Refute the nonsense

…see it as propaganda

…then starve it of light

I thought religion was dead — for practise only behind closed doors in the privacy of one’s home — then Gwynne Dyer thunders on the pages of the Herald with a rant about “the gods of climate.” Setting an unequivocally moralistic tone, he threatens divine punishment for our sins! Thoroughly unscientific. Amazing.

Dyer often mindlessly repeats all manner of misleading science about global warming, but this time he gives the science a staunchly moral cast. Well, how else to instil a proper sense of guilt?

In an article published today in the Herald, Dyer summarises the global warming story so far:

The standard climate change predictions said people in the tropics and the sub-tropics would be badly hurt by global warming long before those living in the temperate zones felt much pain at all.

That was unfair, because it was the people of the rich countries in the temperate zone – North America, Europe and Japan, mainly – who industrialised early and started burning large amounts of fossil fuel as long as two centuries ago. That’s how they got rich. Their emissions of carbon dioxide over the years account for 80 per cent of the greenhouse gases of human origin that are now in the atmosphere, causing the warming, yet they get hurt least and last.

Let’s have a look at the “tropics and the sub-tropics” to understand what Dyer says. Here’s a map from Wikimedia:

World map indicating tropics and subtropics

Here’s the first problem with Dyer’s tirade: dividing developed and undeveloped humanity between temperate regions on the one hand and tropical and sub-tropical regions on the other does not reflect reality. What of South Africa and Australia? What of at least half of China, living, apparently “developed”, in the temperate north — and is that fully a quarter of the USA languishing in the “undeveloped” sub-tropics?

Has Dyer glanced at a map lately? Surely not, for he has not noticed the laxity of his assertions. Note the logic as he moves from “people in the temperate zone” to “causing the warming.”

People in the rich countries (see, they were already rich — a dreadful crime to the left) “industrialised early”. Well, they had a long, proud tradition of reason and objective inquiry which allowed them to discover important things in the world around them. They developed machines and processes nobody could understand who had no proper education.

Awe-inspiring invention

So the rich countries’ industrialisation was “early” — but that just means “first”. The Europeans made the breakthroughs — North America and Japan had nothing to do with those. Coal was the almost magical fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution and made the world so envy the new technology they searched eagerly for their own black deposits.

Still, it wasn’t the fuel-burning by itself that made the Europeans rich (or driving cars would make us all wealthy), it was understanding how to build machines that could use the energy thus released for productive purposes. It was a time of awe-inspiring invention, rapid change and confidence. From mining to metallurgy, from chemicals to crucibles and from trains to telescopes, the studious, self-disciplined and inquisitive men trained in the universities of Europe raced ahead of the old technology. Advances quickly followed in health, agriculture, transport, pharmacology, architecture and so much more. A mere two hundred years later lifetimes have tripled, incomes have soared and mass passenger transport now ignores cruise liners and includes jet aircraft.

But those advances constitute our sin because it resulted in “[our] emissions of carbon dioxide over the years accounting for 80 per cent of the greenhouse gases of human origin that are now in the atmosphere, causing the warming.”

Wait a minute. How much warming have we caused?

0.6 of 30% of sweet FA

Well, first, the IPCC estimates (it can’t calculate, it can only guess) that over about the last 100 years, global temperatures have risen by about 0.6°C.

Second, of the CO2 in the atmosphere, how much did we put there? I’ve seen figures ranging between 0.001% and 30%. If we accept the higher figure of 30%, then our share of the 0.6°C temperature rise is 0.3 × 0.6 = 0.18°C.

CORRECTION – Second, how much did we cause? Assuming, as the IPCC emphasises, that warming is wholly caused by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, how much did we contribute to that increase? I’ve seen figures ranging from 0.001% to 30%. If we accept the higher figure of 30%, then our share of the 0.6°C temperature rise is 0.3 × 0.6 = 0.18°C. [h/t Bob D and other readers. Thanks. – RT]

Finally, Dyer claims that the “rich” nations are responsible for only 80% of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere, so the wealthy people have caused 0.18 × 0.8 = 0.144°C.

This amount of warming cannot be detected but everyone ought to thank us for very slightly ameliorating the chill of every frosty morning. Of course, if our share of increased airborne CO2 is only 0.001%, we can expect their gratitude to be somewhat cooler.

Frankly, when we manage to quantify what idiots like Mr Dyer are blathering on about, it’s quite hard to understand why we listen to them.

Still, the vitriolic Mr Dyer goes on to spell out the moral matter he beats us with:

The people of the temperate zones are going to get hurt early after all, but not by gradual warming. Their weather is going to get more and more extreme: heat waves, blizzards and flooding on an unprecedented scale.

Nasty stuff from a mean-spirited, narrow-minded Luddite.

But does he mean it? On an unprecedented scale? Really? He offers no evidence for this and that is because there is none.

Let’s ask the IPCC

The SREX, a special IPCC report on extreme weather, was published in 2012 (though the IPCC managed to publish the summary for policy makers (SPM) in 2011, oddly, before the main report was available). The SPM and SREX contain some points bearing on Dyer’s rhetoric:

Heat waves – SPM: It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas.
Blizzards – SPM: [doesn’t contain the word ‘blizzard’.] SREX: [doesn’t contain the word ‘blizzard’.]
Snowfall – SREX: Note that we do not distinguish between rain and snowfall (both considered as contributors to overall extreme precipitation events) as they are not treated separately in the literature, but do distinguish changes in hail from other precipitation types.
Flooding – SPM: Overall there is low confidence at the global scale regarding climate-driven changes in magnitude or frequency of river-related flooding.

The IPCC does not say heat waves will be “unprecedented”.

It does not mention blizzards, but lumps snowfall in with rain. Dyer cannot pretend to predict more blizzards when the world authority finds it too difficult.

The IPCC predicts neither increased flooding nor “unprecedented” flooding (unless it’s unprecedentedly small).

Next, Dyer looks at a single northern hemisphere winter. He’s quite disturbed that such extreme cold is being caused by severe warming — and so would I be, if I could believe it. But I don’t believe anyone who claims that extreme cold is caused by extreme warming because it is quite stupid.

Dyer cites the wintry weather in three places as though it reflects global trends. But during 2013 we had record high and low temperatures in both hemispheres. Every year, numerous places around the world report record warmth and record cold. Different places, usually. Dyer mentions only whichever sort bolsters his argument, but lots of us see the bias he exhibits.

‘Abrupt’ climate change — less than 5 years old

He then cites something he calls “abrupt climate change.” Apparently this involves numerous elements and it must be faster than the usual climate change — but that’s just a guess. Here’s his scientific description of abrupt climate change.

In Britain, it’s an unprecedented series of great storms blowing in off the North Atlantic, causing disastrous floods. In the United States and Canada, it’s huge blizzards, ice-storms and record low temperatures that last much longer and reach much further south than normal. The extreme weather trend in North America and Europe is less than five years old, so the science that might explain it is still quite tentative. The first hypothesis that sounded plausible, published in 2012 in Geophysical Letters, blamed a slowing of the northern polar jet stream.

So storms, floods, blizzards, ice storms and low temperatures are “abrupt climate change”? Well, no, they’re weather, Mr Dyer. Please don’t embroider the truth. They’re also caused exclusively by CO2, apparently ours. You remember? 0.6 of 30%, etc.? Accomplishes quite a bit, that small fraction.

Oh, he claims there’s an “extreme weather trend” in North America and Europe, only it’s less than five years old!

He hasn’t heard about the standard averaging period of 30 years for climate. It’s been in the news lately in connection with the last 17 years (or more) lack of global warming.

So the period of observation is much too short to conclude a “trend” of increased extreme weather, but as well as that, numerous papers in recent years have found no evidence of increase. Here’s one: Fluctuations in some climate parameters, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar–Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 7–8, May 2011, Pages 805–809.

Interesting tactic, to describe the science “that might explain it” as “still quite tentative.” Sorry, rather than ‘interesting tactic,’ I should say ‘deceitful behaviour’ because it presents as science what can only be either a guess or an agenda. Less than five years!? Clutching at straws, this one.

The rest of his pseudo-science is not worth reading until he provides the magnitudes of the factors he cites as producing this “increasing trend” in extreme weather (which doesn’t exist).

Factors he conveniently fails to quantify include the Arctic warming trend, the temperature difference between the Arctic air mass and the air over the temperate zone, and the actual speed reduction of the northern jet stream.

It must be satisfying indeed for Dyer to ascribe all these diverse weather events to a single jet stream, altered solely by our wicked emissions of climate-changing carbon dioxide. I just wish the mechanism was easier to follow.

Hence the “polar-vortex” winter in North America this year, the record snowfalls in Japan in 2012 and again this winter, the heat waves in the eastern US in 2012 – and the current floods in Britain.

Come on, Herald — stop publishing this rubbish.

Dyer actually gets paid for spreading those distortions, lies and guesses.

How fortunate that debunking them costs nothing.


Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist published in 45 countries [and despised in every one of them – RT].

378
Leave a Reply

56 Comment threads
322 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Bob D

Pseudo-science indeed. Anyone who links the jet stream with global warming is either ignorant or untrustworthy.

“There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.”
-Professor Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, and senior adviser – a ‘co-ordinating lead author’ – for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Thanks, Bob. That would have looked great in the post! Still, now we have it in the first comment.

Andy

Jane Bowron wrote some drivel in Monday’s Press suggesting that “no one” in the UK didn’t think that the flooding was connected to “climate change” (whatever that is) and suggested that a “benevolent dictator” would be good to sort out the mess and tell us serfs what to so (she actually used the word “serf”)

If I could be bothered I would write to her and point out that a “benevolent dictator” in the form of the EU has caused a lot of the problems in Somerset with the lack of dredging of The Levels which their regulations have brought about

If I wasn’t returning to address Renowden’s diatribe against us a few weeks ago I would write to her myself. As a matter of interest, I couldn’t find the article. Could you post a link?

Andy

I don’t have an online version, it was a short comment piece in the Monday print edition of The Press.

Magoo

People like Dyer are fully aware that they’re spouting rubbish, and they do so for political reasons. The AGW scare is winding down now and I think it’s everyone’s responsibility to rub these propagandists noses in it when it all comes crashing down. The IPCC’s lost all credibility after the AR5 Summary for Policymakers, and people like Dyer are becoming laughing stocks. I refuse to read the NZ Herald now if I can help it.

Andy

The Greens seem quite happy to propagandise schoolchildren for their cause, as these Dunedin schools were preparing their oil free NZ banners.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/292302/school-helps-prepare-anti-oil-banners

No doubt Mummy and Daddy also dropped them off in their Subarus to the protest

Richard C (NZ)

>”No doubt Mummy and Daddy also dropped them off in their Subarus to the protest”

Mummy did. Daddy is a long-haul trucker, or executive with company supplied vehicle – top of the range too.

Back in the 70’s fuel shock there was a study done that showed all up, horse racing used more fuel than motor racing.

Richard C (NZ)

Not unusual to see, here at Mt M, kids being dropped off by Mum from a Porsche Cayenne or similar, to catch the bus to private school.

Richard C (NZ)

Picture of Dunedin’s No Deep Sea Oil Protest here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9601725/Dunedin-mounts-drilling-protest

Lots of kayaks, hope they aren’t polyethylene:

‘Materials Roundup for Kayaks’

http://paddlingexperts.com/sitecontent/all-things-kayak/kayak-materials/materials-roundup-for-kayaks/

‘THE MANUFACTURE OF POLYETHYLENE’

“Polyethylene is derived from either modifying natural gas (a methane, ethane, propane mix)
or from the catalytic cracking of crude oil into gasoline”

http://nzic.org.nz/ChemProcesses/polymers/10J.pdf

What are the chances that some of those kayaks were derived from deep sea oil?

Andy

They seem to be missing the point that gas is more likely than oil in the Canterbury basin.

Mind you, Christchurch deputy mayor Vicki Buck was down with the protestors at the weekend.

Gary

Mummy and Daddy would also have modern gadgets. All requiring mining to produce the raw material required for such things. No doubt Mummy and Daddy would also be against mining.
The large majority of those who protest at such things are just hypocrites. The worst offenders are celebrities/ actors. When they throw away there gadgets and cars perhaps they may have some credibility.

Richard C (NZ)

>”…it wasn’t the fuel-burning by itself that made the Europeans rich …………. it was understanding how to build machines….”

Machines yes (plant, and optimal use of), but also optimal use of (very low wage) labour i.e. optimizing plant and labour produced profit (still does) – but not for the sweatshop labour of those times,

Not many made rich by labouring in the coal mines either.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you suggesting wages were unjustly low? I put that into a category that took longer to regulate and repair, such as in the rise of unions. Or what are you saying?

Richard C (NZ)

I’m pointing out that, in economics terms, plant is only one part of plant-labour optimization for profit i.e. an early textile mill wouldn’t turn out any textiles if it wasn’t for the labour even if it had the biggest and best of the new machines. But where was the wealth evident from industrialization? Was it the labourers who got rich? Or was it the textile mill owners? I think you will find that it wasn’t the labourers. >”Are you suggesting wages were unjustly low?” That was a given. How many textile mills are there in Britain now? The manufacturing goes to where the labour is cheapest even now when robotics and automated plant are ubiquitous. Once manufacturing wages rose to reasonable levels in Britain operations became uncompetitive to sweatshops elsewhere. I see it right now in the NZ kiwifruit industry, post harvest operators trialling packing in China because the labour is (or was) far cheaper than NZ. I see the performance indicators (KPIs). If say $5m+ is invested in the latest infrared grader and sizer technology with robotic and automated stacking to maximize profit by optomizing plant, that cuts many jobs but those… Read more »

I agree with you, though I see the progress on a longer scale. There were improvements in society, available to everyone from the beginning, such as more rapid transport for themselves and their goods and more convenient domestic heating. If you adopt the left-wing distaste for the employing class to discard the advances of the industrial revolution (“It’s a given”) you also discard every other achievement of modern western society and I think that’s unfair and unwise..

The way I see the long-term progress is to note that people haven’t changed, only their education. So why are we wealthier? It’s been the development of better and better technology and the availability of more energy-dense fuels. The labourer of today is paid far more than the first labourers fresh from the farms. Remember, too that “wages” includes such things as plenty of glass for the windows in our houses and the presence of doctors with antibiotics and modern techniques.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Remember, too that “wages” includes such things as plenty of glass for the windows in our houses and the presence of doctors with antibiotics and modern techniques.” Not if the wages are minimum, or worse, seasonal minimum/unemployed rest of time i.e. underemployed. I see a common symptom among seasonal (NZ) kiwifruit workers in packhouses – mouths missing teeth. The wages simply don’t cover dentistry (medical doctors are heavily subsidised in NZ), ironic because there’s a charity in Te Puke educating the families back in the villages of the islands supplying kiwifruit labour on dental hygeine and what prevents tooth decay. In other words, “our” and “we” is exclusive if labour doesn’t earn enough for the earner to avail themselves and their families of what technological progress has developed. I’ve touched on this in a previous thread, car manufacturing is leaving Australia because it is uneconomic (CKD car assembly ceased in NZ years ago), what will replace that? I bet it’s lower wage. “It’s a given” wasn’t discarding the advances of the industrial revolution, it was discarding the idea that somehow the labour in textile mills were the ones made rich by machines –… Read more »

Not if the wages are minimum, or worse, seasonal minimum/unemployed rest of time i.e. underemployed. Well, that’s right, but you entirely miss my point. I’m trying to say that everyone is better off now than before the Industrial Revolution. Not that every uneducated labourer has been lifted to the level of a major landowner, but that everyone has been elevated — even the landowners. In 1750 the King himself could not turn on a radio or fly in an aircraft, but the advances mean that now he can. Advances improve everyone’s life. “It’s a given” wasn’t discarding the advances of the industrial revolution, it was discarding the idea that somehow the labour in textile mills were the ones made rich by machines – they weren’t then and they aren’t now (I’m not referring to US UAW Union here – they’ve been enriched but by muscle not by machines). I understand this, and I wasn’t implying it. What I meant was that better machines have enriched us all. Is your left-wing brainwashing blinding you to the advantages brought to everyone by advancing knowledge and technology or have I misunderstood? Do you believe that some… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Is your left-wing brainwashing blinding you to the advantages brought to everyone by advancing knowledge and technology or have I misunderstood?”

Whaaat! Yes you have certainly misunderstood.

>”Do you believe that some law of nature decrees that everyone should receive the same pay?”

No, but again, you just don’t get it. This below is what has replaced Britain’s early industrialization (i.e. sweatshop labour hasn’t gone away after all these years despite advancing knowledge and technology, it’s just gone somewhere else):

‘Sweatshops are still supplying high street brands’

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/28/sweatshops-supplying-high-street-brands

So great for those in income brackets that shop on high street – not so great for the labour producing the goods. Or do you consider there to be some law of nature that those workers should remain subservient in order to supply the privileged?

There are injustices and I’m not excusing them, in fact I haven’t even mentioned them, but you have (deliberately?) ignored what I said.

but you entirely miss my point. I’m trying to say that everyone is better off now than before the Industrial Revolution

What do you say?

Richard C (NZ)

>”but you entirely miss my point. I’m trying to say that everyone is better off now than before the Industrial Revolution” Everyone, EXCEPT those in the global sweatshops that came about as a result of industrial revolution that enables global trade as never before but, in the case of textiles and footwear. conditions for workers aren’t much different. The employees are in very tough conditions, little more than slavery, so that “everyone” is better off. i don’t think those workers are taking international flights to holiday destinations on their days off, if they get any. What has changed for them if they just exchange one form of poverty for another? Everyone, EXCEPT those of the expendable NZ underemployed underclass, or on minimum wage if they’re lucky, whose pay must be restricted in order for machines to produce a return on investment in the current nationally uncompetitive environment, but cannot raise themselves above just getting by. If you couldn’t get dentistry before the industrial revolution and can’t pay for it now (even subsidised medical is a problem for some) by working casual on a highly technological, automated, robotized machine now, what’s changed? You still… Read more »

Well, you’re clinging to your principles, and why not? But I’m saying that even those you try to exempt from being better off are, in fact, better off now than their ancestors were. We all benefit from.the better technology. Let’s leave it at that.

Richard C (NZ)

>”the current nationally uncompetitive environment” Viz, ‘Kiwi productivity lagging behind’ Despite the longer hours New Zealanders are working, their counterparts overseas are still earning more, a report has found. The Productivity Commission’s report “Productivity by the Numbers” highlights a growing gap between New Zealand and other countries in the Organisation for Co-operation and Development. Kiwis work 15 per cent more hours a year than the OECD average, but despite the longer hours produce 20 per cent less economic activity per hour. The report said productivity growth had stalled since the year 2000, and the gap between New Zealand and its peers – including Australia – was widening. […] English said lifting productivity was not a matter of working longer hours and a package of more than 300 initiatives had been launched to make the economy more productive and competitive. “There is no silver bullet,” he said. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9200188/Kiwi-productivity-lagging-behind # # # Sure hope those initiatives are effective because we’re stuffed if they aren’t. But it’s not bullets we need it’s brains, as in vision and competitive mindsets but not just in govt. This has to be radical in both NZ govt and industry management… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”But I’m saying that even those you try to exempt from being better off are, in fact, better off now than their ancestors were.”

“Try” to exempt? A prematurely dead Japanese worker (karōshi and suicide above) cannot be better off than their ancestors were when living no matter how much technology is available now.

Richard C (NZ)

Chinese worker suicides too:

‘Inside Apple’s Chinese ‘sweatshop’ factory where workers are paid just £1.12 per hour to produce iPhones and iPads for the West’

* Factories covered in suicide nets to stop workers leaping to their deaths
* 18 people have killed themselves at the facility
* iPhone, iPad and MacBook assembled in factory in Shenzhen
* Microsoft, Dell and Hewlett Packard products also built on site

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html#ixzz2trP4Ylw1

Better off for the west. Better off dead for those workers. Plenty more at the door though.

Richard C (NZ)

>”…over about the last 100 years, global temperatures have risen by about 0.6°C”

Except the IPCC’s anthro attribution period is only the 6 decades 1951 – 2010. And only 2 of those decades (1980 – 2000) exhibited any warming.

There are those, e.g. Grant Foster (Tamino) and Stefan Rahmstorf, trying to squeeze the recent flatlining into natural variation but if the period since 2000 then why not treat the 1980 to 2000 warming period preceding that equally in at least a series going back to 1850 (but preferably back to the 1600s)?

Ans: they can’t, because if they do it’s sayonara AGW.

Meanwhile, the flatlining continues.

Ok. What dataset do you use for that analysis?

Richard C (NZ)

Back to 1850 is HadCRUT4

Back to 1600s is Moberg, Ljungqvist and the like as here (Fig 5):

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024008/article

Do you expect a “temperate North America” dataset to reflect global temperature? Please remember that I’m not as familiar as you with the field.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Do you expect a “temperate North America” dataset to reflect global temperature?”

I don’t know but see below. I can’t think of any reconstructions that are global, there’s more land in the NH than SH for a start, Andy might know if there are any global datasets.

I’ve just tried to get the alternatives I know of together to compare them and to provide some indication of temperatures over the last 1000 years and came up with the paper at that link which i think is more review than anything so quite suitable. I looked up Moberg and they said this in the abstract:

“Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years…”

“According to our reconstruction, high temperatures—similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990—occurred around ad 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7 K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around ad 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7026/full/nature03265.html

They seem to be implying NH reflects global.

Yes, I see. Interesting.

Richard C (NZ)

I looked at the Trouet paper again here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024008/article They produce a temperate North America reconstruction but they compare it with 3 hemispheric scale series and 1 Arctic: Results and discussion [ quote from below Figure 4] “We compared NAM480 to three high-resolution hemispheric-scale temperature reconstructions (Moberg et al 2005, Mann et al 2009, Ljungqvist 2010) and one temperature reconstruction for the Arctic region (Kaufman et al 2009) that cover the same time span (500–1980 CE for Mann et al 2009, 480–1980 CE for the other reconstructions)” Figure 5. Comparison of the tri-decadal annual temperature reconstruction for temperate North America (NAM480; this letter) with three hemispheric-scale temperature reconstructions (Mann et al 2009, Ljungqvist 2010, Moberg et al 2005) and one temperature reconstruction for the Arctic region (Kaufman et al 2009) that cover the same time period. # # # Seems reasonable that if North America is consistent with the Northern Hemisphere then the Northern Hemisphere is probably consistent with global for those reconstructions. The only global series I can think of is Marcott et al (2013) over the past 11,300 years and PAGES 2k over the last 2000 years which just averages 7… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Refute the nonsense”

Like this nonsense:

‘Kerry mocks climate change skeptics’

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/9730206/Kerry-mocks-climate-change-skeptics

Comments are still open.

Simon

LOL! Can no one here spot the obvious flaw in this logic?
Well, first, the IPCC estimates (it can’t calculate, it can only guess) that over about the last 100 years, global temperatures have risen by about 0.6°C.
Second, of the CO2 in the atmosphere, how much did we put there? I’ve seen figures ranging between 0.001% and 30%. If we accept the higher figure of 30%, then our share of the 0.6°C temperature rise is 0.3 × 0.6 = 0.18°C

Richard C (NZ)

>”Can no one here spot the obvious flaw in this logic?”

Already have. Pointed it out up-thread here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-615216

Simon

No, it’s even more obvious than that.
Sceptics consider all statements critically, even if it is confirming their internal biases.

Andy

The question “how much did we put there?” is ill-posed.
What should have been said is “how much did the level of CO2 increase by, and what percentage of that is attributable to humans?”

Richard C (NZ)

“No” you say Simon. By that I take it that you consider warming outside of the IPCC’s attribution period to be attributable to human cause? In other words, the IPCC is irrelevant because you can make an overriding pronouncement?

So instead of the IPCC’s 1951 – 2010 warming attribution period of which only 1980 – 2000 was actual warming. we should go back further?

OK, let’s go back to 1000 AD. First CO2:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/icecore.png

Now temperature:

http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/8/2/024008/Full/erl456418f5_online.jpg

Personally, in terms of any CO2 influence, I don’t find that to be compelling evidence.

And care to explain the 1850 CO2 uptick in terms of fossil fuel emission levels? Some perspective on the latter in respect to temperature 1983 – 2012 here:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d4065d134970c-pi

By comparison to the 440 Gts emitted 1998 – 2012, only 212 Gts were emitted over the entire 1850 – 1990 period by burning fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) http://www.toptotop.org/climate/humanactivities.php

So 212 Gts over 140 years 1850 – 1990 produced almost all the warming up to the turn of the century but twice that since 1998 (440 Gts) produced no warming at all – how so?

Can no one here spot the obvious flaw in this logic?

Well, there are other causes of warming. But I wasn’t trying to challenge the whole CAGW hypothesis. Come on, Simon, tell us what you’re thinking. You know you want to.

Magoo

The flaw in the logic is that 100% of the 0.6C temperature rise is assumed to be attributable to CO2 alone. There are other contributing factors to the temperature rise, although the case for positive feedback from water vapour (the vast majority of the temperature rises according to AGW theory) has been disproven by the lack of a tropospheric hotspot.

Speaking of logical flaws, isn’t belief in AGW when there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour via a tropospheric hotspot a flaw in logic?

Bob D

Magoo:

“Speaking of logical flaws, isn’t belief in AGW when there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour via a tropospheric hotspot a flaw in logic?”

It is, you’re right. I’m sure Simon sees that.

Mike Jowsey

Thank you Simon – the obvious flaw, lol, is that CO2 does not necessarily cause temperature to rise.

Richard C (NZ)

I doubt even Simon knows what flaw of logic he thinks he sees.

The basic reasoning is logically sound, all that’s left is to pick at the little details. For example, IPCC AR4 says:

“The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C”

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html

I look at HadCRUT4 and I see 1°C over the last 100 years (not 0.6) but 1910 was the lowest since 1850 so last 100 years is probably not the best period to pick:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850

But the rise over the IPCC’s 60 year 1951 – 2010 anthro attribution period is only between 0.4 – 0.5°C. That’s only marginally more than the 60 years prior to that and Moberg et al estimate a 0.7°C rise from circa ad 1600 to the average of 1961–90.

In other words, more warming occurred before anthro attribution than after it and our share of the latest (assuming it’s ours) is even less than RT’s already conservative 0.18°C, say 0.3 x 0.45°C = 0.16°C.

But our share also includes 30 years of 0.2°C cooling from 1950 – 1980. That just doesn’t seem fair and if there’s a flaw in the logic that’s it.

Simon

Andy was the only one who saw it. It is the marginal change in CO2 that (allegedly) has caused the warming. The increase of CO2 since 1950 (if that is where the 0.6°C was plucked from) is pretty much 100% due to human influence.
E noho rā everybody.

Bob D

Simon,
No, I think RT was correct. In Hansen (1988) it’s estimated that about 0.4°C variation is natural and unforced over decadal timescales. So of the 0.6°C rise, only 0.2°C could be ascribed to ‘unnatural’ causes.
Hansen states:

“The conclusion that unforced (and unpredictable) climate variability may account for a large portion of climate change has been stressed by many researchers, for example, Lorenz [1968], Hesselmann [1976] and Robock [1978]. “

Bob D

When I say that RT is correct, he’s reached the right answer, even if he’s expressed it wrongly.

We assume we’re responsible for all the CO2 rise since 1880, but of course we don’t know.

Andy

I think Simon and I were confused by the same statement. I assumed that it was referring to the increase in CO2, not any temperature changes attributed to that

Bob D

I suggest a better wording would be:
“Well, first, the IPCC estimates (it can’t calculate, it can only guess) that over about the last 100 years, global temperatures have risen by about 0.6°C.
Second, how much did we cause? I’ve seen figures ranging between 0.001% and 30%. If we accept the higher figure of 30%, then our share of the 0.6°C temperature rise is 0.3 × 0.6 = 0.18°C”

Richard C (NZ)

>”The increase of CO2 since 1950 (if that is where the 0.6°C was plucked from) is pretty much 100% due to human influence” Except there was a 0.2°C DECREASE from 1950 – 1980. Is that 100% due to human influence too? “pretty much” 100% human needs some citation don’t you think? Human CO2 emissions only caught up to natural emissions around 1960 after being the same at 1750 but there were reasons for that and natural emissions didn’t just stop rising then. Natural emissions were already at 315ppm by 1960 after rising from below 280 in 1750. More on that here (Figure 3): http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/greenhouse-gas-co2-concentrations-reach-new-record-in-1809/ And you’re wrong about RT’s 0.6°C. He was referring to the last CENTURY i.e. from 1910ish, not from 1950. HadCRUT4 shows about 1°C as I pointed out above (makes our share 0.3°C at 30%) but RT may have another source, he’d have to confirm that. To then take issue from 1950 onwards and say “pretty much” 100% mistakes the natural vs unnatural CO2 situation at the beginning of that period as above. It was 50:50 at 1960. RT accounts for marginal change in CO2 and our share of it… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Where did 0.6°C for last 100 years come from RT?

HadCRUT4 shows about 1°C.

Richard C (NZ)

Oops >”Human CO2 emissions only caught up to natural emissions around 1960 after being the same at 1750″

I mean when cumulative human CO2 is zeroed at the 1750 natural CO2 level i.e. the same start point.

Bob D

Hansen (2005):

“The observed 1880 to 2003 global warming is 0.6° to 0.7°C

Of course, the difference may be because 1910 was a cold period.

As an aside AR4 used HadCRUT3, HadCRUT4 has done the old trick of reducing past temperatures.

Bob D

The IPCC TAR gave the 1901 to 2000 increase as 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].

Richard C (NZ)

>”We assume we’re responsible for all the CO2 rise since 1880, but of course we don’t know”

Sure hard to know Bob but I don’t think so. See Fig 3 from the link from up-thread:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png

At 1880 LD CO2 has already risen before cumulative aCO2 begins rising from zero (ish).

Wouldn’t that imply that before 1880 100% of LD rise was natural, from 1880 – 1960 the natural-human ratio reduced to maybe 50:50 given the trajectory of natural before human influence?

Perhaps not 50:50, say 30:70. In any case natural leads aCO2 past 1880 and because LD CO2 undulations don’t track aCO2 there must be a continuing natural component. Unless the aCO2 curve is dodgy of course.

Might be possible that all CO2 past 1960 is 100% aCO2 from the Figure but I very much doubt that in reality given ocean heat and outgassing.

Bob – Yes, I see. I left the assumed link between our emissions and warming unstated. Thanks.

Simon – No, the 0.6°C came from the TAR.

RC – The TAR gave a 100-year linear trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000). I’ve used the figure for some years but by now I should have changed to the AR4 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C.

Steve McIntyre discusses it here
http://climateaudit.org/2007/12/30/ipcc-figure-spm1/

Still, makes no real difference to our guilt, does it?

Richard C (NZ)

>“The observed 1880 to 2003 global warming is 0.6° to 0.7°C” Of course, the difference may be because 1910 was a cold period.

>The TAR gave a 100-year linear trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000). I’ve used the figure for some years but by now I should have changed to the AR4 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C

Thanks Bob, RT. That’s resolved my confusion. A 130 year period in the statement would fix it too along with whether it’s absolute or trend.

>”Still, makes no real difference to our guilt, does it?”

No, not if the IPCC aren’t making an attribution prior to 1951 but warming was just as much or more prior to that but without our share.

Richard C (NZ)

Just realized (duh) that cumulative aCO2 is not comparable to LD Ice Core in terms of ppmv in the atmosphere. Fig 3 from link from up-thread: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png The black curve is ppmv measured from the ice cores which automatically accounts for movements into and out of sinks. The cyan curve assumes all aCO2 emitted just accumulates in the atmosphere without movement to and from land/ocean sinks. I’m sure that doesn’t happen given photosynthesis, respiration and air-sea exchange. Therefore an aCO2 curve of ppmv actually resident in the atmosphere that could be compared directly to LD CO2 must be flatter than the cyan curve i.e. the previous point where aCO2 (mistakenly) contributes 100% of CO2 increase is pushed forward in time by a flatter curve that never actually crosses the combined natural/aCO2 curve. That’s easier to visualize on this Figure 5 from Debunk House: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law1600.png The red cumulative curve is misleading because there is no accounting for sequestering and exchange with sinks. The real aCO2 resident curve could be well below that and probably well below the MLO curve too. The natural-aCO2 ratio could very easily be only 50:50 by 2000, maybe less. As… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

A better graph here: ‘Global Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil-fuels 1900-2008’ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/TrendsGlobalEmissions.png Source of data: Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres (2010). Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010. From page: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html And here is another non-cited, non-referenced natural/aCO2 ratio (94.75:5.25): ‘What percentage of CO2 emissions come from human activity?’ “Man’s contributions to the total CO2 output is small. In terms of percentages we produce about 5.25% of all annually generated CO2. We produce about 0.28% of all greenhouse gas annually. Oceans produce over 90 to 100 Btonnes of CO2 annually. The difference though, is that some of man’s contributions are not from sources that would otherwise produce CO2. Whether the planet is able to absorb this portion man introduces is what the real question with global warming really is. If man’s portion is able to be absorbed by the planet, no warm, no foul. If it is not able to be absorbed, we are making a big problem for future generations.” http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_CO2_emissions_come_from_human_activity Assuming 94.75:5.25 natural/aCO2 for 1950 – 2010 and none… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Yet another natural/aCO2 ratio (96.775:3.225) this time with citations/references. I think I saw a similar ratio at SkS too and I’m sure I’ve used this ratio in calculations before.

See:

1. ‘Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic) Table 1’, and

4. ‘Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations of greenhouse gases’,

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Assuming 96.775:3.225 natural/aCO2 for 1950 – 2010 we get,

0.03225 x 0.45°C = 0.0145°C, our share.

Richard C (NZ)

Same 96.775:3.225 natural/aCO2 ratio again but stated differently:

‘FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE’

“Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.”

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

6/186 = 0,03225.

But according to the IPCC AR4: “Annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning and cement production increased from a mean of 6.4 ± 0.4 GtC yr–1 in the 1990s to 7.2 ± 0.3 GtC yr–1 for 2000 to 2005”

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/anthropogenic-carbon-cycle

Richard C (NZ)

>”I think I saw a similar ratio [96.775:3.225] at SkS too” Yup, this page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm Important note: the units, whether carbon from CO2 in GtC yr–1 or just CO2 in Gt yr-1 are all important e.g. Jeff Id at the above link makes the mistake of stating “6 GT” when he is actually referring to 6 GtC. So SkS then corrects in Jeff Id’s units stating “In fact, human (sic) emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year”. But 6 GtC equates to 22 Gt CO2 because the conversion factor is: 1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2) Also, 2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2 6 GtC is out of date, the most recent AR4 value is 7,2 GtC which converts to 26.4 Gt CO2. Now back to the ratio but this time in terms of Gt CO2, not GtC. See Figure 1 (note the incorrect title because the units are not in terms of GtC): ‘The Global Carbon Cycle’ Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4). http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif Natural CO2 emissions: 439 (vegetation and land) + 332 (ocean)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”the change in the mixing ratio is vanishingly small”

I’m confusing 2 different mixing ratios here. The ratio change in the 3.1 quote looks to be in terms of atmospheric composition and not relevant.

It’s the 13C/12C mixing ratio change in the Abstract that’s important and that’s the one which is vanishing small once the arithmetic has been corrected.

Richard C (NZ)

0.084 ppm per year change in 13C/12C ratio doesn’t make sense either because it converts to 1.78 GtC per decade. That’s almost twice the change in total aCO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture (black) 1970 to 2005 (6.23 GtC vs 3.5 GtC) here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif

In other words, there’s not enough aCO2 emissions to provide the amount of Ghosh 2003 13C/12C ratio change, or conversely, more 13C/12C ratio change than actual aCO2 emissions.

I’m wondering if Ghosh and Brand (2013) is garbage, it is only a Review after all. Either that or the estimates of aCO2 are garbage. Or both are garbage. Hard to tell.

Richard C (NZ)

0.084 ppm 13C/12C mixing ratio change converts to 0.178 GtC change per year.

Meanwhile, Natural CO2 emissions were 210 GtC per year according to the IPCC in 2007. So if the 13C/12C mixing ratio change is to be believed, 210 must be reduced by 0.178 per year. By 2012 (AR5) the reduction is 0.89 giving 209. By 2017 the reduction is 1.78 giving 208 GtC.

But if AR5 gives a figure much different to 209 GtC for natural emissions the whole idea of the 13C/12C mixing ratio change being of any consequence goes out the window,

Turns out AR5 has 198.2 GtC (by addition), Figure 6.1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

That’s a 10.8 GtC difference from reduction by 0.178 GtC per year.

In other words, 13C/12C mixing ratio change is so small in comparison to changes of even the estimates of natural CO2 from AR to AR that it simply doesn’t matter – it’s negligible.

Richard C (NZ)

For the record, natural/aCO2 ratio from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

Natural: 198.2 GtC
aCO2: 8.9 GtC

8.9/198.2 = 0.0449. Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7:4.297

Assuming 95.7:4.297 natural/aCO2 for 1950 – 2010 we get,

0.043 x 0.45°C = 0.019°C, our share.

I bet Simon is regretting identifying an “obvious flaw” in RT’s “logic” i.e. his use of 30% aCO2 and 0.18°C human share result. The IPCC’s 4.3% figure gives 0.019°C for their anthro attribution period.

E noho rā Simon.

Andy

Brendan O’Neill in Spiked:

Blaming storms on human industry is as backward as blaming them on gays

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-eco-hysteria-of-blaming-mankind-for-the-floods/14672#.UwVxef0xL8t

Richard C (NZ)

Interesting exercise using the conversion factor 2.12 Gt C = 1ppmv CO2

Change in aCO2 carbon 1970 to 2005, 7.8 – 4.3 = 3.5 GtC

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure2-3-l.png

Change in All-CO2 carbon 1970 to 2005, 379.80 – 325.68 = 54.12 ppm x 2.12 = 114.73 GtC

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

114.73 GtC – All-CO2 carbon increase MLO 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – aCO2 carbon increase AR4 1970 to 2005

Only 3% of the MLO All-CO2 carbon increase 1970 to 2005 was aCO2 carbon.

3% 1970 to 2005 tallies roughly with the 2012/13 95.7:4.297 natural/aCO2 ratio (expressed in proportion to 100%) found from IPCC AR5 data here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-619849

Put another way, next to all the fossil fuel emissions we are “pumping into the atmosphere” the natural world is pumping 33 times that. For every 1 Gt of carbon we pump the natural world pumps 33 Gts.

Richard C (NZ)

4.0 GtC per year – average All-CO2 carbon atmospheric increase (AR5 Figure 6.1)
0.1 GtC per year – average aCO2 carbon increase 1970 – 2005 (AR4 Figure 2.3.1)

Atmospheric carbon is increasing 40 times faster than aCO2 carbon emissions.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Atmospheric carbon is increasing 40 times faster than aCO2 carbon emissions.”

This effectively shoots down in flames the Skeptical Science idea they erroneously derive from Ghosh & Brand (2013) and disseminate that “If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003)”.

Sure the respective rates of change are changing fractionally (according to Ghosh & Brand) but when only 4.3% of total emissions are from fossil fuels and natural emissions are currently rising 40 times faster then the C13/C12 mixing ratio is completely irrelevant.

Richard C (NZ)

The impression among the populace (e.g. Simon) that 100% of All-CO2 rise is due to human emissions arises largely, I think, from the IPCC being economical with the truth (i.e. they don’t want people to know it). Refer:

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
2.3 Chemically and Radiatively Important Gases
2.3.1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

Figure 2.3. Recent CO2 concentrations and emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure2-3-l.png

Clearly, a glance at Fig 2.3 (a) and (b) leaves the impression that from 1970 to 2005, all of the MLO CO2 rise (Total CO2, All-CO2) was due to aCO2 emissions because the slope of (b) is the same as (a) thanks to scaling.

But two very important components are missing from Total CO2 in (a): natural, and anthropogenic. Roughly, in terms of GtC, the respective slopes are:

4.0 GtC per year – average All-CO2 carbon atmospheric increase (AR5 Figure 6.1)
3.9 GtC per year – average natural carbon increase (Fig 6.1 minus Fig 2.3)
0.1 GtC per year – average aCO2 carbon increase 1970 – 2005 (AR4 Figure 2.3)

If those 3 lines were plotted on one graph, the populace would be left with a rather different impression than they have now.

Richard C (NZ)

[IPCC AR4] – “The increases in global atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution are mainly due to CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, gas flaring and cement production.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

No citation. As shown up-thread, this is just an an outright fabrication – an untruth.

A lie, in fact.

Simon

Where do you think most of the ‘natural’ increase of CO2 is coming from? It is from deforestation which is human induced.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction:

>”3.9 GtC per year – average natural[+LUC] carbon increase (Fig 6.1 minus Fig 2.3)”

@Simon LUC is less than fossil fuels, 7.1 vs 7.8 GtC

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

BTW, RT, others. I’ve sent the above comparison (including LUC) to Joanne Nova so that David Evans can check the working. Him being and ex carbon modeler for the Australian Govt.

I’ve sent the above comparison (including LUC) to Joanne Nova so that David Evans can check the working.

Good move, RC. Hope he has time.

Curious thought: has nobody anywhere thought of this already? I’ve always assumed that atmospheric sources of “carbon” were all well researched and that, even if magnitudes were uncertain, relativity between them was fairly well agreed. It will be amazing if that turns out not to have been the case. World shattering in fact.

Richard C (NZ)

No amount of change from 7.1 GtC LUC emissions as at 2013 can make up 3.9 GtC per year rate of change. 3.9 change per year going back to 2011 from 7.1 in 2013 gives -0.7 GtC LUC for 2011, which is rubbish.

Obviously LUC is a minor contributor – even less than fossil fuels.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Curious thought: has nobody anywhere thought of this already?”

That’s what I mentioned to Jo too. I’ve never seen this discussed anywhere by anyone. Even the IPCC just assumes fossil fuels are the reason for the rise and they state that explicitly. I don’t recall anyone just making a comparison from the data to check whether it’s a valid assumption.

I’ve only thought of it now because i saw the total rate stated in AR5 Figure 6.1 (thanks to Simon BTW) so it was easy then just to subtract the fossil fuel rate. I mentioned this to Jo and that 4PgC(GtC) per year may update an AR4 rate of rise given somewhere in 2007. If it was I didn’t notice it and it would be better to use the 2007 total rate vs 1970 – 2005 fossil fuel rate in that case but not that it matters.

My rationale needs to be checked as much as possible. A breeze for David and Jo but it also needs to get in front of emissions experts to really pick holes in it (if there are any).

Where’s Mike Palin and Keith Hunter when you need them?

Richard C (NZ)

The phrase “hiding in plain sight” comes to mind, If I’ve got it right of course.

Richard C (NZ)

I changed the rate descriptions to send to Jo. Sent this:

4.0 GtC per year – average total carbon atmospheric increase (AR5 Figure 6.1)
3.9 GtC per year – average natural(+LUC) carbon increase (Fig 6.1 minus Fig 2.3)
0.1 GtC per year – average fossil fuel carbon increase 1970 – 2005 (AR4 Figure 2.3)

Better I think.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction – “@Simon LUC is less than fossil fuels, 7.1 vs [1.8] GtC”

Brandoch Daha

D’OH – HAVE A LOOK AT THE KEELING CURVE, YOU MORONS!

Why do you suggest that, Rob?

Richard C (NZ)

>”HAVE A LOOK AT THE KEELING CURVE”

WE DID, FIG 2.3 (a) HERE:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-622215

WOW! WRITING IN CAPS MAKES ME FEEL TALLER.

WRITING IN CAPS MAKES ME FEEL TALLER.

Please stop shouting, RC. You’ll be getting yourself a bad name, like the others who shout.

Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)

For Brando’s benefit, from the link above using Keeling Curve ppm data:

“Change in All-CO2 carbon 1970 to 2005, 379.80 – 325.68 = 54.12 ppm x 2.12 = 114.73 GtC”

114.73 / 35 = 3.278 GtC per year. Obviously the additional data 2005 – 2013 has upped the rate a little to 4 GtC per year (which is probably rounded anyway).

Richard C (NZ)

Sent this update to Jo:

>[quoting a previous email] – “Not sure what the corresponding AR4 rate is for the AR5 rate of 4.0 GtC per year”

Haven’t looked but it’s easy to work out using the conversion factor
2.12 Gt C = 1ppmv CO2 and historical CO2 data:

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Change in total carbon 1970 to 2005, 379.80 – 325.68 = 54.12 ppm x
2.12 = 114.73 GtC

114.73 / 35 = 3.278 GtC per year = 32.78 GtC per decade.

The 1970 – 2005 comparison is then:

3.278 GtC per year – average total carbon atmospheric increase 1970 – 2005
3.178 GtC per year – average natural(+LUC) carbon increase 1970 – 2005
0.1 GtC per year – average fossil fuel carbon increase 1970 – 2005

32.78 GtC per decade – within the period 1970 – 2005
31.78 GtC per decade
1 GtC per decade

Getting everything in terms of 1970 – 2005 is a better comparison than my previous calcs.

Richard C (NZ)

I’ve got this very wrong but it is still interesting. I[PCC AR4] – “From 1990 to 1999, a period reported in Prentice et al. (2001), the emission rate due to fossil fuel burning and cement production increased irregularly from 6.1 to 6.5 GtC yr–1 or about 0.7% yr–1. From 1999 to 2005 however, the emission rate rose systematically from 6.5 to 7.8 GtC yr–1” Figure 2.3 (b) is the increase in fossil fuel from a base rate of 4.3 GtC yr–1 at a rate of increase of 0.1 GtC per year to 7.8 GtC per year. So a decadal rate of fossil fuel by 1999 – 2005 is 7.05 GtC per year on average x 10 = 70.5 GtC per decade Change in total carbon 1999 to 2005, 379.80 – 368.33 = 11.47 ppm x 2.12 = 24.3 GtC 24.3 / 6 = 4.05 GtC per year or 40 5 GtC per decade. [AR5 2013, 4 GtC per year] 4.05 GtC per year – total carbon increase 1999 to 2005 7.05 GtC per year – fossil fuel increase 1999 to 2005 40 5 GtC per decade – total carbon increase 1999 to 2005… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”what is happening to natural emissions?”

There is still the natural/anthro carbon emission ratio as at 2013 from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC
Anthro emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels)

Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7:4.297

In other words anthropogenic emissions, which is mostly fossil fuel emissions, are still only 4.3% of total emissions in 2013 even though fossil fuel had risen from 4.3 GtC per year in 1970 to 7.8 GtC per year in 2013.

Richard C (NZ)

There was no increase in fossil fuel carbon from 2005 to 2013. AR4 states 7.8 GtC for fossil fuel 2005, AR5 states 7.8 GtC for fossil fuel 2013.

But total carbon in the atmosphere 2005 to 2013 rose considerably:

396.48 – 379.80 = 16.68 ppm x 2.12 = 35.36 GtC.

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

Fossil fuel emissions have not driven atmospheric carbon rise for the last 8 years according to IPCC/NOAA data.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction:

>”Fossil fuel emissions have not driven atmospheric carbon rise for the last [9] years according to IPCC/NOAA data.”

35.36 / 9 = 3.93 GtC per year 2005 to 2013 inclusive

This corresponds to AR5 Figure 6.1 which states an average atmospheric increase of 4 PgC(GtC) per year, possibly rounded.

Richard C (NZ)

AR5 Fig 6.1 must just be AR4 data i.e. not to-date.

Carbon Budget report linked below states:

“Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production increased by 2.1% in 2012, with a total of 9.7±0.5 GtC emitted to the atmosphere. ………………… Emissions are projected to increase by 2.1% in 2013, to a record high of 9.9±0.5 GtC (36 billion tonnes of CO2),”

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/

9.9 – 9.7 = 0.2 GtC increase. We’re looking for a 3.93 GtC increase to reconcile with total carbon increase.

Richard C (NZ)

I was right (having slept on it). If we just look at the respective incremental rises:

114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

3.278 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
0.1 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction, 1970 to 2005 is 36 years inclusive – not 35.

Incremental rises:

114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere.

Nick

Richard C likes to pretend to be some kind of authority on climate change and yet is befuddled by a simple mass balance. Priceless.

Of course as usual the motivated reasoning (and prolix) around here will prevent anyone from seeing the glaring error.

Richard C (NZ)

>”simple mass balance”

All I’m presenting is the relative differences in incremental rates of rise between total carbon and fossil fuel carbon. What has a simple mass balance have to do with that?

If I’m applying an incorrect ppm to GtC conversion factor (quite possible) then say so (and why). If I’m applying the correct conversion factor but in an incorrect way then say so (and why)

>seeing the glaring error

Care to expound?

Richard C (NZ)

>”Richard C likes to pretend to be some kind of authority on climate change”

BS for a start, I don’t and I’m not. But then who is? GAT flatlining has exposed the fact that supposed experts, aren’t.

What you have to address/refute Nick, point-by-point, is this:

Incremental rises:

114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere.

Richard C (NZ)

If there’s a 13C/12C mass difference then say so Nick. with details.

But remember, you have to make up the incremental change in total carbon over any timeframe by the change, or otherwise, in constituent components.

Simon

Think about it Richard. First account for the cyclic variation of about 5 ppm in each year corresponding to the seasonal change in uptake of CO2 by the world’s land vegetation. Ignore the flux of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans and land.
Normally during Earth’s history the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium. It isn’t, so why is that the case?

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

7.3.1.3 New Developments in Knowledge of the Carbon Cycle Since the Third Assessment Report
7.3.2 The Contemporary Carbon Budget
7.3.2.1 Atmospheric Increase

b [total carbon] Determined from atmospheric CO2 measurements (Keeling and Whorf, 2005, updated by S. Piper until 2006) at Mauna Loa (19°N) and South Pole (90°S) stations, consistent with the data shown in Figure 7.4, using a conversion factor of 2.12 GtC yr–1 = 1 ppm.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-1-3.html

The IPCC use the same conversion factor as I have.

Richard C (NZ)

>”First account for the cyclic variation of about 5 ppm in each year corresponding to the seasonal change in uptake of CO2 by the world’s land vegetation” That’s accounted for in the NOAA MLO ann mean data. >”Ignore the flux of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans and land” I am Simon. As I’ve stated to Nick, all I’m presenting is the incremental change in carbon – total in the atmosphere and fossil fuel emissions that went up there. I’m not interested in the exchanges. If there’s not enough fossil fuel carbon going up (increasingly i.e. the rise) to account for total carbon rise then some other source is providing the residue irrespective of what exchanges have taken place. Again, as for Nick, what you have to address, point-by-point, is simply this: Incremental rises: 114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005 3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005 3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005 0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005 35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013 2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to… Read more »

Bob D

RC,

“There was no increase in fossil fuel carbon from 2005 to 2013. AR4 states 7.8 GtC for fossil fuel 2005, AR5 states 7.8 GtC for fossil fuel 2013.

But total carbon in the atmosphere 2005 to 2013 rose considerably:

396.48 – 379.80 = 16.68 ppm x 2.12 = 35.36 GtC.”

What this says to me is that between 2005 and 2013, each year 7.8 GtC was added from fossil fuels, and the amount remained constant each year. Therefore 7.8 GtC x 9 years = 70.2 GtC in total from fossil fuels for 2005 – 2013.

Measured carbon dioxide increased by 35.36 GtC over the same period, which is why the IPCC is still confused as to where half the CO2 went.

Or am I missing something?

Richard C (NZ)

>”What this says to me is that between 2005 and 2013, each year 7.8GtC was added from fossil fuels, and the amount remained constant each year. No, I’ve given up on Fig 6.1 Bob. It doesn’t show the actual updated estimates, there’s a number of other values available all showing the same data since 2005 but not 7.8 constant. FF emissions rose from 7.8 to 9.9 GtC according to this source I’ve settled on (from up-thread) here: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ >”Therefore 7.8GtC x 9 years = 70.2GtC in total from fossil fuels for 2005 – 2013.” Not the right data as above Bob, but it is only necessary to look at the incremental rise i.e. 9.9 – 7.8 = 2.1 GtC rise over the 9 years 2005 to 2013 inclusive because the rise of total is the 2013 MLO ppm value minus the 2005 MLO ppm value x 2,12 to give GtC. >”Measured carbon dioxide increased by 35.36GtC over the same period, which is why the IPCC is still confused as to where half the CO2 went.” The gap is a little less once you insert 9.9 and the incremental residue is 33.26 GtC (35.36… Read more »

Bob D

RC, “Not the right data as above Bob, but it is only necessary to look at the incremental rise i.e. 9.9 – 7.8 = 2.1 GtC rise over the 9 years 2005 to 2013 inclusive because the rise of total is the 2013 MLO ppm value minus the 2005 MLO ppm value x 2,12 to give GtC.” But I don’t agree. Every year between 7.8 and 9.9 GtC of FF was added to the atmosphere. The assumption is it stayed there each year. The incremental rise is irrelevant. If it was zero increment year-to-year it would make relatively little difference to the total amount of carbon dioxide added each year from FF. Therefore the total added (2005 – 2013) from FF is (on average) (9.9 + 7.8)/2 times 9 years. This is about 8.9 x 9 = 80 GtC over 9 years. Basically, I’m disputing your numbers being fractions of a GtC per year, when it’s clear the right numbers are about 8 to 9 GtC per year from FF. Up above you’ve written: “0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013″ You’re using the “acceleration” of FF addition each… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Every year between 7.8 and 9.9 GtC of FF was added to the atmosphere” Yes. >”The assumption is it stayed there each year” Sort of for total carbon which is a measure of what accumulates after all the exchanges have taken place each year. It’s effectively a net value which just happens to be increasing because there’s more emitted from all sources than absorbed. Sort of too for FF except it’s not a net value. It is a measure of unidirectional emission each year. What happens to it after that is accounted for in total carbon exchanges over time (year after year) and the net rise or fall of total carbon (rise at present obviously). However, the rise of FF falls well short (only 5.9% at present, 0.23/3.93 below) of being the emission component that is contributing to the bulk of total carbon rise. >”The incremental rise is irrelevant” No, definitely not irrelevant. Remember that what I am reconciling against is an incremental rise of total carbon. Here’s the working and data source for the 2005 to 2013 average total increment: 396.48 – 379.80 = 16.68 ppm x 2.12 = 35.36 GtC total… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”This is about 8.9 x 9 = 80 GtC over 9 years”

You’ve overshot the 35.36 target by 44.64 Bob. But cumulative FF was already overshooting total CO2 from 1960 onwards. Cumulative FF since 1850 (from up-thread i.e. been there) graphed here:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png

I tied myself in knots up-thread trying to make cumulative work but it doesn’t make sense.

Bob D

RC,
I think I get where you’re going now. It’ll be a lot harder to quantify for people though, as it’s a much more subtle concept than I thought. I suggest spending some time on simplifying the message, then ask RT if you can do a blog post, and we can all discuss it together. Or a new thread somewhere.

Regarding your comment above “you’ve overshot the 35.36 target by 44.64 Bob”, I agree, but I recall the IPCC admitting that it was “unable to account” for fully 50% of the CO2 emissions from FF. In other words, they simply disappeared, and weren’t reflected in total CO2 build-up. Of course, it’s likely that the biosphere absorbed them, hence the greening of the planet, but overshooting the target still implies more FF contribution, not less.

Bob D

Continuing the same discussion, it seems to me that it’ll be difficult to assess the incremental effects you speak of when nobody, least of all the IPCC, is currently even able to “balance the books” on the CO2 increases themselves. So it’s going to be hard to track incremental variances and make sense of them.

Richard C (NZ)

>”simplifying the message” That’s where I arrived at with this: Incremental rises: 114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005 3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005 3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005 0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005 35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013 2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013 3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013 0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013 I can’t think how I can simplify it further (except what’s on a new thread – see below). >”Or a new thread somewhere” Yes I’ve started that down-thread here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-627892 >”overshooting the target still implies more FF contribution, not less” Overshooting the target using cumulative data implies you’re using the wrong rationale because CO2 started rising before FF and FF was already overshooting total CO2 from 1960 onwards. CO2 from 1750 and Cumulative FF from 1850 here: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png Using cumulative produces far too much FF contribution. Cumulative FF was already overshooting total CO2 at 1960. >”it’ll be difficult to assess the… Read more »

Alexander K

The blokes (and blokesses) ‘in the street’ that I converse with know, without employing any science whatsoever, that the Manmade-CO2-dangerously-heats-the-atmosphere nonsense is merely an arrow in the quiver of supposedly serious stuff that all politicians reach for when they run short of currently credible ways to tax us. Remember that it’s part of the raison d’etre of the political class to invent bogymen so they can save us through the invention and application of new taxes, but without understanding the Law of Unintended Consequences.
As for Mr Kerry of ‘Swiftboats’ fame, if his US ex-naval colleagues remember him as an incredible phantasist, to put it kindly, that speaks volumes about his current credibility on the subject of climate or anything else.
When the entire scam eventually jumps it’s worn-out sprockets and comes totally unthreaded, there is going to be lots of metaphorical egg dripping from many prominent faces!

Nick –

“the motivated reasoning (and prolix) around here will prevent anyone from seeing the glaring error.”

Mysteriously sinister, I grant you, but contributes nothing to the discussion. ‘Discuss’, from the Latin discutere: “to dash to pieces, agitate” (we might say ‘dissect’ or ‘analyse’) assists discovery of the truth.

Your comment, regrettably, covers the truth—it needs your elaboration. Please take this as encouragement to continue.

As RC asserts, he does not present himself as an expert on climate science. Au contraire, he frequently states his readiness to learn and readily admits his mistakes. You are wrong to malign him like that. Kindly refute what he says and let go your imaginary view of his intentions.

Simon –

Normally during Earth’s history the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium.

Please provide evidence of the historical equilibrium of atmospheric CO2. In this well-known graph of CO2 levels (Geological Timescale: Concentration of CO2 and Temperature fluctuations), which to my knowledge has not been refuted, when would you say that levels were ‘normal’?

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

Simon

Look at the x-axis. It is in millions of years. There are very few periods of sudden and dramtic change apart from the present day. Note that the x-axis is not linear which lessens the impact of the hockey stick.

Richard C (NZ)

A nice graph here of fossil fuel and cement emissions 1990 – 2013:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/images/global_co2_emissions.jpg

From here:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2013/

MLO isn’t tracking those fluctuations.

Richard C (NZ)

2009 FF was down on 2008 i.e. negative growth.

If FF is actually as it is assumed to be, THE major contributor to global CO2 rise, negative growth in 2009 FF would be reflected in global CO2 data as negative growth in 2009. It isn’t. There was positive growth in 2009. Data and graph:

Year ppm/yr
2005 2.42
2006 1.74
2007 2.10
2008 1.78
2009 1.67
2010 2.43
2011 1.71
2012 2.42
2013 2.95

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png

From ESRL Global:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

The 2009 growth rate is pulled down only fractionally. But it is still positive and up with 2006 and 2011. This demonstrates FF is NOT the major contributor to global CO2 rise. In fact it is a minor contributor.

Q.E.D

Nick

Great illustration of how climate denial works guys. Maybe you could go down to your local high school and ask one of the smarter students for help with the basic math and physics.

At this point you lot couldn’t be trusted to fill a bathtub.

Richard C (NZ)

Because……………..?

Nick

Surely one of your colleagues here can explain it to you. It is blindingly trivial.

Otherwise it will just have to stand as further evidence of this groups lack of qualification or ability to comment sensibly or usefully on scientific topics.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Surely one of your colleagues here can explain it to you”

And surely you can too Nick – but you don’t. Here it is again:

Incremental rises:

114.73 GtC – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
3.5 GtC – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

3.197 GtC per year – total carbon rise 1970 to 2005
0.097 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 1970 to 2005

35.36 GtC – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

Knock yourself out Nick.

Richard C (NZ)

Put up or shut up Nick.

Magoo

C’mon, out with it Nick, or are you just another warmist full of hot air?

Nick

Hi Magoo, are you just another fake skeptic blinded by ideology and lacking the ability to think critically on your own?

Richard C (NZ)

I’ll cut to the chase to save us Nick’s little game (having finally found a decent analysis):

‘Today’s carbon cycle as revealed by observed CO2 records’

Pieter P. Tans
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

Page 2, DECADAL MASS BALANCE OF CARBON

# # #

This analysis attempts to reconcile CO2 rise with all other rises but doesn’t. There’s a number of problems, not the least being the negative CO2 growth in 2009 as shown up-thread.

MLO didn’t even blink in 2009 (page 13).

Andy

Not all of us have time to trawl though a comment thread and peer review it.

Nick

Great resource Richard C thanks for sharing.

Don’t forget to read page 10 all you skeptics out there. I guess Richard T will have to correct his correction. Sort of makes his post title a little ironic don’t you think.

Page 5 will be of interest to Bob D, perhaps he should rush off and tell the IPCC since he thinks they don’t know where the extra carbon is going.

Nick

Hi Andy,
Maybe Richard C will summaries his ground breaking discovery in a couple of sentences so you can review it.

Unfortunately I’m not sure he knows how to be brief so don’t hold your breath.

Magoo

No Nick, I base my views on facts. Try this one:

1/ If there is no tropospheric hotspot, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?

2/ If there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, how can the temperature warm more than the 1.2C maximum that is attributable to CO2?

3/ If it can’t warm more than a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2, how is AGW a problem?

As water vapour is supposed to account for approximately half to two thirds of the warming, it would seem that the theory you subscribe to is deeply lacking in any scientific basis, and is disproved by 40 yrs of empirical evidence from 2 satellites and over 30,000,000 radiosondes.

Now I think I’ve asked you this question several times before but you just run away without answering, only to appear another time with more of your snide, smart arse comments (apparently that’s all you seem to have). The question still remains though, or are you going to run away again?

As Richard said – put up or shut up.

Nick

Hi Magoo,
If you uncritically accept Richard C’s misguided reasoning above why would I bother trying to explain anything else to you?

You clearly set more store by ideology than reasoned analysis so frankly I’m not about to go over what I (and others) have explained to you many times in the past.

Magoo

Run away again like a little girl Nick – all hot air with nothing to back it up. You won’t explain because you can’t.

‘You clearly set more store by ideology than reasoned analysis’

Take a look in the mirror Nick, I’ve laid out a reasoned argument backed up by empirical evidence from multiple sources over a 40 yr period. What do you have? Nothing? You alarmists are so full of it.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Don’t forget to read page 10 all you skeptics out there….”

OK,

Conclusion:
“The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times is entirely due to human activities.”

Except (see page 2):

MLO is cumulative NET after all the exchanges have been accounted for automatically in the natural, real world, budget.

Cumulative FF is undirectional emissions that assumes NOT ONE molecule emitted by FF is EVER absorbed by surface sinks.

Do you think that is a reasonable assumption Nick?

>”Page 5 will be of interest to Bob D, perhaps he should rush off and tell the IPCC since he thinks they don’t know where the extra carbon is going”

OK, but there’s the same problem:

331 – Cumulative fossil fuel emissions (Jan. 2007)
30 – Net Terrestrial (from graph)
361 = fossil fuel emissions + terrestrial sources

214 – Observed atmospheric increase (Jan. 2007)
148 – Oceans, extrapolated through 2006
362 = atmospheric increase + ocean

361 = 362 – fine.

But is it reasonable to use Cumulative FF if the assumption of that is that NONE of it is ever absorbed by surface sinks – EVER?

Nick

Lets play Spot that logical fallacy!

Richard C gets off the mark with a “straw man!” a common denier strategy. See if you can spot it!

Great stuff folks, whatever will he come up with next?

Nick

Magoo is off the mark too with a “Red Herring!” they are neck in neck folks, hold tight this could be a wild ride!

Richard C (NZ)

>Richard C gets off the mark with a “straw man!”

Heh! The use of cumulative FF is fundamental to the entire issue, hardly a strawman.

I see no contra-argument from you Nick on why cumulative FF is a valid budget item.

Nick

Maybe Bob D will explain it to you, or not. Who can say in the crazy mixed up world of denial politics.

Magoo

Haha Nick, you really are an idiot. I’m not talking about the ‘human fingerprint’ of a cooling stratosphere/warming troposphere that alarmists use as a ‘red herring’ to avoid the issue. Or the other ‘red herring’ used by the alarmists that the hotspot can be explained by any source of warming not just AGW – the fact that a hotspot can be the result of warming from any source still doesn’t explain the fact that it doesn’t exist. Where’s the evidence of positive feedback from water vapour without it? Speaking of ‘logical fallacies’, how can AGW theory work with no positive feedback from water vapour, when the most it can warm is 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2? Can you spot the fatal flaw in your AGW faith? Alarmists scrape the bottom of the barrel in a mad panic for excuses as to why their computer models have all failed (and all their other predictions), but the lack of a tropospheric hotspot made that outcome inevitable long ago and everyone’s known about it since. It really is no mystery at all. The funniest thing about it is that the temperatures will likely continue… Read more »

Nick

Magoo is on a roll now with the famous “Gish Gallop!” another great denier strategy for avoiding rational thought. Stay tuned folks this is hotting up!

Magoo

Nick strikes again with a ‘run away from the question like a little girl’. Where’s your water vapour Nick? All I see is more hot air & avoidance, but never any answers. You do have an answer don’t you? Tell me so I can believe in AGW too.

[Don’t rise to the bait, my friend. Keep the ol’ level head. I’ll deal with Nick. Cheers – RT]

Bob D

Nick: “Page 5 will be of interest to Bob D, perhaps he should rush off and tell the IPCC since he thinks they don’t know where the extra carbon is going.” Note I said above that I “recall” the IPCC being unsure of where the excess FF CO2 went. I was correct – in TAR WG1 it says (page 205) “It is evident from this comparison that a part of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere; in other words, CO2 has been taken up by the land or the ocean or both.” Fig 3.4 shows this discrepency to be about half. Since then, the paper by Sabine (2004) appears to have gone some way towards confirming that indeed, the ocean absorbs some of this amount, leaving the land as the obvious sink for the remainder. But that’s simply speculation. Nevertheless, my point remains that a significant percentage of the FF-generated CO2 has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, which makes it tricky to do a simplistic cumulative FF analysis. Just for interest, Hansen (2012) tells us that “…the airborne fraction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions has declined and the forcing… Read more »

Nick

Thanks Bob D, we largely agree except that I think that it is actually quite easy to do cumulative FF analysis. Richard C just makes it look hard and gets it wrong to boot.

Richard C (NZ)

>”we largely agree except that I think that it is actually quite easy to do cumulative FF analysis”

“We” presumably excluding TAR WG1, Sabine (2004), and (vaguely alluding) Hansen (2012) above because none of those are saying ALL FF stays in the atmosphere forever i.e. cumulative.

Nick

Who said it does?

Nick

Apart from yourself I mean

Richard C (NZ)

>”a significant percentage of the FF-generated CO2 has no effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, which makes it tricky to do a simplistic cumulative FF analysis”

Exactly Bob. I would point out too that FF (7.8 GTC 2005) is just one of several sources (Resp+Fire 119 GTC 2005 being the largest). The sinks aren’t selective as to whether they will absorb Resp molecules but not FF emission molecules, plants welcome any food.

Nick

Richard C strikes again with a leaf out of Magoo’s book and tries a “Red Herring!” he sure doesn’t want to discuss his crack pot theory anymore. I guess we will never know how far down the rabbit hole he managed to get.

A pity because both Andy and Bob D showed some interest in coming to grips with it if only Richard C could explain it briefly and clearly…

Richard C (NZ)

>”Who said it does?”

That’s the rationale of Pieter Tans’ ESRL mass balance:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

331 – Cumulative fossil fuel emissions (Jan. 2007)
30 – Net Terrestrial (from graph)
361 = fossil fuel emissions + terrestrial sources

214 – Observed atmospheric increase (Jan. 2007)
148 – Oceans, extrapolated through 2006
362 = atmospheric increase + ocean

Again, is it reasonable to use Cumulative FF if the assumption of that is that NONE of it is ever absorbed by surface sinks – EVER?

Tans is at odds with TAR WG1 and Sabine (2004) as Bob points out because they find a considerable amount taken up by sinks i.e. Tans’ reconciliation is bogus.

Richard C (NZ)

[Tans] – “fossil fuel emissions + terrestrial sources = atmospheric increase + ocean”

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

Tans uses cumulative FF but net fossil fuel is the residual after known net terrestrial, ocean and atmosphere is accounted for.

30 (terre) + 148 (ocean) = 179. Therefore FF residual is 214 (atmos) – 179 = 36 (fossil fuel)

Net fossil fuel + Net terrestrial + Net ocean = Net atmosphere

36 + 30 + 148 = 214 GtC

Cumulative FF is bogus, Net FF is the appropriate component when all others are Net.

FF is only 16.8 % of total sources (36 / 214 = 0.168). Of the 331 GtC of cumulative FF only 10.9 % (36 / 331 = 0.109) contributes to net atmospheric increase.

This explains why cumulative FF on Tans’ graph (page 5) wildly overshoots net atmosphere. The red FF line (when net) is actually way down just above the green net terrestrial line.

Richard C (NZ)

>”FF is only 16.8 % of total sources (36 / 214 = 0.168)”

69.2 % – Net ocean (148 / 214 = 0.692)
16.8 % – Net fossil fuel (36 / 214 = 0.168)
14.0 % – Net terrestrial (30 / 214 = 0.140)

The ocean calls the CO2 shots.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Net fossil fuel + Net terrestrial + Net ocean = Net atmosphere 36 + 30 + 148 = 214 GtC”

This reasoning of mine is dead wrong – rubbish. There’s 3 reservoirs: air, sea, and land totaling 100% of the observed rise of CO2 in all 3:

392 GtC – total observed rise 100%, air+land+sea up to 2007 (from Tans ESRL)

214 GtC – net rise in air 54.6%
148 GtC – net rise in sea 37.8%
30 GtC – net rise in land 7.6%

331 GtC of fossil fuel emissions have been introduced to the carbon cycle and has been apportioned to the 3 reservoirs by exchanges (“turnover”). Obviously FF goes to the air reservoir initially. It cannot be said that of the 331 of FF, 214 has contributed all of the air reservoir rise because carbon started rising around 1780 but FF didn’t start rising until around 1850, 70 years later.

392 GtC – total rise 100%
331 GtC – fossil fuel emissions rise 84.4%
61 GtC – unaccounted for as at 2007 15.6 %

Nick,

That’s enough. I’ve been more than patient with your off-topic ranting and crazy ad-hominem jibes. It’s a waste of time. Contribute to the discussion faithfully or I will cut off your access.

Magoo

Tell him to answer my question or kick him off RT. He says he knows the answer so I think he should put his money where his mouth is, especially after mouthing off so much.

Yeah. Our messages crossed (see my addendum to your comment above). He knows how to contribute so I have every expectation that he will. After all, he just wants to teach us a lesson, right?

Magoo

When I was picking my daughter up from kindy this morning RT, I heard one pre-schooler say to the other – ‘I know the answer, but I’m not telling YOU’.

I had to laugh under my breath, it reminded me of another conversation going on this morning.

Heh, heh. Yes, and of a similar intellectual rigour, ‘n all.

Nick

Well done Richard T you spotted several ”ad-hominems!” glad to see you are getting into the spirit of the game.

Well to start with let’s try and paraphrase Richard C’s argument for the benefit of time limited readers. Richard C you will have to correct me if this is a misrepresentation.

Richard C’s argument is that:
***
“If there’s not enough fossil fuel carbon going up (increasingly i.e. the rise) to account for total carbon rise then some other source is providing the residue irrespective of what exchanges have taken place.”

“Incremental rises:
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013”

Therefore “Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere.”
Derived from:

ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2013_v1.3.xlsx

(you can convert ppm to GtC by multiplying by 2.12)
***
Once Richard C confirms that this is what he means we will move on.

Richard C (NZ)

[Me] – “If there’s not enough fossil fuel carbon going up (increasingly i.e. the rise) to account for total carbon rise then some other source is providing the residue irrespective of what exchanges have taken place.”

Yes, it’s ocean. Accounting for all the exchanges, and in terms of the Tans ESRL presentation:

100% – Net atmosphere 214 GtC

69.2 % – Net ocean (148 / 214 = 0.692)
16.8 % – Net fossil fuel (36 / 214 = 0.168)
14.0 % – Net terrestrial (30 / 214 = 0.140)

>”you can convert ppm to GtC by multiplying by 2.12″

From up-thread (i.e. to repeat myself as always for Nick’s benefit):

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

7.3.1.3 New Developments in Knowledge of the Carbon Cycle Since the Third Assessment Report
7.3.2 The Contemporary Carbon Budget
7.3.2.1 Atmospheric Increase

Table 7.1.
b [total carbon] Determined from atmospheric CO2 measurements (Keeling and Whorf, 2005, updated by S. Piper until 2006) at Mauna Loa (19°N) and South Pole (90°S) stations, consistent with the data shown in Figure 7.4, using a conversion factor of 2.12 GtC yr–1 = 1 ppm.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-1-3.html

The IPCC use the same conversion factor as I have: 2.12 GtC yr–1 = 1 ppm

Nick

Richard C please confirm that what I wrote above is indeed what you are arguing.

Richard C (NZ)

[Me] – ““Incremental rises:
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013”

These are simply smoothed (total) and heavily smoothed (FF). In the real world total is accelerating but FF fluctuates year-by-year as shown up-thread.

In 2009 there was negative growth in FF but that was not reflected in total which continued on with positive growth. Again this has already been laid out up-thread and demonstrates that FF has minimal effect on total – if any.

Nick

Come on Richard C, is what I wrote above what you are arguing or not. Andy doesn’t have time to wade through all your posts.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Richard C please confirm that what I wrote above is indeed what you are arguing.”

It’s a small part of it yes. But there’s a lot more to it than that If you had been following the thread e.g. Tans’ ESRL non-reconciliation which an issue I started addressing waaaaay up-thread i.e. the bogus use of cumulative FF, net FF provides the reconciliation. Also the fluctuations of FF vs the smooth rise of net atmospheric CO2.

My basis argument is this: cumulative FF provides more than 100% for reconciliation with net atmospheric CO2 rise (see Tans page 5 — cum FF wildly overshoots) but by using net FF we get reconciliation to 100%:

100% – Net atmosphere up to 2007 (214 GtC)

69.2 % – Net ocean (148 / 214 = 0.692)
16.8 % – Net fossil fuel (36 / 214 = 0.168)
14.0 % – Net terrestrial (30 / 214 = 0.140)

This goes some way to explaining the Incremental rises:

3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013

FF is 5.85% of net atmospheric carbon rise in this case

Simon

You are aware that CO2 is released into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises?
This is called a positive feedback.

Nick

[Deleted.]

I’ll tell you where you went wrong tomorrow.

In the mean time anyone with a vague grasp of the carbon cycle and high school math or physics is welcome to have a go.

Richard C (NZ)

>”You are aware that CO2 is released into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises?

Yes I am, now we’re talking Simon. Net ocean contributes 69% of atmospheric CO2 rise (derived from Tans)

>”This is called a positive feedback.”

Not from CO2 it isn’t, Ocean temperature is driven by insolation, Solar input rose from Grand Minimum to Grand Maximum over the last 400 years. Energy accumulated in the ocean. The ocean temperature rose, During the rise and at peak levels there’s CO2 outgassing to the atmosphere as you say. CO2 outgassing wont change much either when ocean temperature inevitably falls (Pacific already started that) because it’s only fractional change in degrees C at the surface. Maybe look for a dip in atm CO2 in 20, 30, 40 years time?

In short, increased solar input to the ocean has been the major contributor to atmospheric CO2 rise since it was first determined to have started rising around 1780:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png

You will note that atm CO2 started rising about 70 years before anthropogenic emissions (1780 vs 1850). The comparison with cumulative CO2 being for lead/lag purposes only.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Yes, it’s ocean. Accounting for all the exchanges, and in terms of the Tans ESRL presentation: 100% – Net atmosphere 214 GtC……….”

No it’s not ocean and no atmosphere is not 100% (i.e. I’m wrong). Total air+sea+land rise is 100%. I’ve corrected here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629211

Fossil fuel emissions rise is 84.4% of total rise according to Tans’ ESRL data. 15.6 % (61 GtC) unaccounted for as at 2007.

It cannot be said that of the 331 of FF, 214 has contributed all of the air reservoir rise because carbon started rising around 1780 but FF didn’t start rising until around 1850, 70 years later.

The rise in the air reservoir total must also receive a contribution from ocean outgassing (and possibly land too). As at 1850 this non-FF contribution was 100% of the rise in the air reservoir because FF emissions only began to rise then. Obviously that 100% non-FF contribution has diminished by now but there is no reason to say the non-FF contribution to air has stopped.

Evidence that another non-FF contributor is smoothing the rise in atmospheric CO2 shows up at 2009 when FF growth turned negative for a year. Atm CO2 continued growing positively.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Net ocean contributes 69% of atmospheric CO2 rise (derived from Tans)”

I’m wrong here Simon. See my correction above here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629254

There has been ocean outgassing to atmosphere. As at 1850 the outgassing contribution to atmosphere (i.e. non-FF) was the 100% contributor because FF emission only started rising then but atm CO2 had been already rising since 1780. Obviously with FF emissions to the atmosphere rising at increasing rate since 1850, the non-FF contribution has diminished but not to zero because atm CO2 doesn’t track FF fluctuations e.g. 2009.

Richard C (NZ)

>”15.6 % (61 GtC) unaccounted for as at 2007″

‘The Mystery of the Missing Carbon’ : Feature Articles

by David Herring and Robert Kannenberg
NASA Earth Observatory

Scientists estimate that between 1 and 2 billion metric tons of carbon per year are “missing” from the global carbon budget. Or, more precisely, they cannot account for the location of between 15 and 30 percent of the carbon released into the atmosphere each year from fossil fuel burning (Sellers et al. 1997). Worldwide, humans annually release about 7 billion tons of carbon. Of that amount, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere, 2 billion tons are absorbed into the ocean, and…the rest? Scientists assume land vegetation absorbs the rest, but they don’t know exactly where or how much.

>>>>>>>

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BOREASCarbon/

Richard C (NZ)

[NASA EO] – “humans annually release about 7 billion tons of carbon [each year]. Of that amount, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere” 42.9% (3 / 7 = 0.429) of fossil fuel emissions (plus other anthro) remains in the atmosphere in the same year of emission. 57.1% (4 / 7 = 0.571) of fossil fuel emissions (plus other anthro) is absorbed by ocean and land in the same year of emission. 2012 Atm: 2.42 ppm x 2.12 = 5.13 GtC 2012 FF: 9.7 GtC x 0.429 = 4.16 GtC 4.16 / 5.13 = 0.81 81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 19% contribution from non-FF 2012 2010 Atm: 2.43 ppm x 2.12 = 5.15 GtC 2010 FF: 9.19 GtC x 0.429 = 3.94 GtC 3.94 / 5.15 = 0.765 76.5% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 23.5% contribution from non-FF 2010 2009 Atm: 1.67 ppm x 2.12 = 3.54 GtC 2009 FF: 8.74 GtC x 0.429 = 3.75 GtC 3.75 / 3.54 = 1.06 106% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 0% contribution from non-FF 2009 2008 Atm: 1.78 ppm x 2.12 = 3.77 GtC 2008 FF: 8.77 GtC… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Data for Global Carbon Emissions” is the total of fossil fuels, cement, and land-use change

So for 2012 FF: “2012 FF: 9.7 GtC x 0.429 = 4.16 GtC ” 81% contribution to atm rise

4.16 must be broken down into constituent parts of fossil fuels, cement, land-use change to find the contribution of each. Data for that here:

Data for Global Carbon Emissions
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

I’ll have to stop using “FF” obviously. Perhaps Anthro Emissions (AE) instead.

Bob D

RC,

Well I suppose you’re just confirming the 42.9% average in reverse, but I would agree with that. One further point, you make the comment:

“For comparison, contributions for the period 1780 – 1850 were:
0% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 100% contribution from non-FF.”

But isn’t the delta in CO2 (1780 – 1850) assumed to be close to zero, so it may be a moot point?

Richard C (NZ)

Bob, >”Well I suppose you’re just confirming the 42.9% average in reverse” Yes and No. I’m not confirming it. I just uplifted it (derived it) from NASA Earth Observatory and applied it. I suspect it’s very rough as are all the estimates. I get that impression by the 106% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from Anthro Emissions (AE) in 2009 – impossible of course. There’s probably more detailed apportionment factors for each year somewhere; 42.9% merely typical or “average” as you put it. But yes, I suppose you could say that 42.9% provides a realistic reconciliation and conversely, leaving AE cumulative doesn’t work at all. All Tans (ESRL) had to do was sum the rises in the reservoirs up to 2007 to get total rise from the 3 reservoirs, atmosphere+ocean+land. That’s all the reconciliation required and his graph on page 5 is incomplete. On his graph there should be 4 curves in ascending order: net land rise, net ocean rise, net atmosphere rise, total land+ocean+atmosphere rise. Missing from the graph is total land+ocean+atmosphere rise. OK sure, put the 5th cumulative AE curve on too as he’s done but it can only be compared… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”If you want to check this out further (i.e. maybe I’m wrong) we could look at the source data for atmospheric CO2 and AE?” Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores 1010-1975 1620 275.3 1645 276.3 1700 276.7 1720 277.0 1740 276.9 1760 277.6 1780 280.1 1800 282.9 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2010 1770 3 1771 4 1780 4 1781 5 1790 5 1791 6 1796 6 1797 7 1797 7 1798 7 1799 7 1800 8 1801 8 1802 10 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems # # # So I’m way out with 1780 and 1850. It’s more like 1620 and 1770. Atmospheric CO2 (Ice Core) started rising 150 years prior to Anthropogenic Emissions.

Richard C (NZ)

Revised Summary:

Non-AE contribution to atmospheric carbon started rising at 1620, 150 years before AE.
AE contribution to atmospheric carbon started rising at 1770

From 1770 to 2012, Non-AE decreased from 100% atmospheric carbon contribution to 19% in 2012.

From 1770 to 2012, AE increased from 0% atmospheric carbon contribution to 81% in 2012.

D J C
hemimck

Hi Richard,

I have previously submitted a financial style working model for total Carbon using a “C” Flow and Balance Sheets methodology over a ten year time frame which I think gives a more useful way of analysing and testing statements on CO2 but it doesn’t seem to have found favour.

Richard C (NZ)

Hemi Mck

>”…a financial style working model for total Carbon using a “C” Flow and Balance Sheets methodology over a ten year time frame”

Excellent, I’d like to see it. Can you put it in Dropbox or somewhere where we can access it?

Re “ten year time frame”. I’m only really starting to get a handle on “fast” and “slow” exchanges in the carbon cycle. Whether one year or ten year timeframe we’re only dealing with “fast” exchanges and trying to work out just how “fast”, is that correct? Can you help with how fast “fast” is?

Again, re “ten year time frame”. Tom Segalstad has a paper listing citations to papers estimating residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC goes nuts with that but I see 2 papers corroborating each other by different methods arriving at 5.4 years. How have you dealt with residence time?

Segalstad paper (see page 13, Residence Time papers):

‘Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2’

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CarbonCycling.pdf

Based on solubility data
Murray (1992) 5.4

Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance
Segalstad (1992) 5.4

hemimck

OK will get onto it tonight.

The ten year time frame was just because the “Balance Sheet” changes for shorter periods were too trivial to be informative. But you can change it what ever time frame you like.

Bob D

Simon:

“You are aware that CO2 is released into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises?
This is called a positive feedback.”

If so, it’s a pretty poor example. We’re just discussing how a large fraction of the extra AE CO2 added to the atmosphere is taken up by the ocean. So the exact opposite is happening, it would appear.

Andy

Bob, I think what Simon is referring to is the outgassing from the oceans that occurs after warming (usually several hundred years after the warming)

This correlation is seen in the Vostok ice cores and was shown in An Inconvenient Truth as evidence that CO2 and temperature is correlated. (This was also shown in the recent IPCC WG1 video)

Given that the outgassing appears to lag temperature by several hundred years, it probably isn’t relevant to the immediate problem

Richard C (NZ)

>”So the exact opposite is happening, it would appear.”

Tricky concept – lots going in – and a little coming out.

AR5 Figure 6.1 helps:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

2.3 going in to the ocean (absorption) – 0.7 coming out of the ocean (outgassing).

To 0.7 add 1.0 (freshwater outgassing) + 0.1 (volcanism) + 0.3 (rock weathering) = 2.1 GtC to atmosphere but that is further reduced by other exchanges because the Non-AE contribution to atmosphere was only 0.97 GtC in 2012 (5.13 – 4.16), the 19% figure.

Still getting my head around this but it’s about the “turnovers” in the cycle. Volcanism and rock weathering are (I think) “slow” turnovers. Outgassing and absorption, photosynthesis, respiration and fire, are “fast” turnovers (could be wrong). And turnover rates vary between exchanges (I think) – don’t know anything about turnover rates yet.

Richard C (NZ)

Andy says: >”Bob, I think what Simon is referring to is the outgassing from the oceans that occurs after warming (usually several hundred years after the warming)”

Good point Andy. Simon may also be referring to the current context and if so he’s still correct in one sense (small amount of outgassing currently) but not correct as Bob puts it (in terms of absorption and feedback).

It’s the difference between very fast exchange and very, very, very, slow exchange (I think).

hemimck

Attached is my version of the C Flow and Balance sheets for world carbon. What becomes clear is that some of the numbers can be assessed fairly accurately others are highly questionable and require very heroic assumptions. Have fun.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tduejt4q8fxqj0c/Carbon%20financial%20model.xls

Richard C (NZ)

>”Have fun”

Cheers Hemi, this is great.

Richard C (NZ)

Hemi’s approach is exactly opposite to mine (his more detailed obviously).

Mine: sum the 3 known reservoir nets air+sea+land, apportion AE subsequently.
Hemi: apportion known AE to respective reservoirs, sum the 3 reservoir nets air+sea+land.

This is exactly what I was on about in this comment replying to Bob:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629730

Quoting:

>”All Tans (ESRL) had to do was sum the rises in the reservoirs up to 2007 to get total rise from the 3 reservoirs, atmosphere+ocean+land.”

>”Apportioning AE to each reservoir is a secondary exercise as I’ve done above using the 0.429 factor.”

Or Tans could have taken Hemi’s approach. Either way he would have got reconciliation. Put differently, this:

[Tans] – “fossil fuel emissions + terrestrial sources = atmospheric increase + ocean”

is meaningless. Land, sea and air are reservoirs, anthro emissions are introduced to all three.

‘Today’s carbon cycle as revealed by observed CO2 records’
Pieter P. Tans
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf

Nick

According to Richard C: *** “If there’s not enough fossil fuel carbon going up (increasingly i.e. the rise) to account for total carbon rise then some other source is providing the residue irrespective of what exchanges have taken place.” “Incremental rises: 3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013 0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013” Therefore “Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere.” Derived from: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2013_v1.3.xlsx (you can convert ppm to GtC by multiplying by 2.12) *** Where Richard C has gone wrong is the that 0.23 is an acceleration (GtC/y^2) and as such can’t be compared with a rate (GtC/y). If you go ahead and calculate the actual acceleration of atmospheric carbon then you find that on average it matches the acceleration of FF rise almost exactly. This demonstrates by Richard C’s own logic that 100% of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon is from fossil fuels. As per the mainstream scientific understanding. Oceans are currently a net carbon sink btw, that’s why they are turning acid. Anyway test over. You all failed, even Bob D who identified… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Where Richard C has gone wrong is the that 0.23 is an acceleration (GtC/y^2) and as such can’t be compared with a rate (GtC/y).” No 0.24 is not an acceleration, it is simply the smoothed anthro emissions (AE) increase 2005 – 2013. In reality AE fluctuates as I’ve demonstrated here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629534 >”If you go ahead and calculate the actual acceleration of atmospheric carbon then you find that on average it matches the acceleration of FF rise almost exactly.” No it doesn’t, Cumulative AE must be apportioned to the respective reservoirs so that only the AE contribution to atmosphere is compared to atm carbon rise – NOT total cumulative AE carbon compared to atm carbon as you do because it’s not apples-to-apples. OR total cumulative AE carbon can be compared to total carbon rise of atmosphere+ocean+land in an apples-to-apples comparison. As I demonstrate here (Atm leads AE by 150 years): https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629946 And here (reconciliation method): https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629730 And here (revised summary of atm contributions as a result of up-thread calcs subsequently corroborated by Hemi using reverse method of reconciliation to mine): https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629965 And here (independent corroboration of reconciliation method): https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-630372 >”This demonstrates by Richard C’s… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

My reply to Nick is awaiting moderation right now – too many links.

Andy

A philosophical question, Nick.

If I wasn’t given the test, did I fail?

Nick

Hi Richard C, are you telling me that the rate of FF emissions increases by on average 0.23GtC/y every year but that this is not acceleration?

Richard C (NZ)

>”..are you telling me that the rate of FF emissions increases by on average 0.23GtC/y every year

Only over 2007 – 2013. And it’s smoothed, 2009 was negative growth.

>”…but that this is not acceleration?”

0.23GtC/y is not an acceleration Nick. We’ve been over this before.

All completely irrelevant of course, to the relative contributions to atmospheric carbon rise – AE vs Non-AE 1620 – 2013. And to the proportion of yearly AE that goes to land and ocean sinks in the year of emission.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Where Richard C has gone wrong is the that 0.23 is an acceleration (GtC/y^2)”

Where Nick has gone wrong is that he made up “GtC/y^2”. The smoothed linear rise as i stated it was “0.23 GtC per year”

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says: >”If you go ahead and calculate the actual acceleration of atmospheric carbon then you find that on average it matches the acceleration of FF [AE] rise almost exactly.” No it doesn’t. Total cumulative AE cannot be used unless the comparison is against total cumulative net atm+ocean+land carbon rise. For atmosphere only, first AE must be apportioned to atm, ocean, and land reservoirs for each year’s emissions. Then the relative contributions of AE and Non-AE to atmospheric carbon rise can be determined. Relative Contributions to Atmospheric Carbon Rise 1620 – 2012 [NASA EO] – “humans annually release about 7 billion tons of carbon [each year (AE)]. Of that amount, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BOREASCarbon/ 42.9% (3 / 7 = 0.429) of fossil fuel emissions (plus other anthro) remains in the atmosphere in the same year of emission. 57.1% (4 / 7 = 0.571) of fossil fuel emissions (plus other anthro) is absorbed by ocean and land in the same year of emission. Atmospheric carbon started rising 1620. AE started rising 1770 1750 Atm: 0.02 ppm x 2.12 = 0.04 GtC 1751 AE: 0.003 GtC x 0.429 = 0.001 GtC… Read more »

HemiMck

Hi Richard

The approach I have taken is that it must add up. Over the last couple of years I have gathered any number or relationship that seems to be authenticated and lacking that used an IPCC number.

Clearly all the numbers can not be measured to the same error level and many of the errors swamp the measurable numbers but that does not mean that the model can not provide insights eg. Nicks comment regarding ocean acidity. The ten year change is .0065% ie trivial which is in line with measured results. In fact there is no scenario when ocean acidity can ever be an issue.

Nick

Hi HemiMck, agreed, over 10 years change in acidity is negligible.

Looking at your spread sheet I assume you agree that the ocean is currently a net carbon sink however and that the current increase in atmospheric carbon can be 100% attributed to anthro sources?

Bizarrely there seems to be some debate here over these two points.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Bizarrely there seems to be some debate here over these two points.”

Only in your mind Nick. We all know the ocean is a net sink but we’re discovering that atmospheric carbon increase since 1620 is not 100% anthro.

We also know the ocean is becoming a little less alkaline – but it’s still alkaline.

Bob D

I think the salient point in all this is that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to be what the science says it is: about 4-5 years. If 43% of anthro emissions are taken up by the biosphere and ocean within the first year and even Nick admits the oceans are currently a net sink for CO2 (48% of all AE from 1800 to 1994 according to Sabine et al.) then it shows once again the oddity of the IPCC’s strange belief that anthro CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a thousand years.

Richard C (NZ)

>”If 43% of anthro emissions are taken up by the biosphere and ocean within the first year” 57% goes to biosphere (land and ocean), 43% remains in the atmosphere, according to NASA EO below. Glad you’ve picked this out Bob. I have to say I’m not comfortable with it. 43% : 57% in the first year was the inference I drew from the EO article wording (contrary to Sabine), EO doesn’t necessarily say that though: [NASA EO] – “humans annually release about 7 billion tons of carbon. Of that amount, 3 billion tons remain in the atmosphere” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BOREASCarbon/ It could be that the 57% goes to land and ocean over a period extending past the year of emission. I don’t think so though because by using 43% in the same year I’ve twice run into the problem (1950 and 2009) of AE exceeding 100% of contribution to atm carbon rise (impossible). Using a factor greater than 43% would mean almost every year’s AE would exceed 100% contribution – not possible, therefore 43% seems reasonable. Sabine implies 57%, I think that’s too much. In any event, residence time dictates that all of whatever does… Read more »

hemimck

No wrong Nick. The large numbers are pure constructs. We can never know for instance how accurately the number for photosynthesis matches vegetative and animal waste etc. All you can say with a degree of certainty is that man, though burning of so called fossil fuels contributes less than 3% of the total C flows each year from non atmospheric biosphere to the atmosphere and that does not hang round long.

Incidentally, I haven’t seen any figures on what portion of the “animal waste” number could be attributed to humans breathing but I would suspect it would exceed mans usage of fossil fuels.

hemimck

No take that back Human breathing quite small in scheme of things

Bob D

To show this, consider the following thought experimet. Imagine this year (2014) we put 10GtC into the atmosphere. Then in 2015 we put up zero. What happens to the 10GtC from 2014? In the first year (2014) 42.9% disappears from the atmosphere into the oceans, leaving 5.7GtC in the atmosphere. Now in 2015 there is no significant difference between that 5.7GtC and any new CO2, so as far as the planet is concerned the excess 5.7 GtC is fair game, and so 42.9% of it is removed as before, leaving 3.3 GtC. In 2016 the same happens to the 3.3 GtC, leaving 1.9 GtC, and so on. By 2024 (10 years later) only 0.4 GtC remains. Now of course there is a flaw in this argument as well. The 42.9% is not a fixed ratio, it just happens to be what emerges after the ocean has absorbed around 4GtC each year. In other words, the oceans are capable of absorbing up to 4 GtC of excess CO2 from the atmosphere in any single year. So in reality what will happen in our thought experiment is that in 2015 four of the 5.7 GtC… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Bob D says: >”To show this, consider the following thought experiment”

Not quite addressing your thought experiment (I know what you’re getting at – well reasoned) but in exactly the same vein replying to your initial residence time comment in terms of actual “turnover”, I made this little effort:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-631878

Ending with:

“In any event, residence time dictates that all of whatever does stay in the atmosphere at the end of a year’s emissions will be turned over (“turnover”) with the biosphere by the expiration of the the residence time frame. I’m going with 5.4 years residence time because I see corroborating papers from different methods – no other reason than that.”

Whether AE is turned over completely in 2 or 5 or 10 years makes little difference I would have thought (could be wrong).

Bob D

RC:

“Whether AE is turned over completely in 2 or 5 or 10 years makes little difference I would have thought (could be wrong).”

You’re quite right. The important conclusion is that it can’t be a thousand years.

hemimck

Try again.

No human breathing is small compared to fossil fuels but is of the order of volcanic venting, much greater than calcite burning for concrete and 5 times arctic venting of methane.

Bob D

RC:

“57% goes to biosphere (land and ocean), 43% remains in the atmosphere, according to NASA EO below.”

Ah yes, sorry. So that means the residence time is even shorter.

Richard C (NZ)

>”So that means the residence time is even shorter”

No it doesn’t change the residence time, that’s fixed as I understand (variously – I go with 5.4)

Residence time (as I understand – could be wrong) refers to the length of time it takes for complete “turnover”. 57% (NASA EO) is the amount the biosphere “breathes” in the first year of emission i.e. partial turnover. There’s still the other 43% left in the atmosphere for the biosphere to “breathe” completely over the residence time i.e. complete turnover.

The wording of EO is unclear though, it may take longer than one year to turnover the 57% i.e. remaining in atmosphere is greater than 43%. My calcs don’t support that though because I get greater than 100% AE contribution to atmosphere using a factor larger than 43% remaining (and even by using 43%).

Thing is, is there any AE carbon that has turned over more than once during residence time depending on the type of exchange i.e. been emitted to atmosphere, absorbed by a surface reservoir, and emitted back to the atmosphere?

I don’t know, but a biochemist would. Or Hemi?

Bob D

RC,
I’m not concerned here with individual molecules, only the relative “imbalance”, or perturbation to an assumed (and fictional) pre-human equilibrium.

Richard C (NZ)

Bob >”I’m not concerned here with individual molecules”

Fair enough. Just an aside because the respective rates of turnover for the different exchanges is something that’s been plaguing me. I know nothing about, I’m just speculating. I’ll have to read up on it. Sorry.

Re >only the relative “imbalance”

Did you see this analysis earlier?

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-631754

Richard C (NZ)

>”Did you see this analysis earlier?” [from above, see link] Re: only the relative “imbalance”

Summary

2.5% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 97.5% contribution from non-AE 1750

0.4% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 99,6% contribution from non-AE 1770

1.2% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 98.8% contribution from non-AE 1850

63% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 37% contribution from non-AE 1900

109% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 0% contribution from non-AE 1950

62% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 38% contribution from non-AE 1980

81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 19% contribution from non-AE 2012

Bob D

RC:
Sorry, I don’t agree with this. From above:

“2012 Atm: 2.42 ppm x 2.12 = 5.13 GtC
2012 AE: 9.7 GtC x 0.429 = 4.16 GtC
4.16 / 5.13 = 0.81
81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 19% contribution from non-AE 2012”

I believe you’ve made a leap of logic here, by assuming that there is always an exact 42.9% ratio. This is not the case, it’s simply that historically, averaged over ten years, the ratio turned out (over that specific period) to be 42.9%.

A better calculation would be:
2012 Atm: 2.42 ppm x 2.12 = 5.13 GtC
2012 AE: 9.7 GtC
Ratio of AE remaining in the atmosphere = 5.13 / 9.7 = 52.9%

In other words, in 2012 4.6 GtC of the excess atmospheric CO2 was absorbed by the ocean/biomass, and this represents 47.1% of the excess CO2 emitted that year.

Richard C (NZ)

>”I believe you’ve made a leap of logic here, by assuming that there is always an exact 42.9% ratio. This is not the case, it’s simply that historically, averaged over ten years, the ratio turned out (over that specific period) to be 42.9%.” Yes i realize that but in the absence of any other year-by-year ratio data I had to use something. The mere fact that I get greater than 100% AE contribution in 1950 and 2009 indicates to me that the ratio varies for any given year. For those two years it was probably more like 60/40. >”Ratio of AE remaining in the atmosphere = 5.13 / 9.7 = 52.9%” Can’t be Bob, The base (denominator) in this case is atmospheric rise and that is what must be related to (you’re upside down). But the bigger picture is that the total base is actually atm+land+ocean carbon rise. If you know that (as per Tans ESRL) then you can use cumulative AE, in this case adding 9.7 to all that’s accumulated previously and relate that to cumulative net atm+land+ocean. 9.7 is the amount introduced to the system via the atmosphere over the course… Read more »

Bob D

RC:

“>”Ratio of AE remaining in the atmosphere = 5.13 / 9.7 = 52.9%”

Can’t be Bob, The base (denominator) in this case is atmospheric rise and that is what must be related to (you’re upside down).”

Hmm, I don’t get that logic. The ratio of AE that remains in the atmosphere is clearly 5.13 / 9.7. Total AE = 9.7 GtC. Amount remaining in the atmosphere 5.13 GtC. Ratio must then be 5.13 / 97.

If you change the definition to read “Ratio of atmospheric rise relative to AE rise then yes, the ratio would be 9.7 / 5.13 = 189%. Which implies that the AE is being absorbed somewhere else, but we already know that.

Bob D

RC: “If you’re going to relate 9.7 to 5.13 you’re assuming not one AE molecule has been absorbed by surface reservoirs and never will be.” Again, I don’t get this logic, I think you’re going to have to spell it out more clearly. My logic in fact results in the conclusion that AE molecules are being absorbed by surface reservoirs. 9.7 GtC of AE are emitted to the atmosphere in a year (2012). We note an increase of 5.13GtC at the end of the year. So, logically, we can make the following claim: 1) The rise of 5.13 GtC is entirely due to AE sources; 2) There is a missing amount of AE (9.7 – 5.13 GtC = 4.57 GtC) that can be assumed to have been absorbed again by ‘something’ other than the atmosphere. Such as surface reservoirs. Now although the logic is good, there may be other things at play. For example, it may be that the surface is easily able to absorb the full 9.7 GtC of AE in a single year, and always has been, but there is ‘something else’ that is swamping the 9.7 GtC absorption by producing… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Total AE = 9.7 GtC” This number is not the amount remaining in the atmosphere. The number is an estimate of what leaves factory flues (emitted) on the surface or airplane exhausts aloft and suchlike. That’s how emissions data is compiled. Lets say emission is 0.03 GtC (9.7/365) for the first day of the year. That 0.03 will not carry through the rest of the 364 days to the end of the year, some will but much less than 43% because there’s an entire year for exchanges with the biosphere to take place depending on where the emission occurred. If from an airplane then yes, probably 100% will carry through to end of year. Not so for day 364. Close to 100% will carry over to day 365. The net effect is that the 9.7 emitted is reduced over the course of the year. The first days emissions are reduced the most, the last days emissions hardly at all. >”Amount remaining in the atmosphere 5.13 GtC. Ratio must then be 5.13 / 97″ No, 5.13 is the net amount of observed rise in the atmosphere after all exchanges have taken place over the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Again, I don’t get this logic, I think you’re going to have to spell it out more clearly.”

I can’t spend any more time on this today, I’ll have to pick up again another time. But see my previous comment re breaking down a year in 365 days of emissions.

I would point out though, that I’m getting the same results from 3 different methods, one being AR5 Figure 6,1 as per my reply to Simon:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-632293

AE 83% contribution to recent atmospheric carbon rise. In other words, the IPCC carbon budget confirms my methodology.

hemimck

“81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 19% contribution from non-AE 2012”

If 97% plus of carbon added to the atmosphere annually comes for non-AE sources how can 81% of the rise in atmospheric carbon be attributed to AE?

Richard C (NZ)

>”If 97% plus of carbon added to the atmosphere annually comes for non-AE sources”

Don’t think you’re right with that Hemi going by IPCC graphics, Non-AE is a very small fraction of AE according to AR5 Figure 6.1:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

Simon

The above chart explains it all.
Fossil fuels are emitting 7.8 PgCyr-1, land use change is contributing 1.1. Atmospheric increase is about 4. The oceans are absorbing 2.3 – 0.7 = 1.6. Increased photosynthesis is 2.6-1.7 = 0.9. Where is the rest of the imbalance going? I’m not sure but I’d guess the ocean. Additional absorbation increases the acidity of the ocean. At some point (which may be well out in the future) saturation is reached and the ocean will likely become a source rather than a sink.
All of the net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can be solely attributed to anthropogenic influences.

Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”The oceans are absorbing 2.3 – 0.7 = 1.6″

This is OK, the two fluxes oppose each other.

>”Increased photosynthesis is 2.6-1.7 = 0.9″

But this isn’t OK, both fluxes are to surface so it’s 2.6 [+] 1.7 = 4.3

Up,
Non-AE: 0.7 + 1.0 + 0.1 = 1.8,
AE: 7.8 + 1.1 = 8.9
Total: 10.7 (AE 83% of Up, as I’ve shown, over and over)

Down: 2.3 + 2.6 + 1.7 + 0.3 = 6.9 (includes fluxes from atm AE to land and ocean)

Difference = 3.8 (average atm rise 4)

Richard C (NZ)

Simon, you say >”All of the net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can be solely attributed to anthropogenic influences.”

Then how did atmospheric CO2 start rising 150 years before anthro emissions started rising?

See here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629946

Bob D

My personal position is that all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 most likely ™ comes from AE. This is because the AE amount exceeds the annual measured atmospheric increase every year. Our “problem” has been working out where the rest of the AE went after it was emitted, not a shortfall.

Of course if someone can provide a plausible explanation why this is incorrect, I’m more than happy to be proven wrong.

hemimck

Hi Richard

“Don’t think you’re right with that Hemi going by IPCC graphics, Non-AE is a very small fraction of AE according to AR5 Figure 6.1:”

Using my ten year numbers gross flow for AE 60 GTC venting from Oceans 1200GTC, from land and animals etc 939GTC (all IPCC figures) hence 2.8% AE.

There is no way to know that photosynthesis or ocean sinks match these numbers.

Bob D

I think this is an important point – the AE numbers are tiny compared to the non-AE every year, and small fluctuations in non-AE sources or sinks annually are unknown and unmeasurable on an individual basis, and will swamp the AE figures easily.

So most of this is guesswork. We can only really measure the rise of total atmospheric CO2 and estimate AE sources from fossil fuel, cement, etc. usage.

However, none of this changes the facts, which are:
1) CO2 concentration is increasing in the atmosphere;
2) Global atmospheric temperatures are not increasing, and have not over the past 18 years.

Richard C (NZ)

Hemi >”hence 2.8% AE”

Ouch. From AR5 Figure 6.1, AE is 83%. I get 81% for 2012 just from global atm ppm rise, a 57:43 apportionment to sink ratio, and the emissions data i.e. one corroborates the other. I also get similar (84.4%) using Tans’ ESRL cumulative data for all reservoirs from the LIA up to 2007. So 3 different approaches return between 81 and 84.4%

But your analysis is far more comprehensive Hemi. So like Bob, I see much guesswork for non-AE and that only shows up when you get down to the level of detail you have. As you put it:

“some of the numbers can be assessed fairly accurately others are highly questionable and require very heroic assumptions”

I’ve also encountered conflicting data on different versions of the same dataset even among the “fairly accurate” estimates for AE. It just depends on which organization you uplift the dataset from i.e. there’s obviously some retroactive “tweaking” going on that doesn’t propagate to all versions at all organizations.

So basically, AE to atm is somewhere between 2.8 and 84.4%. i’m going with the best I can muster however.

Bob D

RC,
In terms of net fluxes, yes. But we’re discussing the relative sizes of the gross fluxes. This is important because a small variation in non-AE gross flux can create a net flux that completely swamps the gross AE flux, and we have no way to actually monitor the non-AE gross fluxes on an annual basis.

Richard C (NZ)

Hemi >”Using my ten year numbers gross flow for AE 60 GTC venting from Oceans 1200GTC, from land and animals etc 939GTC (all IPCC figures) hence 2.8% AE”

Bob >”In terms of net fluxes, yes. But we’re discussing the relative sizes of the gross fluxes”

Yes I see I’ve got this wrong “AE to atm is somewhere between 2.8 and 84.4%”. Not the way to look at it obviously.

I’ve been conditioned by net data so looking at gross flows is an eyeopener I have to say.

At first I thought “the ocean calls the shots” but that’s not the case I realize now after Hemi has vegetation and photosynthesis at 1200 and venting from oceans at 939 (opposite to above). Seems to me now that the greenery is only too happy there’s some extra food coming it’s way.

hemimck

Hi Bob,

Thanks Bob, that is exactly the point.

I would go further and say that rising CO2 is part of the earths natural defence mechanism. With the pressure from man, his animals and machines the balance needs to be shifted in favour of the plant world.

hemimck

Simon,

Saturation cannot ever be reached. The total known reserves of fossil fuels are about 1000GTC and the C currently disolved in the oceans is about 40,000GTC. Acidification is just another IPCC bogey.

There is another sink which I have put in at token level in the model but is also unknown is calcite deposition. Given that is where the vaste majority of the Carbon in the earths crust has finished up it is quite possibly a significant sink.

Nick

Hi all, from the literature above between 2005 and 2013 (8 years) the rate of anthro emissions has increased from 7.81GtC/y to 9.67GtC/y.

According to Richard C the average acceleration is not 0.23GtC/y^2, does anyone else agree with him?

If you do please comment in Richard C’s support and mention how you think acceleration should be calculated. I prefer Δv/Δt but I would love to know what crazy alternative Richard might be using.

[deleted]

Richard C may think it is irrelevant, but not being able to tell the difference between rate and acceleration makes attempting to apply basic tools like a mass balance pretty much hopeless. Which would explain the tangle he has talked himself into.

Don’t forget to comment if you support Richard C’s fantasy physics, his credibility depends on it!

Bob D

Hi Nick,
I have no intention of playing your silly games. If you have something substantive to contribute to the conversation, just make your case as an adult.

We are all able to work things out mathematically, but it would be far more preferable not to have to deal with peurile behaviour if at all possible.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick >”7.81GtC/y to 9.67GtC/y. According to Richard C the average acceleration is not 0.23GtC/y^2″

And it’s not.

9.67 – 7.81 = absolute 1.86 rise. Divided by 8 years gives 0.23 average linear rise per year i.e. not an acceleration because no Δv. 0.23 per year returns a constant 0.23 per year (Duh).

There is no ” ^2 ” in 0.23/yr. In terms of distance, acceleration is “metre per second per second”, In our case an acceleration would be GtC per year per year. Obviously it isn’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Bob D

For what it’s worth I agree with Nick, but not with his rather smarmy way of saying it.

I wrote up above to RC:

“You’re using the “acceleration” of FF addition each year as the calculator for determining how much FF is added in total. That’s incorrect.”

But I suggested he make his case via a blog post or thread so we could thrash it out, just before Nick created his little distractions.

Bob D

When I say I agree with Nick I mean using the rate rise as a calculator, not as an acceleration.

Richard C (NZ)

Bob >” I mean using the rate rise as a calculator”

Yes, that was at a stage when I was trying to get a handle on the respective rises and how that might help assess relative contributions – helped a little but not the way to go. It’s useful in the situation of negative AE growth as over 2009 because it highlights the fact that atm doesn’t track AE fluctuations in the manner a 100% contributor would (either that or it highlights constant assumptions aren’t appropriate either). Refined my method considerably since then.

Was an unfortunate use of the word “acceleration” though Bob, especially when Nick’s around.

Bob D

“Was an unfortunate use of the word “acceleration” though Bob, especially when Nick’s around.”

🙂

Nick

Richard C, you say:

9.67 – 7.81 = absolute 1.86 rise. Divided by 8 years gives 0.23 average linear rise per year i.e. not an acceleration because no Δv. 0.23 per year returns a constant 0.23 per year (Duh).

The reason you are getting this wrong is that you are sloppy with units. 9.67, 7.81 and 1.86 are all GtC/y. Go back and check your source material if you don’t believe me.

1.86GtC/y is the Δv.

When you divide that by time (8y) the units become GtC/y^2 which is an acceleration.

Richard C (NZ)

>”9.67, 7.81 and 1.86 are all GtC/y.”

Wrong. 7.81 is the amount of GtC that was emitted in the first year. 9.67 is the amount of GtC that was emitted in the last year. 1.86 is the absolute difference between the two over 8 years. In other words, 7.81 and 9.67 are amounts per year for one year only respectively in each case but 1.86 is only in units of GtC difference in respect to an 8 year period.

>”1.86GtC/y is the Δv.”

No it isn’t. You cannot assign “/y” to the units. 1,86 GtC difference is 1.86 GtC difference – period. Neither is it “v”, let alone “Δv”.

>”When you divide that by time (8y) the units become GtC/y^2 which is an acceleration.”

At this point you’ve just made an ass of yourself Nick. When you divide the difference amount by time you get GtC/yr – that’s it. 2.3 GtC/yr. Now you’ve got “v”. No more dividing. It’s a constant linear rise.

And very rough smoothing too I would point out i.e. it’s certainly not a linear regression as it should be.

Richard C (NZ)

>”9.67, 7.81 and 1.86 are all GtC/y. Go back and check your source material if you don’t believe me”

CDIAC is the source (others take the data and express it as they will i.e. not necessarily as it should be):

“All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon”

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

No “per year” rubbish.

Nick

From the same site. Same values show MtC/y on the left axis.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2010.html

Your list shows MtC for each year which makes each value MtC/y by definition. If you have shown the year on the left putting it in the units as well is superfluous.

Nick

To put it even more simply 9.67GtC in 2013 is exactly the same as 9.67GtC/y. You just divide the magnitude by the period it is over (1 year) and correct the units. Both are equivalent.

Richard C (NZ)

>”MtC for each year which makes each value MtC/y by definition”

But not in terms of growth i.e. 100/yr for 5 yrs is 100,100,100,100,100 – no growth.

0.23/yr is I’ve used is growth i.e. 100, 100.23, 100.46, 100.69, 100.92 – this is linear growth

Richard C (NZ)

How to Calculate Linear Growth With Algebra

Linear growth can be modeled in the algebraic expression y = mx + b, where y is the final amount, m is the rate of linear growth, x is the time period and b is the original amount. If you know the initial amount, the final amount and the time frame, you can find the linear growth rate by manipulating this formula. Knowing the linear growth rate can be helpful in predicting future increases or decreases.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/how_7443528_calculate-linear-growth-algebra.html#ixzz2ubjfmE7A

Nick

Sure Richard C you can use that formula but you need to apply it to the total accumulated FF C rather than the flow each year. In the example you link they don’t subtract the amount the child grew in one year from the amount the child grew another year.

In fact the GtC/y values we are looking at are already a measure of linear growth over each year. total accumulated FF C at the end of the year – FF C at the beginning of the year.

Since the linear growth rate is increasing each year we are seeing acceleration.

Richard C (NZ)

>”you need to apply it to the total accumulated FF C rather than the flow each year”

Rubbish. My application was simply this: 0.23/yr linear growth for 9 years, 7.81 start, 9.67 end.

7.81, 8.04, 8.27, 8.5, 8.73, 8.96, 9.19, 9.42, 9.65

Not what happened in reality of course because 2009 was negative growth.

Also a linear interpolation application BTW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_interpolation

Richard C (NZ)

>”Not what happened in reality of course because 2009 was negative growth.”

2008 8.783
2009 8.740 -0.043/yr negative linear growth.

Nick

Ok, lets try an example:

If a kid is grows 1cm one year, 2cm the next year, 3cm the year after that is the rate of the child’s growth constant or accelerating?

If the kid is growing at 1cm per year every year, is the rate of the child’s growth constant or accelerating?

Nick

If a child grows 2cm one year but only 1cm the following year is that decelerating growth or negative growth?

If a child actually shrinks one year (grows -1cm) what do you call that?

Nick

How many cm per year would the kid be growing if there was no growth?

Can you see the analogy with what you wrote here?

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-633108

Richard C (NZ)

>”If a kid is grows 1cm one year, 2cm the next year, 3cm the year after that is the rate of the child’s growth constant or accelerating?”

Start 100, 101, 103, 106 – constant but not linear, not the same amount each time step but not accelerating either.

>”If the kid is growing at 1cm per year every year, is the rate of the child’s growth constant or accelerating?”

1/yr (as in 7.81GtC/yr): 7.81, 7.81, 7.81, 7.81, 7.91 (1,1,1,1,1) – constant zero growth

1/yr every year: 100, 101, 102, 103 – constant linear growth, same amount each time step. This is the equivalent to: 0.23/yr linear growth for 9 years, 7.81 start, 9.67 end.

7.81, 8.04, 8.27, 8.5, 8.73, 8.96, 9.19, 9.42, 9.65

If you mean 1/yr/yr, that’s 1/yr^2, an acceleration, not applicable to the 7.81 – 9.65 over 9 years case obviously.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick, be sure to read this comment:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-633179

Especially re linear interpolation.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction (trick question)

>”If a kid is grows 1cm one year, 2cm the next year, 3cm the year after that is the rate of the child’s growth constant or accelerating?”

Start 100, 101, 103, 106 – constant but not linear, not the same amount each time step but not accelerating either.

Wrong, the change of rate is by the same amount each year (1). This is Uniform Acceleration:

“Uniform or constant acceleration is a type of motion in which the velocity of an object changes by an equal amount in every equal time period.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

Again, not applicable to the 7.81 – 9.65 over 9 years case obviously.

Richard C (NZ)

>”If a child grows 2cm one year but only 1cm the following year is that decelerating growth or negative growth”

Neither. it’s not a deceleration, growth has simply halved. And it’s not negative growth, that would mean the child got 1cm shorter the following year.

>”If a child actually shrinks one year (grows -1cm) what do you call that?”

Negative growth, as AE was in 2009.

>”How many cm per year would the kid be growing if there was no growth?”

0cm – constant linear zero growth.

Are you a policeman Nick? You certainly ask a lot of questions.

Nick

Ok I see why you are confused. I’ll explain it to you tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Can you see the analogy with what you wrote here?”

No analogy, not apples-to-apples.

“100/yr for 5 yrs is 100,100,100,100,100 – no growth.” Zero growth. If this was a countries GDP it is termed stagnant or stalled growth.

A child analogy would be a no-growth child cloned each year so that at the end of 5 years there’s 5 identical children.

Not applicable to AE contribution to atm because for AE at the end of the fifth year the first child has shrank almost to nothing from a 5+ year residence time. The second has shrank almost as much, the third a lot too, and the fourth more than the fifth, and the fifth by about 17% over it’s one yr life.

Richard C (NZ)

>”I see why you are confused”

I’m not confused Nick, don’t kid yourself.

Mike Jowsey

“It is also true to state that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have rarely been as low as they are today over the entire 3.5 billion years of life on earth, and particularly during the past 500 million years since modern life forms evolved. Figure 4 (previous page) shows the historic levels of CO2 as well as the global temperature, going back 600 million years Note the graph shows CO2 was at least 3000 ppm, and likely around 7000 ppm, at the time of the Cambrian Period, a Greenhouse Age when modern life forms first evolved. This is nearly 20 times the CO2 concentration today. The Ice Age that peaked 450 million years ago occurred when CO2 was about 4000 ppm, more than 10 times its present level. If both warm and cold climates can develop when there is far more CO2 in the atmosphere than today, how can we be certain that CO2 is determining the climate now? – Patrick Moore, PhD. (from page 362 of his book http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdf Free the carbon! Cold bad, warm good! Here’s another good paragraph from Dr. Moore (page 365): It may turn out to be a… Read more »

Magoo

Mike:
CO2 also helps to repair the damage done due to deforestation in areas such as the Amazon and other rainforests – you’d think the eco-loons would love it if they really were environmentalists, instead of raving socialists as Patrick Moore points out.

Richard C (NZ)

0.23/yr linear growth for 9 years, 7.81 start, 9.67 end.

7.81, 8.04, 8.27, 8.50, 8.73, 8.96, 9.19, 9.42, 9.65

0.23/yr/yr accelerating growth for 9 years, 0 start,

Yr, Rate
0, 0
1, 0.23
2, 0.46
3, 0.69
4, 0.92
5, 1.15
6, 1.38
7, 1.61
8, 1.84

Velocity, Acceleration and Time Calculator

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/velocity.php

0.23/yr/yr accelerating growth for 9 years, 7.81 start,

7.81, 8.04, 8.50, 9.19, 10.11, 11.26, 12.64, 14.25, 16.09 – 0.23/yr/yr accelerating growth
7.81, 8.04, 8.27, 8.50, 8.73, 8.96, 9.19, 9.42, 9.65 – 0.23/yr linear growth

Richard C (NZ)

Mike >”Free the carbon!” Feed the cherries!

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Science 101

Graph: linear growth vs accelerating (exponential) growth

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/02/Exponential-v-linear.png

Spot the difference.

Richard C (NZ)

Carbon Budget 2009

2009 (page 5):
Emissions:8.4±0.5 PgC
Growth rate: -1.3%

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf

Nick

Richard C,
2009:Emissions:8.4 PgC is exactly equivalent to 8.4PgC/y.

That is why they use PgC/y on the axis of the graph next to the data you cite.

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf

(page 5)

If you want to use 8.4 in an equation you need some way to communicate what period the 8.4 is over. If you don’t include /y it could be 8.4PgC/sec or 8.4PgC/day. Obviously if you have stated 2009 then it doesn’t matter so you can leave /y off. As soon as you use it in a calculation however it becomes critical.

I really don’t care if you call it acceleration or not but you have to get the units right otherwise you run the risk of comparing GtC/y^2 with GtC/y as you did above.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says >”2009: Emissions: 8.4 PgC is exactly equivalent to 8.4PgC/y” Yes correct. And 8.4 PgC is specific only to 2009, but it is not growth. Growth rate 2009: -1.3% (Source: Carbon Budget 2009) >”That is why they use PgC/y on the axis of the graph next to the data you cite” Yes correct. And each respective value on the the x axis is only specific to each year as above. But it is not growth Average growth rate 2005 – 2013: 2.3 GtC/yr 7.81, 8.04, 8.27, 8.50, 8.73, 8.96, 9.19, 9.42, 9.65 – 0.23/yr linear growth (small rounding error but correct) 7.81, 8.04, 8.50, 9.19, 10.11, 11.26, 12.64, 14.25, 16.09 – 0.23/yr/yr accelerating growth (wrong) >”If you want to use 8.4 in an equation you need some way to communicate what period the 8.4 is over. If you don’t include /y it could be 8.4PgC/sec or 8.4PgC/day.” We’re not using 8.4 in an equation as growth. The equations we are using are: y = mx + b (linear) or v = u + at (acceleration). Growth in each case is m (0.23/yr linear) or a (0.23/yr/yr acceleratiom). >”Obviously if you have stated… Read more »

Magoo

It’ll be pretty hard for Nick to retract after spouting off about the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What was the Dunning-Kruger effect again Nick, maybe you can fill us in with your vastly superior intellect?

Richard C (NZ)

Correction (preempting Bob)

>”The equations we are using are: y = mx + b (linear) or v = u + at (acceleration).”

Not quite. Similar equations, but different expressions in different terms. y = mx + b (algebra). v = u + at (motion physics)

What determines linear vs acceleration (or exponential, etc) is “m” and “a”. Per year (/yr) m/a being linear, per year per year (/yr/yr) m/a being uniform acceleration in our case.

I got stuffed up because the Velocity, Acceleration and Time Calculator I provided is in terms of a: Acceleration, in m/s2:

http://www.endmemo.com/physics/velocity.php

The velocity formula (for the calculator) is:
v = v0 + a * t

where:
a: Acceleration, in m/s2
v0: Initial velocity, in m/s
t: Time, in s
v: Final velocity, in m/s

Richard C (NZ)

>”y = mx + b (algebra). v = u + at ([motion] physics)”

A motion physics equivalent to constant linear velocity increase (not acceleration) would be:

v = v0 + m * t

where:
m: Time step increase in velocity, in m/s
v0: Initial velocity, in m/s
t: Time, in s
v: Final velocity, in m/s

Compare to accelerating velocity:

v = v0 + a * t

where:
a: Acceleration, in m/s2
v0: Initial velocity, in m/s
t: Time, in s
v: Final velocity, in m/s

HemiMck

I have just got round to looking at Fig 6.1

The first observation is that they don’t do their error calculations the way I was taught in physics 101. The stated error on land transfer is + or – 1.6GCT. Therefore they must have measured the component parts to an error of + or – 0.8GTC. Errors add with addition or subtraction. They have measured world photosynthesis to 120 GTC + or – 0.8GTC? Rubbish. It is a mystery to me as to how they get away with this stuff.

HemiMck

sorry hurried over this, try again

I have just got round to looking at Fig 6.1

The first observation is that they don’t do their error calculations the way I was taught in physics 101. The stated error on land transfer is + or – 1.2GCT. Therefore they must have measured the component parts to an error of + or – 0.6GTC. Errors add with addition or subtraction. They have measured world photosynthesis to 120 GTC + or – 0.6GTC? Rubbish. It is a mystery to me as to how they get away with this stuff.

Richard C (NZ)

Been looking for the crossover date range when AE went from less than 50% contribution to more than 50%. 1.2% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 1850 63% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 1900 Mid 1890s looks like the place to look (million metric tons of carbon): Year Total Gas Liquids Solids 1895 406 2 11 393 1896 419 2 12 405 1897 440 2 13 425 1898 465 2 13 449 1899 507 3 14 491 1900 534 3 16 515 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems It took 8 years for solids to move 100 to 1896 but only 4 years to move the next 100 to 1900 Sure enough: ‘Second Industrial Revolution 1890-1940’ “The very late part of the 19th century, from 1890 to 1940, saw the “Second” Industrial Revolution emerge with a host of new emerging technologies. The revolution started when German Chemistry extracted nitrogen from the atmosphere to make fertilizers and thereby increase crop yields. The chemical industry is born and grows to include the exploitation of fossil fuels as a source of energy through petroleum refining and distribution. The twentieth century saw the growth of the automotive industries through… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

The Germans started it.

Richard C (NZ)

Up-thread Bob said this:

“a small variation in non-AE gross flux can create a net flux that completely swamps the gross AE flux, and we have no way to actually monitor the non-AE gross fluxes on an annual basis”

Exhibit A from Hemi’s ‘C Flow and Balance sheets for world carbon, 2000 – 2010’

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tduejt4q8fxqj0c/Carbon%20financial%20model.xls

-1200 GtC’s – Vegetative and animal decay & waste (IPCC)
1200 GtC’s – Photosynthesis (say)

13.9 Gas
29.2 Oil
27.0 Coal
70.1 GtC’s Total gas+oil+coal

70.1/1200 = 0.058 = 5.8%

1200 + 70 = 1270
1200 – 70 = 1130

Richard C (NZ)

From up-thread here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-632216

Bob >”I believe you’ve made a leap of logic here, by assuming that there is always an exact 42.9% ratio. This is not the case, it’s simply that historically, averaged over ten years, the ratio turned out (over that specific period) to be 42.9%.”

Me >”Yes i realize that but in the absence of any other year-by-year ratio data I had to use something. The mere fact that I get greater than 100% AE contribution in 1950 and 2009 indicates to me that the ratio varies for any given year. For those two years it was probably more like 60/40.”

Ok, now I’ve found the year-by-year ratio data in this report:

Carbon Budget 2009

‘Fraction of total CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere’ (Page 21)

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf

Varies from 10% to 90%, 1960 – 2010. Average 42.5%

>”For those two years [1950, 2009] it was probably more like 60/40″

Actually about 63/37 in 2009 (see page 21).

Carbon Budget 2013

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/13/files/GCP_budget_2013.pdf

Richard C (NZ)

>”Ok, now I’ve found the year-by-year ratio data in this report: Carbon Budget 2009 ‘Fraction of total CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere’ ”

This enables me to update my relative contributions calcs here (but only for 1980):

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-631754

Constant apportionment assumption from link:

1980 Atm: 1.72 ppm x 2.12 = 3.65 GtC
1980 AE: 5.32 GtC x 0.429 = 2.28 GtC
2.28 / 3.65 = 0.62

62% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 38% contribution from non-AE 1980

Using actual fraction apportionment for 1980 (page 21 below):

1980 Atm: 1.72 ppm x 2.12 = 3.65 GtC
1980 AE: 5.32 GtC x [0.57] = [3.03] GtC
[3.03] / 3.65 = [0.83]

[83%] contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, [17%] contribution from non-AE 1980

Fraction source:
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf

HemiMck

Hi Richard,

I like the global budget data and will use it to improve some numbers in my spreadsheet, maybe try to bring it more up to date at some stage. But it does have the same problem as others when it comes to attributions. The data on emissions is great but on page 22 we find that the so called “ocean sink” is the average of 5 models. It also shows the ranges of those 5 models which track each other exactly. Clearly the models are not independent models and are not relying on scientific measurements, they are clearly extrapolations from the small picture to the big picture and for me have the same level of credibility as any other IPCC model.

Richard C (NZ)

>”..the so called “ocean sink” is the average of 5 models”

Yes Hemi, but we have go with what we’ve got. I don’t how these numbers could be compiled if not for modeling and “tweaking”.

I think all we need to keep in mind is that the real-world C cycle is doing what it’s always done – not necessarily as it has been modeled.

And that real-world temperature is doing what it’s always done – not necessarily as it has been modeled.

HemiMck

Hi Richard,

“but we have go with what we’ve got. I don’t how these numbers could be compiled if not for modeling and “tweaking”.

Surely it is our job to knock down the lies. This to me is analogous to the hockey stick. You take highly accurate and credible data and you cobble it together with highly dubious model material to present the world view that suits the propagandists.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Surely it is our job to knock down the lies. This to me is analogous to the hockey stick. You take highly accurate and credible data and you cobble it together with highly dubious model material to present the world view that suits the propagandists.” Yes Hemi, although in this case “lies” might be a bit harsh (Mann’s case a little different – but salient). But in terms of “present the world view that suits”, it’s what is NOT told that’s important. People (like Nick and Simon) are left with an erroneous impression. It’s not until you crunch the numbers (big ones too as you have done) that a sense of perspective arises. However, a sense of perspective is certainly not what the IPCC’s mandate (MMCC) is all about so that’s the last thing they want in their narrative. And I don’t think the “lies” are with the IPCC Working Group scientists necessarily (except likes of Mann), including C modelers, the “lies” are with the political action and propaganda that “present[s] the world view that suits” subsequently with Synthesis Reports. The C modelers, like the GCM modelers, are just doing their job, the… Read more »

HemiMck

Hi Richard,

“Being wrong about a hypothesis is not a lie in my books”,

Fair enough. Probably hammered this to death, over and out for a while.

Nick

Just a question for everyone, after all this talk what do you think would happen to atmospheric C if FF emissions stopped today? Would it continue to go up or would it start to decrease?

I’m confidant about the outcome but I would be interested to know what everyone else has taken from the discussion so far, no point arguing about something everyone agrees on…

Andy

I have absolutely no idea what would happen and neither does anyone else.

Unless we launch a nuclear strike that destroys humanity, so the one person remaining can answer the question, issues like this are likely to remain “thought experiments”

Nick

Hi Andy, you must be the only person who can perform a thought experiment and not get a result.

Sorry about that, couldn’t resist 🙂

Anyone else want to venture an opinion? Or are we wasting our time discussing it as Andy suggests?

HemiMck

Nick, I think that is finally a question worth addressing.

“what do you think would happen to atmospheric C if FF emissions stopped today? Would it continue to go up or would it start to decrease?”

Lets put aside the issue that the world would be thrown into economic ruin for not particular benefit.

We can be reasonably confidently that the tropical oceans would still belch out 95 odd GTC and waste and decay would continue to put another 120GTC into the atmosphere each year. 10GTC from FF will make no difference.

My view, and I realise that this not a widely held one even on this site, is that the absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere is ultimately controlled by the solubility/temperature curve of CO2 in seawater not by a few trivial made man additions. Given that CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1000GTC and in the oceans 40,000GTC the system will continually striving for equilibrium.

Andy

The planet may return to an equilibrium state, or there may be no natural equilibrium state, and it drifts randomly about.

What I suggest is that we put it to a vote. The answer that comes up most often will be the correct solution.

I postulate that 97% of respondents will come up with the same answer.

I have this on good authority

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says >”what do you think would happen to atmospheric C if FF emissions stopped today? Would it continue to go up or would it start to decrease?” I don’t know exactly but we do know what happened in 2009 when there was negative AE (incl FF) growth in 2009. From upthread (i.e. been at this before) here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-627892 Year, Atm growth (ppm/yr) 2006 +1.74 2007 +2.10 2008 +1.78 2009 +1.67 < continued positive growth similar to 2011. 2010 +2.43 2011 +1.71 < 2012 +2.42 Source data for atm: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png But the atm growth above doesn't track AE i.e. there's another contributory modulator (changing net land or ocean or both). Source data for Global Carbon Emissions http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html To convert carbon to carbon dioxide (CO2), multiply ppm by 3.67. Year, AE Flow (GtC), AE Flow ppm, AE growth (GtC), AE growth (ppm) 2006 8.37 30.72 0.00 0.00 2007 8.57 31.45 +0.2 +0.73 2008 8.77 32.19 +0.2 +0.73 2009 8.74 32.08 -0.03 -0.11 2010 9.19 33.73 +0.45 +1.65 2011 9 47 34.75 +0.28 +1.03 2012 9.70 35.56 +0.23 +0.84 So now we can compare Atm growth to AE growth directly: Year, Atm growth (ppm/yr), AE… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Correction:

I’ve used “Airborne Fraction” incorrectly above. That’s the fraction of AE remaining in the atmosphere. AE growth as a percentage of Atm growth just happens to be a similar value to Airborne Fraction (40% and 42.5% respectively).

>”All that happens if AE is stopped today is that the biosphere (land+ocean) goes back into C deficit as it was back in the LIA”

And I should add, Atm will keep rising albeit at much slower rates than 2007 – 2012 because although the AE flow is removed, there’s still contribution from net land+ocean change as proven by the respective Atm and AE ppm growth rates above.

Richard C (NZ)

Hemi says >”My view, …….., is that the absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere is ultimately controlled by the solubility/temperature curve of CO2 in seawater”

My view to a degree too, and also that the temperature of seawater is controlled by solar change over millennial timeframes.

Also, I think, the greening of the planet. But I’m still fuzzy on that.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Correction”

So the summary should read:

Year, Atm growth (ppm/yr), AE growth (ppm/yr), AE growth to Atm Growth (%)
2007 +2.10 +0.73 (34.8%)
2008 +1.78 +0.73 (42.9%
2009 +1.67 -0.11 (0)
2010 +2.43 +1.65 (67.9%)
2011 +1.71 +1.03 (60.2%)
2012 +2.42 +0.84 (34.7%)

Average of AE growth as a percentage of Atm growth 2007 – 2012: 40%

Average Airbourne Fraction 1960 – 2010: 42.5%

Source for Airborne Fraction:
‘Fraction of total CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere’ (Page 21)
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says >”Would it continue to go up or would it start to decrease?”

It would still go up albeit at much slower rates than 2007 – 2012 because although the AE flow is removed, there’s still contribution from net land+ocean change as proven by the respective Atm and AE ppm growth rates above.

And it would still go up as it was going up from about 1620, 150 years before AE started going up around 1770.

Richard C (NZ)

Link correction (but the graph link was OK above)

Source data for atm:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Richard C (NZ)

>”there’s still contribution from net land+ocean change as proven by the respective Atm and AE ppm growth rates above”

2.02 ppm/yr – average Atm growth 2007 – 2012
0.81 ppm/yr – average AE growth 2007 – 2012

AE growth is only 40% of Atm growth.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction (I was in terms of growth)

>”It would still go up albeit at much slower rates than 2007 – 2012 because although the AE flow is removed, there’s still contribution from net land+ocean change as proven by the respective Atm and AE ppm growth rates above.”

That’s in terms of growth. Removing AE growth from Atm growth assuming 2010 Airborne Fraction 2010 of 45%

2.02 ppm/yr – average Atm growth 2007 – 2012
0.81 ppm/yr – average AE growth 2007 – 2012
1.21 ppm/y Atm growth at zero growth AE

Removing AE flow completely (average 32.88 ppm 2006 – 2012, total 230.16) requires subtraction of the Airborne Fraction (45%) from the total AE first:

230.16 – 103.5 (230.16 x 0.45) = 126.66 ppm total AE to Atm 2006 – 2012.

Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread)

13.85 – 126.66 = -112.81 ppm Atm decrease 2006 – 2012.

Atm would decrease at a rate of 18.8 ppm/yr (112.81 / 6)

In 21.3 years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone (21.3 x 18.8 = 400ppm).

Richard C (NZ)

Correction (forgot to subtract AE to ocean and land 60%, stated Airborne Fraction instead

0.81 ppm/yr – average AE growth 2007 – 2012
0,32 ppm/yr – average AE to Atm growth 2007 – 2012

2.02 ppm/yr – average Atm growth 2007 – 2012
0,32 ppm/yr – average AE to Atm growth 2007 – 2012

1.7 ppm/yr Atm growth at zero growth AE

Richard C (NZ)

Correction

Atm would decrease at a rate of [16.1] ppm/yr (112.81 / [7])

In [24.8] years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone ([16.1 x 24.8] = [399.28] ppm).

Richard C (NZ)

>”Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread)”

If we assume (erroneously) that 100% af Atm rise is attributable to AE, then:

13.85 / 7 = 1.98 ppm – average Atm rise 2006 – 2012

Summary

In 202 years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone if AE flow stopped completely today (202yrs x 1.98ppm/yr = 399.96ppm) by 100% contribution assumption.

In 24.8 years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone if AE flow stopped completely today (24.8yrs x 16.1ppm/yr = 399.28 ppm) by Airborne Fraction assumption.

But in both cases. the natural C cycle overrides AE anyway because 393 years ago in 1620 (LIA), CO2 level in the atmosphere was already 275.3 ppm. So Atm rise in 393 years was only 126.5 ppm (not 400ppm) but stopping AE wipes out 400 ppm in either 202 years or 24.8 years depending on assumption – obviously an impossible scenario in either case.

Data sources:

Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores
1010-1975
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat

Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2010
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

Richard C (NZ)

Me >”But in both cases. the natural C cycle overrides AE anyway”

Andy >”The planet may return to an equilibrium state, or there may be no natural equilibrium state, and it drifts randomly about.”

The natural C cycle looks after its own in other words. The benefit of AE flow being vastly improved crop yields for fruit, veges, forestry, etc. Which is effectively what hothouse growers do by elevating CO2 levels in their hothouses when necessary.

Not so in the LIA when CO2 levels were around 275.3 ppm. We don’t want to go back there, now is good.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Atm rise in 393 years [1620 – 2013] was only 126.5 ppm”

393 year Atm rise wiped out in 63.9 yrs at -1.98 ppm/yr by 100% AE contribution assumption.
393 year Atm rise wiped out in 7.9 yrs at -16.1 ppm/yr by AE Airborne Fraction assumption.

400 ppm Atm now wiped out in 202 yrs at -1.98 ppm/yr by 100% AE contribution assumption.
400 ppm Atm now wiped out in 24.8 yrs at -16.1 ppm/yr by AE Airborne Fraction assumption.

Richard C (NZ)

Correction Removing AE flow completely (average 32.88 ppm 2006 – 2012, total 230.16) requires subtraction of the Airborne Fraction (45%) from the total AE first: [230.16 x 0.45 = 103.6 ppm – total AE to Atm 2006 – 2012.] Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread) [13.85 – 103.6 = -90.75] ppm Atm decrease 2006 – 2012. Atm would decrease at a rate of [-13 ppm/yr (-90.75 / 7)] In [30.8] years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone [(30.8 x 13 = 400.4ppm)] Revised Summary Atm rise in 393 years, 1620 – 2013, was only 126.5 ppm, not 400 ppm (see below). 393 year Atm rise wiped out in 63.9 yrs at -1.98 ppm/yr by 100% AE contribution assumption. 393 year Atm rise wiped out in [9.7] yrs at [-13] ppm/yr by AE Airborne Fraction assumption. 400 ppm Atm now wiped out in 202 yrs at -1.98 ppm/yr by 100% AE contribution assumption. 400 ppm Atm now wiped out in [30.8] yrs at [-13] ppm/yr by AE Airborne Fraction assumption. But in both cases. the natural C cycle overrides AE anyway because 393 years ago in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Correction (again – distracted by Nick’s linear growth problems) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >”Removing AE flow completely ( requires subtraction of the Airborne Fraction (45%) from the total AE first:” [230.16 x 0.45 = 103.6 ppm – total AE to Atm 2006 – 2012.] Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread) [13.85 – 103.6 = -90.75] ppm Atm decrease 2006 – 2012. Atm would decrease at a rate of [-13 ppm/yr (-90.75 / 7)] In [30.8] years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone [(30.8 x 13 = 400.4ppm)] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >”[13.85 – 103.6 = -90.75] ppm Atm decrease 2006 – 2012.” >”[13.85 – 103.6 = -90.75] ppm Atm decrease 2006 – 2012.” Wrong rationale (Airborne Fraction irrelevant) Removing AE flow completely today by 83% contribution assumption. Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread) Atm rise must be reduced to amount of AE contribution (say 83% around 2012) 13.85 x 0.83 = 11.50 ppm AE contribution to Atm rise 11.50 / 7 = 1.64 ppm/yr Atm would decrease at a rate of -1.64 ppm/yr if AE flow was stopped today. In 244 years the entire CO2 constituency of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Atm rise must be reduced to amount of AE contribution (say 83% around 2012)”

Gives -1.64 ppm/yr, a little high. Was 81% in 2012.

Contribution Summary 1750 – 2012 here:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-632045

81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 19% contribution from non-AE 2012

Removing AE flow completely today by 81% contribution assumption.

Total Atm rise 2006 – 2012: 13.85 ppm (from upthread)

Atm rise must be reduced to amount of AE contribution (81% in 2012)

13.85 x 0.81 = 11.2 ppm AE contribution to Atm rise

11.2 / 7 = 1.6 ppm/yr

Atm would decrease at a rate of -1.6 ppm/yr if AE flow was stopped today.

In 79 years the 1620 – 2013 Atm rise (126.5) would be gone (79 x 1.6 = 126.4).

In 250 years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone (250 x 1.6 = 400ppm).

Simon

It would take thousands of years for the temperature to revert back to what it was 200 years ago. The Royal Society has recently put out an FAQ which answers this and several other questions:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
The Economist also has an interesting discussion about ‘hobby climate sceptics’ which seems to be very applicable:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/climate-science

Richard C (NZ)

The graph is not applicable to Nick’s scenario of AE stopping completely TODAY Simon (sorry to prick your bubble). Figure 9. If global emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take a long time for surface air temperatures and the ocean to begin to cool, because the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would remain there for a long time and would continue to exert a warming effect. Model projections show how atmospheric CO2 concentration (a), surface air temperature (b), and ocean thermal expansion (c) would respond following a scenario of business-as-usual emissions ceasing in 2300 (red), a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange), and two intermediate emissions scenarios (green and blue). The small downward tick in temperature at 2300 is caused by the elimination of emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases, including methane. Source: Zickfeld et al., 2013 http://royalsociety.org/uploadedImages/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?n=0.7250574571251895 >”If global emissions were to suddenly stop” Turns out that “suddenly” is over 50 years (see below) >”a scenario of aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 50 years from now (orange)” By the model assumptions, over that 50 years CO2 levels will be peaking at about… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Heh! You’ve gotta love this Royal Society Figure 9 graph.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedImages/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/fig9-large.jpg?n=0.7250574571251895

It only starts in 2000 i.e. they’ve left off the 380 years prior back to 1620 in the LIA when Atm CO2 started rising from around 275.3 ppm. Coincidentally solar levels started rising from the LIA too. In other words, there’s just as much chance of CO2 levels falling from a peak by natural means to the level on the graph in 200 years time as by “a scenario of aggressive emission reductions” because the solar scenario is for a fall to somewhere near LIA conditions over the coming 100 years too i.e. solar => temperature => CO2 => up, solar => temperature => CO2 => down.

Temperature is already showing signs of down this 2nd decade of the 21st century.

Richard C (NZ)

>”That is ALMOST EXACTLY what I calculated:
“In 79 years the 1620 – 2013 Atm rise (126.5) would be gone (79 x 1.6 = 126.4).
In 250 years the entire CO2 constituency of the atmosphere would be gone (250 x 1.6 = 400ppm).”

For the 1st scenario but not so much for the 2nd scenario in comparison to Figure 9.

But I should point out that I’ve already stated (in other words) that these two scenarios are impossible anyway because there’s another (natural) contributor to Atm CO2 rise that would prevent CO2 being depleted to zero anyway, or anywhere near it.

The Royal Society appears to confirm this.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says >”I really don’t care if you call it acceleration or not”

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-635572

Richard C says >”You don’t [care] because you don’t understand the difference between linear growth and accelerating growth. Everyone else that knows the difference cares totally about the difference and applies the appropriate formula (sceptics from math, tech, phys, eng, chem, backgrounds especially) because they’re numeric and can quantify the growth as above. Non-numeric don’t care. They just bandy about terms willy-nilly without understanding how crucial the differences are.”

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-637045

Case in point: sea level rise (SLR)

Richard C (NZ)

>”Everyone else that knows the difference cares totally about the difference and applies the appropriate formula (sceptics from math, tech, phys, eng, chem, backgrounds especially)”

Add: sceptics from accounting, economics, production etc. etc. Probably real estate development, business and law too. Basically, anyone that needs to get their numbers right or go down the gurgler.

Nick

Hi Richard C, please clarify exactly what equation you used to arrive at 0.23(units tbc). You have mentioned a lot of calculations above but I’m unsure which one you are using. If you could quickly write down the formula with the appropriate units perhaps we can move forward.

You could even show your working if you think that would add clarity.

As mentioned previously (but this time with units) my calculation is:

a(GtC/y^2) = Δv(GtC/y)/Δt(y).

Where:
Δv = 9.667GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y = 4.86GtC/y
Δt =2013y – 2005y = 8y
So:
a = 0.23GtC/y^2

You can do the same calculation for consecutive years as well

(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2005y – 2006y) etc.

and then average the results to get the same answer.

Nick

Whoops
(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2005y – 2006y)
should have been
(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2006y – 2005y)

Nick

and
Δv = 9.667GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y = 4.86GtC/y
should have been
Δv = 9.667GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y = 1.86GtC/y

Sheesh, don’t know where my head is today…

Full corrected comment below.

Nick

Hi Richard C, please clarify exactly what equation you used to arrive at 0.23(units tbc). You have mentioned a lot of calculations above but I’m unsure which one you are using. If you could quickly write down the formula with the appropriate units perhaps we can move forward.

You could even show your working if you think that would add clarity.

As mentioned previously (but this time with units) my calculation is:

a(GtC/y^2) = Δv(GtC/y)/Δt(y).

Where:
Δv = 9.667GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y = 1.86GtC/y
Δt =2013y – 2005y = 8y
So:
a = 0.23GtC/y^2

You can do the same calculation for consecutive years as well

(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2006y – 2005y) etc.

and then average the results to get the same answer.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says >”please clarify exactly what equation you used to arrive at 0.23(units tbc). You have mentioned a lot of calculations above but I’m unsure which one you are using. If you could quickly write down the formula with the appropriate units perhaps we can move forward.” The equation is a manipulation of the formula for Linear Growth With Algebra as I directed you to here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-633179 “Linear growth can be modeled in the algebraic expression y = mx + b, where y is the final amount, m is the rate of linear growth, x is the time period and b is the original amount. If you know the initial amount, the final amount and the time frame, you can find the linear growth rate by manipulating this formula.” In different terms. y = mx + b (algebra). v = u + at (motion physics). For v = v0 + m * t motion physics constant linear velocity increase see below. Also a variation of interpolation as I directed you to here: https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-633179 Linear interpolation between two known points “If the two known points are given by the coordinates scriptstyle(x_0,y_0) and scriptstyle(x_1,y_1), the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Correction >”[m(GtC/yr)] = [v(GtC per 8yrs) / Δt(y).

Should be:

[m(GtC/yr)] = Δv(GtC) / Δt(y) [+ b. or + u, or +v0]

Where:

Δv = [9.9] GtC/y – [8.1] GtC/y = [1.8 GtC per 8yrs]
b, u, and v0 = Initial velocity

Nick

Hi Richard C,

If the formula you are using is as follows:

Growth of AE 2005 – 2013
9.9 (2013) – 8.1 (2005) = 1.8 GtC
1.8 GtC / 8 = 0.225 GtC/yr rounded to 0.23 (0.23 produces a small cumulative error).

You might find it helpful to add in units for all your numbers, I’ve done it for you below but let me know if this is not what you meant.

Growth of AE 2005 – 2013
9.9GtC (2013) – 8.1GtC (2005) = 1.8 GtC
1.8 GtC / 8yr = 0.225 GtC/yr rounded to 0.23 (0.23 produces a small cumulative error).

How do you reconcile the fact that you are ignoring the 1 year period that the 9.9 or 8.1GtC is collected over? It could have been 9.9GtC in the first week of 2013 and 8.1GtC in the first week of 2005 and you would get the same result which is nonsense because the annual flow is (at least) 52 times higher.

The normal way to express these rates in a calculation is 9.9GtC/y. That way the period remains part of the units.

Richard C (NZ)

Nick says: >”If the formula you are using is as follows: Growth of AE 2005 – 2013 9.9 (2013) – 8.1 (2005) = 1.8 GtC 1.8 GtC / 8 = 0.225 GtC/yr rounded to 0.23 (0.23 produces a small cumulative error).” >”…add in units for all your numbers, I’ve done it….” Growth of AE 2005 – 2013 9.9GtC (2013) – 8.1GtC (2005) = 1.8 GtC 1.8 GtC / 8yr = 0.225 GtC/yr rounded to 0.23 (0.23 produces a small cumulative error).” Yes, both correct. Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b Where (from upthread): y = Final amount (in GtC). In terms of motion physics = Final velocity (End target Y8) m = Rate of linear growth (in GtC/yr) x = Time period or Time step (1 year step i