Recent research has emphasized that “critical mysteries remain” in our ability to quantify or even understand carbon cycle processes as they relate to Earth’s water bodies. Observational constraints prevent the detection of an anthropogenic signal in ocean carbon uptake trends on decadal timescales (McKinley et al., 2017). Many new papers even contradict the IPCC-endorsed conclusion that the oceans are a net sink for CO2 emission rather than a net natural source.
The “We Had No Idea” Terrestrial Carbon Cycle
Since the mid-1980s, the Earth’s coasts and land area have been expanding (Donchyts et al., 2016), meaning there is more land mass above sea level today than there was three decades ago. Sea level rise has not been rapid enough to keep pace with the natural shifts in Earth’s geological processes.
Net growth in global land and soil area could significantly affect the Earth’s carbon budget, especially since “Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined” (Carey et al., 2017).
Scientists frequently “discover” terrestrial locations that are new, unaccounted for sources of natural CO2 emission that “we had no idea” about. They also routinely “discover” terrestrial surfaces that are deemed new CO2 net sinks that they never knew existed (Bastin et al., 2017).
Furthermore, scientists acknowledge that “the heterogeneous and sparsely measured terrestrial biosphere cannot be directly measured” (McKinley et al., 2017).
With new carbon sources and sinks “discovered” on a routine basis, as well as the very limited availability of direct measurements, why should there be any confidence that our land area carbon budget estimates are reliable?
Earth’s Water Bodies: “A Mechanistic Understanding of Carbon Sink Variability Requires Substantial Additional Elucidation”
Scientists have recently acknowledged that “critical mysteries remain” in ocean carbon uptake processes such that we lack a “detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works” (McKinley et al., 2017).
Observational constraints do not even allow us to confirm that the alleged ocean carbon sink has been growing in recent decades due to anthropogenic emissions.
“That the growth of the partial pressure of CO2 gas in the atmosphere ( pCO2 atm) drives a growing oceanic sink is consistent with our basic understanding that, as the globally averaged atmosphere-to-ocean pCO2 gradient increases, carbon accumulation in the ocean will occur at an increasing rate. This behavior has been illustrated clearly with models forced with only historically observed increases in pCO2 atm and no climate variability or change (Graven et al. 2012, Ciais et al. 2013). Nonetheless, critical mysteries remain and weigh heavily on our ability to quantify relationships between the perturbed global carbon cycle and climate change.”
“The current inability to accurately quantify the mean CO2 sink regionally or locally also suggests that present-day observational constraints are inadequate to support a detailed, quantitative, and mechanistic understanding of how the ocean carbon sink works and how it is responding to intensifying climate change. This lack of mechanistic understanding implies that our ability to model (Roy et al. 2011, Ciais et al. 2013, Frolicher et al. 2015, Randerson et al. 2015), and thus to project the future ocean carbon sink, including feedbacks caused by warming and other climate change, is seriously limited.”
“First, substantial uncertainty remains on the mean sink (∼30% of the total flux). Formally, the quantitative estimate of the 1980–1989 sink (−2.0 ± 0.7 Pg C y−1) is not statistically distinguishable from that for 2000–2009 (−2.3 ± 0.7 Pg C y−1). Reducing this uncertainty is absolutely critical to global partitioning of anthropogenic carbon sources and sinks. Each year, the Global Carbon Project (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org) estimates global sources and sinks of carbon, but because the heterogeneous and sparsely measured terrestrial biosphere cannot be directly measured, its flux is estimated by difference from estimated anthropogenic sources and the ocean sink (Le Quer´ e et al. 2015). In these budgets, land use change uncertainty is at least 50% of the mean flux, and uncertainty is growing for emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (Ciais et al. 2013). Reduction in ocean sink uncertainty could therefore help to compensate from a global budgeting perspective.”
“The sum of the available evidence indicates that variability in the ocean carbon sink is significant and is driven primarily by physical processes of upwelling, convection, and advection. Despite evidence for a growing sink when globally integrated (Khatiwala et al. 2009, 2013; Ciais et al. 2013; DeVries 2014), this variability, combined with sparse sampling, means that it is not yet possible to directly confirm from surface observations that long-term growth in the oceanic sink is occurring.”
“Globally integrated variability fluctuates with ENSO. Yet, at regional scales outside the equatorial Pacific, these modes tend to explain less than 20% of the large-scale variance in pCO2 ocean and CO2 flux (McKinley et al. 2004, 2006; Breeden & McKinley 2016), indicating that much variance remains undescribed. Consistent with the limited amount of variance explained, the mechanistic connections of these modes are not well understood, except in the equatorial Pacific with ENSO. In the North Atlantic, a variety of studies have suggested a connection of the NAO and AMO to pCO2 ocean and CO2 fluxes, but whether these changes occur through convection or advection remains an open question. In the Southern Ocean, the SAM has been linked to pCO2 ocean and CO2 fluxes through impacts on wind-driven ventilation and subduction; however, since the mid-2000s, the clear relationship to SAM has substantially weakened (Fay & McKinley 2013, Landschutzer et al. 2015). In the North Pacific, the relative influence of the PDO ¨ as opposed to ENSO requires further study. Particularly as observations in the high latitudes have become more abundant, evidence has grown that climate modes do not adequately explain carbon cycle variability and that mechanistic understanding of carbon sink variability requires substantial additional elucidation.”
“[T]his CESM-LE analysis further illustrates that variability in CO2 flux is large and sufficient to prevent detection of anthropogenic trends in ocean carbon uptake on decadal timescales.”
The Earth’s Water Bodies: Net CO2 Source Or Sink?
Observational analysis has indicated that water bodies release more of their stored CO2 as they warm and retain more of their stored CO2 as they cool.
This has been borne out in Mauna Loa CO2 records as they relate to a “warm water year” versus a “cold water year”.
“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981). … Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a, while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has nonetheless claimed the oceans are a net carbon sink rather than a net source.
Recent research analysis has challenged this conclusion, including several new (2018) published papers.
Astor et al. (2013), for example, found that 72% of the attribution for the increase in CO2 emission for the studied region arose from warming sea temperatures, and thus they concluded “the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere”.
A Partial List Of Papers Indicating Earth’s Water Bodies Are A Net Source Of CO2
Below is a very non-comprehensive compilation of 12 recently-published papers that challenge the IPCC conclusion that the oceans function as a net sink for CO2.
This list would appear to support the conclusion that “critical mysteries remain” in our ability to quantify or even understand carbon cycle processes as they relate to Earth’s water bodies.
“Based on these observations, 72% of the increase in fCO2 sea in Cariaco Basin between 1996 and 2008 can be attributed to an increasing temperature trend of surface waters, making this the primary factor controlling fugacity at this location. … An increase/decrease of 1°C is usually followed by an increase/decrease of 16–20 matm of fCO2sea. Thus, the SST increase of 1.3°C between 1996 and 2008 accounted for 16 matm increase in fCO2sea explaining around 72% of the fCO2sea observed variation. This suggests that the changes measured in fCO2 sea were primarily the result of surface-ocean warming in Cariaco Basin. … These observations confirm that this area is a consistent source of CO2 to the atmosphere. The main process controlling the long-term changes in surface fCO2sea at CARIACO was temperature, with net community production playing a secondary role. … At the CARIACO site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events.”
“We estimated that the coastal area off Bodega Bay was likely an overall source of CO2 to the atmosphere based on the following conclusions: (1) the overall CO2 flux estimated from both eddy covariance and pCO2 measurements showed a source of CO2; (2) although the relaxation period during the 2008 measurements were favorable to CO2 uptake, CO2 flux during this period was still a slight source; (3) salinity and SST were found to be good predictors of the CO2 flux for both eddy covariance and pCO2 measurements, and 99% of the historical SST and salinity data available between 1988 and 2011 fell within the range of our observations in May–June 2007, August–September 2008 and November 2010–July~2011, which indicates that our data set was representative of the annual variations in the sea state. Based on the developed relationship between pCO2, SST and salinity, the study area between 1988 and 2011 was estimated to be an annual source of CO2 of ~ 35 mol C m−2 yr−1. The peak monthly CO2 flux of ~ 7 mol C m−2 month−1 accounted for almost 30% of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface mixed layer.”
“Although they are key components of the surface ocean carbon budget, physical processes inducing carbon fluxes across the mixed-layer base, i.e. subduction and obduction, have received much less attention than biological processes. Using a global model analysis of the pre-industrial ocean, physical carbon fluxes are quantified and compared to the other carbon fluxes through the surface mixed-layer, i.e. air-sea CO2 gas exchange and sedimentation of biogenic material. Model-based carbon obduction and subduction are evaluated against independent data-based estimates to the extent that was possible. We find that physical fluxes of DIC [Dissolved Inorganic Carbon] are two orders of magnitude larger than the other carbon fluxes and vary over the globe at smaller spatial scale. At temperate latitudes, the subduction of DIC and to a much lesser extent (<10%) the sinking of particles maintain CO2 undersaturation, whereas DIC is obducted back to the surface in the tropical band (75%) and Southern Ocean (25%). At the global scale, these two large counterbalancing fluxes of DIC [Dissolved Inorganic Carbon] amount to +275.5 PgC y−1 for the supply by obduction and -264.5 PgC y−1 for the removal by subduction [net +11.0 PgC y−1] which is ∼ 3 to 5 times larger than previous estimates.”
“The study of air-sea CO2 fluxes (FCO2) in the coastal region is needed to better understand the processes which influence the direction and magnitude of FCO2 and to constrain the global carbon budget. The near-shore region was a weak annual net source of CO2 to the atmosphere (0.043 mol CO2 m-2 y-1); where 91% of the outgassed FCO2 was contributed during the upwelling season.”
“Continental shelves account for a large proportion of global primary production, and potentially a disproportionate fraction of the carbon dioxide (CO2) flux between atmosphere and ocean. The continental shelf pump hypothesis proposes that continental shelves at high latitudes act as net sinks of atmospheric CO2. However, direct measurements on the Scotian Shelf, off eastern Canada, indicate that this shelf region acts as a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.”
“Complex oceanic circulation and air–sea interaction make the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETPO) a highly variable source of CO2 to the atmosphere. … Inter-annual variability was observed within the region, with the location of the western extent of the freshpool moving westwards considerably between 2010 and 2014. Previous work within this region suggest that changes in thermocline depth related to ENSO are likely to influence pCO2 within this region. The region is a net contributor to atmospheric CO2, with average sea to air fluxes (over the four years of observations) of 1.6 mmolm−2d−1, with all regions of the ETPO outgassing year-round, except the rainfall diluted Gulf of Panama/Freshpool region.”
“Air–sea CO2 flux computations indicated that the NYS acted as a net CO2 source with respect to the atmosphere in each season, annually releasing 0.63 ± 0.10 mol C m− 2 to the atmosphere. In combination with the CO2 efflux rate (1.68 ± 0.33 mol C m− 2 yr− 1) reported in the southern Yellow Sea (SYS), we estimate that the entire Yellow Sea, including both the NYS and the SYS, was a net CO2 source at a rate of ~ 1.49 mol C m− 2 yr− 1, annually releasing ~ 6.78 Tg C to the atmosphere (1 Tg = 1012 g).”
“Seasonal pCO2 variability was studied in the Southeast Levantine (SE-Levantine) during 2009–2015 with the aim of quantifying air–sea CO2 fluxes in this ultra-oligotrophic, warm and highly evaporative marginal sea. Mixed layer pCO2 varied significantly between 560 ± 9.0 μatm in August (summer) and 350 ± 8.7 μatm in March (winter). Comparison of pCO2 to Sea Surface Temperature (SST) yielded a strong positive correlation (n = 135, r 2 = 0.94), suggesting that the seasonal variations are the result of a thermodynamic effect on the carbonate system in seawater. Using the coupling between pCO2 and SST, we calculated the mean monthly values and the air-sea fluxes in this region. These calculations indicated that this region is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere over an annual cycle, with an average flux of 845 ± 270 mmol C m2 y−1 (~0.98 Tg C y−1 ).”
“The era of global warming and increased emission of greenhouse gases can be marked by the beginning of the industrial age. It is also true that under several conditions, natural ecosystems can be equally responsible for CO2 emission like any other anthropogenic activities which continuously release heat-trapping gases in the process of development. … East Kolkata Wetland (EKW) is an urban or peri-urban wetland located on the outskirts of the Kolkata City which performs multi-facet activities, carbon sink being one of them. The raw waste from the city is naturally treated in this wetland system, however, the aquaculture ponds situated in these wetlands which make use of this waste water for fishery is rarely studied. The present study aims to see whether the aquaculture ponds of EKW complex are acting as a source or a sink. Airwater carbon dioxide (CO2) flux was estimated for three consecutive seasons in a year and it was found that the system is acting as a CO2 source in all the three seasons.”
“We conducted a free‐water mass balance‐based study to address the rate of metabolism and net carbon exchange for the tidal wetland and estuarine portion of the coastal ocean and the uncertainties associated with this approach were assessed. We measured open water diurnal O2 and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) dynamics seasonally in a salt marsh‐estuary in Georgia, U.S.A. with a focus on the marsh‐estuary linkage associated with tidal flooding. We observed that the overall estuarine system was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and coastal ocean and a net sink for oceanic and atmospheric O2.”
“Our calculated CO2 areal fluxes were in the upper-level magnitude of published data, demonstrating the importance of mountainous rivers and streams as a global greenhouse gas source, and urgency for more detailed studies on CO2 degassing, to address a global data gap for these environments. … Rivers have been widely reported to be supersaturated in carbon dioxide (CO2) with respect to the atmosphere, and are a net source of atmospheric CO2 (Butman and Raymond, 2011; Raymond et al., 2013).”
“Although the overall status of mangroves [creeks] is net autotrophic (Alongi, 2002), mangrove sediments and waters have been shown to be a large source of CO2 to the atmosphere due to large organic matter inputs from diverse sources such as the mangrove biomass itself, other terrestrial detritus, nutrients from land, microphytobenthos, phytoplankton and the exchange of organic matter with the open ocean (Lekphet et al., 2005; Borges et al., 2005; Bouillon and Boschker, 2006; Kristensen et al., 2008). … The vast majority of mangrove CO2 gas exchange studies found surrounding waters were supersaturated in CO2 with respect to the atmosphere, hence, a net source of CO2.”
Yes the “science is settled”.
97% of scientists agree.
[…] The “We Had No Idea” Terrestrial Carbon Cycle […]
A brilliant synopsis of a very important topic. Thank you, Kenneth Richard, your masterful posts provide a great service to anyone who is not an expert but willing to stay up-to-date with the science and when needed actually probe deeper into the scientific discourse conducted through papers such as these that you give us access to.
Thank you, Georg.
Relating to the concept of co2 increase following temperature rise,
have you noticed how Elon Musk plans to try to build an atmosphere on Mars?
By heating the planet to release stored co2!
Now there’s a novel idea. Perhaps even Seb should tell him he is nuts!
Since you mentioned me by name, why should I tell him he is nuts?
Well seb,
you tend to rubbish claims on this blog that temperature rise on earth precede atmospheric co2 level increase. With the implication increased temperature causes the increase in atmospheric co2.
So, do you think Musk is anti science? It is an admission atmospheric co2 level increase follows temterature increase, isn’t it? Otherwise why would Musk be discussing it with NASA?
Kind of the opposite of co2 increase causing temperature to rise!
1) heating rock/soil will release CO2
2) CO2 concentration follows temperatures
3) higher CO2 concentrations (and density for Mars, obviously) would cause an increases Greenhouse effect and warm the planet further
I have the feeling you don’t understand how the mechanisms work. Do you think climate scientists (or NASA or Musk) have this problem too? 😉
Maybe you should call them and tell them how increasing temperatures causing increasing CO2 concentration excluded higher temperatures from happening due to increased CO2 concentration. I’m sure they’ll be very interested …
” higher temperatures from happening due to increased CO2 concentration.”
There is ZERO evidence that is the case, seb
Feel free to stop making scientifically unsupportable cackling sounds and produce some evidence.
Seb says
1) heating rock/soil will release CO2
2) CO2 concentration follows temperatures
3) higher CO2 concentrations (and density for Mars, obviously) would cause an increases Greenhouse effect and warm the planet further
So, one of the main tenets of the AGW meme that co2 drives temperature is not quite as simple now?
That heating releases co2, and co2 causes heating, which causes the release of more co2, which causes more heating and on and on.
Best Elon doesn’t get to try his ideas on Mars, all that co2 might make the place uninhabitable, in no time at all!
It has never been simple.
You have no idea how this works. Right or wrong?
Seb, you KNOW there is no evidence that CO2 causes any warming, anywhere, anytime.
You certainly have NO IDEA how it really works,
and you CERTAINLY cannot produce any evidence about how you were told by the AGW scammers that is IMAGINED to work.
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE, seb.
Answer the questions, seb.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
The thing is – and we had this discussion many times now – that you don’t need to know how big natural carbon sources/sinks are to determine that human emissions are causing the CO2 concentration increase. If you have a wallet which multiple people can access and have “no idea” what they put in or take out, you can still determine that is was you who caused the current amount of money to be $100 higher than last time you looked, because you put more than $100 in without taking anything out.
That seems like a wild statement considering that the oceans are a net sink. In warm years less is absorbed than in cold years. Far from “additional injections”. Maybe the 80s were different for climate science though … who knows.
Because they are. Citing an incorrect paper from 1982 doesn’t “contradict” that fact. A fact that your quoted McKinley et al., 2017 paper also presents well enough for even you to understand.
You got to be kidding … you list papers about specific locations that are sources for CO2 and claim that this would “support the conclusion that critical mysteries remain”. WTH?
Actual oceanic CO2 source regions
Astor et al., 2013: Cariaco Basin.
Ikawa et al., 2013: Bodega Bay
Reimer et al., 2013: California coastal region
Rutherford et al., 2016: Scotian Shelf (Canada)
Brown et al., 2015: eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETPO)
Xue et al., 2012: Yellow Sea
Sisma-Ventura et al., 2017: Southeast Levantine Sea
Other source not related to oceans (feel free to correct me, I have taken just a quick look)
Levy et al., 2013: another “we don’t know the natural CO2 fluxes” paper
Biswas et al., 2018: East Kolkata Wetland
Wang et al., 2018: “in a salt marsh‐estuary in Georgia, U.S.A.”
Li et al., 2018: rivers as a source of CO2
Rosentreter et al., 2018: mangroves
Yes, the oceans are both a source and a sink for CO2. It depends on partial pressures and temperature. And yes, life (in the oceans) can also absorb CO2. Nevertheless, the global oceans are a carbon/CO2 sink. As your quoted Kinley paper indicates we don’t seem to know for sure if that sink grows with our emissions. If it does then good for us (and bad for acidification accelerating in this case), if it doesn’t then CO2 concentration increase will accelerate the longer we don’t manage to stabilize and decrease our emissions.
“considering that the oceans are a net sink.”
The ZERO EVIDENCE yapping from seb continues.
K produces scientific evidence.
seb replies with EMPTY zero-science rhetoric.
Be VERY GLAD there has been an increase of atmospheric CO2, it allows the world to be fed.
And if humans are responsible for even part of that increase, ALL THE BETTER, because the world emissions of CO2 will continue to climb for many decades, thus so will atmospheric CO2.
This is GREAT NEWS for ALL life on this CARBON BASED planet of ours.
You are kidding, right? Kenneth produces a paper that says the oceans are a net sink in this very post. That’s the evidence if you will.
But YOU didn’t produce the evidence, did you?
ONE paper saying a that in some circumstances there is a net sink
MANY saying not so.
Evidence free yapping.. your trademark.
Do you think he gets paid by the number of times he posts, or by the word? Whatever it is, he’s not worth it, unless he’s just being paid to annoy, in which case he’s moderately successful. Of course, whoever is paying him should deduct for the amusement value, because some of his posts are positively hilarious. Sadly for him, though, it’s unintentional.
I think he just has a very unhealthy pathological NEED to be a mindless anti-science troll.
Its probably the only thing he considers worthwhile in his life.
So sad, so PATHETIC…
So seb
@spike
If that’s all it is, then what a waste of a life.
I’d rather he were getting paid for trolling. That way his paymasters would be getting nothing for their trouble, so he’d just be a parasite draining their resources. But doing something like that for free would be such incredible folly that it’s hard to imagine anyone being THAT stupid.
And that’s the “defense” you guys come up with? “This guy must surely be paid” otherwise “what a waste of a life”.
Are you guys getting paid or are you coming up with that nonsense all on your own?
“Kenneth produces a paper that says the oceans are a net sink in this very post.”
And SebastianH does not counter it. Just blathers on with distraction and nonsense. As usual empty SebastianH.
Why on Earth would I want to counter it?!
Is this another example of reflexively being against anything your opponent says? Or the intentional dullness you wrote about?
“CO2 concentration increase will accelerate”
This is WONDERFUL NEWS for the planet, seb
You do know that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING apart from enhancing plant life, don’t you ?
Why do you want to continue to starve the world’s plant life, seb??
Is it hate, spite or ignorance?
More great news from China, seb.
in Q1, Thermal power increased by 176.9 TWh, wind only 42.6 TWh
in Q2, Thermal power increased by 78.4 TWh, wind only 22.4 TWh.
How will it take wind to catch up at that rate.? 😉
Flohn (1982). “Thus in a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”
Gervais, 2016
http://www.kin152.org/climatologie/challenge.pdf
“The average CO2 increase in the atmosphere, measured accurately by infrared spectrometry at Mauna Loa (NOAA, 2015), is 1.99 part per million (ppm) per year from 1995 to 2014, viz. 1.99/400 = 0.5% yr.−1. The largest yearly increase observed in 1998, nearly 3 ppm, followed the largest El Niño warm fluctuation by 10 months. Other CO2 increases above the mean such as 2.52 ppm in 2005, 2.42 ppm in 2010, 2.65 ppm in 2012 or 2.28 ppm in 2014, also follow by 9–11 months (Humlum et al., 2013) El Niño temperature fluctuations parameterized via the Multivariate ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) index (MEI, 2014). The relationship is confirmed for negative MEI [multivariate ENSO index] indices which correspond to La Niña fluctuations such as those in 1999–2001 or 2008. They match low CO2 yearly increases of 0.93–1.6 ppm and 1.6 ppm, respectively.”
“Warm temperature fluctuations favor CO2 release from the oceans which contain 60 times more CO2 than the atmosphere (AR5, 2013), whereas cooler fluctuations favor its oceanic capture. The very small CO2 increase of 0.14% yr.−1 observed in 1992 might be viewed as an upper estimate of the residual anthropogenic addition in the atmosphere after action of carbon sinks favored by low temperatures. The correlation of yearly CO2 increases with temperature fluctuations, and their lag of several months (Humlum et al., 2013) were discussed elsewhere (Park, 2009; Beenstock et al., 2012, Salby, 2012, Gervais, 2014).”
—
Jones and Cox, 2005
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023027/full
“There is clear similarity between Figures 1b and 1c, with the positive CO2 growth rate anomalies corresponding to El Niño events, and the negative growth rate anomalies corresponding to La Niña events. The largest positive CO2 growth rate anomalies are coincident with large Niño3 values in 1973, 1988 and 1998. … It is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions. Most interannual variability in the CO2 growth rate is attributable to variations in land-atmosphere CO2 exchange with climate (e.g., associated with ENSO or volcanic perturbations)”
—–
Goldberg, 2008
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830508786238369
“[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2.”
“[D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”
Just wow! … I have nothing more to add to this. We’ve had this discussion so many times now and you still believe in the opposite of reality happening.
The increase in CO2 concentration is smaller than what we emit. Any variation that follows temperatures is therefore a variation of the capability to absorb the surplus we emit, not an increase in “emissions” from the oceans. That’s pretty basic und should be crystal clear to anyone looking at this. Yet you are somehow convinced that this is not the case … it’s super weird and I can only reply with “wow” to this.
Have fun in wonderland, Kenneth.
Sorry, but there are too many experts in atmospheric physics who do not agree with your “pseudo mass balance” argument for me to dismiss their conclusions.
Dr. Ed Berry (Ph.D, Atmospheric Physics)
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/
Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.
Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:
(1) From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
(2) Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
(3) Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
(4) Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.
Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:
During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.
Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.
The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.
—————–
http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/#comment-10997
Hi, Ed. The SkS [SkepticalScience/SebastianH] argument goes something like this.
The annual increase is given by C = Ea + En + U where U is the natural sink uptake, Ea is anthropogenic emissions, and En is natural emissions.
It is observed that C is approximately 1/2 of Ea, so we have 0.5*Ea := Ea + En + U
Therefore, En + U := -0.5*Ea which is less than zero. Therefore, nature is a net sink, and cannot be responsible for the observed rise.
It is a very stupid argument. The reason is that this is a dynamic system. Nature reacts to the sum total of inputs. That means that U is composed of a sum of two terms, Un which is induced by En, and Ua which is induced by Ea, U = Ua + Un. We then have 0.5*Ea := Ea + En – Ua – Un which says that nature on its own is En – Un := Ua – 0.5*Ea
But, we don’t know Ua. If the sinks are very responsive, it can be as high as Ea itself, which leaves En – Un = 0.5*Ea and nature on its own is positive, therefore a net source. Only if Ua were less than 0.5*Ea, which would indicate a very weak response, would nature be a net sink.
I have tried to get this very basic point across to the pseudo-mass balancers time and again, and they just do not get it, because they are not familiar with dynamic systems. The guy who wrote the argument up at SkS is a computer scientist, untrained in the hard sciences.
The fundamental point is that, in a dynamic feedback system, all inputs induce a reaction. Ua would not exist if Ea did not. Ea causes it to be. U is not a static variable. It depends upon both En and Ea, and one cannot put it strictly on one side or the other of the ledger. It must be split up into portions, one due to forcing En, and one due to forcing Ea, Un and Ua, and each placed on the appropriate side of the balance.
—-
Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (textbook), Dr. Murry Salby, atmospheric physicist
http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf
“Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546
“The results for the two periods are in broad agreement. Together with the strong dependence of CO2 emission on temperature (Fig. 1.43), they imply that a significant portion of the observed increase in r˙CO2 derives from a gradual increase in surface temperature.” pg. 253
“Warming of SST (by any mechanism) will increase the outgassing of CO2 while reducing its absorption. Owing to the magnitude of transfers with the ocean, even a minor increase of SST can lead to increased emission of CO2 that rivals other sources.” pg. 546
—–
https://notrickszone.com/2017/06/29/evidence-review-suggests-humans-may-not-be-the-primary-drivers-of-co2-concentration-changes/#comment-1220640
Well, I was a bit late to this party. Kudos to Kenneth Richard for his clearly written presentations. SebastianH ultimately relies repeatedly on the thoroughly discredited pseudo-mass balance argument, that says that if CO2 levels increase by less than the sum total of what we have put in over the years, then the increase is due to us. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of dynamic processes, in which outflow is proportional to all inflow (i.e., sink activity is stimulated by source activity).
The pseudo-mass balance argument declares all sink activity to be wholly natural, and therefore is moved entirely to the “natural” side of the ledger. But, as sink activity is stimulated by all inputs, there is a portion of it that is brought into being by the anthropogenic input. That portion of the sink activity is, for all intents and purposes, artificial sink activity, and must be moved to the other side of the ledger.
SebastianH betrays his fundamental misunderstanding in his comment at 2. July 2017 at 2:52 PM, likening the system in question to a static pool of water. If he added in a drain, and a separate “natural” inflow, he would have a better analogy that actually represents the situation. In such a case, the inflow from his garden hose could never affect the steady state level of the water in greater proportion than the proportion of his inflow to the “natural” inflow. If the rise is greater than this, then the cause is a necessarily a change in the natural flow.
Ed Berry and “Bartemis”? Never trust “scientists” who use the language of you pseudoskeptics.
I’ll repeat my “wow” in disbelief what strange ideas you come up with (or found somewhere) and just because they better fit your fantasy of how the world works … pardon, that’s not what you do, you have a fantasy about how the world can absolutely not be working. No argument is too silly. Just wow.
Instead of responding with more non-substantive characterizations of these scientists’ “strange” and “wonderland” and “fantasy” and “silly” conclusions about the “pseudo mass balance” argument that you espouse, why not actually provide a substantive response that explores the reasons why they are wrong (and be sure to use their actual argument rather than a made-up straw man you can slay)? That would actually be far more convincing than responding with name-calling every time someone writes something that contradicts your beliefs.
Others have done that already, why should I repeat them?
Use this as an example, find more with fitting search terms:
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-9f46cb44-cc7e-11e5-9150-6f7714cc2782.html
And you probably know very well that Ed Berry’s understanding of CO2 residence time is flawed. His whole argument is flawed.
But anyway, I just went to his blog and found this gem:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/climate-change-emperors-have-no-clothes/
In it he even contradicts that Bartemis comment you found. It’s only inflow vs. outflow that determines the level. As I tried to illustrate back then 😉
But his confusion with residence time becomes visible in the equations he comes up with again. So … feel free to do what you stated in your first paragraph:
But also be prepared that you will be considered to be in the same “group” as Ed Berry gets categorized into. The climate denial group.
In this multi-paragraph straw man construction of a blog post, this blogger doesn’t address the question of the pseudo mass balance CO2 emissions/concentration argument you believe in. Basically, he just uses appeal-to-authority to claim Dr. Berry is wrong, and climate models are right. You’ve just made it worse for yourself, as you’ve shown you have even less to offer substantively.
It’s highly likely you are once again making up your own version of what “that Bartemis comment” is, and then claiming it contradicts what Dr. Berry or Dr. Murry Salby or several other physicists who dare question your beliefs have written.
Oooh. It’s the ever-so-substantive rebuttal of calling someone who questions the beliefs of a believer a “denier”. Perhaps this time it’ll work and we’ll find your name-calling persuasive.
Some day you’ll realize that you are a blogger too and what you do is no different to what other bloggers do.
What more can i offer than: he is wrong and likely in denial. You don’t believe us, fine. But claiming that “i made it worse” … wth?
Daring to question a “belief” … I see. I question your belief system and since you write constantly that I would be a believer that makes me an expert on the topic. So I must be correct and your belief is wrong. Sound logic, right? 😉
Just read that Edberry.com Blogpost I linked to and imagine he didn’t write that the level depends on the residence time.
Kenneth, you are the one with the very strong, unshakeable beliefs here. Some day you’ll realize that.
Precisely! You have nothing more to offer than to say that people who don’t agree with your beliefs are wrong and in “climate denial”. Thank you for effectively agreeing your “rebuttal” posts have little to no substance.
Here’s what I believe: Much of the current climate “knowledge” as it pertains the extent of the fossil fuel influence on climate change and glacier melt and sea level rise and hurricane intensities and wildfires is unsettled, uncertain, and extremely difficult to discern due to the behemoth of natural variability. You, obviously, don’t share that belief. You’re certain the science is settled on the 100% human attribution for climate changes. Your entrenched and uncurious certainty — and the fact that you think anyone who disagrees with you is in denial of the truth — is why you’re not a skeptic. That’s not how skeptics think.
Yes, I strongly believe there is a vast amount that we don’t understand about the climate and the mechanisms of change, and that the models have not been informative.
Should I take the part with excluding you from the words-in-mouth-twisters back?
Kenneth, Ed Berry is a known disinformer and denialist. He (and you guys) is not Galileo fighting the establishment. This guy uses your language. He is one of you pseudoskeptics fighting reality by inventing their own world of physics.
Kenneth, you are no skeptic by the description you just gave. You blindly believe nonsense papers and present them here (from time to time) as another argument against mainstream climate science. There is no skepticism towards those papers. You post lists of papers supporting your view point (or at least you think they do) and show no skepticism towards their results. If that’s what skeptics do and think, then you are right … I am no skeptic.
In what realm is this Ph.D atmospheric physicist “known” to be a “disinformer” and “denialist”? Carbonbrief.org? SkepticalScience.com?
Again, name-calling and claiming that the idea that CO2 emissions control the temperature of the oceans (and glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities…) is “reality” when these phenomena haven’t even been observed to occur in the real world is not a persuasive argument. I am not in any way deterred by your attempts to marginalize me by calling me names. It just demonstrates, once again, how lacking in substance your arguments are.
There have been 1,300 papers that have been cited as supporting a skeptical position on climate alarm highlighted here in the last 2.5 years. Calling papers that don’t support your beliefs “nonsense” doesn’t make them so.
Would you be surprised that the blog you are writing for is probably despised equally or more by everyone outside your niche? That mentioning a link to notrickszone.com only gets you a good laugh? You know what the difference between this blog and those sites mentioned is? They aren’t largely amateurs who claim to be experts in climate science because they’ve fallen for some conspiracy theory about “climate gate” emails or “hide the decline” or the like.
Haven’t been observed in your world you mean.
Can I use this logic on your fellow commenters here? No substance when calling me names? 😉 I am sure spike55 won’t be very pleased that you think he is lacking substance.
Oh, and I am not calling you names with the term “pseudoskeptic”. If you aren’t a real skeptic (because it’s very one-sided), but still say you are, then you must be a pseudoskeptic or fake skeptic if you will.
It’s not that hard to go back a few months and find papers that you supported/defended adamantly and are obvious nonsense. Those lists, they are a different beast. I don’t know where you took the time from to read and understand them all, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the authors were surprised to find themselves on such a list 😉
And no, it’s not “not supporting my beliefs” that makes a paper nonsense. That’s your MO … since I am not supporting your belief, I am the dishonest one that has to present results from nearly impossible experiments and every explainer I link to is automatically “blogscience” and can’t hold up against your own “blogscience”.
CO2 emissions control the temperature of the oceans (and glacier melt, sea level rise, hurricane intensities…) is “reality” when these phenomena haven’t even been observed to occur in the real world
In what world has it been demonstrated how much cooling/heating of water temperatures when the CO2 concentration above that body of water is changed in quantities of parts per million? How much water-warming does +10 ppm (+0.00001) CO2 yield in this “real world”? Cite the measurements.
Oh dear Kenneth, demanding the results for a near impossible experiment as proof isn’t working with me. This strategy is pretty ineffective and hollow. What you should do is find proof that it can’t be CO2 … one example ought to be enough to disprove a theory, right? Where is that example?
So why are you 100% certain that CO2 controls ocean temperature changes when raised or lowered in volumes of +/-0.000001 when the experimental evidence for this conceptualization has not even been observed in the real world?
Um, I cannot find proof that it can’t be CO2 that controls water temperatures because the observational, real world evidence doesn’t exist that “proves” that it does. I’m being asked to disprove something that has not been proven or observed or measured or shown to be “truth” in the first place.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/29/new-working-paper-advent-of-computer-modelling-has-corrupted-climate-science/#comment-1234254
In real science, once a hypothesis is formulated, scientists are required to devise methods to demonstrate that their hypothesis is false. In other words, the hypothesis must be falsifiable – a working null hypothesis. If the hypothesis survives exhaustive falsification attempts (a painstakingly slow process), then – and only then – that hypothesis might possibly be deemed worthy enough to be elevated to a theory.
In climate science, a hypothesis is formed (i.e., human CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, warming the ocean, raising sea levels, intensifying hurricanes…), and then instead of seeking ways to falsify that hypothesis, adherents seek evidence that might support that hypothesis while they simultaneously suppress or marginalize evidence that might support the falsifying null hypothesis (i.e., the modern climate changes fall well within the range of what can or has been caused naturally). This confirmation-bias/evidence-suppression process is primarily accomplished with computer modeling, which, as Dr. Ruighaver notes, has undermined real science.
———–
Peter Taylor (2009), Chill, pg. 207
“When we finally come to the ‘not due to known natural causes alone’ [the IPCC attribution statement] the same expert judgment drops to 90% confidence and below the level necessary to confirm the hypothesis, which, in any case, is also not based on real-world data that can be subject to statistical treatment and normal scientific derivation of confidence levels.”
“We have to conclude that there is no reliable scientific evidence to support the conclusions that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are even partly responsible for the recent warming. To do so, a null hypothesis ‘that there is nothing unusual or unnatural in the recent temperature rise of the last fifty years’ would have to be falsified at a greater than 95% level of confidence by real-world data. It has not been. Indeed, there is no evidence from the IPCC’s work that a null hypothesis was actually constructed in the first place. And this would explain the lack of effort at gathering data that would test such a model.”
“The actual path chosen has been via theoretical models based upon prior assumptions and which are not testable by traditional scientific methods. Moreover, as we have seen, the real-world data points to a greater role for natural causes than is attributed in the IPCC models.”
Poor petulant seb, STILL trying to squirm and worm his way out of producing EVIDENCE THAT HE KNOWS DOES NOT EXIST.
So pathetic… So seb.
Come on seb..
Stop your child-minded cowardice, and at least make an attempt.
We all like a good laugh. 😉
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Because we know what CO2 does and how it behaves. Of course there could be some magic effect that we haven’t discovered yet that somehow makes the energy disappear and not cause an increase in the heat content. But I am pretty certain that this energy goes somewhere. The question is if you think that there is no energy that has to go/stay somewhere or if you have an idea what happens instead if the imbalance is not causing a heat content increase.
You once posted a link to a textbook explaining with an flawed experiment that evaporation increases accordingly if the GHE increases. Is that what you still believe to be true or what could be true? So the heat content of the atmosphere increases? We should have been able to measure that amount of increase, right?
Nope you aren’t. You frequently emphasize that the GHE and what it causes is just a theory or hypothesis. You can’t prove a theory or hypothesis to be true, you can only disprove it. One example where it fails is enough. No pseudoskeptic has ever provided such an example, instead you demand proof that the theory is correct. Well, there is no proof, just lots of examples that agree with what science says would happen.
And you agree with this of course. So it has to be shown that it is unusual or unnatural first in your eyes … whatever that means. I disagree. The current temperature rise could be perfectly matching an ancient temperature rise (that we have no exact data of, but who cares) and yet it can be unusual and unnatural. Why? Because the cause is different.
P.S.: July 2018 has been the 3rd warmest year on record. In a La Nina year … do you think it could have been warmer than any July (besides 2016 and 2017) in the past 10000 years? Probably not … you believe the current temperatures aren’t unprecedented or unusual.
So why are you 100% certain that CO2 controls ocean temperature changes when raised or lowered in volumes of +/-0.000001 when the experimental evidence for this conceptualization has not even been observed in the real world?
If we know what CO2 concentration increases and decreases do to water temperatures, then that would imply that we actually have cause-effect real-world physical measurements. We don’t. So we don’t “know”. We just hypothesize. Using models.
Or, could it be that the magnitude of change in the heat content alleged from CO2 changes is so small that it is indiscernible from the much larger natural variability and/or uncertainty ranges? One can even believe that CO2 increases cause increases in heat content. But the question then becomes: How much? And that has not been answered. So no, we don’t know what CO2 does to ocean temperatures. We don’t have the measurements. For all we know, the effect could be +0.000000001 C for an increase of 10 ppm CO2. Or +0.0001 C. And neither value would be significant enough to claim that humans control ocean temperatures. We need quantification to draw conclusions about what CO2 does…and we don’t have that.
Yes, it needs to be established that a 0.02 C change of ocean temperature in 20 years (1994-2013; Wunsch, 2018) is unusual in the context of natural variability. At that point, we’d need to consider all the potential causes of that 2/100ths of a degree change and rule out all the potential contributors, including cloud radiative forcing. And even then, it’s still only a hypothesis that needs to undergo falsification trials. Of course, you’ve skipped all these steps to claim a Mauna Loa increasing trend and a ocean temperature increasing trend means that the CO2 caused the ocean temperature increase…and anyone who disagrees is characterized as a “denialist”.
But the current change could also be normal/usual and natural since a natural explanation for normal/usual temperature changes has never been scientifically ruled out.
And we’re now talking about monthly anomalies why? Isn’t this supposed to be climate change?
Spikey, stop being a clown and talk/write like an adult. Can you do that for a week or two? That would be a welcome change.
ROFLMAO.
Your juvenile, cowardly attempts at avoiding answering are getting more and more PATHETICALLY OBVIOUS from day to day.
You KNOW there is no evidence, so now you are just playing the la, la, la headless chook routine at every post.
DUMB, DUMBER….
https://s19.postimg.cc/dy93kbu0z/sad.png
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
“Because we know what CO2 does and how it behaves.”
No seb, you do NOT know.
You have a scientifically unsupportable “belief” in an imaginary fairy-tale mechanism.
“In a La Nina year …”
Except its not !
??? That is not what I wrote.
By the same logic we don’t know what gravity does to balls of tungsten around other stars. We don’t have measurements. So the general theory of gravity must be invalid. For all it matters that ball could travel on a straight line. We don’t know. Right?
Kenneth, the energy goes somewhere (or in case of the oceans stays somewhere). If the CO2 forcing is not increasing the heat content of the oceans then it is increasing the heat content of something else. What exactly? Energy/heat doesn’t just magically vanish because you dislike how the laws of physics work.
Oh yes we do have that. Just not for your near impossible experiment that you demand measurements from. We know what CO2 does because of observations. We know what gravity does because of observations. We assume those properties hold true everywhere in the universe, including large bodies of water interacting with longwave radiation absorbing atmospheres.
One example where the laws of physics (of CO2) don’t apply are enough to disprove them. Go ahead, disprove it instead of demanding results for near impossible experiments.
Ehm no, it’s not a simple correlation thing. You are again trying to ignore all the mechanisms that have been identified and that – honestly – aren’t that difficult to understand.
I admire your effort in trying to establish this theme. No, it’s not about disagreement. You are a denialist when you act like you constantly do. You ignore mechanisms. You claim the other side only employs spurious correlations. You imagine “mysteries” that make all the established climate science incorrect because of some uncertainties that exist.
How could it be? It could also all have been “god” manipulating the variables that make up our universe! Or we are just living in the matrix and some evil programmer is messing with our minds and finds it funny to turn up the thermostat. Equally valid “arguments” against us being responsible.
Eating your own dog food, Kenneth. Why are we talking about 30000 species going extinct in the other thread when it was about the low quality of Yonason’s links? 😉
The post scriptum was just something I read in parallel. 2018 isn’t a cold year at all like you skeptics imagined at the start. Like you always do when it gets cold for a short time (remember 20072008?). I’m afraid, you just don’t understand the concept of heat content. One hint would be that you need to convert it to a temperature everytime you try to argue about it.
No, that’s not the “same logic”. There is no one questioning the effect of the force of gravity on objects for this planet because on this planet we have repeatable, experimental, observed, real-world measurements of what the force of gravity does to an object when dropped from a specified distance above the Earth. We have no such measurements for the effects of airborne CO2 concentrations on water temperatures. We’re not talking about gravity on “other stars”. We’re talking about how much warming is caused in a body of water when the CO2 concentration in the air above it reaches 600 ppm. We don’t have those measurements.
Where does the energy from cloud radiative forcing/surface solar radiation go? After all, as scientists have found, the radiative budget is modulated by cloud cover changes. Where did the 6 W m-2 per decade of heat energy from surface solar radiation go between 1992-2001? Since that didn’t disappear, what happened to it?
http://nml.yonsei.ac.kr/front/bbs/paper/rad/RAD_2005-3_Wild_et_al.pdf
“A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe.”
—
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-016-1829-3
“The present paper describes how the entire series of global solar radiation (1987–2014) and diffuse radiation (1994–2014) were built, including the quality control process. Appropriate corrections to the diffuse component were made when a shadowband was employed to make measurements. Analysis of the series reveals that annual mean global irradiance presents a statistically significant increase of 2.5 W m−2 (1.4 %) decade−1 (1988–2014 period)
—
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”
—
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.html
“The Earth’s climate is driven by surface incident solar radiation (Rs). Direct measurements have shown that Rs has undergone significant decadal variations. … By merging direct measurements collected by Global Energy Budget Archive with those derived from SunDu [sunshine duration], we obtained a good coverage of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] over the Northern Hemisphere. From this data, the average increase of Rs [surface incident solar radiation] from 1982 to 2008 is estimated to be 0.87 W m−2 per decade [2.3 W/m-2 total]”
—
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
“Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.”
Correct. So identify where the natural forcing “magically vanished” off to so that you could claim that 100% of the warming since the 1980s was caused by CO2, and not cloud radiative forcing.
We need quantification to draw conclusions about what CO2 does [to water temperatures when increased or decreased in ppm volumes]…and we don’t have that.
OK, so if we have the measurements, how much warmer will a body of water be that has 500 ppm of airborne CO2 above it than a body of water that has 480 ppm? Provide those measurements and cite the source.
Have we observed what CO2 concentration changes do to water bodies? Do we have measurements?
Are you including or ignoring cloud radiative forcing and absorbed surface solar radiation as a mechanism of ocean heating? It would appear that, because it doesn’t fit the narrative or support the cause, the heat energy changes facilitated by cloud radiative forcing/absorbed surface solar radiation are being ignored. If not, explain why you believe CO2 is 100% responsible for warming when the magnitude of the SSR changes since the 1980s completely dwarfs the alleged forcing values ascribed to CO2 increases.
“Energy/heat doesn’t just magically vanish because you dislike how the laws of physics work.”
Your problem, seb, is that you have shown that you have basically ZERO idea how the so-called laws of physics actually work in REALITY.
You have the anti-science fantasy mechanisms, that you have ZERO EVIDENCE to support.
Your posts are loaded with anti-physics, anti-science NONSENSE and meaningless irrelevant analogies, which defy basic logic.
You just BELIEVE that CO2 causes warming, because one of your priests told you so, even though you KNOW that you have zero evidence to support this little anti-science fantasy.
Manic, cult-driven, fundeMENTAList mantra type belief, and its related propaganda, are all you have ever been able to regurgitate.
“I have nothing more to add to this”
nothing unusual about that.
You have never “added” anything to the discussion anyway.
You are a Fact free zone
You have a fundeMENTAL misunderstanding op\f basically ALL aspects of science and physics.
Atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime, turnover time) of CO , mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985; for references in brackets) and later by T.Segalstad.
Authors [publication year] …Residence time (years)
Based on natural carbon14
Craig [1957] ………………7+/-3
Revelle & Suess [1957] ……….7
Arnold & Anderson [1957] ……..10
including living and dead biosphere
(Siegenthaler, 1989) ………..4-9
Craig [1958] …………….7 +/- 5
Bolin & Eriksson [1959] ……..5
Broecker [1963],
recalc. Broecker & Peng [1974]…8
Craig [1963] ………………5-15
Keeling [1973b] ……………..7
Broecker [1974] …………….9.2
Oeschger et al. [1975] ………6-9
Keeling [1979] ……………..7.53
Peng et al. [1979] ………7.6 (5.5-9.4)
Siegenthaler et al. [1980] ….7.5
Lal & Suess [1983] …………3-25
Siegenthaler [1983] ………..7.9-10.6
Kratz et al. [1983] ………….6.7
Based on Suess Effect
Ferguson [1958] ……………2 (1-8)
Bacastow & Keeling [1973] …..6.3-7.0
Based on bomb carbon14
Bien & Suess [1967] ………….>10
Münnich & Roether [1967] ……..5.4
Nydal [1968] ………………..5-10
Young & Fairhall [1968] ………4-6
Rafter & O’Brian [1970] ………12
Machta (1972) ……………….2
Broecker et al. [1980a] …….6.2-8.8
Stuiver [1980] ……………..6.8
Quay & Stuiver [1980] ……….7.5
Delibrias [1980] ……………6.0
Druffel & Suess [1983] ………12.5
Siegenthaler [1983] ……….6.99-7.54
Based on radon222
Broecker & Peng [1974] ………8
Peng et al. [1979] ………..7.8-13.2
Peng et al. [1983] …………8.4
Based on solubility data
Murray (1992) ……………..5.4
Based on carbon13/carbon12 mass balance
Segalstad (1992) …………..5.4
The IPCC says that CO2 residence time up to 95 years. However their figure is not based on known science but on computerized modeled imaginings. Indeed one of the leading figures in the IPCC, Susan Solomon, has argued for a thousand-year residence time, but her paper starts with a model, and ignores observations. It is a good example of the ‘scary’ AGW paper that assumes that it is completely right, despite the lack of supporting evidence. That is her paper is and the IPCC figure NOT scientifically valid as nature has dismissed both of their results! Moreover, if carbon dioxide had such a long residence time the atmosphere, would we still be able to make bread, beer and carbonated drinks? Would plants to able to use CO2 so efficiently in photosynthesis?
It’s been pointed out before, that ‘the measured rise in the atmospheric CO2 level is just half of that expected from the amount of man-made CO2 supplied to the atmosphere’ (T.Segalstad and many others).
In short, some other processes are at work changing atmospheric CO2 levels and we do not know what it is. Something is chewing up the carbon dioxide, and that makes any estimate of a thousand-year residence somewhat of a myth just as much as the IPCCs guess.
Of course this is all academic as there is no observational evidence that CO2 is changing the temperature of this world significantly. Temperature rises and falls are well within normal, natural variation and have been since we left the extreme weather of the LIA.
@tomO
Or, illustrated visually…
http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg
It appears that the IPCC is the outlier, or, more correctly, the outliar.
Thanks Yonason,
I was looking for that but had lost the link. 🙂
So you guys are demonstrating that you don’t know the difference between the residence time of a single molecule and the lifetime of a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Great.
Please provide a source link for this claim. The IPCC writes “On an average, CO2 molecules are exchanged between the atmosphere and the Earth surface every few years.” on residence time of CO2. I don’t think “few” equals 95 in this case.
roflmao.
Seb takes the opinion of the political hacks over hundreds of actual scientists.
Just how deep is your brain-hosing, seb?
Anyway, it is total irrelevant, because atmospheric CO2 does not cause any measurable warming anyway.
Only thing enhanced atmospheric CO2 does is enhance plant growth.
There is NO EVIDENCE that it affects the climate in any way.
So according to seb
“Yes, the oceans are both a source and a sink for CO2. It depends on partial pressures and temperature.”
Now join the dots and realize that the oceans are source and sinks for many atmospheric gases and not just preferentially for CO2, and the atmosphere is not an utterly sable gaseous environment — the atmosphere varies in volume and pressure (and you’ve probably got an unsupported theory for that too).
So seb, all your blather is just that. The atmosphere and oceans interaction do not conform to a (computer modeled) simple theory, that is why more observation based research is required.
Back to a Medieval Climate Optimum?
It is like putting $100 in the church donation box, and later finding only $50 there, and then claiming those $50 are yours.
Try again, this was a fallacy. You need a detailed calculation to show what happens. Won’t fly here.
He doesn’t have one. All he has are these non-germane “analogies” — and name-calling.
@Kenneth
But when Murry Salby gives the very detailed calculation SebH says is needed, showing what is happening, the troll dismisses it out of hand because it shows how wrong warmists are. He’s like the child who can’t deal with losing, so he pretends you are the loser, not him. Pretty pathetic, too, because that’s all he ever does is lose.
Nope, it is not about claiming that the money found is yours.
name the fallacy and try again.
This really boils down to very simple math and you guys try to make it more complicated in an effort to do what exactly? “Prove” that we aren’t responsible for the CO2 concentration increase?
yawn..
___________________________________________________
Higher CO2 and (allegedly) warmer temperatures are wreaking havoc with food production – IT’S INCREASING!!!!
https://www.thegwpf.com/benefits-of-global-warming-us-forecasts-record-soyabean-crop/
OH NOOOO! IT’S MORE THAN A faux-GREENIE CAN BEAR!
==========================
Narrative . . . must . . . go . . . on.
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/171/
==========================
Meanwhile, in the imaginary land of Oz (Down Under), I hope its Munchkins are slaving and saving for others, because eco-terrorist parasites MUST be appeased.
https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/media-releases/paris-agreement-to-cost-australia-52-billion
==========================
WOULD YOU BELIEVE…
Record Temperatures!!!!
………….almost, but not quite.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-6047751/How-Britains-temperatures-got-75F-47-days-row-prolonged-heatwave.html
==========================
Now, would any “Climate Scientist” or one of their faithful lab assistants care to blow some smoke our way?
Dr Ed shows how wrong SebH’s “analogy” is, in his response to Keith Pickering, here.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/murry-salby-atmospheric-carbon-18-july-2016/
(I don’t think Kenneth gave that link in his response to SebH. If not, then it’s supplemental material. If so, then sorry for duplication.)
Yonason, I find it funny that you don’t like Carbonbrief links but have no problem with the kind of links you post. You are on a very one-sided source diet … get out of your bubble and read some real news, not the conspiracy/tabloid kind of news.
Your hero Dr. Ed Berry … how can he ever be wrong … *sigh* 😉
Says the person who believes that 30,000 species are going extinct every year.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
You are welcome to provide a substantive argument that supports your position that Dr. Berry is wrong. We notice that you prefer to use name-calling and semantic marginalizing with the argument from authority instead.
“how can he ever be wrong “
When he says something you agree with.. the chances rise to nearly 100% that he will be wrong.
It is noted you have ZERO science to back up your ranting, yet again EMPTY.
Poor seb, still sighing like a jilted pre-pubescent teenager, I see,. !!
Kenneth,
…
“We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.”
link … E.O. Wilson was a Professor at Harvard. Do you think he is wrong?
Kenneth, please go to https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/ and read the analogies Ed Berry wrote up at the beginning of his blog article. If you aren’t skeptic enough to see what is wrong with those analogies and what he says that the IPCC is claiming … well, then what is the point in arguing against your hero scientist?
Or should I reply to anything that you write now with “Says the person who thinks that we are not causing the CO2 increase” because some old guy who is confused about residence time says so? Come on, Ed Berry even references the junk paper Harde (2017) … you know the “Harde to believe” paper 😉
If you really need more to stop believing “scientists” like this, then why do you call yourself a skeptic? Become skeptic of Ed Berry! I certainly am … the first hint was the usage of your (the pseudoskeptics community) language.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/extinction/
“Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17826898
“It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”
So we have one confirmed species extinction in 12 years (less than 1 per decade): a mollusc since 2000. During the 500 years before that, we had 800 species extinctions, or 16 per decade. According to the website you got your 30,000 species per year claim from, the natural background rate is more than 1 species extinction per year (“the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year”), which would indicate that we’re well within the range (actually lower than) the natural background rate.
Please provide us with the list of the 30,000 species that went extinct in, say, 2015. Do you have that data, or are you relying on modeled “estimates” from 2005 in saying we are “already at or over that [30,000 species per year] rate”? At what point did you employ skepticism in the catastrophic estimates? Or do you just believe anything you read that supports your beliefs?
We’re still waiting for you to provide a detailed and substantive rebuttal to Dr. Berry’s explanation of why the pseudo mass balance argument is not supported by evidence. You’ve been given ample opportunity to do so and yet you continue to dodge by saying that he’s wrong and insinuating he’s not really a scientist (“scientist”), which is not substantive.
Furthermore, I never characterized Dr. Berry as my hero. That is a rather meaningful word to me, and I get to decide which people might merit its use. You do not have my permission to disingenuously claim that I have used that characterization of Dr. Berry in your tactical attempts to marginalize.
I do believe that we contribute to the CO2 increase. I also think that nature’s contribution is significant and likely much larger. There is a great deal of uncertainty here, though, so it’s quite possible that the current understanding of the carbon budget has “critical mysteries” associated with it, as we “don’t understand how the ocean carbon sink works”. So no, you would not be accurately representing where I stand on this issue.
If I really need more what? Substance? Observational evidence? You have yet to even address the substance of the argument presented by Dr. Berry, so what is there “more” of that would help me to “stop believing”?
Poor seb,
CANNOT let the reality of actual SOLID DATA impinge on his brain-washing.
List even 10 of the 30,000 species that went extinct last years, seb
You have about as much evidence to back up your imaginary number, as you do of atmospheric CO2 causing warming
https://s19.postimg.cc/yjnvc71b7/evidence.jpg
Yes, those are estimates. You don’t seem to understand what background extinction rates are since you are comparing it to confirmed extinctions. Hmm … however, you successfully highjacked the thread and changed the topic. Congratulations!
Oh please, that is what you do, Kenneth. Zero skepticism towards whatever supports your beliefs. I actually read a bit more about background extinctions rates and the estimates. The low bound is at just a few thousand species per year going extinct, the upper bound is actually higher than 30000, but I went with what a that Harvard Professor said it would be.
I wonder why the word of an old man and former Professor doesn’t count in this case, but when it’s an old man repeating the pseudoskeptic talking points, then every word must be the truth 😉
Read those analogies and tell me you agree with what he thinks the IPCC is claiming! Explain why his use of the residence time is a valid one. As for rebuttals, that’s easy. His entire claim is based on the residence time of CO2 being roughly 4 years and unfortunately, that’s not the lifetime (or retention time) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s the same mistake as has been made in that Harde 2017 paper you so adamantly defended back then.
Another mistake seems to be that he doesn’t care what makes up the inflow and outflow of his system and that they influence each other.
And then … read analogy #1 for reference. He thinks 5% human contribution and 95% natural contribution must mean that at equilibrium you’ll find 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere came from human emissions and 95% from natural sources and thus our contribution to the current CO2 level can only be 5% (or 18 ppm). Just like with the coffee cup. Understood?
That assumes the outflow of that coffee cup can adjust to the additional milk (human) input accordingly. But it can’t. So far the outflow increased by only half of the inflow increase. Thus we aren’t in that equilibrium state yet. And so far it doesn’t look like nature is increasing it’s absorption rate faster than our emissions increase. And the math for that is simple enough … nope, we are not responsible for only 5% of the total concentration. Not at all.
But I’m guessing you a searching/waiting for a “proper” rebuttal with scientific papers and such things, right? Words written by someone you call dishonest surely don’t count and don’t animate you to research if anything Ed Berry writes can be even remotely true. So what’s the point?
Maybe it helps when you consider that he tried to publish that blog post as a paper in October 2017. In February 2018 he proudly claimed it had survived review this long. In April he closed the comments to that post. In August he wrote another blog post on the topic … I suspect he couldn’t publish his flawed model anywhere. At least I can’t find anything in Google Scholar. Yet he still claims his math wasn’t refuted yet and thus he is right 😉
How? Inflow is nature + human, outflow is nature. Since the inflow is larger than the outflow and that difference is smaller than the human emission part, the math is pretty clear.
Of course you can imagine that somehow nature increased its absorption (+9.5 GtC) to take care of most of our emissions (10 GtC) and also increased its own rate of emission (+ 4.5 GtC) for the CO2 concentration to increase like we observe (+ ~5 GtC per year). I hope you can see that this is equivalent to nature absorbing about half of the human emissions and all of its own increase. Can you?
So, ZERO EVIDENCE to counter Dr Berry, just more mindless conjecture and ranting
“Right now, nature emits 21 times as much as humans emit and it appears natural emissions are increasing faster than human emissions”
Its really is all just TOO DIFFICULT for you to grasp, isn’t it seb.
Stick to you brain-hose beliefs, we wouldn’t wanting you have any further mental breakdown by being forced to accept REALITY… your mind is barely functional as it is.
Must say that your comprehension of basic analogies is even worse than your comprehension of science and physics. Just DUMB.
Its as though you live in a hallucinogenic FANTASY world where everything operates in some warped, twisted anti-reality way, that only your addled mind can imagine.
If you think so it must be true … #facepalm
That is not difficult at all, but apparently it’s to difficult to grasp that this doesn’t change anything. Again:
Suppose we are currently at 1000 units. We have two contributors, A who adds 21 units and B who adds 1 unit to the mix. The level increases by 0.5 units thus the outflow C is equal to A+B – 0.5. Correct?
It doesn’t matter if you imagine that A increased by (an example) 2 units and C increased by 2.5 units to absorb the 1 unit added by B and 75% of the increased A value. That’s equivalent to absorbing all of A’s increase and only managing to absorb half of B’s increase.
Got it? Not that difficult.
I hope I didn’t write that longish reply above in vain and at least somebody understands the problem with the “arguments” of people like Ed Berry and when he claims that his model is correct while it clearly isn’t replicating the real world. But hey, nobody refuted him, so it’s all good … right?
Harde 2017 has not been refuted.
Certainly NOT by any non-evidence you have put up.
You were totally unable to counter any fact or science he put forward.
You are totally incapable of countering any facts or science that Dr Berry puts forward.
Your mindless ranting and juvenile attempts at understand stuff that it way beyond you, would be really quite comical, if they weren’t so pathetic.
roflmao.
You really are struggling with your fantasy analogies, aren’t you seb.
Everybody understands your trite low-level comprehension of basically everything, that’s what makes your posts so hilariously funny.
“Right now, nature emits 21 times as much as humans emit and it appears natural emissions are increasing faster than human emissions”
Stop letting your AGW brain-hosing get in the way of basic comprehension and understanding.
Of course it has. And it’s so obviously wrong that one has to wonder how this survived review.
Excuse me? Please refrain from just repeating that phrase ad nauseam without any meaning behind it. If you want to converse like an adult, counter what I wrote.
Please notice that I took the time to reply to your “quote” without a source to explain you a concept. You clearly don’t understand it, otherwise you wouldn’t have emphasized this part thinking it would change anything.
As I’ve said before, I’m really glad you think that humans are causing the highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 enhancement.
With all the new coal and gas fired power stations being built around the world, global CO2 emissions will continue to increase for the next several decades, at least.
This is GREAT NEWS, hey seb 🙂
Plant life will rejoice, and seb will sulk and continue to run around like a headless chook. !
And guess what, seb..
.. none of your manic anti-science, anti-life ranting can do one single thing about it. 🙂
And he tries to troll me again … another last resort / grasping straws action performed so often by AndyG55/spike55 types …
You imagine you can annoy me with these kinds of replies, aren’t you?
Poor seb
Do you really DENY that CO2 emissions will continue to increase?
Do you really DENY that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can do about it ! 🙂
You live in a warped little fantasy world.
REALITY has always been beyond your understanding.
Go and sulk elsewhere, headless chook.
If he were one of my acquaintances, I would CONSTANTLY be checking my wallet.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/08/09/scientists-we-lack-a-quantitative-mechanistic-understanding-of-ho… […]
The papers only show, that there are costal regins which emit CO2, and that warmer oceans emit more CO2.
But we do not know the sum. And the question remains: Where, when not into the ocean, does the additial human emitted go?
All into the biosphere?
“All into the biosphere?”
A Whole lot of it, for sure. !
(Includes the ocean biosphere)
And the biosphere LUVS it. 🙂
Sure, it goes “into the biosphere,” from where it is available to trees, making them grow faster and larger(**),…
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=103
… consequently removing it from the atmosphere by turning it into cellulose.
(**) – Note that the growth rings of trees that have grown faster as the result of elevated atmospheric CO2 will be indistinguishable from growth rings of trees allegedly grown in higher temperatures, but lower CO2. In fact, from the visual in the link I posted above, I wouldn’t be surprised if elevated CO2 was far more responsible than a few tenths of a degree rise in the local temperature anomaly.
There has been some solar forced warming, ocean distributed.
But consider the effects of decay of all that bio-matter that could not decay through the LIA. The amount of CO2 released must be HUMUNGOUS.
Then, termites, one of the world’s top CO2 producers, will have moved into whole new areas, maybe even doubling their CO2 output.
Many other sources of CO2 on a naturally warming planet..
And THANK GOODNESS, too.
These together would absolutely dwarf any human CO2.
Harde’s 15% human contribution to the increase is almost certainly too high.
The world should be VERY GRATEFUL for both the slight warming, and the rise in atmospheric CO2, it has made the planet more liveable for a large percentage of the world’s bio-sphere.
@Kenneth Richard 16. August 2018 at 2:32 AM
Thread too long to scroll up and down, so here’s some aside info on gravitation that you may already know, but others may not. This is only meant for fun, since it isn’t rigorously technical, but it does tell us how long we’ve had direct empirical evidence of how Gravitation works locally. (There’s a longish intro, which is,IMO, at least as interesting as the part about gravity.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdiUoKa9Nw
Enjoy.