"chemist" <tom-bolger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0866ff3c-b0e5-499c-90bd-7616f4ae3d95@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feb 14, 4:48 am, "ZN00B" <ZN...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Atmospheric CO2 Increases, Due To Ocean, Rather Than Mankind
>
> Roy W. Spencer
>
> 25 Jan 2008
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-...
>
> This is probably the most provocative hypothesis I have ever
> (and will ever) advance: The long-term increases in carbon dioxide
> concentration that have been observed at Mauna Loa since 1958 could be
> driven more than by the ocean than by mankind's burning of fossil fuels.
>
> Most, if not all, experts in the global carbon cycle will at
> this point think I am totally off my rocker. Not being an expert in the
> global carbon cycle, I am admittedly sticking my neck out here. But, at
> a minimum, the results I will show make for a fascinating story - even
> if my hypothesis is wrong. While the evidence I will show is admittedly
> empirical, I believe that a physically based case can be made to sup****t
> it.
>
> But first, some acknowledgements. Even though I have been
> playing with the CO2 and global temperature data for about a year, it
> was the persistent queries from a Canadian engineer, Allan MacRae, who
> made me recently revisit this issue in more detail. Also, the writings
> of Tom V. Segalstad, a Norwegian geochemist, were also a source of
> information and ideas about the carbon cycle.
>
> First, let's start with what everyone knows: that
> atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and global-averaged surface
> temperature, have risen since the Mauna Loa CO2 record began. These are
> illustrated in the next two figures.
>
> Both are on the increase, an empirical observation that is qualitatively
> consistent with the "consensus" view that increasing anthropogenic CO2
> emissions are causing the warming. Note also that they both have a
> "bend" in them that looks similar, which might also lead one to
> speculate that there is a physical connection between them.
>
> Now, let's ask: "What is the empirical evidence that CO2 is driving
> surface temperature, and not the other way around?" If we ask that
> question, then we are no longer trying to explain the change in
> temperature with time (a heat budget issue), but instead we are dealing
> with what is causing the change in CO2 concentration with time (a carbon
> budget issue). The distinction is im****tant. In mathematical terms, we
> need to analyze the sources and sinks contributing to dCO2/dt, not
> dT/dt.
>
> So, let us look at the yearly CO2 input into the atmosphere based upon
> the Mauna Loa record, that is, the change in CO2 concentration with time
> (Fig. 3).
>
> Here I have expressed the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration changes in million
> metric tons of carbon (mmtC) per year so that they can be compared to
> the human emissions, also shown in the graph.
>
> Now, compare the surface temperature variations in Fig. 2 with the Mauna
> Loa-derived carbon emissions in Fig. 3. They look pretty similar, don't
> they? In fact, the CO2 changes look a lot more like the temperature
> changes than the human emissions do. The large interannual fluctuations
> in Mauna Loa-derived CO2 "emissions" roughly coincide with El Nino and
> La Nina events, which are also periods of globally-averaged warmth and
> coolness, respectively. I'll address the lag between them soon.
>
> Of some additional interest is the 1992 event. In that case, cooling
> from Mt. Pinatubo has caused the surface cooling, and it coincides in a
> dip in the CO2 change rate at Mauna Loa.
>
> These results beg the question: are surface temperature variations a
> surrogate for changes in CO2 sources and/or sinks?
>
> First, let's look at the strength of the trends in temperature and
> CO2-inferred "emissions". If we compare the slopes of the regression
> lines in Figs. 2 and 3, we get an increase of about 4300 mmt of carbon
> at Mauna Loa for every degree C. of surface warming. Please remember
> that ratio (4,300 mmtC/deg. C), because we are now going to look at the
> same relation****p for the interannual variability seen in Figs. 2 and 3.
>
> In Fig. 4 I have detrended the time series in Figs. 2 and 3, and plotted
> the residuals against each other. We see that the interannual
> temperature-versus-Mauna Loa-inferred emissions relation****p has a
> regression slope of about 5,100 mmtC/deg. C.
>
> There is little evidence of any time lag between the two time series,
> give or take a couple of months.
>
> So, what does this all show? A comparison of the two slope
> relation****ps (5100 mmtC/yr for interannual variability, versus 4,700
> mmtC/yr for the trends) shows, at least empirically, that whatever
> mechanism is causing El Nino and La Nina to modulate CO2 concentrations
> in the atmosphere is more than strong enough to explain the long-term
> increase in CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa. So, at least based upon
> this empirical evidence, invoking mankind's CO2 emissions is not even
> necessary. (I will address how this might happen physically, below).
>
> In fact, if we look at several different temperature averaging areas
> (global, N. H. land, N.H. ocean, N.H. land + ocean, and S.H. ocean), the
> highest correlation occurs for the Southern Hemisphere ocean , and with
> a larger regression slope of 7,100 mmtC/deg. C. This suggests that the
> oceans, rather than land, could be the main driver of the interannual
> fluctuations in CO2 emissions that are being picked up at Mauna Loa -
> especially the Southern Ocean.
>
> Now, here's where I'm really going to stick my neck out - into the
> mysterious discipline of the global carbon cycle. My postulated
> physical explanation will involve both fast and slow processes of
> exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the surface.
>
> The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere
> comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that
> the annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to
> 30% of the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the
> carbon in the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five
> years or so. From Segalstad's writings, the rate of exchange could even
> be faster than this. For instance, how do we know what the turbulent
> fluxes in and out of the wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure
> such a thing locally, let alone globally?
>
> Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some regions
> emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more than
> they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term
> change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human
> source?
>
> After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the
> natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need
> to know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to
> say that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in
> atmospheric CO2. Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much
> better than 3% in accuracy?? I doubt it.
>
> So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina
> cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off
> the west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent
> semi-direct connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one
> possible source of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing
> sink for atmospheric carbon?).
>
> Let's say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is
> producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we
> get the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate
> of human emissions.
>
> If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural interannual
> changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5 we see
> that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere
> from 0% of the human source, to 130%.
>
> It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are
> at least as big as the human source.
>
> Could the long-term increase in El Nino conditions observed in recent
> decades (and whatever change in the carbon budget of the ocean that
> entails) be more responsible for increasing CO2 concentrations than
> mankind? At this point, I think that question is a valid one.
>
> « Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 How not to
> measure temperature, part 49. Alaska's COOP Stations »
> --
>
> Regards
>
> Bonzo
>
> "Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
> trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
> (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
> vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
> which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
> which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
> the Natural Resources Steward****p Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
> Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
That sup****ts my contention that the absorption of CO2 is probably
much higher than we are being told and its concentration is the result
of it equilibrating with that in the sea as the global temperature
increases.
Unfortunately, the fact that CO2 concentrations in the sea are
increrasing
directly contradicts it. ;)
|
