2009 sees no growth in CO2; first time since 1992

[glc]

Thank you Steve - nice to see you acknowledge Henry's _Law_ as opposed to the AGW _hypothesis_

Perhaps you should try to understand that what Henry's Law actually means when it comes to absorption or 'outgassing' of CO2. glc does not yet understand it as he is still of the 'nature only has so much capacity for CO2 absorption' school of thought - a Henry's Law denier perhaps


Nautonnier


I understand Henry's Law perfectly well. I do not necessarily think that there is a limited capacity - just that there is a limited capacity within a given timescale. If we (humans) stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow then much (~63%) of the excess (~100 ppm) would be absorbed by earth/oceans within ~50 years.

However you need to decide exactly what is happening here. Are the oceans absorbing or are they 'outgassing'? There are a number of posters , e.g. icefisher, who believe that the rise in CO2 is due to 'outgassing' from warmer oceans. This is, of course, garbage because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 now than they were 50 years ago.

[icefisher]

Jul 2, 2010 18:34:55 GMT glc said:

However you need to decide exactly what is happening here. Are the oceans absorbing or are they 'outgassing'? There are a number of posters , e.g. icefisher, who believe that the rise in CO2 is due to 'outgassing' from warmer oceans. This is, of course, garbage because the oceans are absorbing more CO2 now than they were 50 years ago.

I don't believe the oceans outgas then ingas or just outgas or just ingas at any point in time.

There is a "net" outgassing or ingassing that changes constantly, daily in fact.

You explain to me why the La Ninas show a big bump in increase rate. Come up with something reasonable and maybe this conversation can move forward.

And while you are at it why not some references to the net ocean absorption rate to verify what you are saying there is correct. It doesn't seem contrary to the idea of ocean outgassing that the absorption rate of oceans is going up. For that condition to be true as a result of ocean outgassing is you have more outgassing because of warming, resulting in more contact with colder ocean surfaces, more rainfall etc to wash it out. All it takes is an acceleration of the carbon cycle which seems plausible with warming.
As warming usually accelerates everything and most of it is good.

[Pooh]

Does anyone recall a plot of CO2 levels versus economic activity? or even years that include 1930?

I think I recall a graph that showed a great flattening in CO2 levels during the last Great Depression, 1930 - 1941. That one was caused by greedy excess and political ineptitude. But I repeat myself.

[glc]

I don't believe the oceans outgas then ingas or just outgas or just ingas at any point in time.

Fine - so far.

There is a "net" outgassing or ingassing that changes constantly, daily in fact.

Still ok-ish - but what is the net effect over the past 50 years say. Has more CO2 been absorbed or has more been
"outgassed". You tell me. It is you who thinks that higher temps over the past 50-100 years are responsible for more CO2 in the atmosphere. I can only assume that you believe the net effect is that the oceans have released more CO2 than they have absorbed else why has there been an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You explain to me why the La Ninas show a big bump in increase rate. Come up with something reasonable and maybe conversation can move forward

"La Ninas" don't show an increased rate. There is an increased accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere during El Nino years. If this conversation is to move forward you need to acquaint yourself with the facts.

[icefisher]

Jul 2, 2010 23:49:45 GMT glc said:

You explain to me why the La Ninas show a big bump in increase rate. Come up with something reasonable and maybe conversation can move forward

"La Ninas" don't show an increased rate. There is an increased accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere during El Nino years. If this conversation is to move forward you need to acquaint yourself with the facts.

Lets keep this simple. Provide an explanation for the 12 mos smoothed bump in CO2 atmospheric rate of increase occurring between 1999 and 2000 concurrent with a La Nina. I am reading the rate of increase as just under 3.25ppm/year.

In contrast there is the bottom hitting just slightly above .5 for just before 1994 about the time the Pinotubo effect was maxing out.

Both those periods were periods of significant cooling so why are they so different?

[glc]

Lets keep this simple. Provide an explanation for the 12 mos smoothed bump in CO2 atmospheric rate of increase occurring between 1999 and 2000 concurrent with a La Nina. I am reading the rate of increase as just under 3.25ppm/year.

In contrast there is the bottom hitting just slightly above .5 for just before 1994 about the time the Pinotubo effect was maxing out.

Firstly, I'm not sure this graph is quite right. The numbers are probably ok but the graph appears to be shifted by a couple of years (in some cases). For example the low point following Pinatubo was in 1992 - not 1994. The bump you might be referring to is probably the spike in 1998 (the El Nino year).

The increases in the relevant years are as follows (see www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ) :

1992 0.43

1998 2.93 (El Nino)
1999 0.94 (La Nina)
2000 1.74 (weak La Nina)

SST were colder in 1992 than in 1999/2000 (La Nina). Also CO2 emissions were lower in 1992. I'm not sure where you get the rate of 3.25 ppm/yr from

[northsphinx]

Jul 2, 2010 10:33:58 GMT glc said:

Here's a brief explanations using rounded (very) numbers. We (humans) emit ~8Gt C per year mainly through fossil fuel burning. This is equivalent to an extra 4 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, an amount equivalent to about half the annual excess is absorbed by the earth's systems, so we end up with ~2 ppm extra each year. The 2 ppm figure isn't always exactly the same. Sometimes it's bit more (e.g. in an El Nino year) - and sometimes a bit less (e.g. in a La Nina year).

Think twice why about 50% is absorbed.

Or is it half of 8 Gt C as a capacity? If we double to 16 Gt C would the absorbing capacity increase to 8 Gt? Or is the absorbing capacity constant?
The absorbing capacity is not constant over the year or over the years.


Some question do arise from the 50% statement. If so are the absorbing capacity not a function on absolute CO2 levels. Instead is the capacity following the human emitting of CO2 in absolute numbers.
Then add the well known fact that annual changes of CO2 are larger then changes between years. And that natural CO2 absorbing is strongest in NH summer.
So what natural capacity can adjust to what human emit?

The annual change are mostly claimed to be a product of the Photosynthesis either on land or in the oceans. The level of CO2 is mostly claimed to be a result of the solubility pump.
And from Wiki:
"The solubility pump is driven by the coincidence of two processes in the ocean :

* The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water)
* The thermohaline circulation is driven by the formation of deep water at high latitudes where seawater is usually cooler and denser

Since deep water (that is, seawater in the ocean's interior) is formed under the same surface conditions that promote carbon dioxide solubility, it contains a higher concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon than one might otherwise expect. Consequently, these two processes act together to pump carbon from the atmosphere into the ocean's interior.

One consequence of this is that when deep water upwells in warmer, equatorial latitudes, it strongly out gasses carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of the reduced solubility of the gas"

Then glacial periods low level of CO2 is then easy explained by stopped upwelling of cold deep water in warmer latitudes.

Again:
CO2 historical absolute level is a function on upwelling in the oceans.
If the upwelling occur in low altitudes does it increase CO2 levels.

But what about the 50% changeable capacity?
I think it is quite easy to explain.
Say the CO2 equilibrium point is balanced by an ocean surface temperature/solubility will half the ocean surface be above and the other half be below this equilibrium temperature.
Half the ocean will still emit and the other will still absorb if the temperature is constant. That is why half the CO2 level is absorbed.
It like radiative balance

Then lets go back to this picture:


Last glacial the average ocean temperature was lower than today. And CO2 was kept low by that lower sea temperature and less upwelling
Let see now: A difference of 300-180= 120 ppm CO2 between an interglacial and glacial period for a changed average open sea surface temperature of just a few degrees.

The implication is rather odd. CO2 is released to the atmosphere by heating ocean water and captured by cooling ocean water.
A higher level of CO2 does not change that. Ocean solubility is about the same for this small amount of CO2. Still will about half be captured.
Unless the circulation is changed. Which is difficult to measure as a average temperature. If there is no upwelling in low latitudes will that ocean water be warmer during a glacial period. And the average temperature is then about the same.

Then are we back to CO2 measurements. Since we know how much we emit, and how much is absorbed, 50%, may the CO2 fluctuation cleared from the annual cycle a rather good proxy of upwelling of cold water in low latitudes in the oceans.
Keep in mind that a less upwelling is typical for an ice age.

[ambboy]

Jul 2, 2010 22:08:41 GMT Pooh said:

Does anyone recall a plot of CO2 levels versus economic activity? or even years that include 1930?

I think I recall a graph that showed a great flattening in CO2 levels during the last Great Depression, 1930 - 1941. That one was caused by greedy excess and political ineptitude. But I repeat myself.

Have you considered looking at the reverse relationship?

It seems I recall reading that, while, yes, our economic output contributes to overall CO2 added to the atmosphere, our economic activity is far more at the mercy of general climate. A number of famines and low crop productivity years have been noted to be extremely poor economic years and even decades.

Isn't the true relationship to be examined the one between the general climate trend and economic activity and not so much the economic output/CO2 contributions which make up a fraction of CO2 changes?

Is your focus on human activity driving climate? Isn't the more obvious and meaningful relationship one of climate driving human activity...

Perhaps we should compare global stock indices against CO2 levels and see whether one leads the other...I haven't (I think others have), but I would hypothesize that CO2 output would track very well with economic output. I would wonder whether economic activity and CO2 would both lag climate variations and be in close lock-step? Could both be shown to be dependent on climate variations, rather than each other, in this fashion?

[Pooh]

Jul 3, 2010 18:02:42 GMT ambboy said:

Jul 2, 2010 22:08:41 GMT Pooh said:

Does anyone recall a plot of CO2 levels versus economic activity? or even years that include 1930?

I think I recall a graph that showed a great flattening in CO2 levels during the last Great Depression, 1930 - 1941. That one was caused by greedy excess and political ineptitude. But I repeat myself.

Have you considered looking at the reverse relationship?
Is your focus on human activity driving climate? Isn't the more obvious and meaningful relationship one of climate driving human activity...

Actually, it is both. The thought was to see if the graph might illustrate CO2 as proxy for human economic activity. Since the Industrial Age began, fossil fuels supplied the energy to power it. Wars aside, civilization, human prosperity, longevity and science (generally) advanced from the production of more from less.

But the opposite is also true: Humanity blossomed in the warm periods (Roman, Medieval, etc.) and was slaughtered in the unfavorable climates such as the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age: starvation, economic isolation, disease and conflict.

So let us eliminate the dreadful CO2 and the energy that it accompanies its production. It is an ideal way to reduce the surplus population of "little people". The tyrants, the lords of governance, the financial barons and selected serfs will survive.

That will be the best of all possible worlds.

[icefisher]

Jul 3, 2010 8:52:00 GMT glc said:

Firstly, I'm not sure this graph is quite right. The numbers are probably ok but the graph appears to be shifted by a couple of years (in some cases). For example the low point following Pinatubo was in 1992 - not 1994. The bump you might be referring to is probably the spike in 1998 (the El Nino year).

The increases in the relevant years are as follows (see www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ ) :

1992 0.43

1998 2.93 (El Nino)
1999 0.94 (La Nina)
2000 1.74 (weak La Nina)

SST were colder in 1992 than in 1999/2000 (La Nina). Also CO2 emissions were lower in 1992. I'm not sure where you get the rate of 3.25 ppm/yr from

First I don't think the graph is necessarily shifted.

1998 experienced an ENSO shift of minus 3.9 degrees. From the high of +2.5 in Dec 97 to a -1.4 in Dec98. This was a cold water upwelling proximate to Hawaii. Meanwhile you have very warm global temperatures in the first quarter of 1998. So with a warm 1998 and cold water upwelling you have the state set for maximum ocean outgassing.
Cold water hitting the surface is at a maximum warming rate from conduction, mixing, insolation, you name it. Result: Maximum outgassing.

In contrast Pinotubo was accompanied by a pair of El Ninos of moderate strength and no La Ninas. . . . stale water already mostly gassed out on top of an extended period of aerosols limiting further warming. You still get gas from the warming El Nino water but at a reduced rate because you have no fresh input, a cool atmosphere, and only moderately warming water.

[northsphinx]

May I add that a high rate of upwelling in low latitudes also are opposite typical glacial conditions. That is NOT an average temperature rise but a heating of high latitudes.

Regarding upwelling conditions during glacial periods:
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5527/71
"Collapse of the California Current During Glacial Maxima Linked to Climate Change on Land"
Of course they got it wrong for the purpose to promote the AGW view but the basic fact is that California current upwelling collapsed BEFORE glacial conditions.
"In the region now dominated by the California Current, SSTs warmed 10,000 to 15,000 years in advance of deglaciation at each of the past five glacial maxima. SSTs did not rise in advance of deglaciation south of the modern California Current front."

I believe the reduced upwelling CAUSED the glacial maxima.
The changed CO2 level is just a side effect of reduced upwelling.
Not the cause of glacial conditions.

[glc]

First I don't think the graph is necessarily shifted

It shows low growth in 1994. The lowest growth over that period was in 1992.

Also could you tell me what would be needed for NO growth. For example if we have 390ppm this year what conditions would be required to keep the level at 390ppm in 2011.

Perhaps you might also clarify this. I 'd like to know exactly when you think "maximum outgassing" occurred

1998 experienced an ENSO shift of minus 3.9 degrees. From the high of +2.5 in Dec 97 to a -1.4 in Dec98. This was a cold water upwelling proximate to Hawaii. Meanwhile you have very warm global temperatures in the first quarter of 1998. So with a warm 1998 and cold water upwelling you have the state set for maximum ocean outgassing. Cold water hitting the surface is at a maximum warming rate from conduction, mixing, insolation, you name it. Result: Maximum outgassing.

[northsphinx]

Here is another nice consequence of the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels is balanced primarily by the ocean solubility pump.

If it it is due to human emitting that CO2 levels rise does that proof that the CO2 level react on the emitting. CO2 level follow the changed balance.
But:
A change in the ocean solubility pump is the nature only way to change CO2 levels.
Unless we human do it.
That is of course obvious but not for everyone.

The AGW camp claim that changed CO2 levels change the balance. As our climate.
But our man made CO2 emitting is proofing the other way around.
Changed CO2 levels is a result of more CO2 added.
In that order. That must mean the ocean solubility pump changed first then the CO2 level changed. And that is very important. We can date when the solubility pump changed phase. The absolute level is not so interesting as the phase shift.

And is it easy to see that changed circulation/phase shift change climate and CO2 levels. Temperature respond faster than CO2 levels which is natural since ocean circulation are slower than atmospheric circulation.
Our modern increasing CO2 levels show that the solubility pump changed and that changed circulation forced the ice age to come and go.
With the CO2 levels as a witness. Not the cause.

Yet another implication is that CO2 level is a function of how long each phase have been steady. Our modern Holocene is long overdue according to most paleo scientist and that may explain partly our modern high CO2 levels.

[glc]

Northsphinx

Re: your plot

Can you not see that the historical increases in CO2 are on a completely different timescale to the modern (since ~1900) CO2 increase. Following the ice ages CO2 levels rose from ~180 ppm to ~280 ppm - a 100 ppm increase. But this took thousands of years and was the result of a temperature increase of around 8 degrees. There are good reasons why the natural increases occur on this timescale.

We have had a 100 ppm increase in the past 100 years. The increase has taken CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (and rising). It is a completely different scenario.

[scpg02]

Jul 4, 2010 19:47:56 GMT glc said:

Northsphinx

Re: your plot

Can you not see that the historical increases in CO2 are on a completely different timescale to the modern (since ~1900) CO2 increase. Following the ice ages CO2 levels rose from ~180 ppm to ~280 ppm - a 100 ppm increase. But this took thousands of years and was the result of a temperature increase of around 8 degrees. There are good reasons why the natural increases occur on this timescale.

We have had a 100 ppm increase in the past 100 years. The increase has taken CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 390 ppm (and rising). It is a completely different scenario.

assuming your correct, and I don't believe you are, how is this bad? We keep hearing about how we have had this horrible in crease, so? We are at historic lows for the planet. There is nothing, NOTHING, that shows the current increase to be detrimental in anyway. And I'm sorry but computer models don't cut it.