ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Myles Goodman at Drexel posted the following question as a comment to the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide:
You posit that CO2 does NOT accumulate in the atmosphere. How do you explain atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increasing over the last 100 years?
The Acquittal shows that carbon dioxide did not accumulate in the atmosphere during the paleo era of the Vostok ice cores. If it had, the fit of the complement of the solubility curve might have been improved by the addition of a constant. It was not. And because the CO2 presumably still follows the complement of the solubility curve, it should be increasing during the modern era of global warming in recovery from Earth's various ice epochs. These conclusions find support in a number of points in the IPCC reports.
So the answer to the post begins with supporting background on why CO2 is known not to accumulate in the atmosphere, and then goes on to other aspects of the model that global warming causes increases in CO2, which accounts for the last 100 years or so.
Rocket Scientist’s Journal
… UNDER CONSTRUCTION …
1. Estimates vary, but climatologists in the Consensus say that the atmosphere contains 730 GTons (PgC) of carbon and the uptake to the oceans alone is at least 90 GTons/year. It's a ninth grade algebra problem to calculate how long it takes to empty a bucket with 730 units at the rate of 90 units per year. If you throw in uptake by photosynthesis at 120 GTons/year and perhaps leaf water at the IPCC figure of 270 GTons/year, thus including everything in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, 480 GTons a year is pouring out of the bucket.
Now throw in approximately 100% replenishment, and you have an eleventh grade physics or chemistry problem where the level in the bucket is only slowly changed but the solution is quickly diluted.
Regardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.
See The Carbon Cycle: past and present, http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/courses/GEOL3520/Topic16/Topic16.html & Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles Chapter 4, http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/courses/GEOL1070/chap04/chapter4.html, UColo Biogeochem cycles.pdf; The Carbon Cycle, the Ocean, and the Iron Hypothesis, http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm
2. In 1985, Keeling provided two estimates of the residence time (the reciprocal of his global air-sea transfer coefficient) and uptake of CO2 in the entire oceans, based on different methods from different locale. They were 7.9 years for 2 GTons/year and 5.2 years for 4.35 GTons/year. Keeling, C.D. and R. Revelle, Effects of El Nino/Southern Oscillation on the Atmospheric Content of Carbon Dioxide, Meteoritics, Vol. 20, No.2, Part 2, June 30, 1985. No one today uses such small numbers for the uptake, so the residence time must be much less than Keeling suspected.
3. There are no separate, physical paths to pipe natural CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere or to segregate them in any other reservoirs. There is a theory of plant isotopic preference, and a theory of isotopic bias comparing natural and manmade CO2, but the Consensus has not posited such an effect in the carbon cycle exchange between the atmosphere and the reservoirs. In fact, the Consensus accounts for the difference in the concentrations in carbon isotopes in the atmosphere and the ocean not by selective solubility but by selective photosynthesis in the ocean. Climate Change 2001, p. 207. Natural and anthropogenic are indiscriminately mixed in the atmosphere, and undergo similar if not identical residence times.
4. Sidebar: By losing its long residence time assumption, the Consensus finds its well-mixed conjecture invalidated. The admission in the TAR of CO2 gradients over the globe also contradicts its well-mixed claims. Independently, gradients must exist because of the highly concentrated outgassing of CO2 from equatorial waters, and the balancing concentrated polar uptake. Consequently, the concentration of CO2 depends on where it is measured. Keeling himself warned not to mix CO2 measurements without regard to sinks and sources. He used calibration techniques to mix records.
5. The TAR says,
CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land. However, the removal of the CO2 perturbation added by human activities from the atmosphere takes far longer. This is because of processes that limit the rate at which ocean and terrestrial carbon stocks can increase. Anthropogenic CO2 is taken up by the ocean because of its high solubility (caused by the nature of carbonate chemistry), but the rate of uptake is limited by the finite speed of vertical mixing. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 51.
The first sentence is semantic gamesmanship to imply that CO2 cycles rapidly only if the CO2 is natural. That conjecture is made specific in the next sentence. The rest is fraught with error.
The physics of gas solubility in water is well-established, and should not be changed to suit the AGW conjecture. Solubility depends on the partial pressure difference of the gas and water temperature. It is not known to depend on ionic concentrations in the liquid (including the pH (see Climate Change 2001, p. 185)), nor on carbonate or any other chemistry. By the minimizing isotopic fractionation in ocean exchanges, above, the Consensus dismisses the possibility of any solubility preference between anthropogenic and natural CO2 based on the distribution of carbon isotopes.
Nor does solubility favor natural CO2 over anthropogenic CO2 based on the rate of vertical mixing. It is the same for both. There is no centrifuge effect to segregate heavy CO2 from light CO2.
One would expect no chemical reaction between ions in the ocean and molecular CO2 in the atmosphere. Solubility should be a purely physical process bringing CO2 into solution where it can dissociate first and then participate in the chemical reactions.
6. The IPCC provides the following data in Climate Change 2001:
| Parameter | Value | Page | ||
| Fossil fuel CO2 uptake to emissions ratio [u/e] | 50% | 187 | ||
| Ocean CO2 uptake, PGC/yr | 90 | 188 | ||
| Land CO2 uptake, PGC/yr | 120 | 188 | ||
| Calculated total uptake, nominal | 210 | |||
| Fossil fuel emissions, 1980-1989, PGC/yr | 5.4 | 185 | ||
| Fossil Fuel emissions, 1990-1999, PGC/yr | 6.3 | 185 | ||
| Calculated Fossil Fuel emissions, average | 5.8 | |||
| Ratio CO2 total increase to Fossil Fuel emissions, 50%/yr | 2.9 | 187 | ||
| Total ACO2 = Fossil Fuel emissions/(3/4) | 7.8 | 185 | ||
| El Niño reduced emissions, min, PGC/yr | 0.2 | 185 | ||
| El Niño reduced emissions, max, PGC/yr | 1 | 185 | ||
| Estimated El Niño incidence | 50% | |||
| Calculated El Niño reduced emissions, weighted average, PGC/yr | .3 | |||
| Net gain in CO2, PgC/yr | 3.3 | 185 |
Note: 1 Petagram (Pg) = 1 Gigaton (GTon)
So the natural
u/e = 210/207.8 = 101.06%,
a net uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. Adding ACO2 emissions and crediting the El Niño reduction in natural emissions,
u/e = 211.9/215.2 = 98.41%,
is a net addition (denominator - numerator) of 3.3 PgC/yr.
Next the IPCC segregates anthropogenic parts in both the numerator and denominator
u/e = (2.9 + 209.2)/(5.8 + 209.4)
but converts it into
2.9/5.8 + 209.2/209.4 =
50% explicit fossil fuel CO2 emission reduction +
99.80% implicit natural CO2 emission reduction.
Only in IPCC algebra does
(a+b)/(c+d) = a/c + b/d.
This is the result of assigning net transactions, whether fluxes or radiative forcings, to individual components in the transaction without physical justification. Consensus physics here is no better than its algebra. Because measured increases in CO2 concentration appear to be correlated with reasonable estimates for the growth of anthropogenic emissions, the Consensus assumes it has established a cause and effect relationship. Assuming correlation implies cause and effect is the same error the Consensus made in assuming that the increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature in the Vostok ice core reductions.
Until the Consensus can show that the solubility of CO2 in water depends on the carbon isotope or some other as yet unknown property differing between natural and manmade CO2, the IPCC data support the conclusion that all CO2 is reduced by the same number, approaching 98.41% per year.
7. The Consensus says,
Although there is sufficient uptake capacity in the ocean to incorporate 70 to 80% of foreseeable anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, this process takes centuries due to the rate of ocean mixing. As a result, even several centuries after emissions occurred, about a quarter of the increase in concentration caused by these emissions is still present in the atmosphere. To maintain constant CO2 concentration beyond 2300 requires emissions to drop to match the rate of carbon sinks at that time. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 75.
This argument, at the crux of the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarm, is contradicted by the Consensus' own data. Considering the uptake to the ocean alone, which is at least 90 GTons/year, the Mean Residence Time of the 730 GTons of atmospheric CO2 is 8.1 years, and the half life is 5.3 years. The CO2 concentration is down to one quarter in twice the half-life, or 10.6 years, more than an order of magnitude less than several centuries.
Thus the Consensus bases its key argument on its fallacious 50% calculation, which it then applies to its scenarios of accelerating anthropogenic CO2. That calculation nakedly assumes different residence times for anthropogenic and natural CO2. Instead of centuries, the Mean Residence Time of both kinds of CO2 is 8.1 years, based on elementary mathematics applied to the Consensus' own data on the oceanic uptake alone. Relative to the Consensus model, CO2 does not accumulate in atmosphere.
8. The Consensus says in the same section of the TAR,
Before the Industrial Era, circa 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration was 280 ±10 ppm for several thousand years. It has risen continuously since then, reaching 367 ppm in 1999.
The present atmospheric CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years, and likely not during the past 20 million years. Climate Change 2001, p. 185.
The 420,000 year figure was the greatest age of the Vostok CO2 data, which achieved peaks of about 300 ppm. See IPCC Figure 3.2(d) on page 201. A rough straight line fit to the Mauna Loa data (Figure 3.2(a), page 201) shows the measurements have exceeded 300 ppm for roughly 50 years.
Check the Vostok data. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt. The CO2 samples number 283, covering 414,085 years. The average spacing is 1463 years. The chances of sampling an epoch like the present 50 year record, if it existed, is about 50/1463 or 3.4%.
That translates into a 3.4% confidence level for the statement that the present CO2 trend was unprecedented in the last 420 Kyears. That confidence level does not begin to rise to an acceptable standard for a scientific conclusion.
This unprecedented claim is a mantra of the Consensus. It made a normal scatter plot of the Vostok data, but then seduced itself by connecting the dots!
9. The Vostok record (Figure 3.2(d)) shows five peaks in 420,000 years. What are the chance that the peaks shown are below the true maximum given that the average sample interval is a millennium and a half? A. The chances are about 96.6%. Thus the confidence is greater than 95% that any measured maximum is more than 50 years from the peak CO2.
10. So the question about the CO2 record for the last century asks for an explanation of an implicit exaggeration of an exaggeration. The measured record is actually only 50 years old, and it may show a high rate of CO2 growth. The elements of a model to fit the record should accommodate all the following.
11. The CO2 growth rate at Mauna Loa is unprecedented because no comparable measurements exist.
12. The CO2 level at Mauna Loa is substantially higher than the calculations from Vostok ice cores. Because Mauna Loa sits in the plume of the massive CO2 outgassing from the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, and because Vostok sits inside one of the great polar CO2 sinks, Mauna Loa should be higher than Vostok records for the same average, global CO2 concentration. How much higher is for further study by climatologists. The origin of the CO2 at Mauna Loa is dominated by Eastern Equatorial Pacific outgassing.
13. As shown in the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, the CO2 concentration lags global warming and is shaped like the complement of the solubility curve. The current epoch of global warming is just one more such epoch shown several times in the Vostok data, and the increase in CO2 concentration is similar to the paleo record, within the resolution of that record.
The Consensus had no explanation for the increase in CO2 it alleged caused the historical ice epoch recoveries. Once the Consensus accepts those new results from the Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide, it will have an explanation for the CO2 but no satisfactory explanation for the global warming at any time.
14. Also, small changes in ocean or atmospheric currents could have an additional profound effect on the CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. The center of the CO2 plume may now be moving toward Hawaii, causing an increase in CO2 concentration there. This could also account for the seasonal effects evident in the Keeling curve.
15. The CO2 rich atmosphere rises near the equator and splits into north and south plumes. As it rises in each hemisphere, it enters a Hadley Cell, carrying it first poleward, and then down into and to feed the westerly trade winds. The trade winds carry the CO2-rich atmosphere across Hawaii. However, the trade winds are also seasonal, varying cyclically in direction and magnitude. The seasonal fluctuations Keeling attributed to the biosphere growing seasons might be better correlated with the trade wind vector at Hawaii.
16. Anthropogenic CO2 may be an additional component of the 3.3 PgC/yr seen at Mauna Loa. It is at most 7.8 parts in 90, or less than 9%. The 3.3 PgC/yr is not unabsorbed ACO2.
To the extent that the record at Mauna Loa is influenced by the venting of CO2 from the Thermohaline Circulation, the changes in plume intensity may be due to events a millennium old.
18. The Consensus assumes anthropogenic changes act in a state of climate equilibrium. It assumes that both the CO2 and the global temperature are in equilibrium but for man. Instead, climate change forecasts must operate in the state of Earth's on-going, triple recovery from the last ice age, the last glacial epoch, and the Little Ice Age, whatever the causes might be. Any valid forecast must first account for that natural warming.
Kyoto-like arrangements can have no measurable effects on the rise in CO2. To stop the rise in CO2, man must stop global warming.
The Consensus weaves a tangled web.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/47
Search
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 11, 2007 12:43 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Gavin Schmidt on the Acquittal of CO2.
The next post in this blog is SOLAR WIND.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (8)
QUESTION
If CO2 caused global warming, why wouldn't the resting state of the earth be at max temp; only to fall during periods of increased vulcanism or such, but then to rise back when they subside?
The reason this seems reasonable to me is that 1. if CO2 caused temp elevations 2. which subsequently induced CO2 loss from oceans 3. which caused temps to rise 4. etc., until a steady state is achieved at MAX temp, then high temp should be the norm, not low.
And an earth at low temp and low CO2 would then be in a metastable state which, once the CO2 trigger was pulled, could NOT be reset short of some geologic (vulcanism) or cosmic process (meteor) or maybe out of control vegetation. I.e., if those who blame CO2 for the warming are correct, it should already be too late to do anything, even if we were to end all human contribution.
I've never heard anyone discuss this, but it seems like a reasonable thesis. Did I miss something?
Regards, and thanks in advance for your input.
[RSJ: 4/30/08. What you describe in layman's terms is a system with positive feedback. Feedback control systems are commonplace in nature, and widespread in technology. It occurs in the atmosphere with the secondary greenhouse gas, CO2, as you suggest. It exists in many instruments used to measure climate phenomena.
[You have described the response of the system in discrete steps, which is OK even though the actual process would be continuous. In fact, making the process discrete helps minimize the algebra necessary to model it. So with your model in mind, consider at step 1 a slug of CO2, X, added to the atmosphere that had reached equilibrium, and that it caused some increase in surface temperature.
[Now at step 2, let the increase in CO2 outgassed from the ocean be a fraction, r, of the slug X. That is at step 2, the ocean emits rX, causing another temperature rise per your step 3.
[Step 4 takes us back through the steps, where now the added CO2 is not X but rX. So the second time through step 2, the ocean emits an additional r*rX, or r²X. And the next time at the 3rd step, it emits r³X, and so on.
[The original slug plus the ocean emission totals X + rX +r²X + r³X + … , which is equal to the original, X, times a gain factor of 1 + r + r² + r³ + … . This is equal to 1/(1-r), which you can verify by doing the long division. It is the gain of the system, and a lot can be said about it.
[However, from the standpoint of your model, the high temperature is not, as you call it, the norm. The temperature requires the slug input to upset the equilibrium, your trigger. And we presume an equilibrium does or can exist.
[The IPCC reckons that the feedback doubles the warming (4AR, FAQ 1.3, p. 116), making the factor r equal to one half. (As an aside, the IPCC has not come to grips with your step 2. Its feedback gain is due to water vapor, a more powerful and temperature dependent greenhouse gas, added when the CO2 triggered its release.) So suppose the slug of CO2 contained 6 GtC, the approximate annual anthropogenic emissions today, and that it would cause a temperature rise of, say, 0.01 ºC. In closed loop with r = 0.5, the temperature rise would be 0.02 ºC. Do this for a century, and the temperature rise might be a disastrous 2 ºC.
[Now the steps in your model are not instantaneous. If the slug is the annual output, the interval between the steps should be one year. If r is one half, the feedback is 99% complete in 7 years. The time to complete is simple to compute. It is 1-rk in k years.
[The IPCC adds a step not in your model. It calculates that about 50% of the Anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by the ocean each year. (Aside: This is the tip of a bizarre iceberg. The IPCC reports that of 597 GtC of natural CO2 in the atmosphere, 70 Gt is absorbed by the ocean each year. That's 11.7%. At the same time, it reports that of 165 GtC of ACO2 in the atmosphere, the ocean absorbs 22.2 GtC. That's 13.5%. But the physics of solubility of CO2 in water cannot discriminate between the natural and anthropogenic species of the gas. The IPCC created separate paths through the ocean for nCO2 and ACO2, so the ocean also outputs 20 GtC of ACO2 to the atmosphere. Net, the ocean absorbs 2.2 GtC per year. The IPCC makes the net nCO2 exchange with the atmosphere zero; for ACO2, its number is -3.2 GtC per year. 4AR, Figure 7.3, p. 515.) Because of the absorption and re-emission of ACO2, the IPCC model is slow to develop. Next instead of keeping the slug constant from year to year, the IPCC experiments with various scenarios for ACO2 emissions. These scenarios are variations on your theme, "if we were to end all human contribution."
[In summary, your model is correct but the temperature achieved and when depends on the duration of each step, the loop gain, and the scenario. The process continues to infinity in your model, but the contribution quickly becomes insignificant, especially at the gain level employed by the IPCC in its GCMs.
[All of this discussion is by way of a tutorial on feedback prompted by your query and certainly not an endorsement of the IPCC's model. The slow re-absorption of ACO2 used by the IPCC is the assumption that ACO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. It does not. The IPCC claims at several points that its GCMs employ radiative forcing, and that radiative forcing has water vapor feedback turned off. At the same time, the IPCC makes clear that its models adjust warming caused ACO2 through water vapor feedback. 4AR, FAQ 1.3, p. 116.
[The GCMs compute the total cloud cover from equations which depended on specific humidity in their derivation. See 4AR, ¶8.2.1, pp. 602-3, citing Bony, S., and K.A. Emanuel, 2001: A parameterization of the cloudiness associated with cumulus convection: Evaluation using TOGA COARE data. J. Atmos. Sci., 58, 3158-3183. The IPCC recognizes in its reports that warming increases specific humidity (4AR, FAQ 1.3, p. 116), but it gives no indication that it might compute cloud cover based on temperature. Consequently, the IPCC accounts for a water vapor feedback for CO2 warming, but does not model the strong, negative feedback of the cloud albedo caused by warming.
[The GCM models for the carbon cycle and for the hydrological cycle are incorrect. Consequently, the IPCC conclusions about AGW are false.]
Posted by yonason | July 11, 2007 12:03 PM
"RSJ: Watch this spot for a detailed answer."
I eagerly await it.
NOTE: I realize that the CO2/Ocean PChem dynamic you describe would preclude this possibility, BUT, that is not a factor that the advocates of anthropogenic GW admit to, at least as far as I know.
Anyway, I can't wait to hear what you have to say.
Thanks in advance!
Posted by yonason | July 18, 2007 10:37 PM
"Solubility depends on the partial pressure difference of the gas and water temperature. It is not known to depend on ionic concentrations in the liquid (including the pH (see Climate Change 2001, p. 185)), nor on carbonate or any other chemistry."
This is incorrect. Solubility of CO2 in water is also dependant of pH and salinity. In particular the concentration of Ca2+ is important. But the temperature is of course most important. Beside this little error I find your paper superb.
[RSJ: 10/6/07. I stand by my observation on multiple grounds.
[First, it is accurate as stated. Given the partial pressure difference and the water temperature, the solubility is known regardless of salinity, S, or the alkalinity or acidity index, pH. This may be a scientific cop-out, but it is accurate, and accuracy rules the day in science. The reason is that the partial pressure of CO2 in water, CO2(aq), depends on S, so the salinity effect is already taken into account in the solubility expression. The pH may also be significant, but only at this sub-level, because pH and the partial pressure are correlated, although the cause and effect relationship has yet to be modeled. QED.
[Second, venerable handbooks are reliable sources for solubility data in graphs with best fit curves and formula, all of which depend on just two parameters: temperature and pressure. No one has produced such a formula depending on temperature and pressure plus either salinity or pH, or both.
[Third, the comment offered is in the context of posing a baseline from physics by which, in part, to expose the revisionist physics contained in the following statement by the Consensus on Climate:
[CO2 naturally cycles rapidly among the atmosphere, oceans and land. However, the removal of the CO2 perturbation added by human activities from the atmosphere takes far longer. This is because of processes that limit the rate at which ocean and terrestrial carbon stocks can increase. Anthropogenic CO2 is taken up by the ocean because of its high solubility (caused by the nature of carbonate chemistry), but the rate of uptake is limited by the finite speed of vertical mixing. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary, p. 51.
[The solubility of ACO2 is the same as that of nCO2. Some plants are known to have an isotopic preference for the uptake of CO2, but that is not sufficient, nor does the Consensus claim it is sufficient, alone or in combination with the molecular weight differences, for natural processes to separate physically the two species of gases. This leaves the Consensus' model that the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration increase since 1957 is of anthropogenic origin, notwithstanding the isotopic claims, without a physical cause. This alone reduces the AGW theory to a conjecture.
[This is not the end of the errors in the Consensus model for CO2 uptake. For example, the carbonate chemistry does not interact with atmospheric CO2 as implied in the passage. This error is also suggested by the Consensus' diagram called "Carbon cycling in the ocean". Climate Change 2001, p. 188, Figure 3.1c. In the Fourth Assessment Report, the Consensus augments this diagram with another diagram depicting three parallel ocean carbon pumps that regulate "natural atmospheric CO2". Climate Change 2007, p. 530, Figure 7.10. The caption adds, "The oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is dominated by inorganic carbon uptake at the ocean surface and physical transport of anthropogenic carbon from the surface to deeper layers." Bold added. That sentence appears to be true, but it is equally valid for natural CO2. The implied distinction is false. The sentence is also inaccurate because dominated implies that other mechanisms participate in the uptake. They don't:
[Carbon dioxide molecules react chemically with water to form bicarbonate (HCO3 -) and carbonate (CO3 =) ions, neither of which communicate with the overlying air. Only about 0.5% of the total CO2 molecules dissolved in seawater communicate with air via gas exchange across the sea surface. Takahashi, T., S.C. Sutherland, and A. Kozyr. 2007. Bold added. Global Ocean Surface Water Partial Pressure of CO2 Database: Measurements Performed During 1968 - 2006 (Version 1.0). ORNL/CDIAC-152, NDP-088. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 20 pp.
[The two diagrams need to be corrected to show a pool of CO2(aq) interacting above with atmospheric CO2, CO2(atm), and below with the biological pumps. (Also the calcium carbonate counter pump needs to be redrawn to make the CO2 flow consistent.)
[Once the Consensus adds the missing CO2(aq) reservoir, it needs to recognize that it may never be in equilibrium with the ocean chemical processes. That equilibrium is an essential assumption underlying perhaps every study or analysis of the partial pressure of oceanic CO2, pCO2(aq). In those works, the concentration of CO2(aq) is identical to pCO2(aq).
[The Consensus has the ocean chemistry and the sluggish vertical mixing tightly coupled to the atmosphere. This error, along with the assumption the physics of ACO2 is unique, is necessary to show ACO2 accumulating in the atmosphere for the Global Catastrophe Model. Instead, to the extent that the chemistry and vertical mixing proceed at rates different than that of the dissolution process (solubility), the pool of CO2(aq) will be in disequilibrium.
[Solubility can proceed apace, essentially instantaneous compared to the ocean mixing and chemistry processes, and dependent on the partial pressure difference and water temperature.]
Posted by ianric.ivarsson@spray.se | August 4, 2007 8:41 AM
Hi,
Looks like there is some good info on this blog, but as I'm always busy-but-trying-to-keep-abreast-of-recent-AGW-developments, I must pass over for now. Visually, it's a mess & very hard to read and I don't have the patience to wade through it.
I have BMK'd and will check back occasionally, however.
Good luck on your layout!
[RSJ: Thanks. Some small format changes are in progress. Hope it helps. Please let me know if it doesn't.]
Posted by PaddikJ | August 11, 2007 9:55 AM
To RSJ
I was wondering what would be the position if all known reserves of petrochemicals were released into the biosphere, does it mean the end of the world? This led to a review of where the world's carbon is. I could not find a comprehensive list anywhere though somebody more capable must have tried before me. The IPCC figures never seem to give a full account. In any case this is the result of my research. I have converted all measures to Pg's (10 to the power 12 times kg's) of carbon. There is no doubt that these figures are only approximate and in a number of cases I have taken what seems the most recent and or most believable. I would be interested to know if you think any numbers are significantly in error. To me they were useful to give a perspective on the issues. Pg's of carbon Natural gas - (known world reserves) 90 Oil - (known world reserves) 128 Coal - (known worlds reserves) 836
World petrochemical reserves 1,054
Atmosphere 543 Living organisms 664 Soil 2,000 Oceans - dissolved organic carbon 3,000 - dissolved inorganic carbon above thermocline 7,000 - dissolved inorganic carbon below thermocline 28,000 Carbon in biosphere 41,207
Calcite deposited over the last 500m years in limestone 6,132,000
Total world carbon 6,174,261
Natural circulation of CO2 within Biosphere say 500 Pg's per annum Anthropogenic CO2 say 5 - 10 Pg's per annum
Having seen this I was no longer concerned about the biosphere being able to cope with anthropogenic CO2. More of an issue is how long the carbon will last us.
[RSJ:10/4/07. First, but for the IPCC, the voice of the Consensus on Climate, no climate crisis would exist. Therefore, the Rocket Scientist's Journal currently is dedicated to exposing Consensus' errors. It is not dedicated to creating an alternative climate theory. To the extent that it might shine scientific light on climate problems, that is a bonus. Your suggestion that the natural CO2 exchange and the anthropogenic CO2 addition are negligible when compared to the total reservoirs, whether correct or not, is such an alternative model.
[Regardless, your reservoir numbers add a bit and conflict a little with the data in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. See Figure 3.1a, p. 188. The Consensus puts the natural circulation with land at 119 up and 120 down (Figure 3.1d), and with the ocean at 88 up and 90 down (Figure 3.1c). In addition, the Consensus reports a balanced leaf water exchange of 270 (¶3.2.2.1, p. 191, a figure which the Consensus seems to have neglected everywhere else. (All numbers in PgC/yr.) The combined numbers are about 480, and close to your 500 PgC/yr. Do you have a source for the 500 PgC/yr?
[The Consensus' reliance on your data is minimal. The GCMs are an attempt to represent the small signal, anthropogenic effects on top of a large signal, natural climate background. The models assume that the natural climate is variously between marginally stable and unstable, and has a constant temperature. The Consensus all but ignores that natural variations sometimes swamp the anthropogenic forcings. It does not model the stability of the climate. It ignores that the natural climate is always either warming or cooling, hence charging anthropogenic effects with the natural warming.
[On page 185, the Consensus quantifies the global gradient of CO2 concentration, but in 93 other places relies on CO2 being well-mixed. It seems to ignore the natural flow of CO2 from the oceans at the Equator and back to the oceans at the poles. The GCMs do not represent the natural dependence of CO2 concentration on global temperature. This flow must produce a background gradient. The GCMs do not model the effects of oceanic outgassing, the resulting CO2 gradient, and atmospheric circulation patterns to interpret Keeling's Mauna Loa data. In the Fourth Assessment Report, the Consensus now reckons different rates of exchange for natural and anthropogenic CO2. See Figure 7.3, p. 515. The Consensus has no mechanism by which this could happen, such as a difference in solubility for nCO2 and ACO2, not does it reconcile this difference with its well-mixed assumption.
[In short, a large number of inconsistencies and omissions plague the models of the Consensus on Climate related just to your CO2 reservoir and exchange data. The models are fatally flawed. Facetiously, they are not ready for prime time. Seriously, for a scientist to exploit these models for public policy is unethical.
[We can't reach the question you raise - whether the carbon exchanges with the atmosphere are significant compared to the total of all nearby carbon.]
Posted by Jim McKinlay BSc MBA | September 4, 2007 5:31 AM
Hello Dr. Glassman,
Re: lack of high peaks of CO2 in ice cores (very low probability due to sampling resolution as you note) see:
http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0202.html
"These data are CO2 concentration of the air occulded in Siple Dome ice core, Antarctica. The study was conducted between January 2001 and March 2003 on a deep ice core from Siple Dome Core A, located at 81.66 S, 148.82 W. The data covers up to the Termination II (around 140,000 years ago). The parameters are depth in meters and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in part per million (ppm). The deepest depth (>995 m) show CO2 values of more than 390 ppm, suggesting reaction and mixing near the bottom with a till ice layer (>1001.8 m), and the intrusions of different ice flows that were laterally located near bed rock. Although deep CO2 values cannot be dated in any way, two of the deepest CO2 results (~ 200 ppm) indicate ages of early Termination II or the penultimate glacial period."
So even when there is high CO2 associated with the penultimate warm maximum, by magic it comes from some other cause. Now where did those "different ice flows" (at great depth) get the elevated CO2 concentration? Hmmm.
Also note that it takes from 70 to 120 years for the Antarctic ice to close, and firn ice closes at a depth of about 60 to 120 m depending on the rate of snowfall at the surface. Therefore any sample taken is a 70 to 120 year moving average result, not a peak that may last less than 50 years. We simply do not know what prior peak concentrations were, but Siple strongly suggests that they were considerably higher than now. Fossil leaf stomata also suggest ACO2 concentration >340 ppm for the brief warming just before the Younger Dryas.
If memory serves Mauna Loa has been grafted on to Siple, not Vostok, but the result is much the same. To match the recent upslope of the Siple concentration to the Mauna Loa concentration, a decision was made that the age of the gas was current in 82 year old ice. Now how did surface CO2 concentration penetrate 60+ meters of snow and ice? No explanation. The likely conclusion is that atmospheric concentration of CO2 in ca 1870 was little different from 1958, which begs the question of why it has risen since 1958. Well 1958 global temperature was pretty similar to 1870. Hmmm. The problem here is that your Vostok Temp/CO2 correlation gives a 100 ppm change in concentration for a 10 degree C change in temp. Since we have had only about 0.7 degree C temp increase since 1958, why have we had a 75 PPM change in ACO2 concentration?
Regards, Murray
[RSJ: Your quotation says of a deep ice core, "deep CO2 values cannot be dated in any way". In the next paragraph, you speak of "high CO2 associated with the penultimate warm maximum". Are you correcting the quotation?
[Then you address the physics of deep ice formation with specific numbers. What is your source for these?
[What relationship do you see between the Vostok and Siple ice core data?
[The Consensus overlaid the Mauna Loa and South Pole data in Figure 3.2a, TAR, p. 201. The Consensus grafted Mauna Loa data on Law Dome, Adelle, Siple, and South Pole data in Figure 3.2d. As discussed in this response, the Consensus' unprecedented claims for the present CO2 concentration compares Mauna Loa with Vostok.
[The Consensus on Climate repeatedly claims,
[The present CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years. TAR, p. 7, p. 39, p. 185.
[This is a reference to ice core data from Vostok. TAR, p. 137, citing Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, J. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman and M. Stievenard, 1999: Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature, 399, 429-436. See also TAR, p. 102, last paragraph.
[Now if your data are correct, namely that the Vostok data are 70 to 120 year averages (whether moving or not), then the peaks during the 420,000 years worth of samples would be higher than measured. The Consensus claim of unprecedented levels would be weakened.
[Regardless, the 420,000 year set of samples comprise only 283 samples. Vostok Ice Core Deuterium Data for 420,000 Years, World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder. And NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt, ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt. The average sample interval is 1,483 years. The maximum reading was 289.2 ppm CO2.
[The average CO2 concentration from Mauna Loa is 343.75 measured over 48.75 years (3/31/58 to 12/31/06). Calculated from data at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/web/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat. About 8,615 contiguous intervals of 48.75 years comprise 420,000 years. Suppose one such interval before the present existed in the 8,615 samples. What are the chances that it was included in the 283 taken? It's about 3.3% (283/8,615). Whether the Consensus was speaking about averages or peaks, its presumption that the present value of CO2 concentration is unprecedented during the past 420,000 years enjoys a 3% confidence level. I'd wager that that confidence level is unprecedented in scientific claims.
[The Consensus says reassuringly,
[Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end of the range or above the upper end of the range).
[If someone has a lot of time on his hands, he might want to solve this same problem taking into account that the Vostok samples are 70 to 120 year averages, and not 48.75 years. The result is not going to justify the Consensus claims for unprecedented CO2 levels.
[Murray Duffin alerts us to a new wrinkle. The Siple data analysis completed two years after the Third Assessment Report shows that the present levels were actually exceeded during the last 140,000 years, just one third of the first Vostok record. The Siple data disprove the Consensus unprecedented CO2 claim.
[The Siple data analysis was completed over three years before the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR). In that Report, the Consensus backtracked just a little from its unprecedented CO2 claim. It now says,
[The concentration of CO2 is now 379 parts per million (ppm) and methane is greater than 1,774 parts per billion (ppb), both very likely much higher than any time in at least 650 kyr (during which CO2 remained between 180 and 300 ppm and methane between 320 and 790 ppb). The recent rate of change is dramatic and unprecedented; increases in CO2 never exceeded 30 ppm in 1 kyr - yet now CO2 has risen by 30 ppm in just the last 17 years. 4AR, p. 510; see also 4AR, Frequently Asked Question 7.1, unpaginated.
[A favorite word of the Consensus, unprecedented (used 13 times in the TAR but now 28 times in the 4AR), no longer applies to the CO2 concentration. The modern concentration is "very likely much higher". The claim, formerly an exaggeration, is now false. The present level of 379 was exceeded in the Siple analysis, which measured 390 ppm.
[Do you remember in the History of the World, Part I, when Moses came down from the mountain lugging three tablets of 5 commandments each? He proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen … ". Whereupon he drops a stone, shattering it into unrecognizable bits. He announced something like, "Did I say 15? Ten; ten commandments for all to obey!"
[The Consensus cries, "Did I say unprecedented in 420,000 years? I mean, very unlikely in 650,000 years!" The Vostok record had indeed been extended by an unremarkable half, but the Siple record, ignored in the 4AR, showed the present level had been exceeded in the first sixth of the longer record.
[The Consensus also favors the word dramatic, an unscientific word at best, which it employs 18 times in the TAR and 42 times in the 4AR, now, with respect to CO2, coupled with unprecedented. It is subjective; a way to punch up what the data can't show.
[The Consensus by ignoring the Siple results and exaggerating the falsely alleged unprecedented time interval practices fear mongering. It is indeed drama. It goes beyond the unethical reliance on unvalidated models to urge a public policy.]
Posted by Murray Duffin | October 14, 2007 12:13 PM
Since I posted this comment I went back to Vostok and found 2 references that it takes 4000 to 6000 yers for the ice to close, (Vostok is a very cold high desert with very low precipitation, orders of magnitude lower than Siple or Law Domes) and that modern air can be found in 4000 year old ice. That suggests to me that any relatively short peak in CO2, say a few hundred years, would be smeared out of recognition as part of a 4000 year moving average. Who knows how high the peaks might have been at previous interglacials? The concensus also ignores the fact that fossil leaf stomata from the warming prior to the Younger Dryas also suggest CO2 levels up to 340 ppm.
[RSJ: Comment repeated and answered at GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW for continuity in the thread.}
Posted by Murray duffin | November 10, 2007 9:36 PM
I have question about the carbon content in the atmosphere, is this C from CO2 only or from hydrocarbons, primarily methane?
[RSJ: Do you have a reference where anyone has referred to the "carbon content of the atmosphere", meaning the total carbon content?
[The IPCC in its reports refers to the concentration of CO2 in parts per million (ppm), but also in petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon, where this carbon is from the CO2 molecule. It treats methane concentrations differently, first using parts per billion (ppb) and then uasing the weight of the total molecule, i.e., Tg(CH4), teragrams (1012 grams) of methane.]
[Should you come across a reference to the carbon content of the atmosphere without explanation, assume it be to the weight of the carbon in CO2 molecules. This would be safe because the concentration of CH4 is about 0.5% of that of CO2 in volume mixing ratio (molecular parts), a contribution small compared to the error in CO2 measurements.]
Posted by Heinz Kotzot | June 3, 2008 8:30 AM