reveal the existence of mechanisms of self-organization that are not apparent otherwise from the distribution of their smaller siblings. We present a generic phase diagram to explain the generation of dragon-kings and document their presence in six different examples (distribution of city sizes, distribution of acoustic emissions associated with material failure, distribution of velocity increments in hydrodynamic turbulence, distribution of financial drawdowns, distribution of the energies of epileptic seizures in humans and in model animals, distribution of the earthquake energies). We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point.’
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290
Taking out the extreme ENSO events – Swanson presumes that the slope of the curve between 1979 and 1997 is the true anthropogenic warming signal. But is this so?
The Pacific Decadal Variation (PDV) is phases of the PDO associated with changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO. A positive PDO between 1977 and 1998 with increased frequency and intensity of El Nino. Low level cloud cloud is negatively correlated with sea surface temperature – so less cloud in the period. Is this a difficult concept? I don’t know – in Australian hydrology we have drought and flood dominated regimes caused by these patterns that I have been thinking about for decades. There is a reverse hydrological effect for the US – see table 1 here – http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm – and more generally the discussion.
Here is the tropical ISCCP-FD and ERBE IR record – http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an2020_LWup_toa.gif – very large cooling in the IR to 1998 – a brief decline for the 2000 La Nina and then
as conditions returned to mild El Nino.
The SW record – http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zFD/an2020_SWup_toa.gif – shows a large warming trend – apart from the 1992 Mt Pinatubo spike.
What does NASA say? ‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW flux from the mid-1980’s until the end of the 1990’s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appear to caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements… The overall slight rise (relative heating) of global total net flux at TOA between the 1980’s and 1990’s is confirmed in the tropics by the ERBS measurements and exceeds the estimated climate forcing changes (greenhouse gases and aerosols) for this period. The most obvious explanation is the associated changes in cloudiness during this period.’ But remember there was cooling in the IR – so the cloud changes offset global warming and then some.
There are problems with the satellite records – but we multiple platforms, surface observations (eg Burgman et al 2008 and Clement et al 2009) and “Earthshine’ measurements (Palle 2007) that all say the same thing. So we are entitled on the evidence to be sceptical of Kyle Swanson’s global warming signal.
Did the climate shift after 1998? Without much of a doubt at all.
Oh – and I don’t know about CO2 – haven’t listened to the podcast and don’t intend to. But I assume that 30 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and rising has an effect on the atmosphere.
Why do you assume that?
It is emitted directly into the atmosphere and stays there until removed by plants – either terrestrial plants or phytoplankton.
All of the carbon in the world was emitted by volcanoes. Ultimately organisms (plants) evolved that were able to strip carbon from oxygen using solar energy – to use the carbon as cellular building blocks. The oxygen was released as a waste where it started to build up in the atmosphere. Eventually other organisms (animals) evolved that ate the first organisms and combined oxygen with carbon in an exothermic reaction to metabolise nutrients in the plants.
Carbon is sequestered in soils, in peat bogs, in sediment and in coral reefs. Biological activity is enhanced in warmer conditions – think the rate at which meat decays out of the fridge or in it. It is limited by the availability of light, water and nutrients. On land – shading, rainfall and the weathering of rock. In the oceans – water clarity, nutrient inputs and very efficient nutrient cycling. Iron is a micro-nutrient essential for photosynthesis and may be limiting in some parts of the oceans. More commonly it is phosphorus in seawater. On land – plants change to reduce their gas exchange sites – stomata – in response to elevated CO2. It reduces their water loss at the same time – good for a plant but not for ecosystems imo.
Now – I assume there is a dynamic imbalance in this. Carbon moves through the multitude of trophic pathways and exits the biosphere to be sequestered long term. The biosphere uses all of the carbon it can until there is a limit – in macro or micro nutrients. If that was all there was – there would be a balance between volcanic emissions and sequestration at some level of CO2 concentration.
So why the apparent change in CO2 that lags temperature rise? A question of biomass – a balance between production and consumption.
As temperature increases – rainfall increases – decay organisms in particular proliferate and consume the accumulated biomass. The extra carbon and water enhances vegetative growth – subject to other limits – and so on. Occasionally there are big volcanic additions, once long ago perhaps a methane chlathate release.
At this time carbon is entering the atmosphere faster than it is removed – so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. It seems a simple mass balance. We are part of that accumulation to the tune of 30 billion metric tonnes a year and rising. That the accumulation is less than 30 billion metric tonnes suggests to me that we are a big part.
As I say – I haven’t listened to the podcast and don’t intend to – if it is just isotopes it seems irrelevant.
“At this time carbon is entering the atmosphere faster than it is removed – so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. It seems a simple mass balance. We are part of that accumulation to the tune of 30 billion metric tonnes a year and rising. That the accumulation is less than 30 billion metric tonnes suggests to me that we are a big part.
As I say – I haven’t listened to the podcast and don’t intend to – if it is just isotopes it seems irrelevant.”
It’s not just isotopes. I find isotopes not interesting.
CO2 mass balance is very interesting. If anthropogenic CO2 is determined by temperature (and other factors like soil moisture, ice extent…), then the anthropogenic input is likely insignificant for the atmospheric CO2. It will be removed and stored in the sink. Atmosphere is only a ‘vent’ for the oceans, land (moisture) and land, which are the big reservoirs. Biosphere plays a big part too. The question remains how much time it takes to reach the equilibrium. It looks like it’s not much, a few years.
You asked me why I assumed that and I told you in some detail in some detail to the best of my ability.
But I find your response lacking in any clarity at all – and if that is all you wanted to say why not just say it and not take advantage of my good will.
‘CO2 mass balance is very interesting. If anthropogenic CO2 is determined by temperature (and other factors like soil moisture, ice extent…), then the anthropogenic input is likely insignificant for the atmospheric CO2. It will be removed and stored in the sink. Atmosphere is only a ‘vent’ for the oceans, land (moisture) and land, which are the big reservoirs. Biosphere plays a big part too. The question remains how much time it takes to reach the equilibrium. It looks like it’s not much, a few years.’
Your comment makes no sense at all – not in English anyway. There is no logic to it.
Anthropogenic emissions come from power plants etc – and is not determined by temperature, ice, soil moisture etc at all. It is small – about 3% from memory – in comparison to natural fluxes – but that is hardly relevant to mass balance. It is a simple equation.
source – sink = d(Co)/dt – where d(Co)/dt is the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
At this stage source > sink so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere – and humans are one of those sources.
Why should that change in a few years? WTF is a carbon equilibrium?
Why should it matter? Why do I bother?
Atmospheric insted of anthropogenic.
“If atmospheric CO2 is determined by…”
I made an error.
Basically, the claim is that anthropogenic CO2 is just like anthropogenic H2O. It’s only that CO2 removal (mostly by oceans, soil, bioesphere) is slower than H2O removal (by condensation) from the atmosphere, which is almost immediate.
In a way, CO2 is ‘condensable’ too.
Is there a ‘eveything is constant’ song I can quote here?
“At this time carbon is entering the atmosphere faster than it is removed – so CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. It seems a simple mass balance. We are part of that accumulation to the tune of 30 billion metric tonnes a year and rising. That the accumulation is less than 30 billion metric tonnes suggests to me that we are a big part.
This is total foolishness. Sorry I gotta say it. Rethink it over. A minor input may not have to be a driver of overall trends.
I again repeat the falsehood of assumed constant background processes.
Bit OT but is anyone interested in a facility for viewing this blog via a filter which removes comments and all subordinate comments made by persons on a list of your own choosing. Here is an example It might be possible to offer my Python script for general use.
To understand what and what we can and cannot do, may I point out a good mental model with which to use when thinking about influx, efflux and steady state levels; the Hoover dam.
We have an influx into the reservoir. We have an efflux through a single hole of a specific bore size.
It started off empty, with a coffer dam diverting the the Colorado River.
The coffer dam was then breached and the level in the reservoir began to rise. With a single, imaginary outlet, the reservoir fills until the rate that water flows into the reservoir matches the rate it leaves the reservoir.
Influx is the rate that it is fed by the river and rainfall on the reservoir.
Efflux is the rate that water flows through the hole in the dam, evaporation and seepage into the bedrock.
The influx rate will match the efflux rate when the level is constant.
We observe increased levels due to either increased influx or decreased efflux.
We observe decreased levels because of decreasing influx or increasing efflux.
The level of the water is not necessarily, directly, proportional to the flux through the system, it depends on the relationship between the height of the water and the flow rate through the hole, with rainfall and evaporation an added complexity.
If our idealized reservoir is ‘U’-shaped (not ‘V’-shaped) then the surface area remains constant, irrespective of the water level, and so the evaporation occurs at a constant (zero-order flux) vs. (dry) temperature.
Imagine a plot of level vs flow rate of the Colorado river, the efflux through the dam and the reservoir level.
If the rate the Colorado flows is slow, a huge fraction of the water in the ‘U”-shaped lake will evaporate and the flow rate through the hole in the dam will be less than the Colorado river flow.
Alternately, if there was a tropical rainstorm directly over the reservoir, the rate that water spews from the lake could be greater than the Colorado river flow.
This is where it gets complicated, with respect to the dam vs. atmospheric CO2. CO2 is more easily, and more efficiently, fixed by plants as CO2 rises.
So our dam has not one hole, but 2 (or more) holes, with different bores and at different heights. In our imaginary dam,there are two holes at 0 and 10 meters. .
We start with a dry lake bed and regulate the river flow and measure the level. Initially, the river flow rate vs. lake level is pretty near linear. So doubling the rivers flow rate doubles the lake level, until we hit 10 meters. Then the relationship between flow rate and lake levels flattens as the water level reaches the second hole, now it take a much great influx to increase it to 20 meters.
So, in real life, what can we get from out dam model and apply it to the Carbon Cycle?
We are able to measure the level of the lake with complete accuracy, at different points along the reservoir, but we don’t know the absolute shape of the bottom of the reservoir.(Keeling curves at different points on the globe).
We cannot measure the flow rate of the Colorado river (CO2 influx into the atmosphere), but we can measure the rate of one of its tributaries quite well (man-made CO2).
We can’t measure the rate that water goes out of the holes in the dam, nor their bore, nor their height, but we are allowed to measure to measure the size of the river mouth where it meets the sea (CO2 efflux).
We can’t measure the evaporation rate or rainfall pattern, but we are allowed to look at the number of tourists who stay in nearby hotels, some of whom state if they have fishermen or windsurfers staying, and so one can use these as proxies for sunlight/rainfall patterns (CO2 partitioning into temperature dependent aquatic bodies).
We were allowed to look at the note book of a student who poured some largish, unknown amount of a dye into the river and then measured the levels in the lake and at the river mouth, but he didn’t keep good notes and also polluters upstream were also throwing in dye (14C levels from H-Bomb testing).
We are banned by the EPA from adding any more dye, but we can now measure the levels of microorganisms that tend to thrive in fast moving water, but die in stagnant water, in some part of the water that flows out of the dam. From this we can ‘guess’ residency times of the water (C12/C13/C14 ratios).
/
We are asked to describe the whole system, including the influx, efflux and state the size and height of the holes in the dam.
We are asked do this by observing the lake levels, modeling the lake-bed, modeling the evaporation/rainfall in different parts of the lake,
We are not allowed to change any of the flows, but must ‘guess’ them.
This is the current state of the Carbon Cycle.
DocMartyn,
Simple answer:
– we know quite exactly one of the incoming flows
– we know exactly the height and the surface of the lake
When we calculate the total amount added by the known flow, we see that the lake has increased with about halve the amount added,
Without any knowledge of all the incoming other flows or evaporation or rain or number and size of holes in the dam, we know that the lake should have had a net loss without the only known input. Thus the whole increase is the result of the one known input, And we don’t need the details of any of the other in or outflows, as what matters is the effect of the height of the watercolumn in the lake (to generate electricity…).
would love to see the error bars.
As a wise man once said, and which should ALSO be in our minds:-
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.
Yes – IIRC, it’s called the Johari window.
DocMartyn,
The error bars for the emissions (based on tax revenues of fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency) are somewhere around -15% to +20% or 8 GtC/year -0.5 to + 1 GtC, a slight underestimate more probable than an overestimate. The error of CO2 measurements are +/- 0.2 ppmv, or +/- 0.4 GtC. That means that nature was a sink, including all errors, for almost all years in the past 50 years, except 1973 where it is borderline and may have a small contribution by nature.
The natural variability in sink capacity is around +/- 2 GtC, quite constant over the years, while the human emissions increased from 1.5 to 8 GtC/year and the average increase in the atmosphere followed with about 53% of the emissions.
Do you know if there’s a trend in the sink capacity?
For the moment there is an upward trend in sink capacity, as sinks continue to absorb about half of our emissions, even as our emissions have dramatically increased. Recent research points to carbon fertilization as an important factor in increasing the capacity of the terrestrial carbon sink.
Is fertilization the idea that at higher CO2 concentrations less energy is needed for organisms to incorporate it and therefore they can take up more?
The partial pressure (pCO2) increased over time from about 290 to over 390 microatm (~390 ppmv). That means that there is more pressure to push CO2 into the alveoles and the water layer in the leaves of plants. Currently that is the main limiting factor for the photosynthesis process.
There were many series of experiments which used enriched CO2 levels to see how that influenced plant growth. In average, a doubling gives some 50% more growth (counted as carbon sequestering). Greenhouse owners use up to 1,000 ppmv CO2 in their greenhouses, that seems to be the optimum for many plants.
Elevated CO2 causes a decrease in the the size and density of stomata – limiting water loss. What effect that has for forest hydrology is unknown.
But CO2 is only beneficial if it is the limiting factor in plant growth – hardly likely outside of a greenhouse.
In such a system… Well, let me make a more elementary example. you can even do this experiment in your home.
Go to your bathroom sink and close the drain most of the way. Turn on the water. Wait until the water reaches its steady state level. Now, increase the inward flow rate by 3% (just tap the faucet). How much does the water level rise?
If you can measure it, you will find it rises 3% higher. Why? Because pressure is a function of height of the water column above the drain, and the rate of outflow through the drain is proportional to pressure. This is a negative feedback system. The steady state increase in height is always going to be proportionally less than or equal to the maximum additional rate of input you supply.
Now, close the drain a little more. The level of water rises. Why? Because you changed the equilibrium conditions.
That is what is happening with CO2 in our atmosphere right now.
Many people seem to think that humans aren’t a ‘natural’ part of the planet, but something foreign or additional which has exceptional effects. That’s nonsense – humans and all other living things are part of the ongoing circulation of nutrients and gases which has been going on for at least 3,500 million years. We may release a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, but who can prove that we’re toxic, as some alarmists would have us believe?
You’re saying there’s no need for any pollution controls on anything anywhere? Emptying a tanker full of chemical waste into a river is just as natural as an otter killing a fish?
Emptying a tanker full of chemical waste into a river is just as natural as an otter killing a fish?
For some people it is, tt. Are you one of them?
And for others of us, it’s the reason for jails – and sometimes makes one yearn for the good old days when watching someone who did that being drawn and quartered would have been more satisfactory.
If humans are nature, then it’s natural for sure.
Pollution controls are a strawman.
OK, I listened to the podcast, and scanned the responses here, and I think lolwot comes closest to what I was going to say. A year or two ago there was a posting on WUWT (called The Trend possibly by Fred Haynie) that showed the correlation between the rate of change of CO2 in a year and the annual temperature. I checked, and yes, it looks like a high correlation. CO2 increases faster in warmer years. How to explain this?
Salby says that since anthropogenic emission does not correlate with temperature, the rise must be due to other emission that does correlate, and he goes on to quantify how much of the emission can be explained by this other emission based on that correlation.
My thesis back then on WUWT holds now too. There is an explanation that is perfectly consistent with AGW. On average in a year Man dumps out 2 units of CO2, of which 1 ends up in the atmosphere with the rest going into sinks (ocean and land, mostly ocean I guess). Now imagine if this sink’s efficiency was affected by temperature. For example if the ocean has warmed like in 1998, it would be able to absorb less of Man’s added CO2, so in those years the effect of Man’s contribution is higher. This would lead to the observed correlation too. In other words, temperature has an effect on the ocean/land system to mop up the manmade CO2, and therefore the accumulation in the atmosphere is modulated by temperature.
Salby goes wrong by assuming everything is from independent sources, when apart from Man, the net effect of everything else is a sink. Being a natural sink it does respond to temperature, so we have a steady source and a temperature-dependent sink, leading to a temperature-dependent rise in CO2.
Jim, you say “Salby goes wrong by assuming everything is from independent sources, when apart from Man, the net effect of everything else is a sink.”
I think this reasoning is falacious, and is a function of the assumptions you have made. Surely man is not the only independent source of CO2. Isn’t the reality that there are both interdependent sources and sinks which must be taken into account? The degree to which Salby correctly accounts for this remains to be evaluated.
I am just putting forward the most obvious interpretation of his facts that could be made. It is very easy to understand this way, rather than the immensely confused picture Salby ends up with that he doesn’t seem to even try to explain, while not considering this obvious one.
The size of the sink is so much larger than the size of that years unit of CO2 to be absorbed. Wouldn’t that mean that in warmer years only a tiny fraction of the sunken CO2 would be released again? In other words, couldn’t your mechanism be far too small scaled to produce the observation?
The amount of carbon in sinks dwarfs the emissions by humans in a single year. So every a tiny shift in that balance could produce significant oscillations in the trend.
Jim D,
I see your point. What do you think of this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/TomQuirkSourcesandSinksofCO2_FINAL.pdf
The arguments are similar to those of Profesor Salby and many others.
Salby assumes that the longterm trend must be similar, he makes no projections, and he is not looking at e.g. ice core data or ocean waters, to support his results. I look forward to the published paper but for now, I see nothing scientifically mind-blowing about his Sydney Institute podcast.
Unfortunately, it is also hard to ignore that it could be perceived as timely hype given this conservative thinktank’s opposition to the carbon tax, what with Salby making his sweeping political statement against the IPCC right on cue.
By the way, it’s not clear that an identical ‘talk’ or presentation of this research was given at IUGG 2011. All the usual blogs hyping this are saying that, but really, do you know that? You link to the IUGG site, not IUGG 2011 program – and it is not clear when one views the program that Salby discussed the same research.
And really, who cares if he was a colleague? This ‘so and so told me such and such so it must be true’ approach may be personally meaningful but it is irrelevant: if someone is competent, consistent, and sincere, and their work in science can be discussed and shown to be sound, that will be evident to all.
(Interesting standards, though… you have presented a research claim with no data, little supporting information and transparently political opinionating, for serious discussion.)
Martha,
IRT “(Interesting standards, though… you have presented a research claim with no data, little supporting information and transparently political opinionating, for serious discussion.)”\
You do nothing different from that ever.
And not for the first time either! Why doesn’t Judith ask some of her climate science co-workers to make a contribution?
tt –
She has – repeatedly. But they’re hiding.
“I look forward to the published paper but for now, I see nothing scientifically mind-blowing about his Sydney Institute podcast.”
Some minds are more easily blown than others, it seems.
Martha:
The Sydney Institute provides a forum for all sides on this issue and on many others, both conservative and Leftist —it’s one of the very few in the country that do—so you’re wrong to discount the work by its association with this venue.
The reluctance to listen to opposing views is seen almost exclusively on the AGW side, not on the sceptic side, as we can see from comments here, including your own.
The hostility to the notion that Salby is putting forward his ideas at all, is palpable, and is especially mad when none of us have seen his paper.
I listened to the podcast but was frustrated that I could not see the slides he was talking about. It put me to thinking, however, and I felt that some pieces were still missing. Roy Spencer in a comment elsewhere is fence sitting and feels that natural sources cannot supply more than 15 to 20 percent of long term increase in global CO2. I am not sure why he thinks so. If you look at the nearly linear increase of Mauna Loa CO2 you are persuaded that only a steady source like human production of CO2 can explain that. This seems to be an unspoken consensus today. But then you run into this huge problem: the bulk of anthropogenic CO2 is produced in the northern hemisphere and we know from carbon 14 studies produced by nuclear testing that it takes carbon dioxide produced in the north several years to reach the southern hemisphere. It follows that the rise of carbon dioxide in the south should lag the rise of carbon dioxide in the north but it does not do that. This being the case it is clear that anthropogenic rise of CO2 is physically impossible. But how can we then explain the regular, nearly linear rise of the CO2 curve over the years if there is no steady source constantly adding CO2 to the atmosphere? The answer is obvious: look for that source. To start with, let us look at the CO2 budget of the world. It turns out that CO2 in the atmosphere constitutes only two percent of all the CO2 on the planet. The rest is dissolved in the oceans that contain over fifty times more CO2 than the atmosphere does. There is also an ongoing exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans that responds to temperature. Warm El Nino periods are associated with rising CO2 levels and cool La Nina periods cause lowering of CO2 as Roy Spencer has pointed out. This is easy to understand if you know how El Nino and La Nina operate. They are both part of ENSO, the El Nino Southern Oscillation. ENSO is a physical oscillation of ocean water from side to side of the Pacific with a resonant frequency of approximately five years. Periodically an El Nino wave crosses the ocean along the equatorial countercurrent and washes ashore in South America. As it hits the coast it spreads out north and south for twenty or thirty degrees. It carries warm water from the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, spreads it out along the coast, and warms the atmosphere above it. The warm air rises, stops the trade winds, mixes with prevailing westerlies, and thereby raises global air temperature. The increase of carbon dioxide does not come from the water brought over but from the warming effect of this water on cooler coastal waters. Warming causes this water to lose its carbon dioxide which then gets added to the global atmospheric circulation. But like all waves that run ashore the El Nino wave too has to retreat. As it pulls back the water level behind it drops by half a meter or more, cold water from below wells up, and a La Nina has started. Cold water from depth can hold more carbon dioxide then the tropical surface water does and will start absorbing carbon dioxide from the air as the prevailing winds blow over it. This explains the observations that Roy Spencer was referring to. It also tells us that the exchange of carbon dioxide between the air and the oceans is a dynamic, ongoing process that is part of our climate. But where does this fit in with the increase in carbon dioxide with time? First, we know that while the bulk of carbon dioxide is in the oceans it is capable of measurably affecting what is in the atmosphere. We also know that warming the water as happens during an El Nino will release carbon dioxide from ocean water into the air. Is it possible that slow warming of the ocean could be the cause of the observed steady increase of CO2 into air? We know that during the Little Ice age the world’s glaciers were not melting but increasing and there was no sea level increase for several centuries. The sea level rise we experience today is a delayed reaction to the end of the Little Ice Age because the glacier melt could not keep up with temperature rise.. Similar slow warming of the ocean could also explain the steady increase of carbon dioxide we know gets added to the atmosphere every year. And, going back to the Little Ice Age, with the oceans appropriately a lot cooler than today they could hold more carbon dioxide and less was released into the air. Which is why 280 ppm was the norm then. Put all of this together and you have an explanation of how nature, without any help from humans, has created the exact carbon dioxide history we know from observations. Since none of it is anthropogenic it is clear that AGW does not exist, predictions of a global warming catastrophe are totally wrong, and policies adapted for emission control are a criminal waste of public resources. To learn more read “What Warming?“ available on Amazon.
I agree. That’s why I expect a decrease in CO2 if the oceans start to cool and sea ice extents to increase.
Arno:
“It follows that the rise of carbon dioxide in the south should lag the rise of carbon dioxide in the north but it does not do that.”
Sorry, but it does: the increase of CO2 at the South Pole lags Mauna Loa with about 12 months and Barrow even with some 16 months. There is a lag between near altitude stations and sealevel stations, visible in the seasonal cycle and the trend. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
“Warm El Nino periods are associated with rising CO2 levels and cool La Nina periods cause lowering of CO2 as Roy Spencer has pointed out.”
You make the same error as Spencer and Salby, despite La Nina the CO2 levels still rise, only the increase RATE is modulated by temperature changes, but these are mostly temporarely. The trend itself is hardly influenced by temperature and simply follows human emissions with a 50-55% ratio:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
Further, the CO2 response to temperature changes was 8 ppmv/degr.C over the ice ages – interglacials, including not more than 300 ppmv during the much warmer previous interglacial (the Eemian, forests growing upt to the Arctic Oceans). Also 8 ppmv/degr.C for the MWP-LIA transition (and back to today). Thus that is not the cause of the 100+ ppmv increase we see today.
” It follows that the rise of carbon dioxide in the south should lag the rise of carbon dioxide in the north but it does not do that.”
Or, you too could actually read IPCC’s Chapter 7. See Figure 7.5, in particular, with the caption:
“The difference between CO2 concentration in the NH and SH (y axis), computed as the difference between annual mean concentrations (ppm) at Mauna Loa and the South Pole (Keeling and Whorf, 2005, updated), compared with annual fossil fuel emissions (x axis; GtC; Marland, et al., 2006), with a line showing the best fi t. The observations show that the north-south difference in CO2 increases proportionally with fossil fuel use, verifying the global impact of human-caused emissions.”
Fine, I can understand that the IPCC is not the end-all-and-be-all of arguments, but people should be required to actually read and understand what the IPCC is saying before running around saying “look at me!!! I just did some simple Excel regressions, and after a year of staring at it and talking to some friends of mine, I can’t see any answer other than not-IPCC, because the IPCC has never considered these things!!!”. Ditto for people who make blogposts saying “hey, if this guy’s homemade regressions turn out to be true, then everything changes!”
The southern hemisphere lag is made visually apparent in this animation of the South Pole (Blue dot) and Mauna Loa (Red dot) measurements. Either the animation on the left or the plot on the right show that the annual Mauna Loa average is above the South Pole, but the South Pole is rising at the same rate.
Exciting “Inception” version here!
“hey, if this guy’s homemade regressions turn out to be true, then everything changes!”
That’s a hashtag if I ever heard one. I’m stealing it.
“hey, if this guy’s homemade regressions turn out to be true, then everything changes!”
Yeah! Who are these nobodies who think they can revolutionize Science, anyway? Patent clerks?
If 96 % of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is natural, and this obviously contributes almost all of the greenhouse gases warming due to CO2, how could the IPCC say most of the warming since mid-20th century is man made?
May be that is why there has not been any shift in the global mean temperature pattern for the last 130 years!
http://bit.ly/nicmt9
A global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade before and after mid-20th century.
Where have you got 96% from? The pre-industrial level was 280ppmv. Its now 390ppmv
Work it out!
Listen to the podcast, tt. You”re not just on the wrong page,
you’re reading the wrong book.
TT is reading the book with words. The pop-up picture books you favor normal people grow out of in early childhood. ;)
But thanks for playing.
Well, at least tt can read. Seems to be more than you can manage.
“Folks who read J.C.’s blog might start by reading the posts at RealClimate that explain the evidence — and not just from 13C/12C ratios.
Start here”
If I take this advice will it still be your advice, later on ?
“He (Salby) suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.”
I don’t have the patience to listen to Salby’s one-hour audio presentation, but I’m skeptical of his suggestion given the unsteady rise in temperature and the steady rise in atmospheric CO2.
ttp://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.pdf
M. carey: “…given the unsteady rise in temperature and the steady rise in atmospheric CO2.”
I don’t happen to agree with Salby, but you shouldn’t think the rise in CO2 is all that steady. See for example, the figures at http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2/ . Year-on-year changes in atmospheric carbon content, measured in Pg, have varied from around 2.5 to 6 over recent years. There’s an even greater range if one includes the Pinatubo years, which went as low as 1.4.
Actually, the CO2 trend is much steadier than the temperature trend. Over the 1979-2010 period (i.e., the satellite record), the trend in carbon is +3.5 PgC/yr, and the standard deviation of the detrended data set is 1.2 PgC.
For comparison, the surface and satellite temperature records have trends of approximately 0.16 and 0.14 C/year respectively, with standard deviations of 0.1 C and 0.14 C respectively (i.e., there is more interannual variation in the satellite record).
Thus, the CO2 trend is approximately 3x the magnitude of the noise in the annual data, while the temperature trend is 0.1 to 0.2x the magnitude of the noise. This is why it takes a longer period of time to detect trends in the temperature data.
So… never heard of the concept of low pass filtering? Guess not.
J –
I’m not sure that the metric of (deviation/trend) is useful, except in the context which you noted, which is to detect the absence or presence of a nonzero trend. [P.S. there’s a typo in the temperature trends of the above post; a zero was dropped.]
The original point I was trying to make to M. carey, was based on his/her linking to the Keeling curve, when one should be examining the changes in pCO2. The Keeling curve, being an integration of those changes, is naturally smoother-looking. It takes but a moment to plot the change in pCO2 vs. temperature for the last 30 years. One obtains a modest correlation coefficient of r=.64 (r^2=.4). [Sources: change in pCO2 and global average temperature.
This is not to say that Salby is correct. But the idea does not seem to merit complete dismissal. I look forward to reading the paper when it’s published.
“I don’t have the patience to listen to Salby’s one-hour audio presentation”
Time enough when and if it survives peer review.
Everything is constant la la la laaaa.
I need a tune.
Dear Prof. Curry,
I know it must be a tough balancing act when you become a celebrated “voice of reason” in the climate blogosphere. But to be frank I feel that the method of:
1) pick up on a topic doing the rounds of the blogs.
2) post it
3) say “wow.just wow… this is important IF it is true”
4) say “The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise.” hidden in there somewhere.
is rather more the approach of an Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova or WUWT, than a Professor. With no expertise and no content to analyse you are putting a lot of weight on this opinion.
Personally I am utterly unconvinced* by Salby’s argument.
*not that I have any expertise in the carbon cycle.
At least you put that, granted the other blogs I list would not have made that disclaimer.
Judith,
How was carbon stored in the past billions of years?
From understanding the salt trail and it showing a vastly more ocean water on this planet, then carbon did not have a chance to turn to gases from volcanic activity due to the massive pressure per square inch. The cooling effect of the density and lack of solar penetration would account that these gases never formed but as a liquid of into a more sold state with sediments over time from rocks and ash that would be suppressed into sand. Much of the older volcanic activity has very different structure that scientists think was some sort of pressure.
The trouble with this whole debate is that most of the protagonists haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. The hunters of this world (like me) merely have opinions (theirs more informed than mine undoubtedly). But they wouldn’t have recruited any of us to the Manhattan project. Fred (good cop) and Colose (bad cop) are immeasurably better informed. Only trouble of course is the CO2 sensitivity/feedback issue. That’s all that really matters and it does all seem a bit of a guess at the moment: not much real-world evidence one way or the other. What climatology needs is a Trinity (the first atom-bomb test in case I’m being obscure). Can you imagine it? Wallop! End of disagreement. But it may not happen for climatology of course; they may just get some inconsequential duds and false dawns of vague warming (like Groves himself feared all those years ago). Certainly the last ten years don’t seem to have given the Team much cause for optimism. But then what do I know? Sadly, not a lot.
“Only trouble of course is the CO2 sensitivity/feedback issue. That’s all that really matters”
‘Cept it doesn’t actually matter all that much. Whether it’s 1.5C/doubling or 6C/doubling, business as usual will swiftly bring us to temperatures warmer than the earth has seen for millions of years. Is that safe? Obviously we cannot assume so. So even a very low climate sensitivity implies we should be very aggressive in curbing net CO2 emissions.
Climate sensitivity is an interesting discussion, but completely irrelevant in terms of the current political debate, because even the lowest remotely plausible climate sensitivity would fully justify the most aggressive mitigation now under discussion.
The possibility that natural variability explains the century-scale observed rise in atmospheric CO2 can easily be dismissed based on simple accounting (anthropogenic emissions are larger than the rise itself, and thus account for over 100% of the observed rise).
Aside from that, however, Gavin Schmidt makes what seems to be a very good point. As I understand it, Salby’s claim is that the observed rise in CO2 is primarily the result of a natural flux that is dependent on global temperature; a warming ocean/biosphere would give off CO2 to the atmosphere, while cooling would produce the opposite effect.
It’s not news to anyone who studies the carbon cycle that the flux of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean/biosphere is affected by ENSO-style short term variations in temperature (see, e.g., Bacastow and Keeling 1981, or AR4 WG1 Section 7.3.2.4). But the magnitude of these variations are small compared to the century-scale rise in atmospheric CO2.
This brings us to Gavin Schmidt’s comment, written at RealClimate and quoted by Chris Colose earlier in this thread. Gavin points out that if Salby’s model truly explained most or all of the 100 ppm observed rise in CO2 based on the 0.8 C rise in global temperature over the past century, that would imply a massive sensitivity of the CO2 flux to global temperatures. Looking at the Keeling curve, or any of the other long-term atmospheric CO2 data sets, we see that interannual variability in temperature only produces relatively small fluctuations in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as discussed in IPCC AR4. The increase itself does not flip to a decrease during cool years. Perhaps more problematically, such a model would imply that the large temperature changes associated with the glacial/interglacial cycle would produce immense swings in CO2 (on the order of 500 – 1000 ppm). That is an order of magnitude larger than the observed CO2 fluctuations in the ice cores.
Dr Curry, who I’m sure is very busy and may not have had time to dive into this in detail, responded to Gavin’s comment with the following:
Gavin’s argument makes the fallacy that all temperature change is externally forced. If the temperature change is caused by natural internal variability, then this argument is not useful.
With all due respect, I don’t think that’s correct. Recall the directionality of Salby’s model: temperature change drives the CO2 flux, not vice versa. It does not matter whether the temperature change was externally forced or not — the CO2 flux is a direct response to the temperature change. How would the atmospheric CO2 flux know that it is supposed to respond very strongly to temperature changes that are caused by the “right” forcings (century-scale internal variability) but respond an order of magnitude less strongly to temperature changes that are caused by the “wrong” forcings (ENSO, Milankovich cycles, etc).
I’ve asked Gavin about this, and he appears to confirm my understanding. I’m guessing that Dr Curry’s response quoted above was written in haste (I know she’s very busy!) but if she still believes that differences in the source of a temperature forcing would rescue Salby’s model from this apparent contradiction, I’d very much appreciate hearing more about it.
This comment has already gotten too long, but I’d like to point out that based on what we know so far, it looks very much as if Salby is making the same mistake that McLean made (in attributing the temperature rise to ENSO) and, even more similarly, that Mr Lon Hocker made in a post at WUWT in which he made virtually the identical argument to this one (temperature changes explain the atmospheric CO2 trend). That error consists of [1] detrending the dependent variable (global temperature, in McLean’s case; CO2 for Salby and Hocker); [2] discovering that the annual rate of change in that dependent variable is closely correlated with some independent variable (ENSO for McLean; global temperatures for Salby and Hocker); and then [3] mistakenly asserting that the independent variable explains the observed trend, when it actually explains small fluctuations around that trend.
Salby’s idea here really does appear to be following more or less exactly in the footsteps of Lon Hocker’s post at WUWT. That post was discussed in a great deal of detail over at Skeptical Science, and I’d strongly encourage anyone who thinks Salby might be onto something to go read John Cook’s dissection of Hocker’s post.
To sum up, the evidence that the observed rise in CO2 is anthropogenic is really overwhelming. For those who are determined to maintain a contrarian position on AGW, there are other much better grounds on which to base that position (maybe climate sensitivity is low, or maybe the impacts of GW will be on balance positive, or maybe the impacts will be negative but the costs of mitigation would be higher than the benefits). Enthusiastically grasping at claims that the observed CO2 rise might not be anthropogenic in origin drastically reduces one’s credibility.
Once again, apologies for the length of this comment.
J,
If CO2 residence times are shorter than the AGW consensus requires, and if CO2 sinks are more voracious than AGW currently admits to, Gavin’s work does not hold up.
“Looking at the Keeling curve, or any of the other long-term atmospheric CO2 data sets, we see that interannual variability in temperature only produces relatively small fluctuations in the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, as discussed in IPCC AR4.”
Again, you are assuming the response is frequency independent.
It’s awful the way the warmists persecute poor Dr. Curry. Truly, their brutal bullying attacks on dissenters like her are a horror to behold.
J, for completeness you should also include Roy Spencer’s post at WUWT 3.5 years ago (mentioned elsewhere here). He said he was sticking his neck out but he thought he could make a case that ENSO drives CO2 increases because of its correlation with the CO2 derivative. He ignored that Pinatubo also caused a cooling that correlated with the CO2 change, which I think kills any ENSO argument. As I have stated elsewhere, it is obviously the sink that is temperature dependent, not some mysterious natural source that Salby invokes.
J | August 5, 2011 at 8:02 am said,
“”””[ . . . ]and I’d strongly encourage anyone who thinks Salby might be onto something to go read John Cook’s dissection of Hocker’s post.””””
————–
J,
An alternate suggestion is for you to provide a means of having the WUWT hosted Hocker post discussion @ Judith’s place where there is a relatively balanced and open venue versus the ambiance @ the Cook blog that seems rather oriented toward non-independent scientific processes.
NOTE: I thank Anthony for hosting the original Hocker post so that other blogs can discuss it.
John
But surely it might be a variation in the nets of sinks and sources
that cause the co2 increase? Salby was just busting the correlation
with the known stead human emissions against the varying 0 to double
annual co2 increment.
And damn it when you consensus on us why can’t you place a quick
reason statement.
FWIW, I’ve just attempted to post a rather lengthy comment in this thread, with multiple links to other websites. It hasn’t appeared yet, which could mean that it was flagged for moderation, or that there was some glitch in the posting process.
In case it never appears, I’d just like to encourage “climate contrarians” reading this thread to listen to Ferdinand Engelbeen. The more deeply one studies this issue, the more absolutely clear it becomes that the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely due to anthropogenic emissions.
In short, this is one of those circumstances where the proper position for a skeptic is to be extremely skeptical of the claims being made (by Andrew Bolt, Jo Nova, etc.) that Salby’s work will somehow overturn our understandings and prove that humans aren’t responsible for the observed rise in CO2. That’s not going to happen.
J,
It seems you are in a hurry to discount the Salby work before you read it.
I think Salby is pointing out something more subtle than what you wish he was.
Also, I think the assertion that all of the CO2 increase is due to humans, when even in AGW thinking the feedback from a warming ocean releases more CO2, is a bit simplistic.
At the least, revisiting the claims regarding t1/2 of CO2 that are important for AGW to hold together is a significant issue.
As for Salby, I think I will wait on the paper to be published. It maybe utter crap, like the hockey sticks of the Antarctic or in hurricanes or the others Mann projects into the world. Or it may have some merit.
Hunter, this thread (and the accompanying posts by Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, etc.) are full of comments from people who are very eager to believe that Salby has overturned the existing state of knowledge of the carbon cycle, without having read his (as yet nonexistent) paper. Why do you have no objection to those people commenting on Salby’s unseen paper, while you criticize me for responding to them?
I’m not interested in discussing “hockey sticks of the Antarctic, hurricanes, or Michael Mann”. This thread is about the carbon cycle. I’d strongly discourage people from emotionally linking together their beliefs about these disparate topics. Whether you approve of Steig’s papers, Mann’s papers, or any other unrelated papers ought to have no influence whatsoever on your willingness to be skeptical about far-fetched claims related to the carbon cycle.
The fact of the matter is that there are multiple, very powerful, lines of evidence behind the anthropogenic origin of the observed CO2 rise. I sincerely hope that Salby’s paper does *not* turn out to be making the claim that this rise is primarily natural in origin … because if that’s Salby’s belief, there is a very high likelihood that his paper will turn out to be embarrassingly flawed. Unfortunately, people here (and elsewhere — cf Bolt, Nova, etc.) are already associating Salby with this claim, so it may be a bit late to prevent his reputation from taking a pretty serious hit. That’s really too bad, IMHO.
J,
I agree with much of what you say; it is unlikely the Salby argument will turn out to be correct, since it is not congruent with the temeprature response of CO2 to glacial/interglacial transitions. However, I would like to point out that it would be wise to actually see the paper before totally dismissing it. Two statements during the presentation drew my interest: 1) geographical regions of high net release of CO2 were claimed in the talk to be regions with very little combustion of fossil fuels, and 2) increasing rainfall combined with increasing temperatures were suggested to increase decomposition rates of organic matter in the soil. I would at least like to examine these more closely. Are they right? Maybe not, but IMO, worthwhile getting the whole story on.
Thanks for the reply, Steve. You’re right that it’s difficult to have a discussion of a paper that none of the participants have seen. To clarify, here’s my position:
(1) A great deal of the discussion of this podcast (here, and elsewhere) seems to be coming from a sort of contrarian triumphalist viewpoint, suggesting that Salby’s unseen paper is going to disprove the anthropogenic origin of the CO2 rise, and thus absolve humans from any possible responsibility for GW. Well, that’s not going to happen.
(2) There could be other things of interest in the paper. We’ll have to wait and see about that.
(3) As for the two topics you mention, I wouldn’t hold out a lot of hope for interesting new science from this manuscript, though it’s always possible. On the geographic distribution of CO2 fluxes, we’ve all seen the imagery from AIRS. As for the terrestrial ecology angle, lots of work has been done in that area already (it was not new when Raich and Potter wrote a nice summary in 1995). There’s certainly nothing there that can explain a 100+ ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2, and if Salby’s just saying “Look, these processes can have an effect on the rate of CO2 increase” the response is going to be “Yeah, we know that already.”
Perhaps I’ll be wrong about that last part, and Salby will have something new and interesting to show about the biosphere-atmosphere CO2 flux.
1) geographical regions of high net release of CO2 were claimed in the talk to be regions with very little combustion of fossil fuels
If I’m thinking about the same part he’s probably referring to something like this map, which isn’t so much tracking sources of emissions but circulation of CO2 around the atmosphere. I believe his point in that part of the talk was that CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere and therefore a single location (Mauna Loa) can reasonably be used to represent global concentration.
2) increasing rainfall combined with increasing temperatures were suggested to increase decomposition rates of organic matter in the soil.
It’s completely uncontroversial that increasing temperatures should lead to release of greenhouse gases from various sinks, including soils. Methane is more commonly talked about but there has been research into CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
What is controversial is the magnitude of sensitivity Salby is invoking and that he suggests the effect is linear and near-instantaneous.
If the map you link to is like what Salby uses, then it will not be so interesting. That map just gives a snap-shot of the conditions in July 2008 during a la Nina… lower Eastern Pacific out-gassing, high mid-summer boreal forest uptake, strong wintertime Southern Ocean uptake, etc. Some kind of long term average map would be needed to judge if there is anything unexpected going on. Salby does seem to suggest in the talk that there is net emission in places where those emissions are not expected. I would sure like to have been there to see the graphics.
The non-fossil fuel contributions (more rapid degradation, etc.) have not been suggested to be very large in total; once again I would like to see the paper to see what evidence Salby has. BTW, I wonder about how the methane release paper you linked to has been impacted by the rather sudden change in atmospheric methane growth rate (near zero)… that seems not to have been anticipated, AFAIK.
The last line does say this:
‘The models also showed that modest global warming may produce a higher CH4 emission, but that this effect may be reversed by larger increases in temperature, due to the effect of soil moisture depletion.’
Soil moisture depletion has been tabled as one reason for the recent flattening. This article makes that point though it’s actually about the recent return to an increase: http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalMethaneRising.html.
It’s probably not climate related but could well be anthropogenic – perhaps the acceleration of groundwater depletion at the end of the 90s played a roll in drying soil.
“What is controversial is the magnitude of sensitivity Salby is invoking and that he suggests the effect is linear and near-instantaneous.”
Which would, of course, imply an absurdly high effective climate sensitivity. If 0.8C gets you 100ppm of CO2, which at current levels of CO2 gets you at least that much more warming, which gets you another 100ppm, which get you (say) a half a degree, which gets you another 60pmm, which gets you . . .
It doesn’t take very much in the way of critical thinking skills to see that what Salby is asserting is wildly implausible. I expect it to be a giant and lasting hit with “skeptics.”
“The fact of the matter is that there are multiple, very powerful, lines of evidence behind the anthropogenic origin of the observed CO2 rise.”
What are they? I know of C12/C13 and the mass balance arguments.
J –
Why do you have no objection to those people commenting on Salby’s unseen paper, while you criticize me for responding to them?
Because you’re not respoinding to anyone – you’re attempting to trash the paper before it sees daylight. That’s been your thrust from the start. Fact is that few people have expressed the degree of eagerness you claim and many (most?) of us are, like hunter, waiting for the paper.
The fact of the matter is that there are multiple, very powerful, lines of evidence behind the anthropogenic origin of the observed CO2 rise.
And all of those lines of evidence are opposed by counter evidence. Nor are they as powerful as you claim.
Bottom line – as I told my wife several days ago – is that there is a great deal of fear in the CAGW contingent wrt this paper. So y’all have put on a full court press to discredit it prior to publication. As well as attempting to smear Salby in any way possible. To quote a famous character – frankly my dear, I don’t give a rip. I’ve found you efforts annoying at times, hilarious at others – and generally ineffectual since you are arguing at your fnatasies rather than reality.
it may be a bit late to prevent his reputation from taking a pretty serious hit. That’s really too bad, IMHO.
If you’re gonna lie, at least try to do it convincingly. You’re not succeeding with this pathetic effort.
If Professor Salby’s paper is correct, it would be impossible for atmospheric CO2 to be driving the climate system. Man’s impact on the climate could be even substantially less than even what the most “hard-core” skeptics suggest.
So let’s see what his paper actually says, and then go from there.
If it turns out we are in fact the small influence on the climate, will that hurt your self-esteem in some way?
This thread is driven by the reactionary rejection, sight unseen, of this paper, and the disapraging of its author by believers.
hunter I believe that’s called –
skepticism
No, that’s called denialism. A sceptic would wait until he/she could read the paper and then do so with a sceptical eye.
Hunter’s comment is scepticism.
lolwot’s comment is accurate.
LC’s comment is confusing.
So I would have to reject a round Earth while I waited for a promised paper that proved the earth was flat? No I would reject the idea strongly unless and until data was presented otherwise.
lolwot –
You shoulda left it alone – revised version –
hunters comment is accurate,
LC’s comment is accurate
lolwot’s comment is wrong – it should be “denialism”
My bad but I’m not gonna explain.
As for round or flat Earth, we all get to wait. Your impatience is irrelevant. IIRC, I once told you that your problem was that you’re not a hunter. (no, not “that” hunter) It’s still true.
Confused? Not to worry, we all get our turn at it. :-)
Salby’s talk via podcast is sufficient motivation for me to look more into the earth’s carbon dynamics prior to his book and paper coming out.
For me that is reason enough to praise Salby’s efforts and reason for me to thank him.
John
well said, that was rather the point of my post
So this work prompts a review rather than a revolution?
and that review should include the multiple lines of evidence.
I said this in April 2010:
“It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption.”
In my guest post at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/
“It is likely that the current powerful run of positive Pacific Decadal Oscillations is the pulse of warmth from the Mediaeval Warm Period returning to the surface with the consequent inevitable increase in atmospheric CO2 as that warmer water fails to take up as much CO2 by absorption.”
That reads like climate denierspeak as rendered by the “Onion.” Hands down the funniest thing I’ve read all week. And WUWT published it! Tell me you did this as part of an elaborately planned piece of performance art.
Some are quite reasonably pointing out a real discrepancy between Salby’s recent directly measured findings and those obtained from the proxy based historical record.
On the face of it the proxy record suggests that atmospheric CO2 quantities cannot possibly vary by such a large proportion as a result of the short term temperature variations analysed by Salby.
I think the problem is more likely to lie with the proxy record than with Salby’s findings. I would guess that the proxy record does not accurately capture an accurate (persistently recording too low) CO2 record at the time the proxy material was laid down and that the proxies provide far too coarse a system of measurement so that rapid, proportionately large temperature driven variations are not captured either.
The proxy record is most likely too low and too smooth.
It’s true that if you discard all the data on paleo CO2 from ice cores, and you discard modern direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you could assume the existence of a natural increase in atmospheric CO2 greater than the fossil fuel emissions. The less and less information one accepts, the more scope there is for imagination.
Who is discarding modern direct measurements?
The likely position is that variations in the rate at which the ocean surfaces warm and cool over 500 year periods such as from MWP to LIA to date regularly cycle the atmospheric CO2 up and down the observed amount yet the proxies fail to record that level of volatility.
The contribution from human sources would be lost in the background natural variability.
If we now start to see a cooling globe then in 400 or 500 years the CO2 levels would be pretty much back to what they would have been during the LIA.
If you think that natural sources of CO2 are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than humans are, you need to toss out the Keeling curve and all similar measurements, because they show a net annual increase smaller than the known human contribution. Nothing stops you from imagining that, if you choose, just like nothing stops you from deciding the ice cores are all rot and imagining large past fluctuations in CO2 associated with mysterious ocean cycles or whatever.
Back on earth, we know (thanks to Takahashi et al, Sabine et al, and lots of others) that the ocean has been a net carbon sink for the atmosphere for at least the past few decades. There is absolutely no way you can blame the current century-scale increase in atmospheric CO2 on the oceans without throwing out virtually all relevant data — ice cores, oceanographic databases, atmospheric measurements, everything.
why “everything”?
I like an explanation that Richard Courtney set out somewhere.
It seems to me that the human contribution is but a miniscule fraction of the natural carbon cycle and is easily dealt with in the natural scheme of things.
In contrast the oceanic absorption or outgassing capabilities are huge and directly related to water temperature.
We all accept that the ocean surfaces were warmer during the late 20th century for whatever reason. As a result they absorbed less than they otherwise would have done or outgassed more than they otherwise would have done. The oceans may or may not have been a net carbon sink but the extent to which they acted as a net carbon sink would have been reduced by the higher surface temperatures and that to me suggests that they must have contributed to higher CO2 in the air and since the oceans are magnitudes more important than human emissions in the natural carbon cycle that is where we need to look to explain observed changes.
I am pleased to see Salby making a start after years of neglect of the issue.
Stephen, the question at hand is whether the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels. The only reasonable answer to that question is “Yes”.
You’re right that the ocean could potentially soak up more of our emissions than it does. Let’s say that ocean fertilization turned out to actually work, and we started dumping tankers full of iron filings into the Pacific Ocean. Let’s pretend that this worked so well that it turned into a super-sink for CO2, taking up enough CO2 to completely sequester all human emissions.
In that case, there would be no atmospheric increase in CO2 to observe, and so the question in this thread (Are humans responsible for the observed increase) would become meaningless.
That is not the world in which we live. In the real world, this world, the oceans and the rest of the earth system take up part, but not all, of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Since we continue to produce said emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase, and our emissions are responsible for 100% of that increase.
It is rather disconcerting that there is so much unwillingness by people to just accept that one fact and move on. By all means, argue about climate sensitivity! Argue about whether warming is good or bad! But claiming that CO2 isn’t increasing, or that this increase is not due to fossil fuel combustion, is the climate science equivalent of pasting a sign on your forehead saying “I’m detached from reality”. That sounds harsh, but sometimes the truth is harsh.
J said:
“Stephen, the question at hand is whether the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels. The only reasonable answer to that question is “Yes”.”
Thanks for your prompt responses but we must continue to disagree.
I see that others have provided comments that support my point of view.
The natural changes in the net carbon budget are so large that our contributions are negligible. The warming proponents have falsely assumed that the observed changes are human induced when in fact they are the result of natural changes an order of magnitude or two greater.
The sole ground for giving such significance to the human emissions was the isotope ratios. That has now been wholly discredited.
Without reliance on the isotope ratios AGW theory collapses because the CO2 variations observed can no longer be reliably attributed to human activities.
That sounds harsh but sometimes the truth is harsh :)
lolwot –
you are doing science completely wrong
Well, then tell us how you do it.
Stephen Wilde’s method leads him astray. He’s making countless errors because he seems to be starting with what he wants to believe and trying to fit the facts (throwing out the ones that don’t fit) to it. He cites wild speculation as fact while throwing out substantially founded data just because it doesn’t fit with the speculation.
Sorry that’s just the way it is, and it’s so bad I had to comment on it as evidentially none of his “friends” have.
J,
Reality does not give a fig what we think is ‘reasonable’.
“Since we continue to produce said emissions, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase, and our emissions are responsible for 100% of that increase.”
(Groan) Non sequitur. See my earlier comments interspersed above.
There are ice core records with 50-year resolution going back to 1000AD: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif.
That would pick up fluctuations you’re talking about.
Not if it takes a couple of hundred years for compression and sealing to take place. If that were the case then the chart is exactly as one would expect. Pretty flat and low in the past after the compression and sealing process but a sharp hockey stick type curve during the period of compressing and sealing as the current figures gradually segue into the more permanent (and inaccurate) record.
The site of the Law Dome ice core has a very high snow accumulaton rate, which means compression and sealing occurs relatively quickly:
Bender et al. 1995
Hmm.. ‘219°C’ should read ‘-19°C’. Must have been a copy/paste error from the pdf. Warm but not that warm.
I don’t think estimates are sufficient for present purposes so I’ll just wait and see.
Stephen,
The the Law Dome ice core record has a high resolution and even an overlap of about 20 years with the direct measurements at the South Pole. Any peak of 20 ppmv over 1 year or 2 ppmv over 10 years would have been noticed in the measurements. Thus if the sensitivity for CO2 was 100 ppmv/degr.C, as Salby suggests, then every up (1910-1945) and down (1945-1975) would show dramatic changes in the CO2 level of the ice core record. But nothing of that is observed, Only a smooth increase over the years…
See:
ftp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr_large.jpg
and
ftp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_overlap.jpg
“The less and less information one accepts, the more scope there is for imagination.”
Hence the latest skeptic anthem, courtesy of Gene Wilder:
Yes, like the AGW community dismissing papers before they are published.
Your ability to mock yourself is amazing.
I was just reading this paper at PNAS which discusses the temperature dependence of the of the annual increment to CO2 at Mauna Loa
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/11/4249.full.pdf+html
It claims it is dominated by repiration and photosynthesis complicated by the fact that the MLO samples different air masses at different times of year (Eurasian & American)
Last week I found this discussion of soli respiration compicated to the point of confusion but interesting
http://the-scientist.com/2011/08/01/the-root-of-the-problem/
I suspect we are going to end up discussing limiting nutrients and the nitrogen cycle before we’re done
Now there is a natural cycle that really is dominated by anthropogenic inputs unlike the carbon cycle.
Crossposting from WUWT:
Fred H. Haynie says: August 5, 2011 at 6:12 am
I encourage readers to see Haynie’s “Future of Climate Change”: He provides numerous graphs showing CO2 driven by natural causes, not anthropogenic.
I agree. That presentation is very good.
Dr Curry:
The presentation by Salby is interesting but contains little which is new. Only his soil moisture argument is novel. Everything else he says is covered in one of our papers
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
and a post by Roy Spencer on WUWT at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
Indeed, Salby uses some of the same words as we use in our paper (please note that this is NOT an accusation of plagiarism: clear statements of the same facts are likely to use the same words).
Richard
Is a pre-print of this paper available? I would be interested in reading the detail of the arguments presented but I don’t have access to E&E.
dikranmarsupial:
Sorry, I cannot provide a free copy of the paper because since it was published I have joined the Editorial Board of E&E.
However, I gave a presentation of it at the first Heartland Climate Conference and that presentation paper is a ‘cut & paste’ job’ from the E&E paper: it contains all the salient equations, graphs and arguments.
If you email me at RichardSCourtney@aol.com then I will send you a copy of that presentation paper.
Richard
There should be correlation between sea ice and atmospheric CO2.
Cross posting part from WUWT:
Richard S Courtney says: August 5, 2011 at 4:51 am
(referring to Roy Spencer)
While there is little doubt that ocean warming contributes some additional
CO2, I am skeptical that it represents the bulk of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. For example, what about the significant warmings during historical periods (e.g., the MWP) that do not seem correlated with large changes in atmospheric CO2? Having said that one has to add that as usual a little humility is called for in the climate business. There is much we do not understand.
Actually the oceans are taking up more CO2 than they emit. This is because the flux between surface waters and the atmosphere depends on the difference in concentration as well as temperature, and CO2 has been rising fast enough for the difference in concentrations to be the dominant factor. If you want to see humility, read the scientific papers on the climate, rather than the blogs, they are full of caveats on what we don’t know (as indeed are the IPCC reports). The real irony is that the anthropogenic origin of the post-industrial rise in atmospheric CO2 is one of the few things we do know for certain!
No! We do not know that for certain.
The rise cause of the rise could be entirely anthropogenic, entirely natural, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes.
Please read the post above from David L Hagen which quotes my words.
Study of the carbon cycle has been severely hindered by the reversal of the null hypothesis (i.e. people assume the anthropogenic emission has changed the system and somebody has to prove there has not been.a change).
Richard
We do know for certain that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, becuase the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is always less than anthropogenic emissions. Thus the null hypothesis (natural cause of observed rise) is rejected by the observations. I’d happily discuss this with you further, but not here (skepticalscience.com ?) as it has taken me almost ten minutes to type in this short message because there is something wrong with the blog software or my browser (I presume the former as my browser works fine for every blog but this one!).
No way will I lower myself into that blog!
I withdrew from here because of concentrated harassment and my comments in this thread are a ‘toe in the water’.
The net of the natural sinks being positive or negative indicates nothing.
The short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the anthropogenic and the natural emissions of any year. But some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium (whatever caused the change to the equilibrium) and, therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration changes for decades after a change to the system (e.g. a change to global temperature).
It is possible that the very small anthropogenic emission may have altered the equilibrium state, but it is certain that the temperature rise prior to ~2000 must have.
Richard
“The net of the natural sinks being positive or negative indicates nothing.”
And that is what we call denial.
“And that is what we call denial.”
And, this is what we call the pot and kettle conundrum. “We do know for certain that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, becuase the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is always less than anthropogenic emissions is useless information. See my previous comments interspersed above (I keep repeating this because you guys keep making this unfounded assertion.)
As an example (purely an example):
If humans are emitting 30 billion tons of CO2 per year, and CO2 is rising 17 billion tons per year.
Then nature has to be absorbing about 13 billion tons more than it’s emitting. Nature cannot be a net source while the rise is less than the human emission.
lolwot,
Non-anthropogenic flux is negative (a net SINK of 13 Gt/year in your example) because the anthropogenic flux is positive (30 Gt/year in your example). It still does not follow that the atmospheric increase (17 Gt/year) is caused by the anthropogenic input. Without the anthropogenic input (hypothetically) the atmospheric increase would be only slightly less than 17 Gt/year,IF the atmospheric content is determined by temperature and other factors and not by the anthropogenic input. The atmospheric input is simply removed (in few years) and is in the sink. The SINK is the reservoir and the atmosphere is just a ‘vent’.
The claim is basically that CO2 is just like H20 in the atmosphere, only the removal is a bit slower.
lolwot | August 6, 2011 at 7:44 am |
“Then nature has to be absorbing about 13 billion tons more than it’s emitting. Nature cannot be a net source while the rise is less than the human emission.”
Completely, utterly, ridiculously WRONG. See my comment at August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am.
There’s no point fighting it.
If humans are emitting 30 billion tons per year and atmospheric CO2 is rising 17 billion tons per year then nature must be absorbing 13 billion tons per year.
Anyone can see that’s fact. It’s basic accounting. If you had a case you’d be able to give a similar example where the rise isn’t predicated on the human emission. But I know you won’t because it will be so convoluted everyone will see how stupid it is.
“Without the anthropogenic input (hypothetically) the atmospheric increase would be only slightly less than 17 Gt/year,IF the atmospheric content is determined by temperature and other factors and not by the anthropogenic input.”
Sure if something that isn’t true were true then anything could be true.
But the fact is that the rise in CO2 is determined by anthropogenic input.
30 billion tons emission per year and atmospheric CO2 is increasing about half of that. If for example last year humans had not emitted any CO2, the CO2 level in the atmosphere would have fallen.
lolwot | August 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
“Anyone can see that’s fact. It’s basic accounting.”
Indeed, basic accounting. Why you think basic accounting tools would be up to the task of analyzing a dynamic system, I have no idea. See post at August 6, 2011 at 10:03 pm to explain why you are wrong.
There’s no point fighting it.
If humans are emitting 30 billion tons per year and atmospheric CO2 is rising 17 billion tons per year then nature must be absorbing 13 billion tons per year.
????
That there is no possibility that the concentration increase
could never be caused by a non constant net increase
on the source side, and that if this net were in the other
direction we would have a decrease, i.e., that human
emissions may not be the cause of the increase (I ain’t
say it necessarily does not) I question! It is not accounting just assumption of constant background processes, that is a really constant background.
PS Is your increase same magnitude as the human input correct? that is 5GT vs 5 ppmv increment?
Richard,
We have repeated this discussion many times over the past 3 years or so. In my opinion, this is a case where sceptics have no ground to challenge the “consensus”. That humans add to the atmosphere is a fact. That halve the amounts disappear in natural sinks is a fact. Thus whatever logic you use, nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2. Thus the natural sinks are larger than the natural sources. And thus nature has (near) zero contribution to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (except for a small one by the overall temperature increase).
Further, millions of measurements by ships over the oceans and a few long term series (Bermuda and Hawaii) show that the carbon content (DIC) of the oceans is increasing, not decreasing (as expected from a temperature increase). Thus the oceans are a net sink for CO2. So is the biosphere, as proven by the oxygen balance.
You can throw out all this evidence and say: “I don’t know what the origin is”, but all available evidence points to a human source, while all proposed alternatives fail one or more observations, thus must be rejected.
Ferdinand. It does follow that the atmosphere has had a non-anthropogenic sink, but thats only because human activity is emitting CO2 and acting as an anthropogenic source. Without the anthropogenic source, the atmosphere would have still been warming and the net sink would change to a net source, because of the warming.
To put it another way, the non-anthropogenic CO2 flux over the system boundaries (atmosphere) has been negative since the ~1960s. That means the non-anthropogenic part of the fluxes was a sink. This sink increased in flux over this period of time, compensating for the increasing anthropogenic flux. So the emitted anthropogenic CO2 is in the non-anthropogenic sink, NOT in the atmosphere. Temperature drives the atmosheric CO2. Any additional CO2 to the atmosphere (anthropogenic or not) will be removed from it and be stored in the sink.
Oceans and land (water and biosphere, ice) is the reservoir, the atmosphere is only a ‘vent’.
Edim,
Let us try to explain what happens in the atmosphere and its boundaries.
First: even long before humans emitted any fossil CO2, there were natural sinks and natural sources. The natural sinks were and are present and huge. Without human emissions and temperature changes, everything was in balance: as much CO2 was entering the cold oceans (and vegetation growth) as was emitted by the warm oceans (and rotting vegetation).
Second: any warming of the oceans, increased the output of the oceans and decreased the oceans sink, the opposite happens for vegetation. The net result is an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere until everything is again in balance. That is at about 8 ppmv/degr.C, if we may believe the ice cores. If you don’t believe them, then it is maximum 16 microatm/degr.C because that is what Henry’s Law predict for CO2 in seawater.
Third: then came humans, who added increasing amounts of CO2. The human emissions were directly into the atmosphere. That extra CO2 might have been catched within a minute by a nearby tree or 10 years later by the oceans, that doesn’t matter, but what matters, it added to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Fourth: the increase in total CO2 disturbs the natural equilibrium, but more CO2 (pressure) in the atmosphere gives less ocean output (for equal temperature) and more ocean sink. The same for plants: increased uptake (but no reaction from vegetation decay). Thus the natural sources decline and the natural sinks increase. That compensates in part for the increase in the atmosphere, but not in ful. (see Le Chatelier’s Principle). The net result is that there still is an increase in CO2 mass in the atmosphere, but only halve the mass of the human emissions. Nevrtheless, the entire increase in mass in the atmosphere is caused by the human emissions, because the natural cycle now shows a deficit of halve the human emissions.
Further, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, currently with about 100 microatm above the old equilibrium.
Fifth: The temperature of the oceans rises with 1 degr.C. What happens with the cycle? 1 degr.C means an increase of 16 microatm in oceanic CO2 pressure, which should push more CO2 out of the oceans and less into the sinks. But there is a problem: the atmospheric pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is already at 100 microatm above the old equilibrum, that is far beyond the increase in pCO2 in the oceans. So what happens? Somewhat more CO2 will leave the oceans and somewhat less will enter the oceans, but the net increase in the atmosphere still goes strong but slightly reduced, because the difference between the pCO2 in the atmosphere and the new equilibrium is now 16 microatm smaller than before.
In conclusion: no need to invoke a new “non-anthro” sink, it did exist already. Human CO2 simply goes into the atmosphere and adds to the total mass of CO2 present (the atmosphere is a reservoir with currently 800 GtC). Near the entire increase in mass is caused by the human emissions. Of the total CO2 mass, some extra part is removed, equal to about halve the human emissions, partly by less natural emissions and partly more natural sinks. No matter the origin of the CO2 which is removed. Temperature changes have an influence on the equilibrium setpoint and that changes the sink rate somewhat, but is by far not the dominant player.
Ferdinand,
I think you misunderstood me. I am not a native speaker, so maybe that’s the reason. Did you listen to the presentation?
No new sinks were introduced by me.
I think the good analogy for the problem is the anthropogenic H2O input. It’s condensable so we ignore it. No matter how much H2O is emitted, it doesn’t affect the atmospheric H2O. The claim is that atmospheric CO2 is just like H2O, only the removal is a little slower. So, there is some temporary effect of anthro-CO2 on atmospheric CO2, but most of the increase is an effect of warming.
lolwot and Ferdinand:
lolwot,
I am amused that you call my stating and explaining the facts “denial”. Perhaps you would wish to explain why your refusal to consider those facts is not “denial”.
Ferdinand,
as you know – but others here may not – I respect your work but disagree with it.
As you say, we have disagreed about this for years (much more than 3 years on the record). And we each think the failure to resolve the matter is the other’s intransigence.
So, before stating our disagreement, I point out that I commend those who are interested in the subject to use your blog as a good, collated information source.
Our disagreement stems from fundamentally different views of the carbon cycle.
You model the system as a set of fixed reservoirs with flows in and out. Importantly, you assume the natural system does not vary and then calculate where the anthropogenic emission ‘goes’. I say your model is a circular argument based on a false assumption. If you assume nature does not change then it follows that any observed change is the anthropogenic emission. I do not “throw out” anything. I point out that an assumption cannot prove itself.
I model the system as being a complex mixture of interconnected parts with a myriad of different time constants affecting their interactions. All the observations which you cite can be explained as merely being effects of the time constants. And I observe facts that my model explains and yours cannot.
Such facts include, for example, the following.
There is no direct correlation between the anthropogenic emission and the increase of CO2 in the air. The best that can be said is that both have increased in recent decades.
But the global temperature is followed with a ~30 year lag by a smoothed version of the CO2 in the air: cf.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
and
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human emission, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the short-term (i.e. operative in months) natural sequestration processes can cope easily with the human emission of CO2.
The available data strongly suggest that the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will have no significant long term effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration. The main reason is that the rate of increase of the anthropogenic production of CO2 is very much smaller that the observed maximum rate of increase of the natural consumption of CO2.
As you know, there is more, but I think this is sufficient to explain to others how our views differ.
Richard
How do you square the fact that humans are emitting more CO2 than the rate at which CO2 is rising?
Take away the human emission and there could be no rise.
As similar as if there was a bank account growing at a rate of $100/year and Man is paying in $250/year. Logically then nature must be taking out $150/year for the balance to be growing at a rate of $100/year.
And so logically man is responsible for the rise. For without man’s payment (which only recently began) the balance would not have accumulated upwards.
Amazing that these two steps of simple logic seem beyond so many people.
lolwot and Ferdinand are both confusing arithmetic with causality. The fact that human emissions a numerically greater than the increase in no way shows that they are causing the increase. As Richard points out, a simple reservoir model is a fallacy. This is similar to the simple minded argument that since CO2 is a GHG it must warm when CO2 increases. I call this sort of fallacious argument speculation based on simplified first principles. If there is one thing we have learned about climate it is that it is a complex nonlinear dynamical system.
In particular, the fact that the top levels of the ocean may be increasing in CO2 concentration does not mean that the ocean cannot be the source of the atmospheric increase. Quite the contrary in fact. Remember that the ocean is a biosphere, not simply a reservoir. There are huge CO2 sinks and sources within it, none of which is being monitored or measured.
David Wojick:
Thankyou. Yes!
I was writing a response when your answer came in. Your answer is more clear than mine (probably because it is more blunt), so I merely write to confirm that you have explained the matter in accordance with my view.
Richard
PS As an OT point, it is good to hear from you again and I sincerely hope all is well with you.
“In particular, the fact that the top levels of the ocean may be increasing in CO2 concentration does not mean that the ocean cannot be the source of the atmospheric increase.”
If the oceans were the source of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase it would require some natural sink to have increased in recent years specifically to hide the human emission.
It would also require the ice cores to be very wrong, in both magnitude and timing.
And all this happened to occur at the same time humans have significantly increased CO2 emissions.
It requires knowledge across the board about the carbon cycle and the ice cores to be wrong. All the pieces fit, to come up with some other idea requires all the pieces to be broken up and stuck together with nonsense.
The idea that the recent CO2 rise is natural is just not credible.
Lolwot;
I am replying to your mistaken statement saying;
“If the oceans were the source of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase it would require some natural sink to have increased in recent years specifically to hide the human emission.”
No, it would not certainly “require some natural sink to have increased”.
You are assuming that the human emission is significant. But we do not know whether or not it is significant. Indeed, that is what we are trying to determine.
Let me give you one (of several) possible scenarios where there is no change to the sinks and sources but the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration results..
There is an equilibrium of CO2 concentration in the air and in the ocean surface layer. And the oceans exchange (in both directions) tens of times more CO2 than the anthropogenic emission in each year.
The system is buffered (mostly by dissolved calcium compounds) so cannot change much in the absence of a temperature change or a change to the pH of the ocean surface layer.
Assume nothing changed except the pH of the ocean surface layer
(i.e. no changes to sources or sinks and no additional or anthropogenic CO2 in the system).
Then what pH change would induce the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration which we have observed?
A reduction of only 0.1 in pH would be more than sufficient and is much, much too small to be detectable.
Could such a change have happened and, if so, how?
Yes, it could. Water travels in the depths with the thermohaline circulation for centuries before it returns to the ocean surface layer. Water that travels past under-sea volcanism will dissolve sulphur ions which reduce its pH. This low pH water will reach the ocean surface centuries later and thus will reduce the pH of the surface layer with resulting increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
This is but one of several possible scenarios whereby there is no change to sources and sinks and the increase to atmospheric CO2 being entirely natural and with the anthropogenic emission being irrelevant.
Nobody can know if this volcanism conjecture is the correct explanation for the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration but it is at least as likely as the conjecture that the anthropogenic emission is the cause.
Richard
“You are assuming that the human emission is significant. But we do not know whether or not it is significant. Indeed, that is what we are trying to determine.”
You might not know whether the human emission is significant. But I do, as does science.
Your example does not explain where the 30 billion tons of human emissions goes, it doesn’t explain why CO2 is rising, it doesn’t explain why the rise has accelerated, and it requires the ice core records to be wrong.
The CO2 rise being anthropogenic fits all the data, past and present without even trying. yet you haven’t even tried to fit your conjecture to the data and yet feel it’s just as likely.
Is CO2 rise being caused by man so threatening that you need to go out on a limb to justify a reason not to believe it?
lolwot:
The volcanic variation scenario explains each and every one of the points you say it does not.
Think about it instead of diving to your keyboard to shout against heresy.
Indeed, it explains more than the conjecture of an anthropogenic cause for the CO2 rise.
Anthropogenic cause conjecture:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is induced by a variation in the quantified anthropogenic CO2 emission which causes a postulated and unknown effect on the carbon cycle.
Volcanic cause conjecture:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is induced by a variation in the unquantified undersea volcanic sulphur emission which causes a known effect on the carbon cycle.
Neither conjecture is likely to be the explanation of the major cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2, but both conjectures are probably right in that the effects they describe affected the rise.
Richard
We need an ‘everything is constant’ refrain to sing.
Need a song.
No, Ferdinand, Edim is right, and you are wrong. See also my comment at August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am.
No, Bart, Ferdinand is right, and you are wrong. See any textbook dealing with the carbon cycle.
J:
Ah! The classical ‘appeal to authority’ on a blog from someone who knows so little about a matter that he/she/they is not willing to put a name(s) to their unjustified assertions. The blogosphere is alive and well (sarc).
Richard
Bart,
Certainly! And thanks for idea to check textbooks. And I want the most recent ones that incorporate the very latest scientific research.
We will have an updated climate textbook by Salby soon. I understand this will be his second textbook.
Consistent with your suggestion to read a textbook, I will buy it as soon as available . . . will pre-order it.
Thanks for your h/t.
John
John:
Salby’s textbook is no doubt a good reference for many things, but it’s on atmospheric physics, not the carbon cycle. Nothing wrong with that. But it would not be a good place to point someone who wanted to learn about the carbon cycle.
A much better place to start would be Archer’s new book on the carbon cycle, or Sclesinger’s Biogeochemistry. Or even Ruddiman’s “Earth’s Climate: Past and Future”.
Cheers.
J | August 6, 2011 at 9:46 am |
“See any textbook dealing with the carbon cycle.”
See my comment at August 6, 2011 at 7:37 am, and the new one at August 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm. Read and re-read them until you get it. You are so pathetically wrong, it’s like arguing with an 8 year old that there are no monsters under his bed.
Several people have expressed interest here in learning more about the carbon cycle, the role of the ocean as a sink for anthropogenic CO2, etc.
Here are some of the papers that might be most helpful. All of these are published in the past three years.
Le Quéré et al. 2009. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience 2, 831 – 836.
Rafelski et al. 2009. Climate effects on atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last century. Tellus B, 61: 718–731.
Rayner et al. 2008. Interannual variability of the global carbon cycle (1992–2005) inferred by inversion of atmospheric CO2 and δ13CO2 measurements. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22, GB3008, doi:10.1029/2007GB003068.
Takahashi et al. 2009. Climatological mean and decadal change in surface ocean pCO2, and net sea–air CO2 flux over the global oceans . Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 56: 554-577.
Helpful? In what way way? They are behind paywalls! Now if you are on the public payroll and can spend the tax payer’s dollar at the click of a mouse then its helpful – otherwise not so much.
Sorry. I sympathize with your problem. It would be nice if people published only in open-access journals. Unfortunately, a lot of papers aren’t.
All of those journals should be available at any reasonably good university library, if there’s one anywhere near you, or if you know anyone who lives near a university. That’s not as satisfying as being able to download something at the click of a mouse, obviously.
Another place to start would be with a textbook, such as Schlesinger’s classic “Biogeochemisty” (a bit dated now) or David Archer’s book on the carbon cycle (there’s a review of it here). If you don’t want to purchase these, you surely ought to be able to obtain them via interlibrary loan, if your town library does interlibrary loan.
The IPCC Chapter 7 is a useful review and section 7.3.2.4, in particular, discusses interannual variations in CO2 concentrations and the response of the biosphere-related CO2 fluxes to climate variations.
There are free versions of the Le Quéré and the Takahashi papers available if you search for them using Google Scholar.
Andy S:
The Berne Model (as used and reported by the IPCC) is plain wrong. Please see my comments above.
One of the greatest faults in the AR4 is its selective reporting and uncritical adoption of the Berne Model of the cabon cycle. Indeed, the IPCC uses unjustifiable 5-year smoothing as a method to obtain some degree of agreement between the Berne Model and observations of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Smoothing of 2 and 3 years could be justified, but there is no known reason for smoothing of the data over longer times. However, smoothing less than 5 years fails to obtain agreement between the model and the empirical data.
Any data can be made to agree with anything if it is adjusted sufficiently.
Richard
Richard,
Very interesting comment. So, in your view, is there a correct model available or is it an unknown?
Ron Cram:
No, there is not a “correct” model.
In one of our 1995 papers (see above for reference and description) we produced 6 models with 3 of them assuming the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a significant anthropogenic component and the other 3 assuming there was no significant anthropogenic component. These 6 models each matched the Mauna Loa data without any smoothing.
So, the available data cannot define a “correct” model.
quad erat demonstrandum
Richard
This may be a bit off topic, but in the case of global warming related papers I think one can get around copyright law, in the US at least. All our copyright laws are subject to the first amendment. If you’re engaged in political speech or some other first amendment protected activity then use of copyrighted material is called “fair use” and it’s legal.
In the current context, if someone were to make a copyrighted scientific study available to the public for the true and obvious purpose of engaging in the political debate over climate and energy policy, then I think they’d have a chance of winning in court.
Tyler Volk’s CO2 Rising and David Archer’s The Global Carbon Cycle are both good recent surveys for a generalist audience.
Who was that AGW apologist who claimed humans are making most of the CO2 going into the atmosphere not too long ago?
When this scam first reared its head in the 1980’s, I was open to it, but then I came to find out that the carbon cycle was only understood qualitively, not quantatively. Also, history, even written history, told me that there are variations in “climate” over long periods. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Warmistas to PROVE, or otherwise demonstrate, that the current warming is NOT due to natural causes. This lecture demonstrated the opposite.
Judith Curry
Thanks for calling our attention to this lecture by Professor Salby.
We have all gotten so used to the “standard” interpretation (that humans are the primary cause for increased atmospheric CO2 levels) that no one has questioned it anymore (despite the gnawing questions raised by the 450,000-year Vostok record).
Professor Salby shows how natural factors correlate much more closely with the change in atmospheric CO2 than human emissions and effectively shoots down the C13 “smoking gun” postulation cited as “proof” that human emissions are the cause.
In comparing annual human CO2 emissions with annual increase in atmospheric CO2, it was always a mystery to me why human CO2 emissions showed such a poor correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 levels if human emissions were supposed to be driving the atmospheric levels, but his lecture explains this very clearly. He shows a correlation with natural factors of 93% (of which 80% is temperature related).
This work is now going through the normal review process, etc., but it will be very interesting to see how it is received by the “mainstream”.
Let’s hope it gets through the process in time for IPCC to incorporate it into its AR5 report.
Max
There seems to be a lot of bickering here on whether or not this work is “relevant”.
If Professor Salby’s findings hold up under scrutiny, they will not only be highly “relevant”, they will be basic game changers, which could essentially make a good part of the 1,000-page AR4 WG1 report “irrelevant”.
They are not relevant though. The skeptic-exciting parts are just wrong. So no they won’t hold up under scrutiny. We already know this.
lolwot –
We already know this.
What brand of crystal ball do you use? I could use one of those to manage my investments.
Oh, wait……….
The skeptic-exciting parts are not new. As i pointed out elsewhere on this thread the IPCC report goes into detail about how interannual CO2 variation is primarily natural.
The only reason is excites skeptics is because they don’t understand the state of the science and they think this is something new. Bless.
But for anyone that does understand the state of the science we can see the skeptic-exciting parts are not new therefore they can’t overturn what is already known or be a game changer by definition.
So they knew that 93% of interannual variation in CO2 could be explained by natural responses to temperature and soil moisture content, yet they continued with the charade?
I guess it really was fraud after all.
Do you even understand what interannual variation is?
Are you aware that interannual variation is not the same as a longterm trend? Or are you conflating the two?
Are you not aware that the issue of climate change is about the longterm trend in greenhouse gases?
lolwot:
Are you not aware that the issue of AGW ia about the causality of the longterm trend in greenhouse gases and the degree of their effect (if any) on climate?
So many assumptions, so much assertion, and so little evidence (sigh).
Richard
Are you not aware that the issue of AGW ia about the causality of the longterm trend in greenhouse gases and the degree of their effect (if any) on climate?
You would be much better off separating those two issues. The causality issue is not controversial, except in somewhat odd contexts like this thread. The “effect” issue (climate sensitivity to CO2, and cost/benefits of climate change on biosphere/economy) are much, much, less well determined. There is plenty of fruitful ground for skepticism on the “effects” side. It’s not necessary to take a maximalist anti-IPCC position on every single point. That just diminishes one’s credibility.
Just accept the anthropogenic origin of the observed CO2 rise, and move on to debating the stuff that’s actually in question. It will give you much more credibility if you can show that you’re able to distinguish between cases where the evidence is clear and cases where it’s ambiguous or unsettled.
lolwot:
The “Nothing to see here so move along” excuse will not wash.
There is nothing “controversial” about the carbon cycle and the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration except the superstitious belief of some people that they “know” all that needs to be known when – in reality – the carbon cycle is unquantified in all its parts, not understood in any of its behaviouers, and there are many possible explanations for the recent rise.
Richard
“there are many possible explanations for the recent rise.”
No there aren’t. There is just one explanation that fits the facts.
Dr Curry.
You wrote:
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
I have been listening, as I had time, and just now finished the question and answer session.
I agree. Wow!
This is progress!
In response to Judith’s WOW, I say double WOW. Anyone who has not yet listened to Salby’s talk should invest the 30 minutes. A fascinating result that I suspect will change the Climate Wars back into climate discussions — once the dust settles, that is.
Professor Salby makes the point that, on a year-to-year basis, there is very little correlation between the annual change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the total annual amount of CO2 emitted by humans from all sources.
This is easy to confirm based on published data. A check of the data shows that this has varied between 15% (1992) and 88% (1998) on an annual basis and has averaged a bit less than 50% over the longer term.
Atmospheric CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
CO2 emissions:
fossil fuels: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
deforestation: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation_country.html
cement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Cement_Production.JPG
Salby apparently finds a much stronger correlation between changes in CO2 concentrations and global temperature plus (to a smaller extent) soil moisture, although he cited no source of data in his lecture.
He also appears to have effectively “shot down” the C12/C13 “smoking gun” argument often cited as “proof” of the human cause of increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
What does this all tell us about “causation”?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
But I would certainly not write it off as irrelevant.
Max
Manacker,
Nobody disagrees that there is less correlation between emissions and year by year increase in the atmosphere than between temperature changes and year by year increase in the atmosphere.
See e.g. the calculations of a “warmer”, Pieter Tans of NOAA at halfway his speech at the 50 years Mauna Loa measurements:
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
The short term influence of temperature on CO2 changes is about 4 ppmv/degr.C. That influences mainly the year by year sink capacity of CO2 in the oceans and vegetation. Thus the variability around the increasing trend in the atmosphere.
But most of the temperature variability levels off over 2-3 years.
The problem here is that Salby, and before Dr. Spencer and several others, project the year by year variability over longer periods. And there it goes wrong. After 2-3 years, the accumulating part of the emissions in the atmosphere encompases the noise caused by temperature variations. Thus temperature mainly influences the variability around the trend caused by the emissions. But only when there is a more permanent in/decrease in temperature, that results in a more permanent in/decrease in temperature of about 8 ppmv/degr.C.
This is interesting. I did an analysis of the acceleration of global temperature and CO2 earlier this year but was unsure how to interpret the results so I sat on it.
After listening to the podcast it was clear that the results I found using an acceleration analysis is in line with his results on temperature driving the rate of change in the CO2 level.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/08/curious-about-the-latest-co2-paper/
John –
A friendly word of advice – I hope you’re wearing your asbestos undies because this subject has brought out the cognitive dissonance on the warmist side of the dance floor. They’re in a real panic and acting like gunshy fear biting dogs at a fireworks show.
Thank you for the link – and your work. I found it interestingand informative. And I hope you and Salby are both right. Time will tell.
” In the last 130 years, the magnitude of the maximum GMT swing from the global warming trend line before and after mid-20th century are identical, showing the effect of human emission of CO2 on the maximum GMT swings has been nil.”
That’s just illogical.
Lets say the early 20th century warming is caused by the Sun and then an equal amount of late 20th century warming is caused by CO2.
What would that look like? Exactly like your graph. Then your analysis would wrongly make a bold mistake about the cause of the latter 20th century warming.
lolwot –
That’s just illogical.
OK – then prove your assertion. And show your work. Your statements fail to convince.
Lets say the early 20th century warming is caused by the Sun and then an equal amount of late 20th century warming is caused by CO2.
What would that look like? Exactly like your graph. Then your analysis would wrongly make a bold mistake about the cause of the latter 20th century warming.
But the IPCC can’t account for all the early 20th century warming, even with the sun (try as they might).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-5-l.png
(Or perhaps you think just drawing a big flat line that splits the difference between the 1910 min and the 1945 max and doesn’t match the slope is “good enough”.)
JC
Why was my post removed?
Not relevant on this thread
That is okay.
However, is not the only question that we are trying to answer is whether human emission of CO2 causes global warming?
Not at all Girma. In fact the argument is complex so there are a number of very different questions that we are trying to answer. These begin with is it warming, and if so when and how much? (My personal favorite.) Then there is, is CO2 increasing and if so when and how much? Then comes how much of the CO2 change, up or down, is due to human activities? This question is the topic of the present thread. Only then comes the issue of the causes of past temperature change (attribution), and finally the big question: is any of this dangerous?
“And why do the ice cores only lose CO2, and not any other gases in the same proportions?”
Simply because the amount of CO2 that can be retained by water in all its forms (even as ice) is temperature dependent so if there is a temperature gradient through the ice sample the CO2 will migrate.
Only when the sample is sealed in a stable environment with no temperature gradient will the CO2 migration cease.
Stephen,
How much CO2 do you think is in any solid ice crystal?
Unmeasurable
How fast migrates CO2 in ice of -23 degr.C (Siple Dome ice core)?
Enough to broaden the resolution from 20 to 22 years at medium depth
Enough to broaden the resolution from 20 to 40 years at full depth
How fast migrates CO2 in ice of -40 degr,C (Vostok and Dome C)?
Unmeasurable.
Further, diffusion is always from high to low levels (no reverse osmosis at work here), how is it possible that one measures 200 ppmv in ice core bubbles, when the outside world is at near 400 ppmv?
My first attempt to post this disappeared so apologies if it turns up twice.
This issue needs to be reduced to the simplest pssible terms so here it is:
i) Atmospheric CO2 content is a direct reflection of the average temperature of water in all its forms netted out across every location around the globe including oceans, soil moisture ,vapour in the air and even ice.
ii) That is simply because temperature is the primary determinant of how much CO2 the water will hold.
iii) The CO2 carrying capacity of water is vastly greater than that of air so a tiny change in the net global absorption capability of water will result in a large proportionate change in the CO2 amounts in the air.
iv) The ice core records fail to reflect the proportionately large short term variability in the air that we have observed over the past 60 years because it takes a while for the ice samples to become compressed and sealed against CO2 loss.
And that is it in a nutshell. All it needed to break the impasse was Murry’s detaching of human emissions from the earlier incorrect theory about the significance of the CO2 isotope ratios. Once that is broken the rest falls into place.
Interestingly the whole scenario is a mirror image of the way the oceans and the water cycle also amplify changes to global albedo in response to small changes in the level of solar activity.
I submit that we are seeing similar water based amplification processes both as regards CO2 in the air and as regards global albedo changes.
In both cases the amplification occurs because the oceans are so huge and dense as compared to the air.
Whatever happens to the oceans is only a miniscule variation for the oceans but it translates to changes in the air large enough for us to measure and regard as substantial or even alarming.
Stephen, a short reply:
i) and ii) the equilibrium level of CO2 at current global temperature is 290 ppmv. That is based on ice cores, but if you don’t believe them, it was not more than 315 ppmv in 1960.
The partial CO2 pressure in seawater shifts with 16 ppmv/degr.C
The temperature increase since 1960 is maximum 0.5 degr.C
The atmospheric CO2 increase thus should be not more than 8 ppmv to be again in equilibrium with the oceans.
But we see an increase of 100+ ppmv above the equilibrium or 80 ppmv since 1960.
iii) No, when the temperature increases, more CO2 will move in the atmosphere, until the pCO2(atm) matches the pCO2 in the oceans. Thus 16 ppmv (32 GtC) CO2 extra is sufficient to reach a new equilibrium for 1 degr.C, regardless of how much resides in the (deep) oceans. That is the equivalent of three years of human emissions.
iv) doesn’t hold for even the longest records: Vostok and Dome C have a resolution of 500-600 years. An increase of 100 ppmv in 100 years and back would have been noticed in the record.
Last but not least, the isotope ratio is still alive and kicking: the alternative source for low 13C besides fossil fuel burning is the biosphere, and the biosphere is a net sink for CO2, thus a net sink for 12CO2, thus doesn’t play any role in the 13C decline…
I think the best way to explain the problem is that CO2 is like H20 in the atmosphere. Temperature drives both.
Anthropogenic inputs (CO2 and H2O) are removed. Anthropogenic H2O is removed by condensation and CO2 is in the sink.
I finally found some time to listen to the Podcast. I agree with Dr Curry that, if the conclusions hold up, then these findings are extremely important and I await the paper with great impatience.
The main conclusions IMO are:
(i) The argument, from C13/C12 ratio, that fossil fuel emission must be a major control on the gain in CO2 atmospheric concentration is shown to be fundamentally unsound. He shows that there is C13 dilution when concentration increases from short-term non-anthropogenic fluctuations. On the face of it, this observation is extremely important..
(ii) We have little control over the net gain/loss in atmospheric CO2, since anthropogenic emission is only part of the story, and potentially a small part.
There appear to have been two main “rebuttals” put forward by adverse commenters. The first is the mass balance argument. I do not believe that this is actually relevant to what Dr Salby is saying. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the small amount of additional CO2 added by anthropogenic sources is not the primary control on the net gain or loss of CO2.. The gain or loss is determined by changes in sources and sinks which are controlled by other climatic factors, in particular, temperature and soil moisture, and that these changes are sufficient to reduce the anthropogenic contribution to the level of noise. If this is true then it is self-deluding to believe that we can control the level of atmospheric CO2 by controlling our emissions, since other factors will predominate. Nowhere in his talk does he deny simple mass balance.
The second “rebuttal” argument is that he is making a fundamental conceptual error in regressing or examining differential terms. In other words he is missing the “real” trend by considering only the natural fluctuations around the trend. This argument struck me as plausible before I listened to the podcast. However, it seems that Salby extrapolated his results (based on correlations in the satellite era) backwards in time to “predict” CO2 levels back in the late 19th century, using only temperature as the independent variable, since soil moisture data were not available. Given the massive change in the rate of anthropogenic emissions over this period, it is difficult to conceive of how this would be possible if anthropogenic emission really was a dominant control on atmospheric concentration. So, the “rebuttal” argument appears to be invalid.
However, it is frustrating to be talking about this without having the paper and plots available. I am certainly not dismissing the paper without having yet seen it, as some here would like to do.
.
Paul_K,
I have referred your synopsis of Salby’s podcast to commenter Bernie | August 6, 2011 at 9:58 am.
Thanks for your synopsis. I found it to be similar to what I thought of Salby’s podcast.
John
” it seems that Salby extrapolated his results (based on correlations in the satellite era) backwards in time to “predict” CO2 levels back in the late 19th century, using only temperature as the independent variable”
Paul – Like you, I find it hard to draw definitive conclusions from the podcast alone, although there are abundant data from other sources that appear to refute Salby’s conclusions. I see the main issue as relating to his extrapolation of short term deviations to long term trends. That applies to the C13/C12 ratio, but I’ll focus here on the temperature/CO2 correlation.
If we regress the annual rate of CO2 change against temperature, we are likely to see a significant short term temperature effect as warming reduces the solubility of CO2 in the surface ocean layers (with effects on terrestrial sinks as well). That effect can be expressed as a slope of CO2 change rate per year per degree C warming. Salby (I infer speculatively) has applied that slope to the temperature change over the past 100 years or so and concluded that it can account for most of the CO2 rise. Is that legitimate?
I don’t think so. A higher temperature will cause more CO2 to reside in the atmosphere than otherwise – hence the upward slope – but once CO2 rises, so will its partial pressure, and this will now tend to reduce further net rises by increasing the entry of CO2 into ocean reservoirs. A slope that was steep over a year or two will gradually lessen and tend toward the level that prevailed before temperature changed. Given that most of the relevant air/sea exchanges involve superficial ocean layers, this will probably be mostly completed with 5 years or less. We can’t multiply an initial annual slope by 100 years to arrive at a 100 year change in CO2 concentrations.
If Salby did something more sophisticated than that, it’s not apparent from the podcast. It would also require some sophisticated modeling with attendant uncertainties about the parameters. I’m prepared to wait for the paper, but given all the other evidence unrelated to Salby’s calculations, I will be surprised in our current understanding of anthropogenic contributions to CO2 is seriously challenged.
Fred Moolten
You conclude:
It already has been, Fred.
The challenge now needs to be either falsified or corroborated.
I would think, given the length of time Professor Salby “sat” on his findings and had others review them before releasing them in these lectures, that there is a very good chance that this will, indeed, seriously challenge our current understanding of anthropogenic contributions to CO2.
Will it be a “wow” event, as JC has alluded?
We will have to wait and see.
Max
AGW is WOW resistant!
a trace on a trace …. Na
main mann results never verified … Na
emails … Na just a misunderstanding, no poisoned peer group here
code that screams ‘HACK’ … lost in space
How and when does Antarctica melt (my one).
The age old money trail skeptism.
The missing horde of scientists who doubt.
Zero peered papers vs half articles in magazines.
I’d like to add a few more points to my above commentary, although they are probably less central. First, Salby compares global temperature against Mauna Loa CO2, although interannual global CO2 fluctations (collected by NOAA since about 1980) do not correlate well with Mauna Loa CO2 on very short timescales but require a few years to average out.
Second, he states current CO2 concentration to be 380 ppmv, while it actually exceeds 390. This error could easily be disregarded in a talk on some other subject, but when the topic is the exact concentration of CO2, it is harder to overlook. It suggests unfamiliarity with the topic, or more likely, a level of carelessness that raises questions about the care taken with other parts of the evaluation. I don’t want to overemphasize this point, but it is worth mentioning.
Third, and probably of some importance, if we conclude (as I believe is warranted) that most or almost all of the twentieth century CO2 rise is the direct result of anthropogenic emissions and anthropogenic deforestation, what are we to make of a temperature effect on CO2 increases? In fact, this depends on what has caused the temperature increase. If it is mainly CO2, then temperature-driven CO2 increases are themselves anthropogenic in that they are part of a carbon/carbon positive feedback of CO2 on Co2 itself. That such a feedback exists is well known, although paleoclimatologic correlations are inconsistent with the magnitude of CO2 responses to temperature claimed in Salby’s talk. In any case, the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 must take into account not only the direct role of anthropogenic activities but also the indirect effects of anthropogenic effects on temperature itself.
These are all relatively minor points in my estimation compared with the inapplicability of short term fluctuations to long term trends that leaves current understanding of CO2 change.unlikely to be altered by the Salby claims, although always with the awareness that his talk may not have accurately represented what will appear in his published paper.
Paul_K
Thanks for a good summary.
Yes, it is too bad that the charts were not visible.
Max
Without the actual paper or presentation graphics it is difficult to fully understand the strength and weaknesses of Selby’s argument. However, he seemed to me to be arguing that since the models are likely to be mis-specified we should be very cautious about relying on them. Can anybody comment on this aspect of his presentation.
Bernie,
I have listened to Salby’s podcast several times and have read all the comments here and also on BH, WUWT and Jo Nova.
I found the most concise and accurate synopsis of what Salby”s podcast said is by Paul_K @ August 6, 2011 at 7:18 am on this tread.
Paul_K, thanks for your synopsis.
John
John:
Many thanks. I agree that Paul_K’s sumary is pretty good – but it does not mention the implications for the GCMs. Perhaps these are so obvious that it does not bear repeating. However, my view is that these dynamic models are sufficiently complex that incorporating a new physical reality can substantially change the behavior of these models. My takeaway from the presentation is that Prof. Salby is basically calling for a major rewrite of the models to encompass the reality of the carbon cycle rather than simply the net flows of anthropenic carbon dioxide. Am I overstating it?
Bernie,
In the Q&A part of the podcast Salby talks simply about the GCMs in response to a non-scientist question from the audience. Perhaps there would be a good place to start. Also, in the middle of his podcast presentation there are references to GCMs.
But in the last part of his presentation he starts to summarize and conclude. Here is a transcript that I personally made two days ago of that part of his podcast for the purpose of understanding his GCM thoughts.
Salby’s description the IPCC climate modeling framework (GCMs) at the ~28:56 min mark of the podcast of his talk ‘Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources’ given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011.
He is critical of the GCMs and critical of the AR4’s position on them.
John
John:
Many thanks. That is part of the podcast that I recalled. I guess I simply have put more emphasis and read more into it than others. It certainly will be interesting to look at the details behind his assertions.
Bernie,
You are welcome.
This is fun.
John
Coincidentally, I wrote this note to Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell on July 28, 2011.
Hi Roy and Danny,
Congrats on your recent paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/
Roy, you may recall we corresponded in early 2008 on this subject, and we both wrote papers on the subject. Mine is at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
While I am not certain, I still really wonder if the mainstream debate (human fossil fuel combustion primarily drives atmospheric CO2, which primarily drives temperature – the two camps just argue about how much warming will result) is mostly wrong.
I think there is more real-world data to suggest that temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2, not the reverse, although it is possible that humanmade CO2 emissions have a significant influence (or not).
I realize that putting forward such a heretical hypothesis is high-risk, tin-foil hat stuff. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if this becomes the conventional wisdom in less than a decade.
Best, Allan MacRae
Regrettably, I cannot upload the podcase of Dr. Salby’s paper, so cannot comment.
Summary of my paper:
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Carbon Dioxide in Not the Primary Cause of Global Warming: The Future Can Not Cause the Past
Paper by Allan M.R. MacRae, Calgary Alberta Canada
Despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2, no significant global warming occurred in the last decade, as confirmed by both Surface Temperature and satellite measurements in the Lower Troposphere. Contrary to IPCC fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Earth may now be entering another natural cooling trend. Earth Surface Temperature warmed approximately 0.7 degrees Celsius from ~1910 to ~1945, cooled ~0.4 C from ~1945 to ~1975, warmed ~0.6 C from ~1975 to 1997, and has not warmed significantly from 1997 to 2007.
CO2 emissions due to human activity rose gradually from the onset of the Industrial Revolution, reaching ~1 billion tonnes per year (expressed as carbon) by 1945, and then accelerated to ~9 billion tonnes per year by 2007. Since ~1945 when CO2 emissions accelerated, Earth experienced ~22 years of warming, and ~40 years of either cooling or absence of warming.
The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.
There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2″).
So, inter alia, a great deal of the team offence has been about the use of the term ‘wow’. All I can say in response to this is, well, wow!
It seems unlikely to me that a respected scientist could sit on his conclusions for 6 months trying to find his error. Could then pass on his paper to other scientists who for 6 months also could not find his error. Could then pass a peer review in order to have the paper published. All the while having such fundamental errors in it that others could recognise the errors without even seeing the paper. I suspect if there are errors they will not be obvious.
Oh, I’ve seen really stupid and (should be) obvious errors in papers not only survive peer-review, but then remain undiscovered for many years.
This doesn’t only happen in climatology.
But you probably have to red the paper to discover them. By the way, disagreements are not errors. The climate debated is larded with people claiming that things they disagree with are “obvious errors.” They are not.
No, I’m talking about proper errors, like the “therefore all cats are dogs” or “2+2=5” type errors.
Why would you think otherwise?
yup. :-)
So apparently this idea was already discussed before, in the maligned journal “Energy and Environment”? I wonder if Salby will credit this earlier paper, if he is even aware of it. It is dated 2009.
icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf
We have another test in the making. The cooling predicted for the next few decades (solar) should increase the CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the sink (mostly oceans). That will reduce atmospheric CO2 increase (dCO2/dt) and when the flux to the sink is equal to the anthropogenic input, the atmospheric CO2 will plateau. If the cooling is strong and long enough, the atmospheric CO2 will start decreasing. We won’t have to wait long for this. If there is another La Nina this year, there will be significant decceleration of CO2.
CO2 graph will soon look like the temperature and sea level ones. That’s my prediction.
This thread contains a lot of argumentation on the significance of the observation that releases from burning fossil fuels are larger than the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. My own contribution
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-94059
brought up the observation that this fact alone does not prove that the human influence dominates the increase, although I presented the view that human influence dominates anyway.
Bart formulated this same observation mathematically in message
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-95023
and has been arguing that this invalidates the simple argument.
Formally Bart is right, but his formulation tells also, what is required to invalidate the conclusions. To make the human contribution small his coefficient d must be large, i.e. there must be a mechanism that tends effectively bring the CO2 concentration back to its natural value. Either the oceans or the biosphere must react strongly to a small addition on CO2, and this reaction must go on for many decades with undiminished strength.
To have most of the additional carbon of the atmosphere from other sources than human influence these other sources must be larger than the human influence. The emissions from fossil fuels have been nearly 300 GtC during the period of Mauna Loa measurements. That’s about half of the carbon in biosphere and about 40% of the carbon presently in the atmosphere. Thus the alternative explanations must tell, where is the source of more than 300 GtC over this period, and they must tell also, where all the additional carbon has gone as a natural reaction to increased CO2. The numbers are so large that I cannot imagine any plausible alternatives for the human influence on either point, let alone both simultaneously, certainly I haven’t heard that anybody could provide any plausible alternative.
The present situation is that we have one explanation that is in agreement with all observations. No plausible alternatives have been presented, and it appears extremely difficult to find one that would not be in strong conflict with some well known facts. These facts include the isotope ratios, but also much else.
The conclusion that most or all of the increase in CO2 is due to human influence is on very solid ground, and all counterarguments have been really weak and without real merit.
Firstly the title of the post is carbon cycle questions.This is an area that is one of the most difficult complex suite of problems for the cs community as it involves interaction with the biosphere and its irreducible limitations (read constraints).
It is legitimate to question problems that are poorly resolved and still open ie uncertain,The problems we can divide into a number of sets,for brevity and lets pose three.
1) Fossil fuel emissions.The uncertainty in FFE is around +/- 6-10% a factor that has not been reduced over around a quarter of a century eg Marland (1999 2006)
Marland and colleagues (1999) conducted a comparison of two large, “(partially) independent”(265) efforts to estimate national emissions
of CO2. The data differed significantly for many countries but showed no systematic bias, and the global totals were very similar. Relative differences
were largest for countries with weaker national systems of energy statistics, and absolute differences were largest for countries with large emissions. The two estimates for theUnited States differed by only 0.9%, but the absolute value of this difference was greater than total emissions from 147 of the 195 countries analyzed. The 10 countries with the largest absolute
differences between the two estimates (for 1990) included the USSR, North Korea, India, Venezuela, and China. When the differences between the two estimates were summed, without regard to sign, the difference for the top 5 emitting countries was larger than the sum of the differences for the remaining 190 countries.
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Uncertainties.pdf
2) Paleoclimate uncertainties.These are substantive and significantly constrained by theory eg Darwin 1859.The constraints for say 13c as a paleoclimatic metric introduce significant problems eg Laws et al 2002
The isotopic composition of organic carbon buried in marine sediments is an appealing proxy for palaeo CO2 concentrations due to the well-documented effect of CO2 concentrations on carbon fractionation by phytoplankton. However, a number of factors, in addition to CO2 concentrations, influence this fractionation. Included among these factors are cell geometry, in particular surface/volume ratios, growth rate, and the presence of CO2 concentrating mechanisms. Other potentially confounding factors are calcification, diagenesis, and the nature of the growth-rate-limiting factor, e.g. light vs nutrients. Because of these confounding factors, palaeoreconstructions based on the isotopic composition of organic carbon (δ13C) will almost certainly have to be based on the isotopic signatures of organic compounds that can be associated with a single species, or group of physiologically similar species
eg fig8
http://s255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/?action=view¤t=Geometricgrowth.jpg
3) Modelling. Do we understand the underlying ecology well enough to model the carbon cycle and its various resorviours etc.
Anderson 2005 (Functional plankton modelling running before we can walk) suggested no for one approach eg Le Quere´,
Modelling embraces the reductionist philosophy that the behaviour at a chosen level in a system can be predicted from rules governing the behaviour of elements at lower hierarchical levels. However, the key to understanding system behaviour lies not only in describing the subunits,
but depends crucially on the interconnections between them. This is particularly so in complex systems which are characterized by many interacting parts, consistent with the Latin ‘complexus’ which signifies being entwined or twisted together. The outcome of these interactions is emergent behaviour giving rise to global dynamics that outlast any of the component parts (Bar-Yam, 1997).
Understanding the nature of emergence is a key component of modelling complex systems. Surprising and unforeseen artefacts are always possible when elementary subprocesses are coupled together to form a larger system, such that subtle and poorly understood interactions may restrict us from analysing system behaviour
using the reductionist approach (Casti, 1994). Various biological modelling studies have indeed shown remarkable sensitivity to the exact form of the equations used (Wood and Thomas, 1999; Gross et al., 2004; Fussmann and Blasius, 2005).
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/11/1073.abstract
That the carbon cycle is problematic,that limitations of the IPCC analysis were clearly evident whether Salby unfolds any additional information remains to be seen.
Thank you Pekka Pirilä! So nice to argue with someone who knows what he is talking about!
Here’s the thing:
Conversely, to have it not so, the oceans or the biosphere must react lethargically to additions in CO2. Why is this problematic?
It is problematic because a lethargically responding (low bandwidth) system will not hold an equilibrium tightly. We would be seeing what effectively looks like a random walk in CO2 over timescales less than the dominant time constant. So, there is a conflict with the ice core data, which says that CO2 has been well behaved.
You can either claim one or the other, but not both. Either the system is lethargic, and the ice core data is bunk, or the ice core data is reliable, and the system is responsive.
But, as Salby argues, the human influence is itself a very small portion of much larger fluxes.
The natural fluxes are large, but their annual variations are not as large. Even the annual variations are, however, a significant fraction of the total human influence, but over periods of several years the fraction is smaller.
I brought up the whole period since 1959, because the evidence for the dominance of the human contribution is the stronger the larger part of the period of accurate CO2 measurements is included. Of the natural reservoirs only the deep oceans and Earth crust are large enough to release or absorb easily amounts in excess of 300 GtC over long periods. Thus the question becomes: Is there some natural mechanism that could have contributed persistently at a rate exceeding the human contribution over 50 years. It must have started to operate only decades earlier, as the increase before 1959 is not very large. Thus it must have been dormant over long periods and then uniformly strong over 50 years – very similarly with the human influence. There is no evidence that volcanic activity would fit the requirements. On the contrary the required change in volcanic activity is such that I consider it very likely that it can be excluded. Some major changes in oceanic circulation might also have a large effect, but that doesn’t fit well with all other present knowledge. (The isotope ratios would also be a problem for both explanations.)
It’s even more difficult to imagine, what would be the natural reaction to the change in the CO2 concentration that could absorb surplus CO2 from the atmosphere at the sum rate of half of the human contribution and a larger natural contribution. There is uncertainty in the knowledge on transfer to oceans and in the reaction of the biosphere, but not nearly at the scale required for this.
All major alternative scenarios have their signatures in the isotope ratios. While there are alternative explanations for the ratios over shorter periods, I remain very doubtful on the possibility of fitting the history of the isotope ratios to any alternative theory that includes the large changes in natural fluxes that are required to make human influence less than dominant factor. Of course I haven’t read what Salby can propose, but until I see something that explains the whole issue and not just a small corner of it, I have strong trust that the present main stream explanation is correct within the commonly stated limits of accuracy of order of 30% of the increase in the atmospheric increase of CO2.
Pekka – In regard to some of the exchanges of comments, I’ve tried to see this in terms not of a balance of mass but of partial pressures. At the risk of oversimplifying, I’ll condense to the problem into a single reservoir, the upper ocean, in [quasi]equilibrium with the atmosphere, so that the partial pressure of CO2, pCO2, is equal in each compartment. If we now add anthropogenic CO2, atmospheric pCO2 rises and CO2 begins a net flux into the ocean until the fall in atmospheric pCO2 and the rise in ocean pCO2 put them once more into balance. At what level does this happen? It turns out to be when the excess atmospheric CO2 has dropped to about half the amount that was added, leaving the other half as an increase in the atmospheric concentration.
If we begin out of equilibrium, with a net natural flux outward of whatever magnitude and for whatever reason (as Salby might suggest), that means that ocean pCO2 exceeds that of the air. If we add anthropogenic CO2 in this scenario, it now has less of a pCO2 gradient for flow into the ocean, and so the concentration of excess CO2 should decline by even less than half, leaving an even larger fraction in the atmosphere. I find it hard to visualize a plausible scenario whereby the climate is naturally tending to shift CO2 from ocean to air, but adding CO2 to the air will cause all the excess concentration from the added CO2 to disappear into the ocean.
Of course, if we traced individual molecules under any of these scenarios, we would find that almost all the “anthropogenic” molecules disappeared into the ocean. It’s the concentration that doesn’t disappear, because the molecules that left the atmosphere are replaced (partially) by others coming out of the ocean.
Thinking of this in terms of the partial pressure of CO2 may be helpful in gaining an accurate perspective.
Fred,
If the single reservoir is MUCH bigger than the atmosphere, the concentration will disappear. There’s your plausible scenario.
Edim – When air pCO2 rises, it pushes CO2 into the reservoir until the reservoir pCO2 rises to restore a balance. At that point it stops. With our current atmospheric and oceanic compartments, that point is reached when about half the excess concentration has disappeared and half is left. The size of the reservoirs are relevant in the sense that a 50% decline in atmospheric CO2 is matched by only a very small percentage increase in ocean CO2 for the pCO2 balance to be reached.
If the chemistry of the CO2/carbonate/bicarbonate system and its water solubility were different, the result might be different, but with the given chemistry, a 50% atmospheric concentration decline is what happens.
The problem with this scenario is that the dynamics are extremely low bandwidth and, again, you have the problem of reconciling a presumably historically well-behaved, regulated level with a low bandwidth response.
I would suggest to you that your observability of all that is going on is incomplete, and your faith that you have all processes modeled overweening.
I see this kind of thing all the time in our labs. You start with a model for your component, you have confidence that you have included all possible effects, but when you get the actual data, you find there are dynamics you had not counted on, and significant departures between model and reality.
Nature, as they say, is pernicious. Without strong observability and testing conducted over many trials at identical conditions, it is impossible to verify models to any level of confidence. Just because you and a couple of other guys think a mechanism operates in a specific way does not validate your model for it.
An example: The makers of the Hubble Space Telescope optics thought they had every process modeled, so much so that they were able to lowball the competition by nixing the final end-to-end testing. They were wrong, and a costly debacle ensued.
Another example: The Explorer I satellite was expected to be spin stabilized about its minor axis, but the designers’ model for the equilibrium state did not take account of destabilizing torques which arise from dissipation of energy. As a result, the spacecraft ended up in a “flat spin” about its major axis, severely hampering the mission.
I could dig up volumes of similar hubris leading to failure and even disaster. When so much is riding on the line, a certain humility in our capacity for omniscience is strongly advised.
Probably too late on this thread, but here goes. I agree that the anthropogenic “explanation” for the rising CO2 level is by far the simplest and most plausible. The problem is not the mass-balance argument itself, but the rhetorical interpretation of it.
To say that humans are “100% responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2,” as has occurred numerous times on this thread, is misleading. What they really mean is that if the human input were lower then the atmospheric level would be lower (in fact the simple mass-balance argument seems to suggest that CO2 would decline if human emissions were zeroed). But it is equally true that the atmospheric level would be lower if natural sources outgassed less CO2. Or if the sinks took up more. Thus, we could say that volcanic emissions are 100% responsible for the increasing CO2 level, since their gross contribution greatly exceeds the net increase in CO2, exactly the same mass-balance argument advanced to pin the tail on human emissions.
So the real question is not an arbitrary partitioning of atmospheric CO2 by source, but the policy/system control question about what happens if we push on different levers and what the costs and benefits are. Effectively banning fossil-fuel combustion or substantially cutting it back looks hideously expensive; for a fraction of the cost (say $100B in total) it might be a lot easier to plug a volcano or sequester it’s CO2 emissions.
Plugging a volcano does not sound easy or particularly safe, but the larger problem is that CO2 emissions from volcanoes are two orders of magnitude smaller the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, so the relevant comparison is the cost of plugging all the volcanoes in the world vs cutting human emissions by 1%.
Volcano-plugging would have more entertainment value, though.
An obvious answer is that CO2 is a scarce resource and that
C4 and C3 plant have vacuumed it all up.
Thus CO2 increases could be natural wherein a 3 per cent extra
source gets countered by a new 3 per cent sink.
So any ppm movements are simply other cycles blowing in the wind.
Counter arguments would imply the ‘constant background processes’
voodoo.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions may or may not be the cause of the recent increase in atmospheric concentrations? Who cares whether it is correct?
If any sort of reasonable case can be made that the two aren’t linked, that it’s just a huge co-incidence that both have increased simultaneously, why not use it?
Surely, in the ‘culture wars’, in the effect to stave off efforts to control CO2 emissions, prevent world government via the UN, and save western capitalism, any tactic that increases doubt and uncertainty in the public’s mind is more than justified !
tt –
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions may or may not be the cause of the recent increase in atmospheric concentrations? Who cares whether it is correct?
Anybody who cares about truth, reality science and scientific integrity more than stroking their own confirmation bias.
lol tempterrain remember some folk have trouble with reading comprehension. I think you are going to have to keep it simple for the simple folk
There are two parts to the AGW argument.
1. CO2 is increasing because of Man.
2. The atmosphere is warming because CO2 is increasing.
They have in common that they have obvious explanations founded in science and measurement.
The skeptics, of course, say just because something is obvious it is not necessarily true. This is expanded to say there may be some non-obvious explanation that just makes the obvious explanation look true. Do I have it right?
Jim,
Did you listen to the presentation? What do you think about it. Do you disagree?
I have posted on it. Search for Jim D. He is as wrong now as Spencer was when he came up with the same idea 3.5 years ago. Last year WUWT had a posting by Lon Hocker on the same subject (In my post here I misremembered the WUWT thread. The title was:”A study: the temperature causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around”), and we went into his linear model a bit there. I also note that there Willis E was not impressed by Lon’s view, though we haven’t heard it here.
Jim D,
Yes, as you say, there is always a non-obvious explanation which may be possible. On balance though, it usually makes much more sense not to assume a non-obvious explanation. It might not make for such interesting TV crime shows, but in real life, if a guy is found with blood on his clothing then he’s the one who’s guilty.
When you think about it, there are many more that two sides, many more than just one or two non obvious explanations, to the denialists’ arguments. There’s:
The climate isn’t warming. Its the UHI effect. The climate is warming but its natural. Its the sun. Its cosmic rays. CO2 atmospheric concentrations aren’t effected by human emissions. Even if they are the effect is very small. Even if its not that small warming is a good thing. CO2 emissions are good. They help plants grow. etc etc.
Climate deniers will defend any, and every, possible contradictory claim, from whatever source, to undermine the case that increasing CO2 and other GH gases is a problem which needs to be addressed.
I think it is true that they sometimes concede that the data makes it look like the AGW explanation, but AGW is not necessarily the correct explanation. Some do come up with non-obvious explanations, but rarely do two skeptics even agree with each other on these threads. Salby is half way to a non-obvious explanation of what is going on, but hasn’t formulated anything anyone can understand, possibly including himself, yet.
“Climate deniers will defend any, and every, possible contradictory claim, from whatever source, to undermine the case that increasing CO2 and other GH gases is a problem which needs to be addressed.”
And, Climate fanatics will do the same in kind. Hot weather? Global Warming. Cold weather? Global Warming. Floods? Global Warming. Drought? Global Warming. The ex post facto justifications for why the predictions keep failing are, in truth, rationalizations to avoid confronting the reality: the climate establishment is flailing, and has no idea what is actually happening. They are reduced to bludgeoning insistence in public, and stroking their worry beads in private hoping that the contrary trends will make a sharp turn in their favor. I bet a good many of them are actually praying.
It’s an unhappy culture which finds itself staked to a vision of the future informed more by ignorance and true belief than by possession of the facts.
The sacrifice they are making is epic, and it is over the temperament of the weather gods. Some culture, but oh, so traditional. Something for conservatives, maybe?
=========
Friends, Trojans, jurymen, lend me your tears;
I come to bury Climate, not to praise it;
The evil that theories do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their emissions,
So let it be with Climate. The noble Scepticus
Hath told you Climate was ambiguous.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Climate answer’d it
Here, under leave of Scepticus and the rest,
For Scepticus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men –
Come I to speak in Climate’s funeral.
It was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Scepticus says it was ambiguous;
And Scepticus is an honourable man.
Standing up. Applauding. Making cat calls.
That was wonderful on a Saturday night.
We need some fun here.
John
Thanks John, it is appreciated.
Credit were credit’s due it was tempterrain’s post that cheered me up.
Alex
Yes, Alex, but beware the Tides of March.
The weather is rich in metaphor particularly of crises. Climate, weathers’s chronic dual, is a metaphor particularly for encroachments.
We view, and respond diffently to, each; and hopefully wisely to both.
We meet encroachment with scepticism and fatalism, rarely heroism, we cling and may finally abandon. This is something we do, it is reasonable if not rational and perhaps the other way around.
You must have to be young and vital to tackle the chronic issues and before familiarity sets in. Perhaps there is now too much of the desert in me, too much of the sublime.
The seas encroach unto us as does the sand. We build upon their shores and the margins. We may find beauty in both yet sense a hostility and credit them with being such as we whose actions have intent, but theirs be empty of passion.
Our migration to the margins is another metaphor about our status, outlook, and circumspection. We fish down the food web, we slide our baselines, we live in hope.
William Langewiesche wrote about the desert, and in doing so captured some or much of our relationship with the sublime. How we deal with its tribulations both critical and chronic, with our sense of destiny, and how we try to understand it. I have read but an excert, the story of Lag Lag, a man who learned somethings, failed to learn others, survived but at a cost.
I cannot know and will not know what the next forty years will bring but we are never so far from certain realities that guessing their part is difficult. We will avoid the evitable but hazard the much in the doing.
I have an appointment I must keep with the sublime but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Alex
Alex – Thank you for your eloquence. I don’t want to read too much into your comment, but I will say that we have both been traveling for a while. I will continue to look forward to your thoughts along the way.
Fred
Fred, Thanks, yes travelers.
There is not that much to read into it except to say that the sublime is no ones friend and I have a fondness for the harsh and inhospitable that renders my atitude to a changing climate ambiguous, for its increase and encroachment is at the expense of anothers domestic haven.
I note that my world view and its preferences would be many here’s worst nightmare so it is poetic that I wish to see them never come to pass.
I was imbued with love of the sublime from imbibing my father’s tales of the years he spent in the Sahara. After he passed, we went in search of it spending some months in the Namib, on occasion just us and the vistas by day and noises by night. Wonderful but the desert didn’t make house calls and we might have changed that.
Some things are certain. The meridians converge at the poles. For the South there is no retreat bar Antartica , and for the North just ever decreasing circles. There is no guarantee of a timely transition between a now wilderness and future domestication.
Future may hold a preference for the sublime and an appointment I wouldn’t recommend.
Alex
I see a lot of technical discussion here which is not central to the issue. In my view, Salby’s presentation does one thing – it attempts to defeat the isotope argument used by RealClimate and appearing in IPCC reports. While Salby’s work looks impressive to me, I will have to reserve judgment on the merits. What if the isotope argument is defeated? Does it really matter? Aren’t there other ways to show the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic?
I only note that most of the discussion (even a comment attributed to Gavin) seems to miss the main point. The people who seem to be discussing what I consider the main issue are Ferdinand Engelbeen (opposes Salby) and Richard S. Courtney (supports Salby).
I look forward to reading the paper when it is published in six months or so. Thank you, Dr. Curry, for hosting this discussion.
Ron Cram,
It depends on what you, and everyone else thinks, is really “central to the issue”. Besides Climate etc, there are so many blogs on the net all purportedly set up to discuss “climate science”. What is it about the climate which attracts such scientific curiousity?
Why are we all talking about CO2 and warming rather than, say, to take a topic at random from a recent New Scientist magazine article, ways of solving Rubik’s cube in N dimensions?
tempterrain:
You ask;
“Why are we all talking about CO2 and warming rather than, say, to take a topic at random from a recent New Scientist magazine article, ways of solving Rubik’s cube in N dimensions?”
I answer:
Probably because “ways of solving Rubik’s cube in N dimensions” is not being used as a reason/excuse/justification for altering the economic, industrial and energy policies of the entire world.
But I think you knew that.
We do not know sufficient about the carbon cycle to determine what – if any – effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration would result from altering athropogenic CO2 emissions: even the IPCC admits that. But if you read this thread you wil see closed minds shouting that they know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is caused by the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
I and others want some science applied to understanding the carbon cycle and its behaviours. AGW-advocates want to close down any investigation of the carbon cycle: their ‘faith’ demands it.
Richard
Richard S Courtney,
Your comment is incorrect about not knowing the effect of CO2 emissions reductions. Yes there is some uncertainty but not complete uncertainty. In any case, a few of years of hard data that will help reduce that.
I don’t think there is anyone saying that there should not be further investigations of the carbon cycle. All knowledge is useful. It’s just possible that the natural process could be skewed slightly to help offset anthropogenic emissions.
tempterrain:
Your comment is sureal. My comment was a response to your trivialisation of the issue which you now say say you “don’t think there is anyone saying”.
And the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is completely unknown and not merely “uncertain”.
The C2 rise ay be mostly caused by the anthropogenic emission, or the temperature rise, or several other factors. Nobody knows.
But the bulk of the evidence suggests the temperature rise is the major cause.
Richard
Only in Richard Courtney’s fantasy land, where he spends most of his time…
Gee, I agree with Richard. But then what the “bulk of the evidence” adds up to is a personal decision, not an objective fact. But then I suspect Richard and I have studied this issue more and longer than you have, Chris.
`David, I doubt your years studying philosophy will help you come to an informed decision on this scientific issue.
Your total ignorance of science makes your support more of a hindrance than a help in such disputes.
Your ill-judged claim of authority inspired me to update the following which I hope, given your humanities background, might speak to you more directly than the science you struggle to comprehend:
Robert, my field is the science of science. http://www.osti.gov/innovation/research/diffusion/PopModeling.pdf
Chris Colose:
Whatever my “fantasy land” may be, it certainly must be more pleasant than your mind on the basis of your comments on this blog.
As to my assessment of the “balance of the evidence”, I point out that this thread is about the fact that Salby – having assessed the evidence – has reached the same conclusions as I published 6 years ago.
I joined this thread because others were citing and posting my views here. And I contributed to this thread despite having withdrawn from this blog because there was a concerted effort by people – including you – who hounded me with comments of the kind I am now replying.
But in your strange mind all that is my “fantasy land”. I pity you.
In the unlikely circumstance that you have something constructive to provide then I would like to read it. Until then, I suggest you would be doing yourself a favour by not posting anything.
Richard
Richard– You have not published anything that seriously challenges the mainstream and well-known view that the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic. There are a multitude number of pieces of evidence for this, stemming from mass balance arguments, changes in isotopes, O2/N2 ratios, observed changes in carbon in other sources (acting as a sink), paleo-sensitivity studies showing that CO2 is a relatively slow and weak feedback (~10 ppm/C), etc. No one here has a better explanation for why CO2 has risen to absolute levels (or rates of rise) higher than anytime in several millions of years, and how this timed itself very coincidentally with the industrial revolution.
This was established science some 50 years ago. I am tired of people pretending that we need to engage in a circular burden of proof forever in order for “our side” to be “real science.” The literature is out there and I encourage other readers to look at these pieces of evidence for themselves, and think carefully about the implications of Salby’s analysis. Such objective analysis will reveal that Richard C’s “balance of evidence” is just made up, and is confined to a couple of individuals. The carbon cycle community has been remarkably unimpressed.
Chris Colose::
You say to me;
“You have not published anything that seriously challenges the mainstream and well-known view that the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic.”
That is a falsehood. Read this thread for reference and explanation.
Snap out of your dream world and discuss reality.
Richard
Richard,
Hang in there.
By their science of stagnation (a.k.a. so-called settled, a.k.a. so-called consensus) the IPCC centrics are falling behind a steady independent oriented advance in climate science.
Good cheer my friend.
NOTE: No problem, If they be hounding you then we might handle them by utilitizing the services of the Pavlov Institute?
John
Note Chris’s method. He first lists several well known arguments (not pieces of evidence as he claims). As though they were somehow decisive. There are of course several counter arguments to these, also well known, as well as independent arguments in favor of natural CO2 variabiliy. This is the IPCC method. He then adds an array of insults and arguments from authority. This is the Alarmist method. What he glaringly does not do is make any scientific argument, as Richard carefully does.
David, science works by piecing together different arguments (or pieces of evidence) and building them into a coherent framework with as much explanatory and predictive power as possible. As I stated, no one has suggested anything better to explain those many pieces of evidence I cited, nor has anyone convincingly explained them in combination in a better way. Quotes like “The C[O]2 rise [m]ay be mostly caused by the anthropogenic emission, or the temperature rise, or several other factors. Nobody knows. But the bulk of the evidence suggests the temperature rise is the major cause” is not one of those *real* scientific arguments.
The problem is Richard Courtney will try to sell you any product which goes against “AGW”, and you (and most people here) will happily buy it without even reading the label. If it is “not IPCC” it must be true! You are not a skeptic.
Chris,
A good definition of foolishness is to ignore good advice from your betters.
Please go re-read what Dr. Curry said and try to think about it a bit more.
No one made you hall monitor to decide who is or is not a skeptic.
Chris Colose:
Your liking for falsehoods is very telling.
Having had one refuted you have stated another; i.e.
“The problem is Richard Courtney will try to sell you any product which goes against “AGW”,
Absolutely not!
For example, during this past week I upset Nocolas Scaffeta by my strong and repeated rebuttal of the Recent Lohle and Scaffea paper. This can be clearly read by all on WUWT.
I could cite countless other examples.
Richard
Because people know what a Rubik’s cube is, but ManBearPig is half man, half bear and half pig.
Ferdinand,
The way I understand Murry’s brief presentation is that he has found that natural variations in the carbon cycle are so large that the human contribution is pretty much irrelevant.
I have the impression that he thinks that the observed changes in CO2 in the air would have happened (did happen) naturally with no human contribution needed at all.
Apparently natural internal system variations are so large that they overwhelm the human contribution.
I was interested to note that Salby refers to ‘the general circulation’. I assume he means a combination of atmospheric and oceanic circulations which, if so, would fit my work.
He also refers to an unspecified negative process that prevents runaway from more CO2 leading to even more CO2. I suspect that to be the water cycle but we shall see.
I think that with someone as unbiased and experienced as Salby there will be significant information that he has not yet disclosed but which gave him enough confidence to make this initial pronouncement.
I don’t think you can pursue your point of view until you, and we, know more about his.
I certainly don’t think you are on the right track in thinking that there is a background stability to the carbon cycle which humanity disrupts. It is looking more and more likely that the atmospheric CO2 content varies a great deal more than previously acknowledged from natural variability. I think mostly from oceanic and solar causes in varying combinations.
The ice core data is heavily suspect in terms of the amount and degree of variability of the atmospheric CO2 signal that reaches long term storage. Indeed Salby acknowledges that the ice core record simply does not make sense in light of his findings.
So forgive me for deferring judgment on the merits of your contentions and those of many others posting here.
He also refers to an unspecified negative process that prevents runaway from more CO2 leading to even more CO2. I suspect that to be the water cycle but we shall see.
This negative feedback is to temperature directly. Therefore to CO2 indirectly. The CO2 does not matter, it is not driving.
See my other post about this powerful feedback.
Stephen re “unspecified negative process”
Try long wave radiation increasing as T^4.
In the question and answer session, Dr Salby Said, “There has to be a negative feedback”
There is a powerful negative feedback. When the oceans are warm and the Arctic Sea Ice is Thawed, it snows like crazy. When the oceans are cool and the Arctic Sea Ice is Frozen, it don’t snow much.
This is the powerful feedback that has stabilized temperature for ten thousand years and this will continue for many thousand years to come.
Lolwot,
There is a school of thought that we are wasting our time talking to climate sceptics on the net.
If we can’t even convince them that 30 minus 13 does equal 17, then I do fear they may well be right.
My calculations show that 30 minus 13 is 1D.
Maybe if you guys were more careful about defining your terms and less sloppy with your math, you wouldn’t be so confused.
Are you trying to hex his decimal fixation?
64%
OK Mr Clever Clogs Bart,
If its all about the bases, which can be anything, not just 16 or 10, and if you’d ever like to buy something for $13 and only have a $20 and $10 note in your wallet, I’m sure the shop assistant would be happy to give you just $11 in change!
Judith,
I understand you are involved in climate science. I read your blog and find that your discussion of Prof. Salby’s talk is extremely shortsighted to say the least and definitely not what I as a scientist could in good conscience, write about. I too listened to his talk and heard nothing that would show me what his data actually showed. Remember the old saying “A picture is worth a thousand words”? Many of Salby’s words lacked precision and his talk was spattered with a degree of hyperbole that raised my eyebrows. Without the data there is no clear indication about what his remarks meant nor whether he knew what they meant. Then, to add insult to injury, you deferred to a journalist of all things, to put Salby’s science into a global perspective. This piece does not speak highly of your abilities at critical evaluation.
jaymucha:
You have said nothing to indicate that your opinion should be taken seriously.
jaymucha,
Your site does not tell us much about your science.
Your attitude, however, does.
jaymucha –
This comment does not speak highly of your abilities at critical evaluation.
John N-G who was at the talk raises the point that if Salby is correct with his estimate of how CO2 content reacts to global temperature, during the ice age the CO2 content would have been negative.
Even if you assume that he is correct, the response of the atmospheric concentration to temperature would have to take a decade or longer on the basis that you have to move the CO2 from the atmosphere into the sea/biosphere and that does not happen in one year. A proper model would have to average delta CO2 over a fairly long period
The flux is from the biosphere to the atmosphere or the biosphere to sedimentation – except where organics are retained on land in peat moss for instance. This can persist for a long time as a reservoir – but again respond to warmer and wetter conditions. .
If you look at the annual increase at Mauna Loa – there are substantial changes that are clearly correlated with temperature.
FYI –
Today the intriguing, sordid history of events that ended NASA’s Apollo program and produced the current Economic Crisis and Chimategate were updated (back to the April 1967 Bilderberg Conference) and renamed – “The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis.” It is available at these links:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.doc
or
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
Comments would be appreciated.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Look what happens – I go on holiday for a week,and the climate blogosphere gets very interesting again!!
This and the guardian-gate story, lots to catch up on ;)
I’m sure it has probably been said by now but the logic of using basic accounting principles to explain co2 in the atmosphere fails unless you wish to argue that co2 in the atmosphere does not increase in a warming world. It doesn’t matter why the world has warmed in order to say there is a net co2 sink without taking into account human emissions you have to be making that argument.
Scientists should be barred from using pencils and rulers at the same time. It is a huge leap to assume that a ratio of warming/atmospheric co2 must remain the same from the recent past to the height of the glacial maximum.
Yep. See Bart | August 6, 2011 at 10:09 pm | .
tempterrain | August 6, 2011 at 6:59 pm | Reply
Jim D,
Yes, as you say, there is always a non-obvious explanation which may be possible. On balance though, it usually makes much more sense not to assume a non-obvious explanation. It might not make for such interesting TV crime shows, but in real life, if a guy is found with blood on his clothing then he’s the one who’s guilty.
So the Paramedic did the murder?
I will go with Dr. Murry Salby’s view that Temperature drives CO2 and that CO2 does very little to drive Temperature.
To believe that a trace of CO2 can be responsible for causing and ending the major ice ages is something this and many other engineers cannot accept.
This illustrating why you’re an engineer, not a scientist. But be of good cheer! No one cares what a janitor thinks of your engineering projects, and nobody cares what you think of the work of climate scientists.
If we have any questions about engineering we’ll come right to you.
Robert,
The problem, of course, is that many climate scientists have shown themselves to be incompetent in both logic and statistics, as well as short on integrity. The entrance of engineers, statisticians, physicists etc into the climate debate has opened the debate to new transparency and raised the level of the debate to actual discussion of the science. The one thing we have learned in recent years is that climate science is too important to leave to climate scientists.
“The problem, of course, is that many climate scientists have shown themselves to be incompetent in both logic and statistics, as well as short on integrity.”
Only according to the people waving nooses and Nazi flags, threatening to rape children and telling scientists to “go gargle razor blades.”
Those are the same people that have been caught falsifying graphs, lying on their resumes, hiding fossil fuel payoffs, and having their papers pulled for plagiarism.
I don’t think such people have a lot of credibility when they set themselves up as judges of competence and integrity, do you?
Robert
Are you a janitor?
If I have any questions about janitoring, I’ll come right to you.
Max
Always countering off facts, ad homo or whatever.
“Are you a janitor?”
Geez, would that make the way I school you on a regular basis even more embarrassing?
I could be. But then I never claimed to be, while the poster above did claim to be an engineer. Not a scientist.
Generally speaking, I don’t bring someone’s background into the conversation unless they bring it up themselves, ad I don’t talk about my background, usually. But you are of course welcome to speculate! :)
Interestingly RC sat on this one for about 48 hours before they finally let it through. The thread had well and truely moved over the page at that point. It was aimed at gavin and answered by eric who ignored my entire post and yet gave an unrelated multiline answer. I was expecting them to refute the post at least but got nothing…
86
TimTheToolMan says:
5 Aug 2011 at 7:18 PM
Gavin writes “Paleo-climate constraints demonstrate that CC feedback even on really long time scales is not more than 100 ppmv/6 deg C (i.e. 16 ppmv/deg C), and over shorter time periods (i.e. Frank et al, 2010) it is more like 10 ppmv/deg C. Salby’s sensitivity appears to be 10 times too large.”
You’re comparing a cooling phase with a warming one. There are also considerations on what life does (with CO2) during these times. Its entirely possible that large amounts of CO2 are released (and sequestered) during cooling phases.
So in a nutshell, the planet cools, life declines and releases the carbon as CO2 which is sequestered into the ocean. The planet warms and the ocean releases large amounts of CO2 which life grabs.
Hence more CO2 is potentially sequestered than your simple “look at what is in the atmosphere and assume thats what gets sequestered” point of view.
The same argument goes in reverse except in our case by emitting CO2 ourselves we’re ensuring that the earth is always in equilibrium with its Temp/Life balance/Atmospheric CO2 level. And then some probably.
Its all about thinking through the implications of CO2 levels being driven by the climate rather than the other way around. If you cant do that or aren’t willing to properly explore that, then as Salby also says, you’re no longer acting like a scientist. You’ve become an advocate for AGW.
So far many people in this thread have written off this research without even having seen it!
[Response: Yup. Just as I have written off research demonstrating the non-existence of gravity, the validity of astrology, evidence that consuming plutonium is good for you, or the discovery of the fabled ‘counterEarth’ on the other side of the sun, I have not bothered to look any farther than Salby’s podcast, which provided enough information to tell me not to look further. Being a scientist means, among other things, not wasting one’s time reading every random bit of ‘research’ that pops up in the blogosphere making claims to have overturned well established facts. I could be wrong of course, but until I hear something at least vaguely believable, I’ll not be paying much attention to this one. –eric]
The reply is a veritable potpourri of logical fallacies – red herrings, hasty generalization, ad hominem, ad verecundiam… – along with a goodly measure of pompous windbaggery.
Why does anyone who replies this way think any but those already firmly on his side will be swayed? I guess he isn’t really thinking about swaying anyone, just getting his rocks off by imagining himself glowering at you, the lowly filth squelching and cowering in the mud beneath his manifestly revealed innate magnificence.
Oh, come on, Eric’s comment is genius. It’s one of the most eloquent ‘lalalalas’ I’ve ever read. Give credit where credit is due.
===============
I too would appreciate eric’s work here if only I wasn’t feeling so downtrodden ;-)
“You’re comparing a cooling phase with a warming one.”
Let’s consider for a minute what the world would look like if the carbon release/uptake had a different sensitivity for warming and cooling.
It warms a quarter of a degree. CO2 goes up by 20ppm. Then it cools by a quarter of a degree. 4ppm of carbon goes back into sinks. Net change in temperature: zero. Net gain in carbon: 16ppm. Repeat with natural temperature flux around an unchanging baseline for a few hundred years — result: Infinite carbon!
On the interwebs they call that “troll science.” Don’t be a troll. Think things through. ;)
He has a point, but he accepts too readily the published figures for current and past measurements of CO2 and of temperature. CO2 is almost exclusively measured over the ocean , provided it remains constant for a long period. All other measurements are discarded as “noise” and are not even recorded. There are hardly any measurements over land. The satellite results may partially compensate, but they are averages of the entire atmosphere and do not pick up the industrial concentrations near the ground or the diurnal variability over vegetation. We simply do not have a truly believable average for CO2 concentration or a measure of its variability.
It is usually assumed from limited information that CO2 concentrations over industrial areas are higher than the ocean values and that they are lower over vegetation. where, after all, they convert it to cellulose by day and there is an emission at night. Thus the claim that the highest concentration is over tropical forests rather than over industry seems wrong.. Is decay of past vegetation more productive than industrial combustion of fossil fuels?
Vincent Gray
Your observation that Dr. Salby:
may well be valid.
As you point out, these are fraught with great uncertainty, so that
Accepting the CO2 record at face value might be risky, but I do not believe that this basically changes his conclusion that any recent CO2 increase may not have been caused by human activity.
He has effectively falsified the C13/C12 “smoking gun” hypothesis as “proof” of human culpability and has shown a viable alternate hypothesis of climate-driven CO2 change, even if one assumes that the CO2 record is meaningful.
Max
PS As far as the geographic CO2 distribution is concerned, I do not believe that this changes Salby’s basic conclusions.
Based on the podcast he has not falsified anything of earlier thinking. It’s totally in agreement of what IPCC and other sources tell that the isotope ratio may vary as the vegetation and soil are considered the main source of variation. Solby presents at the end of the podcast also claims on longer term effects, but doesn’t offer any support for these additional claims.
If Solby has something that falsifies earlier understanding, he doesn’t tell that in the podcast.
We need to explain how warmer waters absorbing less CO2 could become less alkaline as seems to have been happening.
Less CO2 absorption should mean more alkaline oceans but they have been getting less alkaline..The answer has to be that the biosphere response lags behind the reduction in oceanic absorption rates which allows CO2 to build up in the air and the entire biosphere includes organic material in the oceans with our effect being lost in the system. The biosphere does not initially remove CO2 from the air as fast as it buids up from the reduction in oceanic absorption.
That extra CO2 then in the air feeds back into the cooler oceanic sinks to increase total oceanic CO2 despite the reduced absorption in the warmer areas. The process only stops when the oceans surfaces cool again and it all reverses. In the process of playing catchup the energised biosphere adds even more CO2 to the air from more night time transpiration from more organisms and more decay of surface material before it can be sequestered long term.
It is an ever changing balance of differential flow rates in different parts of the system with human emissions just along for the ride.
It simply isn’t conceivable that a mere 55% of human emissions, (after deducting the so called airborne fraction) offsets the entire absorption changes caused globally and naturally by warmer ocean surfaces. The human contribution as part of the total CO2 exchange is far too small yet that is what has previously been proposed and Salby has called out on the issue.
Stephen Wilde:
You say;
“It is an ever changing balance of differential flow rates in different parts of the system with human emissions just along for the ride.”
Yes. Please see my posts in this thread.
The importance of Salby publishing his analysis is that the Team will have more difficulty trashing and smearing him than me as a method to avoid considering the issues which he, too, is now publishing
Richard
Richard
Thanks Richard, I’ve been reading the debate between you and Ferdinand carefully.
I can see how Ferdinand’s explanations are having to become increasingly convoluted and less likely.
The natural world always boils down to simplicity so if one finds oneself having to work too hard then one is usually on the wrong track.
Murry wouldn’t have put his head above the parapet without a high level of confidence.
The oceans breath CO2 in and out on multicentennial timescales with the biosphere responding accordingly and the atmospheric CO2 content bouncing around between the two to a degree we never previously thought possible because it by passed the ice cores and proxies.
Interestingly the oceanic timescales tie in nicely with the length of the THC of around 1000 years and the observed levels of solar variability such as MWP to date which is also around 1000 years.
I’m tempted by the possibility that solar variability feeds temperature irregularities into the THC which then surface 1000 years later to alter the ocean surface temperatures and the level of atmospheric CO2.
The long slow mechanics of that process wipe out all other signals other than the seasonal variations that show up on the Mauna Loa record.
Thus individual cool or warm years or even runs of such years and the effects of human emissions count for nothing.
Stephen Wilde said,
“”””The oceans breath CO2 in and out on multicentennial timescales with the biosphere responding accordingly and the atmospheric CO2 content bouncing around between the two to a degree we never previously thought possible because it by passed the ice cores and proxies“”””” [JW emphasis]
————
Stephen Wilde,
I found your ‘bypassed’ expression thought provoking.
Thank you.
John
Stephen Wilde
Thanks for link to irishweather site and your article on a possible solar mechanism for climate variations.
The current lull in warming despite increase of atmospheric CO2 levels to record highs calls for an alternate explanation beside AGW, and this may well be it.
Have you tried getting JC to post these articles here or, as an alternate, getting them on WUWT?
It would be interesting to see the reactions.
Max
I sent it to Anthony Watts because he had used a more general post from me previously but he didn’t use it.
As for offerring it to JC I wasn’t confident that it had enough scientific weight for her blog with me not being a professional scientist.
Overall I’m content to wait and see how thing go in the stratosphere whilst the sun is quiet because it all hinges on that.
If the stratosphere does indeed warm when the sun is inactive and cool when the sun is active contrary to the consensus view then my hypothesis would be the only one left standing.
Stephen Wilde
You conclude:
Your conclusions may be correct, but there are some basic questions:
– How good is our knowledge that the ocean is becoming less alkaline?
– How good is our knowledge that the ocean surface is warming (it appears to have cooled since reliable ARGO measurements were installed in 2003)?
– How good is our atmospheric CO2 record (see above post by Vincent Gray)?
Salby has proposed an alternate hypothesis for increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations (assuming the CO2 record is meaningful) and has effectively falsified the “C12/C13 smoking gun” hypothesis as “proof” of human cause (assuming the C12/C13 data are meaningful).
But there is still far too much uncertainty in the numbers IMO.
Max
We need to explain how warmer waters absorbing less CO2 could become less alkaline as seems to have been happening… Less CO2 absorption should mean more alkaline oceans but they have been getting less alkaline.
Stephen – I haven’t engaged extensively in all the back and forth arguments about climate and CO2 in this thread, but simply described my own analyses of mechanisms underlying rising CO2, which I conclude is predominantly anthropogenic. If you wish, you can review those comments in the two carbon cycle threads to make your own judgment. I don’t consider it my obligation to try to correct everyone else’s mistakes, even if I presumed myself qualified to do that, which I don’t.
My reason for intervening here is that I think you have a misconception about alkalinity that you might wish to correct. As CO2 rises, some enters the oceans and through basic chemical equilibrium reactions involving the dissociation of its hydrated form, carbonic acid to release hydrogen ions, lowers the pH of the water (i.e., raises the hydrogen ion concentration). The ocean acidity therefore increases, and this has been measured by a variety of techniques, some indirect, but with modern methods also including direct pH measurements.
Now here comes a confusing bit of terminology. The increased CO2 has also increased (not reduced) total ocean alkalinity (TA). That is because TA is not defined as the opposite of acidity but rather as the sum of all ion species capable of buffering acid by combining with hydrogen ions. The major contributors to TA are the concentration of bicarbonate (HCO3-), twice the concentration of carbonate (CO3 – – ) because it is doubly ionized, OH-, and a few more. CO2 of course adds to the carbonate and bicarbonate concentrations, and in fact most of the CO2 ends up as bicarbonate, a bit as carbonate, and only a tiny fraction as unionized carbonic acid or dissolved CO2 gas.
In essence, CO2 increases both ocean acidity and ocean total alkalinity. If you want to specify that it makes the oceans less basic, you might say that it reduces basicity, but when you read about alkalinity, you are encountering a different concept.
Fred Moolten
We first need to answer the basic questions i raised to Stephen:
Until we have definitive answers to these questions, we are simply hypothesizing.
Max
Not at all good on any of those parameters, Max.
However we do have some impressions of general trends that we can work from but I won’t list them all now. Suffice it to say that it is the surface pressure distribution that is the visible manifestation of the current status of the global energy budget because it shifts to regulate the energy flow from surface to space.
My interest is primarily in discerning the current direction of trend in climate and being able to call it when a change in trend begins. On that basis I called a change in trend around 2000.
My secondary interest is in ascertaing a conceptual overview of all the disparate processes that can account for the observations that indicate the current trend.
If anyone has the time or inclination I take a couple of stabs at it here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
for the top down solar effect and here:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/environment/wilde-weather/setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%e2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/18931.html
for the bottom up oceanic effect.
If Murry Salby is right then that would be an essential step forward in support of my broad contentions.
Fred,
Additional CO2 doesn’t change the alkalinity to either direction, but leaves it unmodified. It leads to changes in various components of the alkalinity, but these changes cancel each other. More specifically the additional contribution of HCO3- and CO3- – is canceled by the changes in H+ and OH-.
Pekka – You are right, of course, at least when only the aqueous phase is considered. CO2 changes the carbonate and bicarbonate components, which was what I should have said, but because negative and positive charges must balance, adding a neutral substance that ionizes can’t unbalance them. On the other hand, the aqueous phase also interacts with a small but important oceanic component, solid CaCO3, so that as pH declines, this ionizes to add to the carbonate and bicarbonate (negative) components of TA without a compensating change in other components of the balance. When this is added in, TA increases.
To be more precise, a net effect of the increased CO2 is to increase bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ion, and the effect of interaction with CaCO3 is that the carbonate ions released from CaCO3 partially compensate for a conversion of dissolved carbonate to bicarbonate. A final result of the acidification process is therefore an increase in bicarbonate at the expense of a reduction in carbonate concentration.
John, thanks but I’m not sure whether that was ironic. I would perhaps have been better saying that the ice cores and other proxies failed to register those changes in a way that would have alerted us to the potential for such changes.
Stephen Wilde,
I was not being ironic. Sorry I did not express myself more clearly.
I took “\’bypassed’ as you have just expressed.
Thank you for your many contributions over the long haul . . . I find them helpful in the ongoing dialog.
John
Appreciated John,
It is difficult to know how one’s contribution goes down when there are so many here who know more maths and physics than me.
However I think I can stand above the fray and try to impose a conceptual overview that makes sense.
Neither numeracy nor literacy alone or together will be the key, though helpful; intuition alone is the best guide at present.
=============
kim
call it (not always so) “common sense”.
Max
Kim,
Or . . .
Captain Jean-Luc Picard to Wesley Crusher:
“”””Takes more [than graduating from Starfleet Academy and becoming a Starship Captain]. Open your mind to the past – art, history, philosophy. And all this [gesturing at the Enterprise and implicitly to the stars] may mean something.””””
John
That’s nice. I’ll keep plugging on then.
The points in this thread have filled in quite a few issues and it seems to be narrowing down to the relative scales of the CO2 exchanges between the natural sinks/sources of CO2 in oceans, biosphere and soil moisture on the one hand and the human influence on the the system on the other hand. Bear in mind that the natural reservoirs can switch from sink to source and back again as required so as to keep the system stable subject perhaps to long term trends in one direction and then another.
Salby seems to be quite sure that the natural exchanges are so large that the human effect gets washed away and that looks likely to me.
The rest of the debate is just fluff.but interesting nonetheless because the implications of that conclusion as regards climate are very profound.and lead back to my stuff elsewhere about the top down solar effects and bottom up oceanic effects on the surface pressure distribution and the shifting to and fro of the climate zones.
If Salby can resolve this issue about the lack of significance of the human contribution then we can forget AGW and move towards the truth about climate changes undistracted and unobstructed.
A pity if we lost over 20 years research and billions of dollars because of a phantom
Stephen –
A pity if we lost over 20 years research and billions of dollars because of a phantom
Actually, that kind of loss is part of the process of “science”. Although never before has the cost of the phantom been so high – or the proposed resolutions of the phantom (CAGW in this case) been so potentially destructive to human society and well-being.
I’ll second that.
Only belief in Keynesian (central planning) economics has done more harm to date. This is aside but likely related to past war maddness.
Thank you Fred, that’s something I’d never heard before and I will adapt accordingly.
You’re welcome, Stephen. Also see Pekka Pirila’s response to my comment and my responses to his response. As he points out, TA wouldn’t change simply as a result of adding CO2 to ocean water itself, because positive and negative ions balance. TA actually does increase slightly, but this is because some solid calcium carbonate dissolves under the more acid conditions to yield carbonate ions that then enter into the carbonate/bicarbonate balance. Because some of this is confusing in the absence of the chemical symbols, you might want to look at Alkalinity for a clearer picture.
Fred Moolten
The Wiki link to “Alkalinity” is useful.
It points out that no matter how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere we will not cause “acidification” of the ocean.
But this should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry, in view of the vast quantity of CO2 locked up in the ocean as carbonate/bicarbonate compared with the relatively small amount in the atmosphere and the almost infinitesimal (by comparison) amount emitted by human activity.
Max
Max,
Your interpretation is not fully correct.
It’s true that additional CO2 cannot remove the buffering capacity of sea water, which is characterized by the alkalinity, although this way of characterizing the buffering capacity is a simplification of full chemistry.
It’s, however, not true that maintaining buffering capacity would fully prevent acidification as acidification is not the opposite of alkalinity according to the commonly used definitions of the words. Adding CO2 does decrease pH and thus id does cause acidification. Carbonic acid is a weak acid and the buffering capacity remains strong. Therefore the change in pH is not large, but it may still be significant. It does affect strongly the CO3- – concentration and through that the carbonate chemistry of living organisms.
The uncertainties on it’s significance seem to be large, but there is certainly evidence that it can affect marine life. Some forms of marine life are certainly affected, but life is adaptive and that helps, but how far? This is one area, where the scientific publications are often written in a way that appears to give justification for thinking that they are biased. The scientists are doing a disservice for their matter, when they cannot avoid writing concluding statements that are not fully supported by the content of their paper.
Regarding the impact of additional atmospheric CO2 on our oceans–wouldn’t it be accurate to state that while we really do not fully understand the long term impact, it is clear that humans are negatively impacting the world’s oceans by pollution in many ways and that AGW is not the most serious concern to the health of the world’s oceans.
Max – One of the reasons the significance of the acidifying (pH reducing) properties of rising CO2 is sometimes underestimated is that pH is logarithmic, and so a small numerical reduction represents a substantial increase in acidity. If emission rates of recent decades continue or accelerate, it is likely that hydrogen ion concentration will increase by at least 50% by the end of the century, and might double within the succeeding century, with a concomitantly large reduction in ocean carbonate concentration – see Fig. 1b in Ocean Acidification. As Pekka points out, there is considerable uncertainty associated with the magnitude of projections, but paleoclimatologic data indicate that they are likely to be sufficient to impair the calcification processes essential for the integrity of many marine species involved in the food chain, and thus of concern to us to the extent that our civilization is linked to the welfare of ocean biology…
Fred
Logarithmic or not, one should not overlook the massive differences between the puny amount of CO2 emitted by humans (or even the relatively tiny amount of total carbon contained in all fossil fuels on this planet) as compared with the gigantic carbon sink contained in the carbonate/bicarbonate of the ocean.
As we are seeing from the futile attempts being discussed by misguided politicians, man is not able to make a perceptible change to our planet’s global climate no matter how much money we throw at it.
How in the world will we be able to make any perceptible changes in our oceans’ overall chemistry?
(We can’t.)
Max
The mathematics answer your question, Max. If you look at the figure I mentioned, you will see one example. Observational data and paleoclimatologic records confirm the significant changes in pH and carbonate that come from increased CO2 as a consequence of the equilibria among CO2, H2CO3, HCO3-, and CO3 – -. If you object to the calculations, you should do your own, using the known constants, and provide a quantitative solution with exact numbers that you believe differs from what the chemistry appears to tell us.
Fred
To the study on “ocean acidification”, which you cited:
”Evil twin”…”insiduous consequence”. How scientific!
”it will be hard to quantify”. Indeed!
“suggests that ocean acidification could represent…[a] threat” Rather wishy-washy, IMO.
How do we know that the “missing” 50% is ”taken up by the oceans”? We don’t, because we cannot measure this small difference between the much larger natural cycles of CO2. As Professor Murry Salby has postulated, we do not even know that humans have caused this increase in atmospheric CO2.
Then we have charts showing model simulations of increased ”ocean acidification” followed by statements on the impact on marine life of these hypothetical changes:
Sounds very conjectural to me, especially since it is all based on model simulations.
The ” evidence of ocean acidification from instrumental time series” seems the weakest part of the argument, with just a few scattered spot records cited. Then there is the question of large natural temporal variability.
Then come the subjective interpretations of dicey paleoclimate data from cherry-picked periods in our geological past.
The authors do not mention that the estimated CO2/CH4 release that led to the PETM was several orders of magnitude greater than all the carbon in all the combined fossil fuel reserves of our planet today, yet the authors state:
So much for ”model simulations”.
My advice: don’t take this study too seriously, Fred.
Max
Your conclusions have been refuted in the several past threads addressing ocean acidification. Unless you have new evidence, I’m not sure there is much value in repeating the old material here, but if you want to review the previous threads, you’ll find a multitude of references on the topic (I believe I posted about six and other readers also contributed) – not merely the one cited here. It’s true that the quantitation can’t be considered exact, but it’s a good approximation, and the principles underlying ocean acidification as well as observational data on effects on marine organisms have been covered extensively.
Fred–it is also true is it not that you have acknowledged that the issue of “ocean harm” due to CO2 is a lower concern than is other ocean human ocean pollution?
Rob – That’s not quite accurate. What I concluded is that in the vicinity of human habitation (e.g., occupied coral atolls), other human excesses are currently a source of greater harm than ocean acidification (or heat stress, which is as a separate issue). Over time, though, and averaged over the entire ocean, I see this as likely to change as CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere, and ocean pH continue to decline.
It is also true that the threats synergize. For example, corals can tolerate a much greater pH reduction if they are well nourished and protected from other natural or human stresses than if exposed to harmful influences in the wild. This is a reason to work concurrently on reducing all the different threats.
I should add that I’ve suggested to Dr. Curry that it would be informative to have an expert guest post on ocean acidification, given its potential implications for marine biology as CO2 continues to rise. That would obviate any need to repeat past citations and would add some useful outsider expertise to the topic. At this point, she has no takers, but I’m hopeful that might change as the subject comes increasingly to public attention.
It would be an interesting topic. The more I read on the topic the less I I consider it as potentially valid concern about the oceans. If I rank my concerns about what humans are doing to the oceans it is pretty low on the list
Fred and Rob,
From the little I know from presentations by Marine Biologists, acidification is just an aspect of more general concerns. I will say that some of them do manage to temper a real sense of gloom and doom with optimism. This may be because some of the issues are critical and we seem to cope better with those than the chronic.
Some of the science is perhaps best described as tentative. the oceans are big and mostly remote and there are large gaps in our understanding.
The effects classified as “acidification” encompass an array of issues concerning relative concentrations of various ionic compounds that are dynamically controlled by marine life using regulatory pumps etc.. How these will be affected and what impact that will have on vertebrates as well as invertebrates is not sufficiently studied, an opinion based on a feeling that we ought to know such things and we don’t.
To get a feel for the wider issues, video presentations by Daniel Pauly and other active scientists are a source. There are issues that do need addressing or at least understanding.
One such instance is the potential for the serendipitous deregulation of perhaps the world’s largest protected marine area, the Artic Ocean. I am not saying that this implies a disaster in the making but it does need thinking about.
Alex
Fred,
You have refuted nothing in your evasive approach to asserting OA is a problem.
Your claim that there is proof of damage to marine life from present or likely future levels of CO2 is false.
You have simply ignored the rebuttals to your claims and declared victory by stint of repeating the same unproven claims over and over.
Fred,
You are becoming the Oliver Manuel of ocean acidification.
Murry Salby’s lecture material is, in essence, not new. Yet it’s power is in the delivery and the completeness of his approach. A two page summary (not connected to Murry Salby) of CO2 here: pages 1 & 2 herehttp://galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf Simple questions in the addendum may be of interest to the critical thinker.
Malcolm Roberts
Good summary of the role of human-produced CO2 as seen from an Australian viewpoint.
Professor Murry Salby’s lecture carries this two steps further in a) postulating an alternate hypothesis for natural changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and b) effectively falsifying the claim that C12/C13 isotope measurements provide “smoking gun proof” for the postulation that increased CO2 levels are being caused by human emissions.
These are important scientific additions to the information contained in your summary and (once he has published his study and it has withstood falsification attempts) they should be added to your summary.
Max
http://galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf
Lets all not forget that the political correctness has long since sided with AGW, so this stuff is so academic. Maybe some die hard tea party people who can withstand democratic and wall street condemnation.
How dear they stop our never ending constitutional right of debt accumulation.
You shall NOT DOUBT, nothing about paying in there.
Fred Moolten
I know that you have encouraged Dr. Curry to initiate a thread on this site in which “ocean acidification” (caused by human CO2 emissions) is the principal topic.
Such a thread might be interesting, but I personally think we should wait and see how Professor Salby’s forthcoming paper is received, rebutted, falsified or verified before we get side-tracked on issues that may be totally irrelevant to the AGW discussion.
But that is just my personal opinion.
Max
Max,
I didn’t listen carefully at that point, but I think Salby told that his paper would come out in 2012. Why should we wait for something that’s likely to have a minuscule effect (if any) so long.
We have seen in recent threads so many references to earlier work on the CO2 that expecting one paper based on reanalysis of existing data to have any real influence is more or less unrealistic. If the point would be strong enough to have real influence, we would already know more about it.
Pekka Pirilä:
You say;
“If the point would be strong enough to have real influence, we would already know more about it.”
We do know a lot about it. Indeed, Salby’s talk indicates that his paper will contain little that is new (read this thread).
The importance of Salby’s paper is that it will prove much more difficult for the Team to continue to ignore the issues when they are presented by somebody with Salby’s stature in the field.
I suspect the ‘defence’ will be to claim Salby is “merely a climatologist” so is not an expert in the carbon cycle.
Richard
Richard,
So far I haven’t seen evidence that any significant issue has been badly overlooked. No serious paper claims that there would not be much more to learn about the carbon cycle. That’s explicit in the large uncertainty ranges and for example in the discussion of the residual term of Fig. 2e of the Le Quéré et al paper. It’s also explicitly stated in AR4 report.
Salby may contribute something relevant on these issues, but that remains to be seen.
There’s no obvious basis to expect anything that would contradict significantly the present understanding.
Pekka Pirilä:
You say;
“So far I haven’t seen evidence that any significant issue has been badly overlooked.”
As you know, we strongly disagree. There are several such issues.
For example, I have repeatedly raised one such issue on the other thread and it has not been addressed on this blog or anywhere else other than in one of our papers. It is met with refusal by others to address it.
I copy it here to save others the need of trying to find it.
“I wrote:
“At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural short-term sequestration processes can cope easily with the human production of CO2.”
I repeated it and asked:
“Do you dispute that, and if so how and in what way?
If you do not dispute that, then why is only about half (n.b. not all) of the anthropogenic CO2 emission sequestered in an average year?
” etc.
Richard
Richard,
I have answered that question specifically today. I didn’t do that earlier, because I thought that several of my related comments did already contain the answer, but as said, the explicit answer is somewhere in the other related thread.
That point is part of what I consider to be details within the range of earlier knowledge and without obvious significance to the main conclusions.
Pekka Pirilä:
You say to me:
“I have answered that question specifically today.”
OK, but I have searched both threads and have failed to find your answer to that question. Please copy it here.
Richard
“…why is only about half (n.b. not all) of the anthropogenic CO2 emission sequestered in an average year?”
The modelers answer to that is that it is not actually “sequestered”, but rather partitioned approximately equally between the oceans and the atmosphere. Some sequestration is occurring, but it is assumed to be at low enough rate that the combined atmospheric-ocean reservoir is effectively a naked integrator (no feedback loops around it) over centuries of time.
The problem with this assumption is that, without any external driver, due to random inputs and outputs, the atmospheric concentration would then effectively vary as a random walk, with the dispersion increasing as the square root of time. If the ice core measurements are taken as incontrovertible, then the record of centuries of very narrow variation is in conflict with the low sequestration rate hypothesis.
Bart,
I’m sure that you are fully aware of the following (assuming that the dominance of human influence is accepted), but I continue on your argument.
It’s misleading to say that about half of the human contribution is sequestered on average year. We have two simultaneous and almost independent processes on the annual level:
1. The addition from human sources (assumed here as the only source)
2. Uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by other reservoirs determined by the history of several decades and affected only little by the emissions of the year in question.
But, the rate of that uptake in #2, and how much it depends on the ambient atmospheric concentration, is precisely what I am questioning, because the slow rate/low dependence assumption is in conflict with the widely observed properties of low bandwidth systems, which are driven by stochastic inputs, compared to the ice core measurements.
Bart and Pekka
The question concerning the ”missing CO2” remains a mystery, if we believe that human CO2 emissions have been the primary cause for increased atmospheric CO2 levels. [Of course, if it turns out that the postulation by Professor Murry Salby is correct, then the anthropogenic cause for increased CO2 levels has been put into serious question.]
But let’s assume that the mainstream view on this is correct.
On a year-to-year basis there is absolutely no correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels: the amount of human CO2 “staying” in the atmosphere swings between 15 and 88 percent of that emitted by humans, with a multi-year average of just under 50%.
So where is the “missing” CO2 going?
No one really knows.
Some hypothesize that the ocean is absorbing most of it and it is being buffered by the carbonate/bicarbonate cycle there.
Others believe that much of it may be converted by increased photosynthesis, both from terrestrial plants and marine phytoplankton.
Since photosynthesis absorbs around 15 times as much CO2 as is emitted by humans, once can see that a slight increase in photosynthesis resulting from higher concentrations could well absorb a significant portion of the human emission.
Tom Segalstad has compiled several independent estimates of the short-term residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, arriving at an average lifetime of around 5 to 7 years.
IPCC in their first assessment report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]
Table 1 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report says that the CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere before being removed is somewhere between 5 and 200 years with the footnote:
In actual fact, no one knows what the residence time of CO2 in our climate system really is, because there are no empirical measurements to substantiate this.
As I recall, you (Pekka) had also mentioned the exchange rate between the upper ocean and the immense CO2 reservoir of the deep ocean.
In an earlier exchange with Fred Moolten I pointed out that Zeke Hausfather had presented data at a Yale climate forum pointing to a long-term half-life of CO2 in the climate system of 100 to 120 years, even with unfavorable feedbacks.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1210_ZHfig5.jpg
Fred had cited a model-based study by David Archer et al., which points to pretty much the same conclusion as reached by the ZH data, also pointing out that the CO2 lifetime has a long “tail”.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf
At a half-life of 120 years, this would represent an annual decay rate of 0.58% of the concentration or around 2.3 ppmv per year, which happens (by coincidence?) to be equal to the amount of “missing” CO2 today on a multi-year basis.
So this raises the basic question, which is as yet unanswered: is the “missing CO2” disappearing from the climate system and, if so, where is it going?
Irrespective of the Salby postulation (which, if validated, would make this a rhetorical question), I believe we are unable to answer this question today, despite several alternate hypotheses.
Max
Max,
You are certainly right in stating that the interannual variations are not well understood. This is expressed clearly in the last chapter of the Le Quéré et al paper:
There is certainly much to learn in all of this, but it’s not likely to make a major effect on the understanding of the changes on multidecadal level. The role of land use modifications on the CO2 could, however, be clarified significantly, and so could some second order feedbacks (by second order feedbacks I mean nonlinearities in the feedbacks).
Additional understanding of the long tails of the response might be even more important for climate policy conclusions, although I have also other strong doubts on the meaningfulness of very long term considerations.
This discussion may interest you, Pekka.
“On a year-to-year basis there is absolutely no correlation between human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels: the amount of human CO2 “staying” in the atmosphere swings between 15 and 88 percent of that emitted by humans, with a multi-year average of just under 50%.”
If Salby’s postulation is correct, then the amount of human CO2 “staying” in the atmosphere should correlate with temperature. In colder years (or decades) more CO2 shoud be removed from the atmosphere (95%) and in warmer less (12%), if human CO2 staying in the atmosphere swings between 15 and 88 percent. What is the source for this (15% – 88%)?
There is no strong direct relationship between the human caused emissions of a single year and the uptake from the atmosphere during the same year. It’s just an empirical observation that the net change has always been positive. It could equally well be sometimes negative as the uptake is a function of the cumulative deviation from the “equilibrium” value (I use quotes, because the related state may not be strictly an equilibrium). This cumulative deviation depends on much longer history than the specific year alone.
It’s not clear, whether Salby’s ideas deviate from the earlier main stream views on this point at all. Where his views appear to deviate is on the cumulative influence of the natural variations over periods of more than 5 years. Salby seems to think that the natural variations do not average to essentially zero but their influence grows essentially linearly in time to keep pace with the human contribution. The main stream view is that the cumulative influence of non-feedback natural processes is small in comparison with the human influence.
Why should there be direct relationship between human emissions and the removal from the atmosphere? Temperature has to be taken into account as well.
I still think that the best analogy for Salby’s “hypothesis” is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are like anthropogenic H2O emissions – only the removal is maybe a bit slower, but still pretty fast. There’s no time to accumulate. In a way, CO2 is “condensable” too, according to Salby. Temperature drives CO2 concentration. Any anthropogenic input is removed in order to restore the “equilibrium”, which is determined by climatic factors (temperature).
Temperature has certainly some influence, that’s a part of the positive feedback that strengthens the global warming. Fortunately the balance of CO2 content in the ocean and in the atmosphere is not very sensitive to the temperature. Without the effect of the higher temperature, the uptake from the atmosphere to the oceans would have been somewhat stronger and the atmospheric CO2 concentration a few ppm lower, perhaps even 10 ppm lower.
(Here I exclude the influence of the temperature on the biosphere and soil, where the initial effect may be in the opposite direction, i.e. more growth may have influenced the balance more than more releases from soil.)
Pekka,
Salby says temperature drives the bus and CO2 sits in the back of the bus. If you want to consider his hypothesis, you have to consider it as a whole. You can’t take just the parts you like and take the other parts from the CO2GW hypothesis.
The chemistry is known, Salby cannot change that, and I cannot agree with anything that is in contradiction with known physics or chemistry.
There may be more complex processes that circumvent the limitation of chemistry, but that must be presented before I can consider that. Even then the chemistry will do its part.
“…that’s a part of the positive feedback that strengthens the global warming.”
Past of the hypothesized positive feedback. There are compelling indications that the overall feedback is, at worst, neutral, and quite possibly negative, because of the role of clouds.
“Salby seems to think that the natural variations do not average to essentially zero but their influence grows essentially linearly in time to keep pace with the human contribution.”
That’s not how I understand it. Salby seems to think that natural variations average to essentially the amount needed to restore the “equilibrium”, not to zero. Natural variations do not keep pace with the human contribution – they keep pace with the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
There are two types of natural processes.
One type is the one that cancels part of the change (increase) in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, whatever the origin of this change. This part is determined by the difference between the actual concentration and the “equilibrium” concentration and by the effectiveness of the processes that try to bring the concentration back to “equilibrium”. Everyone agrees that these natural processes exist, but there are different views on the effectiveness of the processes and thus on the persistence of the deviations.
The other type of natural processes consists of everything that’s not of the type described above. The main stream view is that these other natural processes do not lead to large cumulative influence over periods of more than 5 years. They are strong on the annual level and they vary quite strongly from year to year, but main stream view is that they average to a small influence in comparison with the human one. Salby may not agree on this averaging out. That’s where his view appears to differ. To be consistent with observations that requires also that the effectiveness of the processes of the previous paragraph are different from what the main stream thinking indicates.
Edim
You raise a good point with your question.
To my statement:
you asked:
First, the 15% and 88% figures were calculated as follows:
Estimate total human CO2 emissions for each year based on published values from fossil fuels, cement production and deforestation.
Take yearly change in atmospheric CO2 concentration for each year based on the Mauna Loa record.
Convert change in atmospheric concentration to billions of tons of CO2 (GtCO2). [Mass of atmosphere ~ 5,140,000 Gt and CO2 is assumed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, as IPCC postulates.]
Compare GtCO2 change in atmosphere with total GtCO2 emitted by humans.
Doing this on a year-to-year basis shows NO apparent correlation with the absolute “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (i.e. HadCRUT3), but does show a weak correlation with the CHANGE in temperature from the previous year, for example:
The years with highest correlation between the amount emitted by humans and the increase in the atmosphere were those, which had warmed compared to the previous year:
Year dTemp Correlation
1988 +0.162C 88%
1983 +0.179C 80%
1987 +0.145C 76%
2002 +0.055C 70%
2005 +0.047C 62%
The years with lowest correlation between the amount emitted by humans and the increase in the atmosphere were those, which had cooled compared to the previous year:
Year dTemp Correlation
1992 –0.142C 15%
1982 –0.122C 26%
1989 –0.067C 39%
1991 –0.051C 31%
This would tend to show that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels are more closely correlated with changes in atmospheric temperature than with human emission levels, but it would certainly take a more detailed analysis to come up with anything conclusive.
Hope this helps. If you like I can post the spreadsheet I used, but the calculation is pretty simple.
Max
I simply drew a graph of the yearly change in concentration from the MLR. It looks amazingly similar to the UAH global temperature graph.
I have read this with interest Manacker. One of my chief frustrations with the whole topic is how partial information, and extrapolated conjectures from it, are treated as Holy Writ, not to be questioned, and ironclad proof of the “mainstream” narrative.
Yeah, Bart. I agree with you.
And the post-1980 data I have looked at seem to show that atmospheric CO2 changes are more closely tied with changes in global temperature than simply to human emissions (see above post to Edim).
I’m looking forward to seeing Professor Salby’s complete paper.
AGW disciples are shrugging it off so far and sticking with the mainstream party line that humans are the sole source for added atmospheric CO2, but Salby’s study could present a serious challenge, which appears, at least, to be confirmed by the primitive post-1980 analysis I’ve made.
Max
Bart:
You say:
“One of my chief frustrations with the whole topic is how partial information, and extrapolated conjectures from it, are treated as Holy Writ, not to be questioned, and ironclad proof of the “mainstream” narrative.”
Yes, but there are very many precedents for this. For example, I suggest you refer to the history of how the phlogistonists responded to the oxidation theory of combustion. Some of them took their belief in phlogiston to the grave decades later.
In this and the other thread I have repeatedly pointed out that the observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.
This is direct empirical evidence that the system is not being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air.
There are other problems, too, but this observation of the dynamics of the seasonal variation is a clear empirical disproof of the “mainstream” narrative.”
One could exect great interest in such a clear empirical disproof, but – on the contrary – what we see is behaviour such as that demonstrated here by Pekka Pirilla: i.e. to pretend the problem does not exist or has been answered in some unspecified place.
Richard
You’re in excellent company. Freeman Dyson has long pointed to the diurnal and seasonal swings as existence proof of the ability of the biosphere to absorb much larger variations in CO2 levels than are “projected” from human activity. The latter are de facto trivial “noise” in the system.
“…or has been answered in some unspecified place.”
Or, they point you to a place where it has been “answered”, but either the reference does not say what they claim it says, or the reasoning is faulty, or the standard of proof is set absurdly low.
“n this and the other thread I have repeatedly pointed out that the observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.
This is direct empirical evidence that the system is not being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air.”
Agree 100%.
When we look at short term variations, it’s often easiest to study the rates of the processes. When we extend the study to longer term changes that doesn’t work, because we cannot determine the rates even nearly accurately enough. That’s particularly true, when the trends are intermixed wit strong seasonal variations as they are in case of CO2.
For longer term trends we get better knowledge from the study of reservoirs. We may study, what have been the most likely changes in the amount of CO2 in various reservoirs. We know very precisely, what has happened for the atmosphere over the last 50 years. We know at a useful level, what has happened to the surface ocean as the relationship between the pH value, carbon content and temperature is well known (the determination is not very accurate, but still quite satisfactory). We know reasonably well the major changes in land use. There is less direct knowledge on changes in soil, but limits can certainly be put on that as well.
With all the above knowledge we can put limits on, what the natural processes may have caused and how likely we feel that certain trends have persisted. We know also the results on isotope ratios and they help very much in limiting the range of possible histories. Putting all this diverse evidence together is more complex than describing a single factor at the time, and inventing all kind of counterarguments that fail at some other point, which is not checked. The standard skeptic’s approach is to look at one point at the time and to claim that the science doesn’t know more than one can learn by that approach. That’s of course totally false. The real evidence is obtained, when all pieces are studied simultaneously and when it’s required that no firm evidence is contradicted.
The combined evidence shows very strongly that the dominance of the human influence is the only plausible explanation. At the same time there remain major gaps in the understanding of the carbon cycle, but they are not so crucial that they would make this principal conclusion questionable.
Pekka Pirilä:
Thankyou for giving what you think to be an answer to my point.
Unfortunately, your response is a non sequitor.
The issue is :
Why do short-term sequestration processes not sequester all of the total natural and anthropogenic emision each year when the dynamics of the system clearly indicate that they can?
You have evaded that question.
And any consideration of “longer term trends” is pure assumption unless and until that question is answered:
But you say;
“When we look at short term variations, it’s often easiest to study the rates of the processes.”
And
For longer term trends we get better knowledge from the study of reservoirs.
But those two statements are mutually contradictory in the context of the question at issue.
I said, and you have not disputed, that
“the observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.”
The fact that they don’t is the significant point. We need to determine whythey don’t.
The observed dynamics is clear empirical evidence that the system is NOT being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half of the emission fails to be sequestered each year. But – for some – reason not all the anthropogenic and natural emission is sequestered in any year.
It is nonsense to ignore that clear empirical evidence and then to assume the “longer term trends” indicate anthropogenic emission flowing between rervoirs.
And assertions about “The combined evidence” have no relevance. This one piece of empirical evidence is in direct contradiction of the assertion that part of the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air. And one clear contradiction is enough to refute a hypothesis.
Richard
Richard,
You claim that my approach is nonsense, I believe that it’s fully justified. Nothing in your arguments is valid criticism, when considered from the approach that I claim to be the best one. You just don’t accept that view.
The disagreement goes beyond the limits that can be resolved in a net discussion.
Pekka Pirilä:
You say to me:
“You claim that my approach is nonsense, I believe that it’s fully justified. Nothing in your arguments is valid criticism, when considered from the approach that I claim to be the best one. You just don’t accept that view.
The disagreement goes beyond the limits that can be resolved in a net discussion.”
Ah, the classic logical fallacy of ‘argument by assertion”.
I made clear statements of fact and a clear logical conclusion from those facts. And you do not (cannot?) provide anything that contradicts either the facts or the logic.
I explained why your assertions are mutually contradictory and, therefore, why your argument based on them is nonsense. And you do not (cannot?) provide anything that contradicts either the explanation or the resulting conclusion.
Instead, you say there is mysterious knowledge that you possess which you do ot cite, reference or explain, and which is “beyond the limits that can be resolved in a net discussion.”
Simply, you are saying that we should accept your unjustified assertions because you are a climate scientist. Well, I see no reason why anybody should accept that when the evidence I have presented says your mysterious knowledge must be plain wrong.
Richard
Ouch! Of course
“…which you do ot cite, reference…”
should be
“…which you do not cite, reference…”
You may accept whatever opinion you wish to accept, and so can everyone else.
I told, how I see the situation.
Pekka Pirilä:
Of course I (and anyone else) can accept any opinions I want. But I prefer to consider evidence, and if you have any evidence on this subject then I will be pleased to have it. Until then, I will stick with the evidence I have and will ignore opinions of you and anybody else.
Richard
I would also prefer simple and straightforward evidence, but I have told, why I believe that having it at a level that can be presented in net discussion is not possible.
We can tell our arguments to a point, but there’s a limit on that. Real scientific publications are the venue for the most complete discussion, when things get too complicated for net discussion.
I do sincerely hope that more working climate scientists would join the critical discussion, where also stupid comments are allowed and where the approach differs from that of RC, but I don’t expect that everything could be discussed properly on this kind of sites even with their participation.
For some reason no site that I know has been able to attract critical technical discussion of the type that I would consider most valuable for people, who have solid background knowledge, but who are not working climate scientists.
Pekka Pirilä:
Thankyou for your thoughts on who or what to trust in the climate debate.
Your argument (more properly assertion) depends on your definitions of
“people, who have solid background knowledge”
and
“not working climate scientists”.
Until those definitions are agreed then everything you say is mere words with no real meaning because they can be interpreted to mean anything.
For example, is a “working climate scientist” somebody who studies climate and has repeatedly published in the peer reviewed litrature? If so, then I am a “working climate scientist” and Chris Colose is merely somebody who has a “solid background knowledge” but he is not a “working climate scientist”.
I could provide several other possible definitions of a “working climate scientist” but none of them support your argument.
And I don’t accfept that a useful conclusion is achieved by settling on an agreed definition because I adhere to the principle of
‘Nullius in verba’
Similarly, I don’t accept your claim that an explanation is “not possible” in a net discussion. Either one has an argument, a reference and/or a citation or one does not. If one cannot provide any of those then one is merely making an assertion that any rational person should reject.
Richard
For those interested the Talk by Salby at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug is being re-boardcast, with slides, on channel 648 (Foxtel) at 6.30 am (already happened), 11.28 am. & 4.25 pm., today, Saturday 13th Aug.
As regards the mass balance issue there is a way that it could be wrong as follows:
Humans release 100 units leaving 20 units unabsorbed. 80 units go into stimulated local and regional sinks. It could be that all of it gets absorbed locally.
Oceans absorb less due to higher temperatures from increased solar insolation allowing 30 units more than ‘normal’ to remain in the atmosphere. Or 50 units more if all the human emissions are absorbed locally.
In each scenario atmospheric CO2 content therefore rises by 50 units which is half the human emissions.
All 50 units will be C12 according to Salby. Previously the consequent change in the 12C and 13C ratio was thought to be entirely anthropogenic.
Without the human contribution the local and regional sinks would be less active and the natural system would be a net source producing a solely natural rise of 30 units or 50 units as the case may be.
In the two examples given the observed increase is half the human contribution which is approximately what we see in the real world. The mass balance argument therefore fails because it is a dynamic system responding locally or regionally with increased vigour to the human input.
Interestingly one only needs a small change in ocean absorption rates to achieve the effect. Approximately 30% (or 50%) of the size of the human emissions which would probably be just a minute fraction of the total oceanic flux.
On these figures the human contribution could be easily cancelled out by a very slight increase in oceanic absorption rates so the present setup should be regarded as temporary.
Likewise a small further decrease in oceanic absorption rates would have a disproportionate effect on atmospheric CO2 without any additional contribution on our part.
It is likely just a coincidence that for a portion of the late 20th century the effect of the increased solar insolation to the oceans ran roughly parallel to the rate of increase in human emissions.
The increased solar insolation to the oceans having been caused by a more active sun changing the air circulation so as to draw the jetstreams poleward, reduce global cloudiness (as was observed) and allow more sunlight into the oceans.
The smoothness of the change at Mauna Loa could be a result of the most dominant process being a longer term change in solar activity levels such as from LIA to date. Being dominant that process would suppress shorter term temperature effects other than the high frequency seasonal variations.
This reminds me of the mistake that some make as regards economic theory. Some insist that there is only one ‘cake’ of resources of a fixed size (the mass balance idea) and everyone must share it equitably. In reality the size of the ‘cake’ increases with greater economic activity (more human input) so most if not all people get richer.
If Salby is right and human emissions are irrelevant then that is how it must be happening.
Also, if Salby is right then the ice cores and various other proxies must be misleading for reasons we have not yet pinned down.
I note that plant stomata show much more variability but even they may well be under recording.
I suspect that it is natural and routine for atmospheric CO2 levels to vary by up to 50% over periods of several centuries and somehow the ice cores are not recording it.
After all a very small change in oceanic absorption rates must have a disproportionately large effect on the atmosphere because of the hugely different CO2 carrying capabilities. I see no reason for doubting that the oceans could cause proportionately large CO2 variations in the air on a regular basis.
“The observed behavior is what it is.”
Murry Salby
Is this why you still haven’t answered “thingsbreak’s” question?
I hope you don’t mind me saying, it seems like damnation by faint praise to just say that his preso makes you go “wow” because it would sure be a big deal if it was true, but then you immediately beg off any responsibility for evaluating the quality of his reasoning.
In your many years of climate science, you must have picked up something about the carbon cycle? Refusing to comment at all on the quality of his work gives makes it look like you’re trying to help get some exposure for an old classmate, even though you know the work is bunk. If not, then please, say something about the scientific merit of it.
settledscience
JC has not opined on the carbon cycle controversy raised by Professor Salby’s lecture (hopefully to soon be published), stating that this was not her area of expertise.
I can accept that..
I do not believe her role here is to be our “teacher” on all matters relating to the ongoing scientific debate surrounding AGW, but rather to suggest new topics and act as an active catalyst for us to express our thoughts and views.
This is where this site differs from RC or SkS, for example, whose moderators see themselves as “educators” whose job it is to spread the “mainstream message” and often simply censor out any dissenting views.
Max
Ha! Every criticism of our lovely hostess requires dig at SkepticalScience.com and RealClimate.org. It’s almost Newtonian. So be it.
You don’t have to consider Judith your “teacher” to expect her to offer some reason why a subject that she raises for discussion is interesting, and what is interesting about it. Even in casual conversation, statements of opinion can be followed up by questions which are expected to be answered.
Person 1: “I like (movie title).”
Person 2: “Why do you like (movie title)?”
Person 1: “Well, I’m not a professional film critic so I refuse to say anything about what’s good about it. Just take my word, it’s very good, and we should start talking about it.”
Actually, a closer analogy would be
Person 1: “Although I am a professional film critic, I don’t specialize in this genre of film so I refuse to say anything about what’s good about it. Just take my word, it’s very good, and we should start talking about it.”
So it’s curious to me how little Judith Curry is willing to “start talking about these issues” herself. Even if she’s never studied the carbon cycle in depth, I dare say she knows more about it than Andrew Bolt and Jo Nova combined, but for some reason she’s directing her readers to their commentary instead of making any statements of her own on the merit of Salby’s analysis. People specializing in different lines of inquiry within climate science can at least say about one another’s work, “my colleague’s work is interesting because it would affect my work in this way… ” but Judith Curry hasn’t even done that.
Curiouser and curiouser.
setttledscience
I fail to see your hangup.
Salby’s postulation is still preliminary until he publishes it with all details and backup in a peer reviewed study.
When that happens there will undoubtedly be attempts to refute it scientifically by presenting empirical data, which demonstrate that the premise is false.
That is when I would expect JC to keep us up-to-date with these attempts and to comment on their validity, allowing the posters here to add their thoughts.
If it cannot be falsified after multiple attempts to do so, it will become a viable hypothesis, finally even becoming reliable scientific information and possibly even the new “paradigm” (until something better comes along).
At least that is the way these things progress according to the “scientific method” (as opposed to the “post-normal science” approach).
Don’t you agree?
Max
You fail to see it because I have none. You just wish I did.
Finding something interesting, recommending to the largest possible audience that “it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues,” or even just responding to it with “wow” all imply some reason.
Judith has done all those things, and I would like to know her reason, if any.
settledscience
You question Judith’s motives for finding Salby’s lecture interesting, recommending to the largest possible audience that “it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues,” or even just responding to it with “wow”
I cannot state why our host here has done these things, but here are two good reasons why she MIGHT have done so.
a- Professor Salby is a well-known climate expert, so what he suggests should be considered seriously
b- His hypothesis would radically alter the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the AGW theory unless falsified scientifically
c- “talking about these issues” will bring us new knowledge and will undoubtedly include attempts to scientifically falsify his hypothesis
All part of the “scientific method” IMO.
Would you have preferred that our host suppress this new information (as heretical to the dogma) instead?
Max
a- There are thousands of climate scientists, and I don’t believe Salby’s publication record is remarkable among them.
b- His hypothesis is supposedly interesting precisely because it allegedly falsifies an important aspect of the climate science consensus. I consider the burden to be upon Salby, to at least pass peer-review before those assertions are worthy of consideration.
c- Salby’s utterances are essentially completely unfalsifiable and non-repeatable until his “work” is published, if that ever actually happens. Talking about unfalsifiable and non-repeatable assertions is not how scientists acquire “new knowledge.”
‘How did the snowball earths end? Under extreme CO2 radiative forcing (greenhouse effect), built up over millions of years because CO2 consumption by silicate weathering is slowed by the cold, while volcanic and metamorphic CO2 emissions continue unabated.’
‘On geological time scales, the ocean and atmosphere are in equilibrium with respect to CO2 and can be treated as a single reservoir. CO2 is supplied to this reservoir by volcanic and metamorphic emanations, and is removed as sediment in the form of CaCO3 (limestone) and organic matter (roughly CH2O). The atmospheric CO2 forms carbonic acid rain, which is neutralized (protons are consumed) by silicate rock “weathering” (conversion to soil). The resulting solutes include Ca2+ and HCO3- (bicarbonate) ions that rivers carry to the ocean, where CaCO3 is precipitated by calcifying organisms and organic matter by primary producers like cyanobacteria and algae. The entire process is often simply referred to as “silicate weathering”, because that is the rate-limiting step. Silicate weathering rate is sensitive to climate, faster where hot and wet, slower where cold and dry.’ http://www.snowballearth.org/
I suspect that silicate weathering is the negative feedback. The last Snowball Earth occurred before land plants so there are a couple of more wrinkles. There are much bigger fluxes to and from the atmosphere – plant growth and consumption by a range of organisms on land – but the essential sink remains in the ocean. Whereas increases in CO2 form natural sources seem rapidly to respond to temperature – it is mostly respiration of hetreotrophic micro-organisms. Whereas silicate weathering and transport of solutes through soils is likely to be a slower process.
It would be ironic indeed if acid rain solved both the CO2 increase and ocean acidification. Not that I am suggesting that we try the experiment for moment longer than necessary to meet legitimate human aspirations.
Chief
You are certainly right that the essential sink remains in the ocean, as it was following “snowball Earth”.
Not to downplay the importance of marine processes, but the addition of land plants has made a big difference, as well. Terrestrial photosynthesis (plants and soil) takes up over 20 times as much CO2 as humans emit, and there is evidence that this is increasing as atmospheric concentrations rise.
Max
Such a comment posted on Tamino – Open Mind (you can not agree with it but it’s worth reading – the more so because Tamino usually removes my comments):
“What Salby does not explain is this: total human emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning are far larger than total CO2 increase. In fact, the CO2 increase has only been about half of human emissions. So, the net emission from other sources has been negative, while atmospheric CO2 has been rising.”
Salby not explain, but it is relatively easy to explain. It depends on what is optimum p.CO2 for a Global Primary Production (assuming that other factors affecting the GPP – are stable or positive: for example is getting warmer) … And here is the essence of the dispute, or eg: PP ocean rise (doubling p.CO2) by 37% or 16%, whether perhaps fall …
If the real optimum p.CO2 – for photosynthesis – GPP – is higher than at present, this addition – as a result of warming – for example, the first 5 ppmv CO2 (natural) will have a different effect than the next 5 ppmv CO2 (if we assume an exponential increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis – GPP). A simple model: add 5 ppmv CO2 – photosynthesis reaction – of this amount – hypothetically – circa 5?% eliminated by GPP (3 ppmv CO2). The atmosphere will be 2 ppm of CO2. GPP responds because according to this oscillation model. CO2 is a “food”, GPP is the consumer – “predator”.
What happens if we add 10 ppmv of CO2 into the atmosphere (5 ppmv of CO2 “natural” + 5 ppmv CO2 anthropogenic)?
We know from pre-industrial GPP continues to grow.
Are accordance with the model oscillation? Improving conditions for photosynthesis?
If the optimum of photosynthesis in real conditions – is similar to the theoretical optimum (??), it every (next) CO2 “impact” should be stronger – more increase GPP. Instead circa 5?% annual increase CO2 emissions – GPP will “eat” for example 75% CO2 (7.5 ppmv of CO2 – from 10 ppmv of CO2 increase of emissions all over).
2.5 ppmv of CO2 will be added to the atmosphere.
If the base conditions described above are correct, then no anthropogenic sources – “allowance” of CO2 into the atmosphere could be 2 ppmv of CO2, and by anthropogenic emissions: 2.5 ppmv CO2 …
This is confirmed by the case of Mt. Pinatubo (see link below).
Every links to commentaries and research papers containing questions about ice core – CO2 – whole is here – my discussion of F. Engelbeen. I would ask (first) THIS read carefully (especially the “case of Mt. Pinatubo” and the huge problems of estimating the size of the current soil respiration). Later – after analysis – critical remarks – even invectives – are welcome (by the way sorry for my “slavonic English”).
I add this graph (about 14C in “old” warming – deglaciation), because …
The main argument against the claims Salby professor is so (I think) here isotope 14C (NOAA). But the problem is that ever in the past – at the time of warming – the amount of 14C in the atmosphere – always – declined.
„It turns out to be about a 3‰ decrease in Δ14C for every 1 ppm of fossil fuel CO2 added to the atmosphere.” – in turn this NOAA claim based on the assumption that the whole surplus p.CO2 comes from anthropogenic sources.
Of course fossil fuels are practically free from 14C – 14C drop repeatedly increase in the atmosphere (compared with the natural increase in CO2 emissions), but the direction of change – a decrease of 14C in the atmosphere – is the same in every (natural and anthropogenic) CO2 emissions growth. Fossil fuels are only responsible for an unusually strong decrease of 14C in the atmosphere, but (this is possible), not for most of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Natural sources of CO2 emissions with a low level of 14C (and their natural oscillation imbalances – with GPP) to be found on terrestrial. Zech et al., 2011. ( High carbon sequestration in Siberian permafrost loess-paleosols during glacials.):
“Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been GREATLY underestimated […].” (same, says a few references cited therein – and an interactive discussion – recent papers) …, Nowinski et al., 2010.: “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged … … from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [14C !] in August samples, suggesting that old soil C in permafrost … ”
I will also attention that the proxy in the form of CO2 delta 13C of marine and inland “water” of carbonates (coccoliths, sponges, corals, etc..), also “carry” a big mistake (12C there is a very “mobile” – compared to 13C) . 12C is much less mobility in the alkenones – and these proxy gives generally the highest (of course with the “water” proxy) estimates old p.CO2. The differences between the different proxies of CO2 are indeed huge – Alkenone and boron-based Pliocene pCO2 records, Seki, et al., 2011.. Figure 9a shows that all the proxy (for p.CO2) are different from ice cores, some of them – much (!).Also, some proxies show here that the last 3 million years, p.CO2 often could be similar – or higher – than the present (also in the period in which we have data from ice cores). Ice cores show the lowest estimates p.CO2.
In addition, we compare (temperature – influence on CO2) these four figures (specially You see around 1950 +/- 10 years)
: ‘Global and European temperature (CSI 012) – Assessment published Jun 2010’
pH1,
pH2
CO2 historical – whit new very real background – 2009
[these figures especially I recommend Ferdinand Engelbeen]
Of course, the fluctuations in water pH of the oceans is affected by many factors (tides, monsoons, sunshine, etc.). Only temperature (direct influence) – rather – small.
This guy can’t even understand simple things like statistical fluctuation around a long-term trend? Also, haven’t people already calculated the baseline (to get started) of how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by humans and divided that into the atmosphere, etc? Also, the carbon isotope ratios are supposed to show that the increase is anthropogenic (from using burning “old carbon”, less C14 or deduced by C13/C12 ratios, etc.)
Neil,
Hmmmmm….. let’s see:
Professor, Chair of University Climate Dept.
So I think that a critique that starts with “this guy doesn’t even understand” is already lost in the weeds.
Salby may be right or wrong, but arrogant dismissals by AGW believers based on his ‘not getting it’ are not going to fly.
If you had bothered to read what Salby says, the purpose of his paper is to revisit the assumption you seem to cling to.
hunter
you up the thread on Gavin Schmidt, a pre-eminent sclimate scientist
“Gavin’s is the fallacy that CO2 is the driver of climate, not albedo, not land use changes, not changes in hydrologic flows, not solar variability.
That would be a large fallacy.”
You on Neil’s critique of Salby
“arrogant dismissals by AGW believers based on his ‘not getting it’ are not going to fly.”
Perhaps a teensy inconsistency in approach here?
Sorry, hunter, but the other (less well known) half of the “ad hominem” fallacy is to pretend that a critique just can’t apply because of *who* someone is. I did end with a question mark because I can’t be sure he doesn’t get it. Note plenty of substantive critique all over here, including the rest of my own comments. People aren’t just “clinging”, they have their good reasons.
Well, you seem to care a lot about the prestige and expertise of climate scientists so does it matter to you that almost all of them agree that AGW is a real threat?
Judith Curry’s states “Salby says there are the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa.”
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). CDIAC is located at DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/09/hl-compact.htm
Their latest information is for 2009 as follows:
Fuel sources contributed 30.8 gtons CO2
Land use changes contributed 4.0 gtons CO2
Land and ocean sinks removed 57%
Therefore; Humans added 3.7ppm to the atmosphere, land and ocean sinks removed 2.1ppm, atmospheric CO2 increased 1.6ppm.
According to the National Academy of Science, for 2000 to 2006, humans contributed 9.1 gtons of carbon per year to the atmosphere. The oceans took up 2.2, land 2.8, and the atmosphere retained 4.1 gtons per year. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full.pdf+html
Similarily, the reference below states “Natural land and ocean CO2 sinks removed 57% of all CO2 emitted from human activities during the 1958-2009, each sink in roughly equal proportion. During this period, the size of the natural sinks has grown almost at the same pace as the growth in emissions, although year-to-year variability is large. In 2009, the CO2 sinks increased slightly in response to the end of a La Nina event that perturbed the global climate system from mid 2007 until early 2009.” Year to year variability is not news to the scientific community.
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/09/hl-full.htm#AtmosphericEmissions
So, all of the sources say that humans are adding about 3.5 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, and that about half of it is absorbed with the remaining amount staying in the atmosphere. Yes, there is considerable variability in the percent of human contribution that accumulates in the atmosphere, but the concentration in the atmosphere is increasing by 1 to 2 ppm each year. These facts are shown in the data from Mauna Loa.
For Salby to claim that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is independent of human contributions, he must explain how the 3ppm added by humans disappears, and then 1.5 to 2ppm reappears from some other source. That source can’t be the oceans, because the ph of the ocean is declining. The ocean is a net sink for the human added CO2. He must also explain why the greenhouse effect is false. This effect has been proven theoretically by the absorption of certain wave lengths of heat that are radiated by the earth. It has been demonstrated experimentally for the last 100 years, and even Ms Curry says that all other things being equal, increased CO2 will increase temperature.
I hope Mr. Salby publishes his paper, because I would like to see critical scientific review. I would have expected more from Ms Curry as a scientist. She only paraphrased Salby with no real comment or analysis. Salby attempts to overturn well established science, and as Einstein said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Salby provided almost no supporting science nor did Curry. I continue to be unimpressed with the quality of science that argues against AGW.
That would be good in that it would drive the residence time/adjusment time argument in the correct direction.
“For Salby to claim that the atmospheric increase in CO2 is independent of human contributions, he must explain how the 3ppm added by humans disappears, and then 1.5 to 2ppm reappears from some other source.”
There’s nothing to explain there. Salby claims that the atmospheric CO2 is driven by climatic factors (whatever they are – temperatures, soil moisture…). I agree, by the way. So, any disturbances in climate/temperature independent CO2 fluxes (like human emissions), will be compensated, because atmospheric CO2 is determined by climate. If you still can’t understand, think H2O. Humans emit gigatons of water vapor, by burning hydrocarbons, and it doesn’t affect atmospheric H2O, because it’s condensable. CO2 can be viewed as quasi-condensable.
Further, note that there is no sign in the Mona Loa record of any variations in CO2 increase as human emissions have varied. And they have, considerably since record-keeping began.
So, that means to me that the increase rate itself is under some kind of homeostatic control, by which I mean that it would be there without human emissions, and cannot be increased by them.
Wrong. Impulse response of a diffusion limited sequestering of CO2 matches the Mauna Loa data precisely.
Has there been any news on Salby’s paper?
none
Any news on Salby’s paper yet? I suspect it has been withdrawn by the author, but if not, I would at least be interested to hear where it will appear if anybody has this information.
I just emailed him to enquire. I’ll post any info here.
Thanks for the reply Judith, do keep us informed if you hear anything.
Does anyone have a copy of the new edition of his book, if so, does it contain anything relevant to the discussion?
Sorry to ramble off track here, but wouldn’t it be great if we could sidestep the whole (somewhat politically driven) debate on whether man’s c02 contributions is driving global warming (is a smoking gun even possible on either side?) and whether it is feasible to (spend billions of dollars trying to) capture our emissions. I follow it out of scientific curiosity and I think that the question should continue in that forum, but it is the wrong target for politicians. What about manmade (local) climate change that contributes to all sorts of disasters from drought to flooding. I’m talking about deforestation (particularly south america), diverted waterways (everywhere), building on protective marshlands and coasts (i.e. New Orleans), pollution, (air & water), non biodegradable waste (nuclear or even just plastics), etc, etc.. Now there are some areas where we could make a difference in human habitability and sustainability.
But if you really want to keep talking co2, rising temperatures, and rising sea levels, why don’t governments (and celebrities) contribute more towards fighting forest fires? Almost half a million acres in texas and arizona alone this year so far. One estimate suggests 4-6% of all fossil burning co2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071101085029.htm That’s a double whammy, letting off all that co2 and destroying potential reservoir material. I’d rather give a dollar any day to old Smokey the bear than to Al Gore, and you can even call it part of the fight against global warming if you wish. Or we could stop subsidizing the airline industry with tax dollars (I don’t fancy getting groped by big sis anyways), as jet fuel is another 3%. What about the cattle industry; I hear methane GHG is also on the rise and cattle flatulence is an increasing contributor http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/832/do-cow-and-termite-flatulence-threaten-the-earths-atmosphere
Last thought; what about the do nothing approach? Say the doomsayers predicting several feet of sea level gains over the next century are right. So what? Just means that the real estate prices in low lying coastal areas will go down gradually as it happens. I live in Florida and I have to say that the (far fetched) idea that a rise of several degrees celsius could cause an extra hurricane a year doesn’t really phase me. The other climate issues I mentioned seem much more dire.
Off my soapbox.
OK, but remember that Smokey is a goof; his motto should be “Only you can intensify forest fires!”, as that’s the result of stopping the little ones.
Don’t let that faze you, though! We’re past that phase .
;)
Oh, and search “Amazon geoglyphs” and prepare to be shocked.
A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months.
Any sign of said article yet?
I have emailed Prof. Salby, but not received a reply. I also sent him a preprint of my recent paper which demonstrates that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations does not depend on the residence time, but the adjustment time, and that we can be sure that the natural environment has been a net carbon sink for at least the last 50 years and hence has been opposing the observed rise rather than causing it.
I suspect that Prof. Salby may have withdrawn the paper following the initial reaction to his talk, which included demonstrations that his conclusion was unsound (or at least the interpretation of what he concluded). I certainly hope this is the case as I rather doubt publication would do anybody any good.
The natural environment being a net carbon sink doesn’t mean that the atmospheric CO2 growth isn’t caused by warming climatic factors. Au contraire!
Couldn’t remember which thread this discussion was on, so I’d posted this elsewhere on Feb 6:
Thank you Brian.
Brian thank for the update.
Thanks for the update. It is interesting that Prof. Salby did not answer your question about where the journal paper will be published. If there is an error in Prof. Salby’s article (and there is a very clear and fundamental error in his Sydney Institute presentation) then it is to his own advantage for it to be pointed out in review rather than after it has been published.
The original post (in August) stated that “A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months”, and I think this is what led everyone to wonder why it hadn’t yet appeared 7 months later. From his email, it sounds as though the paper hasn’t yet been accepted for publication in a journal, much less being “in press”. While this doesn’t by itself demonstrate that the paper is seriously flawed, many of us identified serious flaws in the audio version of the presentation he gave.
Like what Fred? That the natural environment is a net CO2 sink?
Anyone knows what’s in the book?
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180
Yes, I have the PDF he sent me, as I said above, containing Chs 1 & 8: Composition and Structure, and The Greenhouse Effect.
Lots of interesting sections.
(His “saturation curve” is the temp/pressure plot showing where clouds and precipitation occur, without which water vapour feedback is runaway positive. Clouds slam on the brakes.)
Correction: sections of Ch 1 & 8, plus the Preface. About 40 pages in total. The Amazon link gives the Table of Contents, if you click on the book image.
Thanks Brian.
The question Salby needs to answer is very simple.
How can atmospheric CO2 rise at less than the rate we put it into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels without the natural environment being a carbon sink?
Or rather, how can the natural environment take in more CO2 than it emits, and still be the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2?
If Salby can answer this, he’s not only overturned climate science as we know it, but also mathematics too.
The natural environment IS a sink (reservoirs). Temperature of the natural environment is cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Lower the temperature, lower the annual increment. Higher the temperature, higher the increment. Reservoirs contain MUCH more CO2, so their CO2 contents are almost unaffected.
It is a pity that Prof. Salby has not withdrawn his paper, I hope it doesn’t damage his academic career unduly.
The video of his presentation is now avaliable here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts–9I
The fundamental error in his reasoning appears in the slide at 21.08 I’ll probably write up an explanation of why it is wrong for SkS as I’ll need a graph or two. I’ll post a link when I get round to it.
Poor work by Salby. Pinning increase of CO2 on natural sources gives an outrageously high activation energy for outgassing.
Why?
Consider an hypothetical scenario: –
1. Anthropogenic emissions grow @ 4 ppm atmos./ p.a.
2. Natural emissions grow @ 4 ppm atmos./ p.a.
3. Natural sinks grow @ 6ppm atmos./ p.a.
4. Nett increase of CO2 in atmosphere is 2 ppm atmos./ p.a.
In this hypothetical scenario anthropogenic and natural emissions share the increase 50/50 and sinks grow at 75% of emissions. It’s my understanding that we have a pretty good leg on the 1. & 4. numbers but not 2. and 3. You can put in any numbers you like in 2. & 3. & as long as the nett is 2 ppm. no mathematics has been violated. (e.g. 0 & 2; 1 & 3; 2 & 4; 3 & 5; 4 & 6: etc.)
The question is “what would have happened if the industrial revolution had not happened and we had not burnt all those fossil fuels” If the answer is that CO2 concentrations would be the same as they are today then you have to explain why 2 and 3 are related to 1. If on the other hand the answer is that CO2 concentrations would be much lower (ie that reducing 2 to zero would not affect 3 and 4 then you are agreeing that anthropogenic CO2 has resulted in higher atmospheric concentrations than would otherwise be the case.
My comment @ 9.02 am above relates to that of Ed @12.06 pm, 2 above.
@Geoff Larsen Consider this analogy. I share a savings jar with my wife (guarded by a cadre of loyal ninja that make sure only my wife and I have access). I put in 4 euros a month (corresponding to anthropogenic emissions) my wife puts in 4 euros a month (corresponding to natural emissions) and takes out 6 euros a month (corresponding to natural uptake). Our savings will rise by 2 euros a month (corresponding to the net increase in atmospheric CO2).
Who is responsible for the rise in our savings, me (who is putting more money into the jar than I am taking out) or my wife (who is taking more out of the jar than she is putting in).
Most rational people would say that I am 100% responsible for the rise and that my wife is actively opposing the rise.
Do not confuse the atmospheric/natural composition of the atmospheric reservoir with the cause of the rise, because there is a large exchange flux that is constantly swapping CO2 from the atmosphere with CO2 from the oceans and terrestrial biota. However this exchange is a straight swap and has no effect whatsoever on atmospheric CO2 levels. What matters is the difference between emissions and uptake.
My understanding is it is currently believed that approximately 50% of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by natural sinks.
Similarly, in your analogy, assume your wife was working on the basis that she spends 75% of what you both put into the jar (corresponding to 75% of the total of anthropogenic and natural emissions being absorbed). What happens if you don’t put any in the jar? She cuts her spending to 3 Euros (75% of the gross savings which is now the 4 Euros she is putting the jar). Net savings have been halved to one Euro which is now due 100% to her.
To cut the net saving to zero she also would have to put zero Euros into the jar.
Back to my scenario, equivalent to your analogy: –
1. Anthropogenic emissions grow @ 4 ppm atmos./ p.a.
2. Natural emissions grow @ 4 ppm atmos./ p.a.
3. Natural sinks grow @ 6ppm atmos./ p.a.
4. Nett increase of CO2 in atmosphere is 2 ppm atmos./ p.a.
If Anthropogenic emissions are cut to zero then on the same basis natural sinks then grow @ 3ppm atmos./ p.a. (75% of anthropogenic emissions) & the net increase is only halved; to 1ppm atmos./p.a..
Now my comment was in response to Ed’s assertion above “if Salby can answer this, he’s not only overturned climate science as we know it, but also mathematics too”. It doesn’t overturn any mathematics; the fact that it is observed that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate less than manmade emissions of CO2 is not evidence, as has been asserted by many throughout this thread, that natural emissions are not increasing.
I look forward to Salby’s paper.
It doesn’t overturn any mathematics; the fact that it is observed that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate less than manmade emissions of CO2 is not evidence, as has been asserted by many throughout this thread, that natural emissions are not increasing.
But it does confirm that net natural emissions are decreasing. Salby is talking about net emissions – which in your terms are (2) – (3). Simple mathematics says that net natural emissions must be decreasing.
I look forward to Salby’s paper.
It is always good to have something to look forward to and Salby has kindly given you something to look forward to for a long time.
Geoff Larsen doesn’t get the point. We are not playing a blame game here.
The relevant question is:
” If the industrial revolution had not happened and there had been no anthropogenic emissions of CO2 then what would be the present concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
Salby appears to be saying that it would be much the same as it is now. If you agree then you need to say where the CO2 that we have emitted has gone to. If you think it has gone into some natural sink then you need to explain why in the absence of anthropogenic CO2 that same sink would not soak up the natural increase in CO2.
If you think that the concentration would be substantially lower than it is now then you believe that anthropogenic emissions are contributing substantially to the increase and you disagree with Salby.
Incidentally the business about Carbon 13 is a distraction. The C13/12 ratios are a good argument against the increase coming from volcanoes but it seems to me that any biological source or sink is likely to have the same ratio as fossil fuels.
Apart from the small number of observations on which Salby bases his theory, the main error is in jumping from showing a correlation between temperature and short term fluctuations in CO2 to concluding that the long term trend must also be attributable to temperature.
His analogy with interest is better than he thought. If at the end of the year I found that my bank balance had increase by half the amount of the interest that I had been paid and if I was on a 50% marginal tax rate, then I would tend to conclude that if I had not received any interest and nothing else had changed then my bank balance would stayed constant. Salby appears to come to a different conclusion.
Notwithstanding the above, Salby’s observations are interesting. If longer time series do in fact show that biannual fluctuations in the rate of emissions are closely associated with temperature then we should look for a physical explanation.
One possibility is that the cycle of bush fires and regrowth may be relevant. A mature forest is more or less carbon neutral. Photosynthesis absorbs CO2, respiration and decay create it. A bush fire (much more likely in a hot dry year) results in massive amounts of CO2 being emitted so the forest becomes a huge source. The recovering forest ( particularly if soil moisture is high) will be a significant CO2 sink because there will be little decay and the plants will be photosynthesizing as fast as they can.
“Salby appears to be saying that it would be much the same as it is now. If you agree then you need to say where the CO2 that we have emitted has gone to. If you think it has gone into some natural sink then you need to explain why in the absence of anthropogenic CO2 that same sink would not soak up the natural increase in CO2.”
Because the “set point” for atmospheric CO2 is set by climatic factors (mainly SST but possibly deeper ocean temperatures, sea ice, land moisture, surface temperatures…). This is regulated by net CO2 flux at the water-atmosphere interface. Warmth causes higher setpoint due to release of CO2 from water (outgassing…).
In presence of warming and human CO2 input greater than the annual growth in atmospheric CO2, the set point is already overshot by human CO2 so the extra CO2 is taken by the reservoirs. In absence of human CO2 the reservoirs have to outgass in order to reach the set point.
Perhaps you could explain the scientific basis of your “set point” hypothesis.
Murry Salby:
”The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.”
The bases of Salby’s abstract above are not known well enough until the actual article will be published. However, there are plenty of data available agreeing with the abstract.
As discussed above Salby’s abstract for his talk agrees with what Tom V. Segalstad has been claiming already during two last decades, according to which maximum 4% of air CO2 has anthropogenic origin, found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations.
In addition, in this thread there have been brought up for discussion findings in reality, which show that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmoshere is a consequence of warming and not vice versa. As a result of that you can be convinced that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not dominate warming, and that the warming does control the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where the influence of manmade CO2 emission is too minimal to be found in reality. As far as any plausible mechanism for that is not available you have to find it by yourself. Because the calculations in theory have not proved to be adequate enough to produce proper results in the complicated natural system, any due finding in reality seems to be the only way to proceed to solve the problem of the mechanism.
As far as I am aware the CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled together by both all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. After any change of CO2 emissions from sources or of CO2 absorptions to sinks makes the atmospheric CO2 content strive for a new level in order to reach a new dynamic balance between the CO2 emissions and the absorptions. As to the influence of human CO2 emissions on the atmospheric CO2 content it is determined by the proportion of the human CO2 emissions to the total CO2 emissions. Nowadays when the yearly total CO2 emissions are little over 200 GtC (CO2 as carbon) and the yearly human CO2 emissions are about 8 GtC, the influence of the human CO2 emissions on the CO2 content in atmosphere is approaching 4 % at the most. For instance, when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, the manmade share of it is about 16 ppm at the most.
Being based on measurements in reality during the last three decades Lance Endersbee claims: “Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide”, http://www.co2web.info/Oceans-and-CO2_EngrsAust_Apr08.pdf , and http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/lance-endersbee-1925-2009-civil-engineer-academic-scientific-sceptic-mentor . This means that the global mean sea surface temperature mainly controls the CO2 content in the atmosphere; when the mean sea surface temperature is rising, the CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing.
Bob Tisdale presents in his link http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature :
”Figure 15 compares annual Global SST anomalies to the average NINO3.4 SST anomalies for those three periods. Global SST anomalies rose from 1910 to 1944 because El Niño events dominated, and because the SST anomaly patterns (caused by the changes in atmospheric circulation) associated with El Niño events persisted. Because La Niña events dominated from 1945 to 1975, and because the SST anomaly patterns associated with La Niña events persisted, Global SST anomalies dropped. And Global SST anomalies rose again from 1976 to 2009 because El Niño events dominated, and because the SST anomaly patterns associated with El Niño events persisted”
When interpreting Tisdale’s claim on Global SST anomalies and on NINO3,4 SST anomalies during 1976-2009 you can find that during the same time periode there has been no essential rising or sinking trend on the tropical sea surface temperatures. Instead, the global mean sea surface temperature has had a continuous trend of warming. What is the meaning of this? It means that the global sea surface temperatures used by Endersbee in his calculations have been controlled by warming of the sea surface waters outside the tropical sea surface i.e. mainly the warming of the sea surface waters of higher latitudes where the sea surface CO2 sinks are. As a consequence, the partial pressure of CO2 has been rising in these as sinks acting surface waters, which has been making CO2 absorption from the atmosphere to the sea surface sinks become slower. Because of that, the CO2 content in the atmosphere has been increasing. It means that more CO2 from the total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere has remained in the atmosphere to increase its CO2 content, in order to reach a new dynamic balance between CO2 emissions and absorptions. As the warming of oceans is the dominating reason for the increased content of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and as nowadays the human yearly portion ( about 8 GtC CO2) of the all yearly CO2 emissions ( little over 200 GtC CO2) to the atmosphere is about 4 %, the human role on the recent yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also about 4 %. For instance when CO2 content in the atmosphere increases 2 ppm per year, the human portion of that is only about 0.08 ppm.
Media have introduced that during the year 2010 the yearly increase of anthropogenic CO2 emissions has rised from about 3 % to about 6 %. It means that, in the yearly human emissions of about 8 GtC, there has arisen a new yearly recordbreaking increase of about 0,5 GtC in the manmade CO2 emissions. As at the same time the increase of CO2 in atmosphere have been about 4 GtC per year, one can find that the increase of 0,5 GtC CO2 in the manmade CO2 emissions is not able to explain the rise of carbon dioxide in atmosphere, not even though all the anthropogenic CO2 increase (0,5 GtC) of emissions would remain in the atmosphere. In reality the share of manmade CO2 emissions per year remaining in the atmosphere is only about 2 % from the yearly increase of human emissions of about 0,5 GtC, as consistent with what the yearly total CO2 increase of about 4 GtC in atmosphere is in relation to the total yearly CO2 emissions of little over 200 GtC, expressed in procentages. The 2 % from the mere manmade increase of 0,5 GtC per year of CO2 emissions causes only an increase of 0.01 GtC i.e. 0.005 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Nowadays only the sea surface warming expressed by Endersbee seems to make higher portions of manmade CO2 in atmosphere possible, as the warming of the as sinks acting sea surfaces at the higher latitudes makes absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere become slower. For instanse, in the latest yearly increase of 4 GtC CO2 in the atmospehere there is a portion of 0.16 GtC of human CO2 i.e. 0.08 ppm CO2 as presented above.
The same principle based on Bob Tisdale’s link above can be used to explain Ernst-Georg Beck’s claims on the rise of CO2 content during the first part of 20th century, including the drop of the CO2 content during the La Niña dominated years 1945-1975. Being direct measurements, the CO2 contents in the atmosphere used by Beck are accurate enough for those purposes. Whereas the ice core proxy values of carbon dioxide content used by IPCC are incompatible with any one of direct measured values, because they are mean values of some centuries, even at their best.
Thought provoking, this box of surprises tied up with a bow.
==============
Yes, a very good comment.
The usual horrible comment by someone that can’t work a physics model.
Lauri wrote “As discussed above Salby’s abstract for his talk agrees with what Tom V. Segalstad has been claiming already during two last decades, according to which maximum 4% of air CO2 has anthropogenic origin, found by carbon isotope mass balance calculations.”
It is perfectly true that only a small percentage of atmospheric CO2 is of directly anthropogenic origin, however Segalstad’s and Salby’s conclusion (that the rise is largely natural) is incorrect, because they have not understood the effect of the large exchange fluxes between the oceans and terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere. These exchange fluxes annually exchange about 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere with CO2 from the other natural reservoirs, so “anthropogenic” CO2 is rapidly taken up and exchange with “natural” CO2. However this exchange has no effect whatsoever on atmospheric CO2 concenrations as it is a straight swap.
The easiest way to understand this is by analogy (which I probably used earlier in the thread). Consider I share a savings jar with my wife and I put in 8 euros a month all in Belgian minted coins, and never take anything out. My wife thinks Belgian minted coins make the jar untidy, so she takes them all out each month, and an additional 80 euro, but puts in 84 euros a month, all in French minted coins (so you can tell the difference). Clearly our savings are rising by 4 euros a month (the difference between total deposits 8 + 84 = 92 and total withdrawals 0 + 88 = 88). Clearly it is me that is causing our savings to rise as I am putting in more money than I am taking out, unlike my wife who is taking out 4 euro a month more than she puts in. Yet at the end of a year, our savings have risen by 48 euros, but there are no Belgian minted coins in the jar. Segalstads argument is a bit like saying that as all of the euros in the jar were minted in France my wife has been responsible for the rise in our savings.
In my paper http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u I use a simple model of the carbon cycle to show that only a small proportion of atmospheric CO2 should be expected to be of directly anthropogenic origin, even if anthropogenic emissions are 100% responsible for the observed increase.
Any sign of Salby’s paper yet? I am getting no reply to my requests for information, or questions regarding the video of his talk, so if anyone is in contact with him, I’d be grateful to hear of any news regarding the paper.
I haven’t heard anything either
My analysis of Prof. Salby’s Syndey Institute talk has been posted at SkS, the URL is http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1491 .
Essentially a correlation with the growth rate tells you nothing about the cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 because correlations are insensitive to the mean value of the growth rate, and it is the mean value that gives rise to the long term increase, not the variability in the growth rate (which the correlation can explain).
Essentially, the correlation with the growth rate tells you that (assuming linear relationship), total growth is the integral of the temperature over the change period (~50 years in this case). It’s dependent on the average temperature during the period of the observed change. At lower average temperature, total growth would have been lower. So, the correlation is sensitive to the mean value of the growth rate, because the average growth is sensitive to the average temperature. You can look at the decadal growths (or 5-year or whatever) and compare it to the average temperature of the decades. The correlation holds. Therefore, the growth over a time period is dependent on the average temperature of the period.
“So, the correlation is sensitive to the mean value of the growth rate,”
no, if you look at the formula for the correlation the first thing that happens is that the mean value is subtracted from the signal, hence the correlation coefficient is completely, mathematically insensitive to the mean value.
Well, it’s not. The correlation tells you that lower temperature means lower CO2 accumulation. Lower value of the temperature integral over the period means lower CO2 accumulation.
dCO2/dt = f(T)
delta(CO2) = integral(f(T)dt)
dtmin = 1 year (annual cycle)
If the correlation holds, and the cooling gets going, the average annual growth for the 2010s will be much lower than the average growth for the 2000s (~2 ppm/year), in spite of the growing emissions.
Sorry Edim, it is a mathematical fact, whether you like it or not. Try it for yourself, generate two signals and compute the correlation between them. Add arbitrary constants to either signal (or both) and recompute the correlation and you will find that it is unchanged.
The correlation only explains the variability in the growth rate about its mean value. However if you integrate this variability, the result is zero, because the area of the signal that is above the mean value is equal to the area of the signal below the mean value. Thus the integrated component that is represented by the correlation is precisely zero. This is a mathematical fact.
Doctor, you’re applying the math incorrectly. To see it, divide the period into smaller sub-periods (decadal for example or bidecadal or whatever). Calculate the average growths and average temperatures for the decades. You will see that the correlation still holds – the average growth is sensitive to the average temparature. You can do it for any period of change and you will find that the average growth is dependent on the average temperature for the observed period of change.
Sorry Edim, if you want to prove me wrong, then give examples of two signals where the correlation changes if you add an arbitrary constant to one or both of them.
Here is the error in your analysis:
dCO2/dt = f(T)
This is fine, but we can represent f(T) as F(T) = G(T) + mu, where mu is the mean value of F(T). As I have pointed out, the correlation coefficient is insenitive to mu, so it only tells you about G(T).
delta(CO2) = integral(f(T)dt)
This again is fine, but equivalently
delta(CO2) = integral(G(T) + mu dt) = integral(G(T) dt) + integral(mu dt)
as the correlation only tells you about G(T) it says nothinmg about the second integral, and the first integral happens to be zero.
I find it rather disturbing that some simply can’t accept even that the rise in CO2 is anthropogenic, and even more disturbing that some cannot accept facts that can be proven mathematically.
Doctor, I find it disturbing too that you cannot understand this simple matter. It’s also a nice example of a misaplication of mathematics. How can one single data point (the average growth for the observation period) correlate with a series of data points (annual growths)? Of course you think it’s only variation around the mean that correlates, when you don’t understand basic aplication of mathematics.
Divide the observation period into smaller sub-periods (whichever) and calculate the total CO2 accumulations (or average annual changes) and average temperature anomalies for the sub-periods. You will see that the average changes in atmospheric CO2 correlate with the average temperatures. It’s not the variations around the average nor ENSO. It’s the temperature level (average, integral), which correlates with the total CO2 change over a period.
Nature is preparing an experiment. If the consensus explanation is correct, the average annual change for the 2010s must be higher than 2 ppm/year (if human CO2 inputs continue increasing). I predict it will depend on temperatures and NOT on the human input and will be significantly lower than 2 ppm/year.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.pdf
Edim,
It’s a little disturbing that one person cannot admit the technical error that he has made.
It’s, however, more disturbing that another cannot accept that the conclusion of the first one remain valid as the additional evidence to prove them does exist as discussed extensively in this thread.
The problem is that Un is a function of the atmospheric concentration and that natural sources can be a net contributor in some areas and a net sink in other. A more appropriate equation would be
C = (Ea + En) – (Ea + En)f
Where f is the percentage of the increased atmospheric concentration that is taken into the sinks created by the increased atmospheric concentration.
It is true that Un is a function of atmospheric concentration, however the mass balance analysis is not a model of the carbon system, it is merely a statement of the principle of conservation of mass. In the mass balance analysis En and Un represent total global emission and uptake respectively, it make no difference to the argument whether these are uniform across the globe or not.
The uptake of carbon by natural sinks is already included in the original mass balance equation, so you are engaging in double accounting, and hence your analysis contravenes the principle of mass balance.
No, you are fooling yourself with the value of Un by ignoring the fact that some percentage of Un wouldn’t be there without Ea. Since you don’t know that percentage you can’t determine the value of En. Consider it a Ua if you will, also unknown.
Nowhere in the mass balance analysis is there any attempt to determine the value of En. If you think there is, it is merely an indication that you have not understood the argument.
So let me make this argument step by step
do you agree there would be a Ua?
do you agree the Ua is a function of Ea*r?
do you agree that if r=90% that more co2 could be natural than anthropogenic?
I don’t see any reason to doubt the increase in atmospheric co2 is other than anthropogenic in nature, but I fail to see how your mass balance equation proves it.
Ua would be the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere due to human activities. Our current carbon sequestration efforts are essentially so small as to me negligible for the purposes of the mass balance analysis.
No, Ua is not a function of Ea*r, and this comment indicates where you have misundestood the argument. Ua would be the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a result of human carbon sequestration efforts, it is not the uptake of carbon from anthropogenic emissions. Similarly Un is the uptake of carbon from the atmosphere into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, not the uptake of carbon that was released through natural emissions.
Hopefully now the misunderstanding regarding the symbols has hopefully been cleared up, you will see how the mass balance argument works.
Ok, lets make this simple. If natural gas produces less than 50% of anthropogenic co2 place it over on the En side. It is called natural gas after all. Your formula now proves it didn’t contribute either.
you are still misunderstanding the nature of the mass balance analysis.
En represents the total amount of CO2 emitted by natural sinks, it is all “natural gas” already.
that should be all natural sources.
If you want to discuss this further the thread on SkepticalScience would be a better location as the mass balance argument is presented in detail there, whereas it is only sketched out here.
I am talking about anthropogenically produced co2 from natural gas, or anything else that doesn’t amount to a large percentage of that co2 produced anthropogenically. If you can move something you know contributes to the other side of the equation and use that equation to prove it doesn’t, you have a problem with the equation.
steven, anthropogenic emissions are anthropogenic emissions are anthropogenic emissions. There is no difference between CO2 from natural gas or from petrol or coal. Anthropogenic emissions Ea are what they are, no component of it can be “moved to the other side of the equation”.
Take 10% of anthropogenic emissions and make one side En + 10% Ea, leave everything else the same, and see if you don’t prove that 10% made no contribution.
Sorry Steve, I have tried to patiently point out your misunderstanding of the argument, but at the end of the day, you can lead a horse to water…
The equation is a restatement of the principle of conservation of mass, and hence is an approximate representation of the real world. You can treat anthropogenic carbon as if it were from natural sources if you like, but it will no longer be even an approximate representation of reality. If that is of interest to you, then that is fine, but it is of no interest to me.
Dr b, sorry but you are the one that needs to think more about this a bit, not I. But if I see where I am wrong I will definately get back to you to admit it.
yawn. The mass balance analysis can be found in the IPCC reports, several peer-reviewed journal papers (one of them written by myself), and the equation can even be found in Prof. Salby’s talk. Your hubris in assuming that mainstream science can’t even manage a simple piece of accountancy is quite astonishing.
Yes, and the IPCC report also states that deforestation contributed to atmospheric CO2 which is something your interpretation of mass balance would make impossible. I agree this is worth a yawn.
nonsense, “land use change”, i.e. “deforestation” is treated as a component of anthropogenic emissions. If you read my paper you will find that it is explicitly included in the mass balance analysis.
The paper is here http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef200914u
Alternatively you could read my blog post at SkepticalScience ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/essenhigh_rebuttal.html ) which discusses the paper, where I explicitly state that land use changes are part of Ea “let Ea represent annual carbon emissions from anthropogenic sources (fossil fuel use and land use change)”.
Now if you can find an error in my paper, then either (a) write a comment paper and submit it to Energy & Fuels or (b) pop over to SkepticalScience and point out the flaws in the blog article there.
And if they had burned down instead of being cut down your equation would show that it is impossible for them to have contributed. The bottom line is you can take items you know contribute form one side of the equation, slap them on the other side and prove they didn’t. If you don’t see a fundamental flaw in this we have probably reached an impass.
You didn’t answer Tom Curtis over at ss. Since he has made the same argument that I made, I am anticipating your response will be clear and convincing.
I hadn’t spotted it, but have now replied. I leave the same challenge for you:
Can you provide equations for Ea, En, Un and C’, such that conservation of mass is observed and where Un < En (i.e. the natural environment is a net carbon source) while at the same time C' < Ea (i.e. the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than anthropogenic emissions). As far as I can see, this is a mathematical imposibility, but am happy to be proven wrong.
BTW, if you can come up with the equations, please post them on SkS as well, I don’t often read this blog anymore (it appears to be about the sociology of science, rather than the science itself).
I prefer this blog. I have had perfectly legitimate arguments presented politely censored on other blogs. I know that won’t happen here.
dr b, I already did. You suggested I was double counting Un. In fact if the atmospheric concentration causes Un to increase by a factor of f than the equation C’ = (En + Ea) – (En + Ea)f. Of course there are other factors that affect Un but in this case, where we are trying to determine if it is possible that En could be the primary cause of CO2 increase mathematically, it is sufficient.
For conservation of mass, we require that C’ = En + Ea – Un. If you are saying that C’ = En + Ea – (En + Ea)*f, then that is equivalent to saying that Un = (En + Ea*f). However, when we use the observations of Ea and C’ that we have, we STILL find that Un > En. It makes no difference HOW Un is determined, the mass balance analysis tells you about what the difference between En and Un actually HAS been.
I challenged you to give equations for Ea, En, Un and C’ that conform to conservation of mass. You have done this (assuming that Un=(En+Ea)*f). What you have not done is show that it is possible for En to be greater than Un (i.e. for thenatural environment to be a net carbon source) while at the same time C’ < Ea. So you have not met the challenge I have laid down.
When you have managed the second part, then set out the equations in full.
dr b, make f = 0.9 and plug your other numbers in.
We don’t have a number for En. This is why I asked you to spell out your analysis in full, rather than ambiguos one-line responses.
Of course it won’t be larger than Un but part of Un wouldn’t be there if not for Ea. This is the part you are sticking on.
Un without Ea = Un – (Ea x f)
You will find that now you have a value of En larger than Un and that is why it is mathematically possible. This is why I wanted to seperate it into a Ua and a Un earlier. It may not be an anthropogenic sink but it wouldn’t be there without anthropogenic emissions.
If En is less than Un, i.e. the natural environment takes in more CO2 than it emits, please explain how it can be a cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
If you have Un without Ea, you no longer have conservation of mass (the part of Ea that is taken up by the natural environment has to go somewhere)
If you had no Ea it wouldn’t have to go anywhere. It would still be coal in the ground. It could stay there.
Sadly there is an Ea. so your example is hardly representative of reality is it? Of course the rise wouldn’t be anthropogenic if there were no anthropogenic emissions, but that is pretty obvious isn’t it?
You don’t have to have any more information than you already have. Use make believe numbers that represent about what has happened.
Ea = 1000
C’ = 500
C’ = (En + Ef) – {(En + Ef) x 0.9}
500 = (En + 1000) – {(En x 0.9) + 900}
500 = {En – (En x 0.9)} + 100
400 = {En – (En x 0.9)}
As you can see you end up with more net atmospheric contribution from En than from Ea. It is all there just a higher percentage of Ea ends up in sinks because of the sink that it creates by being there. No mass balance violation.
Oops my Ef’s in equation should be Ea’s. I really should learn to type or check what I write but nah, I never will :)
Steven, of course En is bigger than Ea, however that doesn’t mean that Ea is responsible for the rise in CO2, for the reasons I have already explained multiple times on this thread and on others. Here is why, yet again, by analogy:
Say I share a savings jar (representing atmospheric CO2) with my wife (representing the natural environment), which is guarded by loyal ninja to make sure only my wife and I can make deposits and withdrawals. I put in 1000 Euros a month, all in Belgian minted coins (representing Ea), and notice that our savings rise by only 500 Euros a month. At this point I know that my wife is saving 500 Euro a month less than she is saving. For most people, that would be sufficient evidence that my deposits are responsible for the rise in our savings, and that my wife is actively opposing this rise by spending more than she is saving.
O.K., lets look at the fate of the coins themselves. Using your set of numbers, my wife’s deposits (En) would be 4000 Euros a month, lets make them all in French minted coins so it is possible to tell the difference between the coins she put in and the coins I put in. We also know that her withdrawals, according to *your* example are Un = (En + Ea)*0.9 = (4000 + 1000)*0.9 = 4,500 Euros a month. Lets say further that my wife likes the jar to be neat, so she always takes all of the Belgian minted coins out of the jar, and then some French minted coins to make up the 4000 Euros, before making her deposit each month.
In this case, the jar never has ANY Belgian minted coins in it (representing Ea), the savings rise by 500 Euros a month, and all of the coins in the jar are coins that my wife deposited. Does that mean that she is responsible for the rise in our savings, EVEN THOUGH she took 500 Euro a month out of our savings more than she put in.
If you think the answer is “yes”, then (a) you are using a different definition of “cause” than the rest of the population, and (b) I have a business proposition for you! ;o)
There I have shown, using YOUR figures/equations why your argument is incorrect.
Geoff if the question is “is the rise in atmospheric CO2 natural or anthropogenic”, then the natural/anthropogenic divide is the only sensible one. We know for a fact that some parts of the carbon cycle are purely emitters (e.g. volcanos) and some are pure sinks (e.g. chemical weathering), but whether the rise is natural or not depends on the net contribution of the natural environment as a whole.
dr b, good point. In my equation En should actually be the change in En. En itself would dwarf anything from Ea. So use the same numbers but picture a delta in front of the En.
It really doesn’t matter but I suppose it would have to be the change in natural emissions from that point where it stays in equilibrium. It doesn’t matter because you know what Ea is. You know what C’ is. You have assumed a value for f. What is left over, the 400, is what En contributes to the atmosphere. Using f = 0.9 you come up with 80% of the increase from natural sources.
O.K. if En should be the change in En, the set out your revised equations in detail and we can have another go. If you just put a delta in front of a En, the mass balance equation is no longer a restatement of the principle of conservation of mass, so that is not an adequate explanation of your revised scenario.
However, as I have repeatedly pointed out we already *know* that En is much bigger than Ea, but that does not mean that En is the cause of the rise, because you are neglecting the simple fact that Un is even bigger than En. The analogy I gave above explains why En being greater than Ea doesn’t mean that the rise is natural.
O.K., here is a business proposal* for you. We’ll open a savings account, and you will put in $1000 a month. I will put in $4000 a month, and take out $4500 a month (i.e. f = 0.9, so my withdrawals Un = (Ea + En)*0.9, where Ea is your deposits and En is mine). You can keep whatever is left in the account at the end of the year. According to your logic 80% of the rise in the balance is due to my deposits, so that ought to be a really good deal for you!
*only a joke of course, if you were daft enough to accept it, I wouldn’t be cruel enough to go through with it, but it does highlight how daft your line of reasoning actually is.
C’ = (Eneq + Enchange + Ea) – {Eneq + (Enchange + Ea)f}
dr b, I am being very patient with your not getting this. Don’t start calling names lol.
So C’ = (Eneq + Enchange + Ea) – {Eneq + (Enchange + Ea)f}
you have now introduced some new variables, so you now need to give values for all variables so we actually have a scenario to discuss.
It is the same. The only new variable cancels itself out.
Steven, according to your reasoning, in the business proposition I would be contributing 80% of the rise in the balance, but I rather doubt you would be willing to accept it. So rather than complain about me calling your line of reasoning daft (which after the flaw has been repeatedly explained to you is what it becomes), engage with the analogy and explain why it is you wouldn’t take the deal.
That ought to show you why your line of reasoning is false and that you need to consider Un as well as En to work out the contribution of the natural environment to the observed increase.
If the new variable cancels out then it does not affect the analysis in any way. If you want to give a counter example then you need to give values for all quantities involved. If you won’t that strongly suggests that you know you can’t.
I have a counter proposal. You give me 10% of your 4000 and I will give you 10% of my 1000. The rest can go into a trust fund.
O.K. Steven, you have just demonstrated that you are not willing to engage with an analogy that demonstrates the error in your reasoning, and hence I can now be sure that you are not making a genuine attempt at rational discussion of the science. As such I see no reason to continue with this discussion. Sadly this kind of behaviour is very common in discussion of climate, and one of the reasons why I rarely post on blogs like this that do nothing to prevent it, and why you don’t post on blogs that do.
dr b, as far as I can tell I have proven that it is mathematically possible for En be a larger contributor to the atmospheric increase than Ea. It all depends on how much the sink increases due to the increase in atmospheric concentration. Currently it is about 50% if you believe all the increase is due to Ea. You do understand that right? That the CO2 levels would not be going down if Ea had not been introduced? If you understand that it shouldn’t be too difficult to see you can change that percentage around and imagine many different scenarios.
steven, too little, too late. I have already explained why that line of reasoning is incorrect in the analogies that you refused to engage with.
I didn’t engage your analogy because I have already proven it incorrect mathematically. Instead of coming up with analogies, since you insisted on me making an equation, why don’t you prove my equation wrong with one of your own taking into account that the sink increases with atmospheric concentrations as you have already agreed happens.
dbhd,
You put too much trust in your mathematics. You cannot prove by the mass balance alone that the anthropogenic component dominates. You can prove as Steven has done that making natural sources dominate requires quite extraordinary assumptions, so extreme that it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that the alternative is unrealistic. Proving that it’s unrealistic requires, however, some analysis of the natural sources and natural sinks.
What Salby has observed is most certainly due to short term effects related to the ENSO and land based vegetation. These effects have little if any part in the long term trend, which is, indeed, due to the anthropogenic releases and the reaction of natural processes to the existing levels in atmosphere and oceans as well as the state of the land based vegetation and soil. There’s no indication that any independent natural source would have any noticeable influence on the trend. Salbys presentation does not indicate that he would have any such proposal either.
Thanks Pekka, take this up a while. I need coffee lol.
D.B.H.D., I see you and steven are going through the same debate you and I had up thread some months ago. With your analogy of the cookie jar can I just say that in respect of your wife, being an analogy for natural emissions and natural sinks, of course over a cycle her net contribution will be negative.
However the problem with this analogy is the fact you are treating her actions as one entity when in fact you should conceptually be treating her actions as 2; a saver and a spender. Delegate the spending to a 3rd party if you like. Going back to natural emissions and sinks, conceptually we may have: –
a. Natural mechanisms acting as sources of emissions which may be increasing over a given time period of time.
b. Completely different mechanisms representing sinks which may also be increasing over a given time period but at a faster rate than a.
Now the net effect of a & b must be –‘ve, i.e. b> a, however this not preclude, in itself, a. being a contributor to the concentration increase of CO2 over the given time period.
Do I think this is the case? Very unlikely, however I would like to see Salby’s evidence presented and rebutted. I don’t see how it can be rebutted, purely on a mass balance argument.
BTW, I like your post re the correlations on SKS.
Geoff there is no good reason to treat natural sources and natural sinks as separate entities for the simple reason that most parts of the carbon cycle (e.g. the oceans, plant both respire and photosynthesis, the both grow and decay) are simultaneously sources and sinks.
Doctor
Maybe so but then we’re getting away from a pure mass conservation argument. However each natural component, over the given time period (e.g. multiple of years to eliminate seasonal effects), must either be a net emitter, net sink or neutral. You really need an inventory (over the cycle) of the natural carbon cycle emissions & sinks and anthropogenic emissions, consistent with mass conservation, given the known increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. IMO to lump all the natural mechanisms in as one is not valid unless there is good evidence that no component(s) of these are net emitters..
Pekka, I don’t understand your comment. What’s the additional evidence?
Check this thread.
Two points emerge:
1 ) Salby has not presented any slightest support for the role of natural processes for the multi-year trend in the CO2 concentration. The correlation that he found tells absolutely nothing on that as the whole correlation is present only in the short term variability around the trend.
2 ) Nobody has been able to propose any even remotely credible alternative for the very well fitting standard explanation that is based in the anthropogenic nature of the increase.
The correlation is NOT only present in the short term variability around the trend. I get even better correlation when I compare decadal (or any other period) changes in atmospheric CO2 with the decadally averaged temperatue anomalies. I don’t have it on this computer, but anybody can check it. Total change in atmospheric CO2 over a period seem to correlate with the average global temperature level during this period.
There’s nothing to propose. It’s basic physics (partial pressures of CO2, the partitioning of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere…) and oceans are in contact with the atmosphere. It’s the consensus that needs to propose the mechanism that hinders the oceans from taking any extra atmospheric CO2.
Edim,
As CO2 causes warming there’s no way there would not be that long term correlation. Salby’s paper was not about that.
The warming of the oceans has added a little to the share of CO2 that is left in the atmosphere but the chemistry is known well enough to tell that this is a minor effect, which is really fortunate as we would otherwise have a really strong positive feedback.
All the other arguments on the lack of any other credible source for the CO2 and on the role of the oceans as a sink and not a source remain valid.
There really is only one credible explanation. It agrees well with what’s known about the carbon cycle. There remain uncertainties in the understanding of the carbon cycle but they are small relative to the observed increase of the atmospheric concentration.
Pekka, you just assume CO2 causes warming based on some hypothesized GHG-GW, but there’s no evidence for that. The warming is stopping at the highest ‘CO2 forcing’, just like it always does. Your only hope is that the warming starts again soon. I wouldn’t bet on that.
Edim,
I would be very happy to learn that the warming will not lead to severe damages. Unfortunately I don’t think that that can be assured in foreseeable future.
Pekka;
You don’t get to demand assurance that no serious harm will occur until you can demonstrate even one instance in recorded or archaeological history when warming caused such harm. (Droughts don’t count, as they result from cooling, not warming.)
Good luck with that!
So far Prof. Salby’s thinking on the relative importance of anthropogenic versus natural CO2 sources have been limited to talks, such as this one, rather than a published paper.
Let’s wait until he publishes a paper in a scientific journal and rebuttal/falsification attempts have also been published.
Max
PS As Judith points out, this may or may not represent a major shift, but it’s still too early to tell:
But, as someone else has posted here: “the science is NOT settled”
however since Judith wrote that, the video of the presentation has been made available, so we have seen the slides, and we know the basis of the argument, and the fatal flaw in the argument has been pointed out.
Science is indeed never completely settled, but that doesn’t mean there are not things that we can know with high confidence. This is one of them.
Sadly Max, it is too late for that. Once the argument has been published it needs to be discussed so that people are not misled. We don’t need to wait for the journal paper to be published to point out the errors in the argument presented in his talk, that have already misled some. I very much doubt the journal paper will ever be published, in which case can we allow the claims made in the talk to go unchallenged while we wait?
No, that isn’t the way science works. As Salby says in his talk, “science is predicated on discourse; questioning, that is how we get to the truth.” (rather ironically Prof. Salby has not responded to any of my emails, which have pointed out the error in his argument). Journals are only one way in which this discourse happens. Had Prof. Salby gone to an expert in the carbon cycle (Archer for instance), his error would probably have been pointed out to him before he went public with his argument. We need more discussion of the science, not less.
I have posted about this before, but maybe it is worth posting again:
Freshwater systems, while covering a small fraction of the Earth, seem to play a very large role in sequestration of carbon.
The study of freshwater systems is called Limnology.
This guy has written on implications that freshwater systems are tying up as much or more carbon than oceans:
http://limnology.wisc.edu/personnel/hanson/
It is hard to give credibility to ex cathedra assertions about how the climate works due to CO2 when large parts of the carbon cycle are not accounted for.
The mass balance argument does not rely on any knowledge of the carbon cycle other than that carbon sources and sinks exist. No information on how the sources and sinks operate or the individual fluxes are requires.
Nobody is making ex-cathedra assertions, its all in the published litterature, and is the result of research.
Pekka Pirilä Steven has not proven that natural emissions dominate. He has argued that natural emissions are greater than anthropogenic emissions, but that is entirely uncontraversial (look for instance at the IPPC diagram of the fluxes in the carbon cycle), and indeed I have explicitly said that this is indeed true.
However the fact that En > Ea does not mean that the rise in CO2 is natural, because it ignores the fact that the mass balance analysis shows that natural uptake is greater than natural emissions. This means that the natural environment is a net carbon sink, and hence is opposing the rise, not causing it. Now if you can explain how something can cause atmospheric CO2 to rise by taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it puts in, then the floor is yours, lets hear it.
The analogies I gave demonstrate that in finance (a rather more familiar setting) one wouldn’t attribute the rise in savings solely on the basis of the deposits, but would also consider the witdrawals. Essentially that is the error in Stevens argument, but sadly he can’t see it.
I wrote a journal paper on this (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ef200914u), setting out the basic facts. The large exchange fluxes mean that the attrbution is a little counter-intuitive, but it is worth the effort taken to understand it properly.
No, that isn’t what I said but I am very tired of this. Now go tell Tom Curtis he is daft and that you know mass balance is deductive and not inductive. Let someone you like try to convince you since you are obviously not paying attention to anyone else.
As it happens I am having a very productive discussion with Tom, as he is willing to spell out the scenario in sufficient detail that it can be meaningfully discussed. I also explained why in my view it is deductive rather than inductive.
Now if your argument was not how I summarised it above, then do restate it, but in doing so, please follow Toms example and (i) set it out in sufficient detail and (ii) engage properly with the responses.
I gave you an equation. I’m not sure what more you could want. When I said I was tired of it I meant it. Put a fork in me, I’m done.
As I said at the time values for the variables so that you actually had a scenario. This is what Tom did, and I now see his point, as I might have done with you had you provided the information I requested.
Note that at all times I have been asking you questions to help you specify exactly what you are talking about so that I could understand your point. It was you that failed to respond, so you shouldn’t be surprised that you didn’t make your point. It wasn’t for lack of effort on my part.
I’m sure if you actually bothered to read what I said you would find all the variables well explained. Adios.
Nonsense, you just said they “cancelled out.”
dr b, not to say I am upset with you or anything. I know exactly where your problem was and I’ll be happy to argue with you again. Just not on this one. I am tired of this one.
One more point.
The correlation observed by Salby tells absolutely nothing about the mechanisms behind the long term trend. The observation is related to the short term variability alone as the correlation is not related in any way to the average value seen in the plot, only to the variations around that average.
This was supposed to go below my previous post.
quite, however the variations about the mean value are irrelevant to a discussion of long term climate change, and so Salby’s conclusions about that are not supported by his argument, and Salby is wrong in stating that this was not previously known. It has been well known for at least 30 years since the paper by Barcastow, which provides a reasonable explanation (and is rather similar to Salby’s but without making the incorrect conclusion about the long term increase) and is discussed in the IPCC AR4 report.
I disagree. The correlation tells you that the annual change in atmospheric CO2 correlates with temperatures.
dCO2/dt = f(T)
delta(CO2) = integral(f(T)dt)
Any longer-term accumulation delta(CO2) is related to the integral. Higher the average temperature during the accumulation period, higher the accumulation. The accumulation during this decade will depend on the average temperature of this decade, just like it did in the last 5 decades.
Edim, I remember having pounted out to you before that your analysis is incorrect as the correlation doesn’t explain all of dCO2/dt, only the deviations in dCO2/dt around its mean value. If you are going to ignore my responses to your arguments, there is no good reason why I should repeat them here.
doctor, I also remember having pointed out to you that your analysis is incorrect. It’s not only the deviations. Total accumulation is dependent on the temperature level during the period of accumulation. This holds for any period longer than 1 year. Compare decadal growths to decadal temperature anomalies for example. Take any period length and compare the accumulation to the average temperature. There’s always a correlation.
dbhd,
I wrote that I agree with your conclusion but not with your argument, i.e. you need some additional input to prove your point, not only the equation of balance. Steven thanked me in a way that seem to imply that he more or less agrees on this all.
I try to express in words, where your argument is not sufficient by itself. From this one should also see, why your conclusion remains valid.
We know that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is about 50% of anthropogenic net flux (ANF for short, I don’t care now about the exact percentage). That means that there is a natural net flux that’s presently about 50% of the ANF. The natural fluxes can be split to a reaction to the deviation of the atmospheric concentration from a value that would be in balance with the other Earth systems in absence on any other net fluxes and to the other natural fluxes that are independent of the present concentration.
ANF is the dominant cause of the concentration increase unless there’s an equally large or larger positive natural net flux of the second type. If there’s such a large natural net flux then the natural reaction to imbalance must be correspondingly stronger. It must be able to remove an quantity that’s equal to half of ANF plus all of the natural net flux which was found to be at least the same as ANF. Thus the reaction must be at least 150% of ANF. All the above numbers apply also to periods that are longer than the fluctuations found to have the strong correlation by prof. Salby.
You cannot exclude the case of the above chapter by the balance equation alone, you need more than mathematics. You need to conclude that either the additional natural net flux that’s larger than ANF over periods of several years can be excluded or that the reaction to the existing deviations from partial equilibrium cannot be as large as 150% or more of the ANF. I’m certain that both of these arguments are valid:
– There are no natural mechanisms that could have changed the net flux as much as ANF on the average over long periods up to the whole history of Mauna Loa measurements.
– Natural mechanisms cannot react by the amount of 1.5 times ANF to the present imbalances in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and in other parts of the Earth system.
The first one of these arguments is the easier one to get convinced about, but the second is also on strong basis. Anyone who disagrees is invited to propose an additional natural mechanism that started to influence the CO2 concentration just before the Mauna Loa measurements started and that has after that added steadily CO2 to the atmosphere as much as ANF.
That must be done maintaining the possibility of explaining also the second requirement. Therefore all proposals based on warming on the oceans are pretty well excluded as the oceans are need as the major sink.
We agree that the net natural flux is about 50% of anthropogenic emissions, but it is important to bear in mind that it is in the opposite direction. It is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, rather than putting it in. Hence regardless of what has caused the change in the net natural flux, it is opposing the atmospheric increase, not causing it.
“The natural fluxes can be split to a reaction to the deviation of the atmospheric concentration from a value that would be in balance with the other Earth systems in absence on any other net fluxes and to the other natural fluxes that are independent of the present concentration.”
Sure, this is what models like GEOCARB are designed for. HOWEVER, as CO2 levels were broadly stable for serval thousands of years prior to the industrial revolution, thes “other net fluxes” are essentially insignificant, if they were not, CO2 would not have previously been in equilibrium.
“ANF is the dominant cause of the concentration increase unless there’s an equally large or larger positive natural net flux of the second type. ”
The mass balance argument proves that the natural environment is a net sink. This means that if there has been an increase in some natural source, then there must have been an even greater increase in some other natural sink. In which case, the natural environment as a whole is still a net carbon sink and has been opposing the rise.
You would make your case more clearly if you could demonstrate a specific scenario, with numbers given for all quantities that illustrated your point.
dbhd,
Please, read more carefully what I have written. I don’t believe that it’s so badly written that you cannot understand it. All your comments are beside the point, as have been your comments to Steven.
We both understand fully all what you say and we both start of that. You seem unwilling to stop for a moment and rethink what we write. It’s about the next step in the argument, about a piece that you are missing while you consider only the other pieces that you have introduced yourself.
JC:
”If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.”
JoNova about Salby’s results, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans :
”Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels – not humans”
Certainly Salby’s analysis is real surprise for people dominated by the political consensus, according to which human CO2 emissions control the CO2 content in the atmosphere. But if you, in your own investigations, have already found that the increase of CO2 in atmoshere follows the warming and not vice versa, you should be purely satisfied but not surprised.
Murry Salby claims,”that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2”.
As Salby’s report needs to be compared to the assessment reports of IPCC you must remember what Nir Shaviv writes in his link http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III :
”And now for the really last point. Don’t believe a word I write. If you are a genuine scientist, or wish to think like one, you should base your beliefs on facts you see and scrutinize for yourself. On the same token, do not blindly believe the climate alarmists. In particular, be ready to ask deep questions. Does the evidence you are shown prove the points that are being made? Is the evidence reliable? Sometimes you’ll be amazed from the answers you find.”
Scientifically the climate model investigations adopted by IPCC indicate only the assumed parameters needed to reach a certain propability of the warming believed to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However IPCC is not able to state any proper evidence in reality that the recent warming could be dominated by human CO2 emissions.
So far I do not know wether or not Salby can present a proper mechanism according to which the natural CO2 emissions have the dominating role on the changes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Because the kind of machanism does not seem to be available anywhere else either, so far you have to find it by yourself.
On the bases of findings available in reality in the comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 I have proved (including the mechanism as well) that ‘Salby’s analysis holds up’.
Salby:
” Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.”
Salby’s claim above indicates that ‘cost-effective measures’ to cut down anthropogenic CO2 emissions in order to prevent global warming, as planned on doing in Rio climate conference 1992, do not be valid but unworking (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC: ” — Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”).
At least since the IPCC report AR4 I have been bringing up that human CO2 emissions do not control the global warming. The only working solution on climate problems of warming and its extreme events seems to be any devolopment work which improves the adaptability for the climate problems experienced in reality.
Lauri If CO2 concentrations are only marginally predictable, please explain why it is for the last 150 the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 is extremely well modelled by 0.45*cumulative anthropogenic emissions.
The error in Salby’s reasoning is explained here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html Essentially a correlation with the rate of increase doesn’t tell you anything about the cause of the increase, because correlations are insensitive to the mean value of the rate, and it is the mean value of the rate that determines the long term increase. Salby is not the first to have made this error (Spencer has also made it), and I suspect won’t be the last.
Salby says that the IPCC were unaware of the behaviour of the carbon cycle mentioned in his talk. However in my SkS article I give the reference to the section of the IPCC report where it is discussed (it has been known about for at least 30 years). It is ironic that he says that he has been making this argument since AR4, since AR4 already answered his point, but sadly he obviously didn’t read the relevant chapter.
doctor bhd
You ask:
First of all, we only have real CO2 measurements since Mauna Loa started in 1959, not 150 years.
And, as you know, the 45% average only works out over the long term; annually this varies from 15% to over 85%, with a fairly good correlation with the change in average global temperature from the previous year.
So there is undoubtedly a temperature variable at play.
Also unanswered is exactly “where” the “missing CO2” is going, how much is ending up in the oceans, in the marine and terrestrial biosphere, in the lithosphere, etc.
I’m sure Salby read AR4, but possibly is of the opinion that he knows something, which the authors of AR4 wrote off as insignificant.
Who knows?
We just have to wait until Salby publishes this all in a paper in a scientific journal and first rebuttal attempts are also published.
Max
Max, (i) O.K., so you can disregard proxy data if you like, however the point remains the same that the long term behaviour of CO2 is very predictable as a function of anthropogenic emissions.
(ii) as to the short term fluctuations, these are also fairly predictable as the mostly follow ENSO, and are only minor purtabations about the long term trend (and hence are of no significance in a discussion of climate change, as they cancel out to zero in the longer term).
(iii) It is well known that temperature is involved, and it has been known for a very long time (the first paper was by Barcastow – see my SkS article for details) and it is discussed in the IPCC reports. The authors of AR4 didn’t write it off as insignificant, and it explans the behaviour that Salby describes, so it is for Salby to address the existing explanation, which he did not.
Note that Salby explicitly said not that the IPCC had written it off as insignificant, but that it was not known at the time of writing the report. This is demonstrably incorrect as I can point you to the section in the report were it is discussed (see my SkS article for details).
(iv) We pretty much know where the missing carbon goes already (read the AR4), but Salby’s presentation does not actually shed ANY light on that whatsoever, he just discusses a correlation.
We don’t have to wait for the paper, in fact Judith explicitly encourages us to do so “While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. “. The error in Salby’s argument, as published in his presentation, has been identified, and there is no reason not to discuss it.
Doctor bhd
Yes. Discussion is great.
Prof. Salby has waved a red flag, but has not yet divulged all the details behind his claims. Until he does, the discussion is somewhat rhetorical and I would take them with a grain of salt.
On the other hand, one can only assume that Salby is basically knowledgeable in his field, so that there must be something behind his claims.
So let’s wait and see.
Max
“Note that Salby explicitly said not that the IPCC had written it off as insignificant, but that it was not known at the time of writing the report. This is demonstrably incorrect as I can point you to the section in the report were it is discussed (see my SkS article for details).”
Not that know much this, but Salby was involved in IPCC.
So this could not be a conflict, as you seem to be suggesting.
??
gbaikie Salby was indeed an expert reviewer. However his expertise is not in the carbon cycle (check out his publications), so it is not surprising that he evidently did not read the chapter containing the relevant information, and it is very unlikely that he reviewed that chapter, on the grounds that he is not an expert on that topic.
Doctor bhd
Another point that was made a few years ago by by Ian Plimer refers to the natural CO2 release into the oceans (and subsequently into the atmosphere and biosphere) originating from the many inferred underwater volcanoes and fissures in the Earth’s crust. Plimer (a geologist) had estimated that these emit more CO2 than humans, although the known volcanoes (mostly above land) only emit a small fraction of that emitted by humans.
The “science” on our planet’s carbon cycle is definitely NOT “settled”.
Max
Max, does this mean that we shouldn’t discuss Salby’s article until the journal article is published … unless we think of something that supports Salby’s argument’s? Sorry that is just too transparent.
In the comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-218316 ‘doctorbunsenhoneydew’ asks:
”Lauri If CO2 concentrations are only marginally predictable, please explain why it is for the last 150 the long term rise in atmospheric CO2 is extremely well modelled by 0.45*cumulative anthropogenic emissions.”
In the comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-218333 ‘manacker’ has already properly enough answered to the question above, e.g. like this:
”First of all, we only have real CO2 measurements since Mauna Loa started in 1959, not 150 years.”
The older than Mauna Loa results of CO2 contents used in the models adopted by IPCC are ice core proxy values of carbon dioxide content, which are incompatible with any one of directly measured values, already therefore that, even at their best, they are averages of some centuries.
As to antropogenic rise of CO2 in the atmosphere in the comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 based on findings in realityI have claimed that during the recent century the rise of CO2 content in atmosphere has followed warming and not vice versa. This indicates that the rise of CO2 content in the atmosphere does not dominate warming and that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions have not controlled the rise of CO2 content in atmosphere. As seen, the change trends of temperature (1910-44, 1945-75 and 1976-2009) during the latest centure depend on periodes of decades being dominated by natural El Niño-events or La Niña-events, which so far are really ‘marginally predictable’.
When interpreting the assessments made by IPCC and talks at different forums, on the bases of my experiences on solving process problems needing interdisciplinary approach, I can not avoid an impression, that the requirements of multidisciplinary entirety on solving problems of climate change are ignored. Usually examinations seems to be confined to too narrow a scientific area, where any needed interdisciplinary approach of problem is not possible. Especially I refer to the climate models adopted by IPCC. Instead of findings in reality there are uncertain parameters seached by using inverse calculations (AR4 WG1 9.2):
”In the second type of calculation, the so-called ‘inverse’ calculations, the magnitude of uncertain parameters in the forward model (including the forcing that is applied) is varied in order to provide a best fi t to the observational record. In general, the greater the degree of a priori uncertainty in the parameters of the model, the more the model is allowed to adjust.”
This kind of ‘circular arguments’ are only assumptions without any evidence in reality. For instance all the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during the industrial time, without any proper evidence in reality, is assumed to be anthropogenic. On the basis of the unreliable arguments I think I can understand what is written by Judith Curry http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/19/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-ii :
”There are two major flaws in the design of the IPCC attribution experiments:
-inverse modeling that tunes the model and forcing to reproduce the 20th century surface temperature observations
-lack of account for uncertainty in the external forcing data”
Salby:
”What is relevant is net emissions, net collected from all sources and sinks, human and natural, that is what ultimately controls atmospheric CO2”; http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html .
I agree with Salby’ analysis in the comment of mine http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 :
”As far as I am aware the CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled together by both all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. After any change of CO2 emissions from sources or of CO2 absorptions to sinks makes the atmospheric CO2 content strive for a new level in order to reach a new dynamic balance between the CO2 emissions and the absorptions. As to the influence of human CO2 emissions on the atmospheric CO2 content it is determined by the proportion of the human CO2 emissions to the total CO2 emissions.”
The level of CO2 content in the atmosphere is analogical with any pool where the water level is controlled by all the water amounts coming to the pool and leaving that. For instance the growth rate of global CO2 content in the atmosphere is changing during ENSO cycles of some years, according to my interpretation, mainly as partial pressure of CO2 dissolved in sea surface waters is following changes of tropical SST. As I have proved in the comment above during last three decades the rise of CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled by the rise of sea surface temperature on upper latitudes, where the sea surface acts as a sink of CO2.
During latest centure changes in CO2 sinks have dominate changes of CO2 content in the atmosphere. If the CO2 content in atmosphere increases, the sinks – mainly sea surface on upper latitudes – determine how much CO2 from total amount of CO2 emissions stays in the atmosphere to increase its CO2 content. Because the share of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions is about 4 % from total CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, in the recent increase of about 2 ppm a year in the atmospheric CO2 content contains only about 0.08 ppm anthropogenic CO2, and the rest about 1.92 ppm CO2 is from natural sources. As I understand this agrees with Salby’s analysis.
My conclusion is that as far as parameters are chosen by inverse calculations the climate models give only unreliable results. In addition, nowadays an increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been proved to follow warming and not vice versa. Therefore there are no bases to cut down antropogenic CO2 emissions in order to control a warming.
“A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months”
well a year on, does anyone have news on when the journal paper will appear (or even which journal)?
You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the highest quality
sites on the internet. I most certainly will recommend this website!
Here’s a recent video of Salby talking about this:
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=10877
Salby’s full of it: debunked here.
http://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
And here.
http://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Awesome post thanks! We think your posts are great as well as hope there’ll be more soon.
“A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months.”
2 years on, and Salby’s not managed to get anything published. It’s a shame that what was so obviously nonsense to people who understand the subject got so much hype from people who should know better.
It’s a shame that what was so obviously nonsense to people who understand the subject got so much hype from people who should know better.
Indeed Previdi 2011 ( which includes Hansen Levitus Le Quere etc has also failed to make publication so what are you suggesting?
I don’t think it got as much attention. Anyway I went and looked for Previdi and found this. Looks interesting.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/pr05400d.html
It was rejected at esd ie Publication in ESD not foreseen .Same problems still exist
They link to the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Met Soc, which is no slouch of a journal.
One of the propositions is the attachment of a carbon cycle model and the response function of the biological sinks (Southern Ocean etc) At ESD the editors have a biological systems (deep ecology) bias whic his why they had to publish where um the understanding is more limited.
They seem to present evidence that the natural carbon sink becomes less effective with warmer temperatures acting as a positive feedback. Looks reasonable to me.
I love what you guys tend to be up too. This type of clever
work and reporting! Keep up the good works guys I’ve added you guys to my blogroll.
Spot on with this write-up, I honestly believe that this web site needs far more attention.
I’ll probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the information!
Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you
if that would be okay. I’m absolutely enjoying your blog and look
forward to new updates.
Keep all the articles coming. I love reading your
posts. Cheers.
Wow, indeed…..especially WRT how wrong Salby is.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/salbyratio.html
If only all people could understand the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Each year more than twenty people are killed by this odourless, colourless gas leaking
from faulty gas boilers and many hundreds more suffer health problems because of it.
If only people could appreciate how dangerous gas burning
appliances can be. An annual gas safety check could save lives.
I think that we should support local businesses by using a nearby ‘man and van’ to move any large boxes.