…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:
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].
Views: 290
Pseudo-science indeed. Anyone who links the jet stream with global warming is either ignorant or untrustworthy.
Thanks, Bob. That would have looked great in the post! Still, now we have it in the first comment.
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?
I don’t have an online version, it was a short comment piece in the Monday print edition of The Press.
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.
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
>”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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
>”…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?
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 left will still be working on minimum wage and hard out because there is still a break-even to be at least met. But the same machine can be installed in a low wage country nearer to the market, therefore profit is maximized by labour not by the plant in this case because the plant is identical only the cost of labour has changed.
NZ controls ceased manufacturing in Mt M years ago because they could turn out the same products in China for 1/19th of the labour cost (I think it was). But labour in China is not as cheap as it was, now manufacturing is looking to places like Vietnam and Cambodia i.e. a race to the bottom for labour and a race to the top for investor.
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.
>”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 – 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). The wealth generated by the textile mills for the owners was a combination of plant (new technology) and sweatshop labour. That hasn’t changed much with manufacturing still chasing sweatshop wage rates from country to country i.e. once wage rates improve as they have in China, “It’s a given” isn’t a given anymore so that what was highly profitable becomes uneconomic – hence the absence of textile mills in Britain once wages rose as they inevitably had to.
If on the other hand a labourer steps up to management, then it’s off to the dentist. The rest juggle options which exclude that even with “the development of better and better technology”. Doesn’t help that the better and better technology is applied to soft-drink production either.
I point out too, as previously, that the development of better and better technology means less and less labour when the technology is automated and robotic. That’s a fact of life and the whole point of technology development – to lesson labour.
I’m not saying, as the Greens are, that the minimum wage needs to be hiked to cure the problem. That would just make the problem worse by making NZ even more uncompetitive. The solution, or at least going some way towards it, is to make NZ uttra-competitive in all respects starting with govt vision. Our current govt was elected with no vision at all in their manifesto – I find that astounding.
Ultra-competitiveness in national terms is an overriding mindset that cuts out all the unnecessary trivia, let our competition keep theirs though unless it crimps their ability to purchase our products (which it will eventually), This type of thinking at the start of industrialization was to make the elite rich – not to make society as a whole rich. Only later was it realized that if labour was better off then they would be able to purchase the products they were producing. Now there’s endless studies of the concept e.g.
THE EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL AND REAL WEALTH ON CONSUMPTION:
NEW EVIDENCE FROM OECD COUNTRIES
http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/temidi/td11/td837_11/en_td837/en_tema_837.pdf
The US was a case in point (not so much now though), ultra protective, technological, and competitive. But all that has been eroded because the nation has lost focus. Now they’re just loading themselves with debt and policies that harm their own economy to the point that financial collapse is not far away. NZ isn’t quite in the same mire and that is why our dollar is high against the US$ but just because we’re strong relatively doesn’t mean our ecomomy is optimally strong – it isn’t, as the problems of minimum wage labour and living attest.
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.
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 law of nature decrees that everyone should receive the same pay?
Of a certainty, this is a passionate topic.
>”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.
What do you say?
>”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 can’t chew.
Everyone, EXCEPT many Japanese workers:
‘Suicide as Salvation’
http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/japan-overwork-employees-stress-depression-karoshi-suicide-economy
Death from overwork (Karōshi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kar%C5%8Dshi
And so on.
In other words, “everyone” is not necessarily EVERYone. There are many different perspectives that can only be really understood by experiencing each others conditions – impossible obviously, but empathy is possible.
So rather than my “left-wing brainwashing blinding [me] to the advantages brought to everyone by advancing knowledge and technology”, my vision is of an ultra-competitive NZ national business environment unencumbered by any unnecessary tax or bureaucracy that enables business to pay better wages for labour AND get a return on plant investment. My US example is just the opposite, left-wing policies (unnecessary taxes and bureaucracy) are running the US down and not helping here either.
I think my vision is possible in NZ because of the culture rather than the culture excluding it. John Key thinks not because he thinks the culture is why extremely conservative policies would not work in New Zealand. I’m referring to the “socialist streak” cable:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5516068/Socialist-streak-just-means-we-have-a-heart-says-Key
However, I don’t think it is possible in countries where illegality and disregard for fellow humans is endemic of normal business practice. Those practices aren’t much different than the times of the industrial revolution or before it if you’re on the wrong end of it. That is why ITGLWF and ILO pressure was put on Marks and Spencer’s, Next, Ralph Lauren, DKNY, GAP, Converse, Banana Republic, Land’s End, Levi’s, Adidas, Nike, Slazenger, Speedo and Puma because it wasn’t going to come from within their respective manufacturing nations, All of those are brands that “everyone” who is better off because of industrialization purchases but only because someone is working in industrial revolution conditions which, unless we’ve experienced the difference, could have been better or worse than before it, who knows?
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.
>”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 (also shop floor labour) but it isn’t as the article points out. The latter aren’t in the same game as Australia for example (exceptions obviously) and this feeds back into govt unfortunately. Not likely to get a step ahead if we’re not already up to the same speed.
>”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.
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.
>”…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?
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.
>”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.
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 regional studies. See Fig 2 here:
http://www.igbp.net/news/features/features/aregionalviewofglobalclimatechange.5.64c294101429ba9184d44a.html
In any case, CO2 as an explanation for any period is problematic let alone anthropogenic CO2. Especially tricky before 1850, Compare Fig 2 above from 1000 – 1850 to CO2 over the same period:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/images/icecore.png
It was a period of cooling but CO2 remained almost constant. Going back to 5000 BCE it was warmer than it is now according to Marcott, but that doesn’t reconcile with CO2 levels:
1000 BCE 280
3000 BCE 270
5000 BCE 260
6000 BCE 260
Don’t know the provenance of those estimates but it was all I could find quickly. Demonstrates anyway that there was no relationship between CO2 and temperature over the Holocene up to 1850.
>”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.
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
>”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
No, it’s even more obvious than that.
Sceptics consider all statements critically, even if it is confirming their internal biases.
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?”
“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?
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.
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?
Magoo:
It is, you’re right. I’m sure Simon sees that.
Thank you Simon – the obvious flaw, lol, is that CO2 does not necessarily cause temperature to rise.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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”
>”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 since 1910ish by using the 30% factor. That reconciles with Bob’s Hansen88 reasoning that 0.4°C natural + 0.2°C unnatural = 0.6°C, i.e. 0.2°C is 33% of 0.6°C. Sure the IPCC doesn’t make an anthro attribution prior to 1951 but that doesn’t mean emissions after that are all necessarily 100% unnatural (human). If the ratio is 70:30 human to natural say, all that happens is the calculation changes to 0.7 x 0.45°C = 0.32°C, our share since 1950. Not much different to 0.3°C since 1910 using HadCRUT above.
But now our share since 2000 is 0°C
Where did 0.6°C for last 100 years come from RT?
HadCRUT4 shows about 1°C.
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.
Hansen (2005):
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.
The IPCC TAR gave the 1901 to 2000 increase as 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].
>”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?
>“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.
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 Bob says, we don’t know, but I’m sure it isn’t 100% aCO2.
Assuming 50:50 for 1950 – 2010 we get 0.5 x 0.45°C = 0.23°C, our share.
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 of it is sequestered we get,
0.0525 x 0.45°C = 0.024°C, our share.
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.
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
>”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) = 771 Gt CO2 [210 GtC]
aCO2 emissions: 29 Gt CO2 (fossil fuel burning + land use), or, 26 Gt CO2 ((fossil fuel burning only) [7.9/7.0 GtC]
29/771 = 0.0376
26/771 = 0.0337
SkS then makes a mistake (actually a misleading) too by stating “Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes”
But notice that they’re only really referring to the 7+ GtC or 26+ Gt aCO2 in Figure 2 which is only 3.37% of emissions. They completely neglect the 96.63% of natural emissions.
SkS go on “If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003)”. That’s this paper:
‘Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research’
Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. Brand (2013)
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf
Some is now out of date but it confirms the above workings and helpfully informs that about half of the 6 GtC was sequestered:
1.1 (page 2 pdf)
“Each year approximately 120 Gt
carbon are exchanged between the atmosphere and
terrestrial ecosystems, and another 90 Gt between the
atmosphere and the oceans [5]. In contrast, current
annual fossil fuel burning amounts to about 6Gt of
carbon. About half of this amount is observed as an
increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The
other half is sequestered by other compartments. Currently,
both the oceans and the terrestrial system show
a net uptake of carbon”
The kicker is 3.1 (page 15 pdf)
“In spite of the experimental achievements measurement
precision is still a limiting factor for more
rigorous data interpretation: current fossil fuel emissions
of about 6Gt C per year result in a long term
change of the CO2 mixing ratio in the atmosphere of
about 1.5 ppm per year. 13C of CO2 changes about
0.02‰ per year. While CO2 mixing ratio analyses can
be made with a typical precision of 0.1 ppm (which is
less than 1/15th of the annual change), demonstrated
precisions for 13C are at best near 0.01‰, i.e., approximately
half the annual trend.”
So apart from precision problems, the change in the mixing ratio is vanishingly small but SkS takeaway is “If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003)”
Ghosh 2003 do state similar but it doesn’t reconcile and not what SkS would have everyone believe:
Abstract
“Stable isotope ratios of the life science elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen vary slightly, but significantly in major compartments of the earth. Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906).”
1.5 x 1000 = 1500 ppm change over 200 years. Clearly that’s not right. Should we really be correcting arithmetic?
0.0111073 – 0.0110906 = 0.0000167 which is 16.7 ppm over 200 years or 0.084 ppm per year or 0.0000084% per year.
I really don’t think 0.0000084% per year change in 13C/12C ratio is “Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity” even if the ratio is falling.
>”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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>”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.
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.
[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.
Where do you think most of the ‘natural’ increase of CO2 is coming from? It is from deforestation which is human induced.
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.
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.
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.
>”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?
The phrase “hiding in plain sight” comes to mind, If I’ve got it right of course.
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.
Correction – “@Simon LUC is less than fossil fuels, 7.1 vs [1.8] GtC”
D’OH – HAVE A LOOK AT THE KEELING CURVE, YOU MORONS!
Why do you suggest that, Rob?
>”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.
Please stop shouting, RC. You’ll be getting yourself a bad name, like the others who shout.
And here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-619962
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).
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.
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
70.5 GtC per decade – fossil fuel increase 1999 to 2005
Fossil fuels account for all of the increase and more so at least 30.5 GtC is sequestered. If there’s an increase in LUC then that is added to fossil fuels. And what is happening to natural emissions?
>”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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>”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 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.
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.
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?
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.
>”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 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.
If you can go through that and refute (i.e. identify the errors, rationale, calcs etc, if there are any) then well and good. But if you can’t……..
>”Normally during Earth’s history the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium.”
It is? How so? Total CO2 started rising before industrial emissions even started to accumulate as shown up-thread. But this is irrelevant to the incremental rise issue above.
RC,
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?
>”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 – 2.1) rather than “half”.
>Or am I missing something?”
Only the updated 2005 – 2013 data, as Fig 6.1 seems to be missing. I think it might be just AR4 data but I can’t find an update in AR5 (it’s a mission).
Got to chase some work for a while now, until this evening.
RC,
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:
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.
Or I’ve completely misunderstood your argument.
>”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 carbon rise [Calc 1]
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
>”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.”
Exactly, and that has occurred from time to time. But total carbon does not reflect those fluctuations. It’s rising more than ever (more than monotonically, a smooth acceleration) even with incremental FF rise, and fall, fluctuations.
>”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.”
Yes, that calc is fine but you have to do an equivalent calc for total carbon in order to make a comparison of the respective rises i.e. in the same apples-to-apples terms. The IPCC doesn’t do that so you don’t see it graphed anywhere. But is unnecessary to use the full amounts, only the increment is necessary and only the increment is used to find the rise on total carbon in Calc 1.
By just using the increment you can immediately see the respective average incremental rates of rise e.g.
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon (average incremental rate of) rise 2005 to 2013 [Calc 2]
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel (average incremental rate of rise) 2005 to 2013 [Calc 3]
The IPCC uses the top recent total carbon value as-is with small variations e.g. rounded to 4. FF is given in annual updates of total emissions and also as a percentage rise from previous years e.g. 2.1% in 2012 from 2011, so you don’t see an apples-to-apples Calc 2 to 3 graph comparison (show me one). Both are the rates of rise i.e. in the same terms, neither are the actual amounts added each year.
[Calc 2] is then just [Calc 1] /9 (35.36 / 9 = 3.93). Similar for FF.
>”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”
You are right with your calc but that is not in terms with my Calcs 1,2, and 3. which are average incremental rates of rise only. Addition of the initial value to get the common base across all years is unnecessary and doesn’t give the simple required comparison straight off.
>”You’re using the “acceleration” of FF addition each year as the calculator for determining how much FF is added in total”
Yes I’m using the incremental, marginal, “acceleration”. No I’m not determining how much FF is added in total (although that is easy to work out by adding the initial values in). I’m only concerned with reconciling the rise in total carbon from say 1970 to 2005 or 2005 to 2013 (because that is when there is easy data for) with what components contribute to it, FF in particular.
>”Or I’ve completely misunderstood your argument.”
Yes you have I think. But this needs to be thrashed out to get common understanding and if I can’t explain and defend my rationale then I’ve probably got it wrong. I’ve taken it about as far as I can with self-corrections (a fraught process involving Jo Nova) but others, like you, Simon and Nick have to pull it apart if you can. Best so far Bob but still no cookies for anyone. But bring it on, I could be wrong, prove it point-by-point.
>”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.
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.
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.
>”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 incremental effects you speak of….”
No, easy. See the new thread.
>”….when nobody, least of all the IPCC, is currently even able to “balance the books” on the CO2 increases themselves”
I been searching all over for just one other analysis like mine that attempts to reconcile FF growth against measured CO2 rise but I can’t find any – not one.
>So it’s going to be hard to track incremental variances and make sense of them.”
No, it’s easy. See the new thread.
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 –
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 –
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Because……………..?
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.
>”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.
Put up or shut up Nick.
C’mon, out with it Nick, or are you just another warmist full of hot air?
Hi Magoo, are you just another fake skeptic blinded by ideology and lacking the ability to think critically on your own?
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).
Not all of us have time to trawl though a comment thread and peer review it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>”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?
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?
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 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.
Maybe Bob D will explain it to you, or not. Who can say in the crazy mixed up world of denial politics.
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 to plateau or rise at an unpredicted slow rate as a result, and the computer models will continue to fail. All sceptics have to do is sit back and watch another year of no warming tick by, while the alarmists wave their arms in desperation and make fools of themselves, trolling sceptic websites without a scrap of evidence to back up their failed theory & pretending they’re somehow intellectually superior regardless of the empirical evidence – watch them fade into irrelevancy, as they are already.
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!
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]
Nick:
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 per CO2 increment declines slowly as CO2 increases due to partial saturation of absorption bands, so the CO2 forcing growth rate has been steady despite the rapid growth of fossil fuel emissions.“
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.
>”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.
Who said it does?
Apart from yourself I mean
>”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.
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…
>”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.
[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.
>”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.
>”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.
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?
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.
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.
[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
Richard C please confirm that what I wrote above is indeed what you are arguing.
[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.
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 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
You are aware that CO2 is released into the atmosphere when ocean temperature rises?
This is called a positive feedback.
[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.
>”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.
>”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.
>”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.
>”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/
[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 x 0.429 = 3.76 GtC
3.76 / 3.77 = 0.997
99.7% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 0.3% contribution from non-FF 2008
2006 Atm: 1.74 ppm x 2.12 = 3.69 GtC
2006 FF: 8.37 GtC x 0.429 = 3.59 GtC
3.59 / 3.69 = 0.973
97.3% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 2.7% contribution from non-FF 2006
Data for Global Carbon Emissions
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Obviously the 42.9% (3 / 7 = 0.429) apportionment factor must vary each year rendering the above set of calcs invalid but it gives an indication of the relative FF to non-FF contributions since 2006.
For comparison, contributions for the period 1780 – 1850 were:
0% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from FF, 100% contribution from non-FF.
>”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.
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:
But isn’t the delta in CO2 (1780 – 1850) assumed to be close to zero, so it may be a moot point?
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 to total land+ocean+atmosphere rise (but that’s missing at present) because cumulative AE is included in net land rise, net ocean rise, and net atmosphere rise respectively. The 5th cumulative AE curve comes in at 84.4% of total land+ocean+atmosphere rise by 2007 from Tans’ ESRL numbers. That puts the AE curve below total land+ocean+atmosphere and above net atmosphere i.e. 4th in ascending order.
Apportioning AE to each reservoir is a secondary exercise as I’ve done above using the 0.429 factor.
Summary:
From 1850 to 2012, Non-AE decreased from 100% atmospheric carbon contribution to 19% in 2012.
From 1850 to 2012, AE increased from 0% atmospheric carbon contribution to 81% in 2012.
>”But isn’t the delta in CO2 (1780 – 1850) assumed to be close to zero, so it may be a moot point?”
No. Atmospheric CO2 began rising at about 1780, 70 years before AE in 1850. You can see that in Tans’ page 5 graph. A better graph is this one:
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Law17511960.png
The AE curve is obviously smoothed but in the early period of AE rise the smoothed curve is representative. 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?
>”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.
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.
Dr Roy Spencer is stumped on his own blog …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/3-days-till-launch-of-the-global-precipitation-mission-gpm-core-observatory/#comment-106063
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.
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
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.
Simon:
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.
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
>”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.
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).
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
>”Have fun”
Cheers Hemi, this is great.
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
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 Richard C’s error but then let himself be convinced that Richard was being ‘subtle’ rather than just ‘wrong’.
>”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 own logic that 100% of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon is from fossil fuels. As per the mainstream scientific understanding.”
No it’s not, as demonstrated here (from NASA, ESRL, CO2now):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629534
And from Tans’ ESRL data here (note the “missing carbon” conundrum):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629211
Missing carbon conundrum here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-629385
>”Oceans are currently a net carbon sink btw,”
Yes, we know that in this thread:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-630097
>”…that’s why they are turning acid.”
Turning a little less alkaline.
>”Anyway test over. You all failed, even Bob D who identified Richard C’s error but then let himself be convinced that Richard was being ‘subtle’ rather than just ‘wrong’.”
Waffle, and no “error”, And don’t kid yourself Nick, we’re way ahead of you.
BTW, about this:
>Nick says: “……a simple mass balance……”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-625978
What happened to that? Dog eat it?
My reply to Nick is awaiting moderation right now – too many links.
A philosophical question, Nick.
If I wasn’t given the test, did I fail?
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?
>”..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.
>”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”
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
0.001 / 0.04 = 0.025
2.5% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 97.5% contribution from non-AE 1750/51
1770 Atm: 0.12 ppm x 2.12 = 0.25 GtC
1770 AE: 0.003 GtC x 0.429 = 0.001 GtC
0.001 / 0.25 = 0.004
0.4% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 99,6% contribution from non-AE 1770
1850 Atm: 0.08 ppm x 2.12 = 0.17 GtC
1850 AE: 0.054 GtC x 0.429 = 0.002 GtC
0.002 / 0.17 = 0.012
1.2% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 98.8% contribution from non-AE 1850
1900 Atm: 0.3 ppm x 2.12 = 0.64 GtC
1900 AE: 0.93 GtC x 0.429 = 0.40 GtC
0.40 / 0.64 = 0.63
63% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 37% contribution from non-AE 1900
1950 Atm: 0.3 ppm x 2.12 = 0.64 GtC
1950 AE: 1.63 GtC x 0.429 = 0.7 GtC (this value doesn’t reconcile – too big)
0.70 / 0.64 = 1.09
109% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 0% contribution from non-AE 1950
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
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
Data sources:
Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide [after Law Dome]
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2010
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems
Data for Global Carbon Emissions 2006-2012
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
Response way down here
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-632433
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.
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.
>”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.
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.
>”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 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.
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.
No take that back Human breathing quite small in scheme of things
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 would be absorbed by the ocean as before, leaving just 1.7 GtC to be absorbed in 2016, which would be simple, since the ocean can absorb up to 4 GtC in one year. So by the end of 2016 none of the original 10 GtC would remain.
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).
RC:
You’re quite right. The important conclusion is that it can’t be a thousand years.
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.
RC:
Ah yes, sorry. So that means the residence time is even shorter.
>”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?
RC,
I’m not concerned here with individual molecules, only the relative “imbalance”, or perturbation to an assumed (and fictional) pre-human equilibrium.
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
>”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
RC:
Sorry, I don’t agree with this. From above:
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.
>”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 of a year but by year’s end 57% has gone to surface sinks leaving the residual 43% in the atmosphere i.e. 0 AE to atmosphere at year start, 4.2 net at end. Meanwhile atm has gone from 0 at start to 5.13 net increase at end which is the net effect in the atmosphere after all the exchanges have taken place including AE to atm, ocean, and land. 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. That’s the fallacy of Nick’s “100% of the recent rise in atmospheric carbon is from fossil fuels”.
Tans makes the same error, he’s not reconciling apples-to-apples. Easily demonstrated just by starting at 1750 then working forward, the Non-AE contribution didn’t just stop.
RC:
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.
RC:
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 an extra 5.13 GtC annually. This assertion, however, must be proven, as it is unlikely on the face of it. Occam’s razor.
>”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 course of the year. This is the reconciliation base for atmosphere, there’s another for land and another for ocean so the total carbon rise is atm+land+ocean. This accounts for all the AE carbon introduced to the system unnaturally after apportionment to atm, land, and ocean i.e. net AE.
The ratio is than apples-to-apples: net AE : net atm, not net atm : cum AE
>”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.
“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?
>”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
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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:
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.
When I say I agree with Nick I mean using the rate rise as a calculator, not as an acceleration.
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.
🙂
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.
>”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.
>”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.
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.
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.
>”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
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
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.
>”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
>”Not what happened in reality of course because 2009 was negative growth.”
2008 8.783
2009 8.740 -0.043/yr negative linear growth.
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?
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?
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
>”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.
Nick, be sure to read this comment:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-633179
Especially re linear interpolation.
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.
>”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.
Ok I see why you are confused. I’ll explain it to you tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.
>”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.
>”I see why you are confused”
I’m not confused Nick, don’t kid yourself.
Free the carbon! Cold bad, warm good!
Here’s another good paragraph from Dr. Moore (page 365):
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.
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
Mike >”Free the carbon!” Feed the cherries!
Climate Science 101
Graph: linear growth vs accelerating (exponential) growth
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/files/2013/02/Exponential-v-linear.png
Spot the difference.
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
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.
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 2009 then it doesn’t matter so you can leave /y off”
Yes, exactly. That’s what I’ve been trying to get through to you.
>”As soon as you use it in a calculation however it becomes critical.”
No it doesn’t. It is only a flow for that year (2009) so you use it in a carbon balance for 2009 as-is without “/yr” but only for 2009. But we don’t use it as-is at all for growth calcs. Growth for 2009 was -1.3% specifically or part of an average .
>”I really don’t care if you call it acceleration or not”
You don’t 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.
The numeric among us call it linear growth, the non-numeric call it accelerating growth, and they get it wrong. The growth rate for 2009 was either -1.3% specifically for 2009 or +2.3 GtC/yr as part of the average approximation for 2005 – 2013.
>”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.”
2,3 GtC/yr are my units of growth – linear – which hits the 9.65 2013 target. Correct.
2,3 GtC/yr/yr are your units of growth – acceleration – which doesn’t hit the 9.65 2013 target (16.09 instead). Incorrect.
Now Nick. Isn’t it about time you retracted? There’s no shame around here if you do, I have from time to time, that’s the process of learning – try, make mistakes, adjust, move on.
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?
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
>”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
Continues down here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-638319
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.
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.
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 the internal combustion engine which sees an exponential growth in transportation by land (automobiles), sea (ocean going liners), and air. The revolution also created the electrical industry and brings electrical devices and telephones into the home. For the public the revolution was epitomized by mass production of consumer goods and the mechanization of manufacturing to serve the needs of an increasing population. There is a transition of technological leadership from United Kingdom to the United States and Germany.”
http://lessons-from-history.com/node/55
The Germans started it.
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
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
>”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
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.
>”..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.
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.
>”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 latter (GCM) being given wrong assumptions unfortunately. The former (C) have to make up an enormous amount of assumptions for themselves but that’s not “lies” I don’t think.
Being wrong about a hypothesis is not a lie in my books, and it is only recently since the “pause” (that warmists hate and deny) that the AGW hypothesis is unraveling. But continuing with AGW as fact (e.g. Obama/Kerry) when it is being proven wrong before our eyes, is a lie in my books.
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.
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…
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”
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?
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.
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
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 growth (ppm/yr), Airborne Fraction AE (%)
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 Airborne Fraction 2007 – 2012: 40%
Clearly Atm growth is not tracking AE growth because land and ocean sinks are gobbling up 60% of AE. 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.
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.
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.
>”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
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.
Link correction (but the graph link was OK above)
Source data for atm:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
>”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.
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).
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
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).
>”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
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.
>”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.
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 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 [30.8] years depending on assumption – obviously an impossible scenario in either case.
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 the atmosphere would be gone (244 x 1.64 = 400.16ppm)
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 77.0 yrs at -1.68 ppm/yr by 83% AE contribution 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 244 yrs at -1.68 ppm/yr by 83% AE contribution 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 244 years depending on contribution assumption – obviously an impossible scenario in either case.
>”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).
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
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 440ppm, That’s 40ppm higher than TODAY. And from that 440 ppm level Atm CO2 begins to fall more than 100 ppm over something less than 100 years. 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).”
But in 2013 Atm CO2 was 400ppm and Nick’s scenario starts TODAY abruptly – NOT over 50 years, and to zero – NOT “close to zero”, and from 400 ppm – NOT from 440 ppm.
These are the same models that are currently irrelevant because the assumptions for them are wrong. If they can’t model 30 yr climate, they can’t model millennial climate. One of those assumptions is residence time – what is it for those model runs Simon (look up Zickfeld et al., 2013)?
If the residence time assumption is more than about 5 1/2 years then the models are not in accordance with corroborating papers finding 5.4 years residence time (see upthread).
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.
>”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.
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)
>”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.
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.
Whoops
(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2005y – 2006y)
should have been
(8.093GtC/y – 7.807GtC/y)/(2006y – 2005y)
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.
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.
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 linear interpolant is the straight line between these points. For a value x in the interval scriptstyle(x_0, x_1), the value y along the straight line is given from the equation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/f/1/9f13c74f9736bd5305576e6af8b3148d.png”
>’You could even show your working if you think that would add clarity.”
Sure.
Data for Global Carbon Emissions
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ (2013)
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html (2006 – 2012)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems (2005)
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).
But 0.23/yr GtC is a rough-as-guts approximation of the fluctuating data – it should be a linear regression.
Applying respective growth rates, working here (needs correction, see below):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-634186
0.225/yr linear growth for 9 years, 8.81 start, target 9.9 end.
8.1, 8.33, 8.55, 8.78, 9.0, 9.23, 9.45, 9.68, 9.9
0.225/yr/yr accelerating growth for 9 years, 7.81 start, target 9.9 end
8.1, 8.33, 8.79, 9.48, 10.4, 11.55, 12.93, 14.54, 16.38 – 0.23/yr/yr uniform accelerating growth
8.1, 8.33, 8.55, 8.78, 9.0, 9.23, 9.45, 9.68, 9.9 – 0.225/yr linear growth
0.225/yr/yr accelerating growth misses the 9.9 target, 0.225/yr linear growth hits the 9.9 target.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>”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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, you miss the 2013 target (9.9) as above because you’re using an acceleration formula. Correcting using the appropriate linear growth formula:
[m(GtC/yr)] = [v(GtC per 8yrs) / Δt(y).
Where:
[v] = [9.9] GtC/y – [8.1] GtC/y = [1.8 GtC per 8yrs]
Δt =2013y – 2005y = 8y
So:
[m = 1.8 / 8 = 0.225 GtC/yr]
[m = 0.225 GtC/yr – average linear increase (growth) 2005 – 2013 (rounded to 0.23/yr).]
“m” not “a” because 0.225 GtC/yr is not an acceleration.
For v = v0 + a * t (also expressed as v = u + at) motion physics acceleration calculation go here :
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-637906
For v = v0 + m * t motion physics constant linear velocity increase calculation go here :
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-637995
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
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.
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 in our case)
b = Original amount (in GtC). In terms of motion physics = Initial velocity (Start Y0)
Let y = 9.9 GtC, m = 0,225 GtC/yr, x = 1, b = 8.1 GtC,
Year#(x Step 1yr), Year, b(GtC), m(GtC/yr), y(GtC) = mx + b
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225, 8.55
Y3, 2008, 8.55, 0.225, 8.775
Y4, 2008, 8.775, 0.225, 9.0
Y5, 2009, 9.0, 0.225, 9.225
Y6, 2010, 9.225, 0.225, 9.45
Y7, 2011, 9.45, 0.225, 9.675
Y8, 2012, 9.675, 0.225, 9.9
Correct (hit the target exactly).
But for uniform acceleration (in terms of motion physics), going back here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-637906
v = u + at (v0 + at)
Where:
v = Final velocity (in GtC/yr). End target Y8
a = Rate of linear growth (in GtC/yr/yr)
t = Time period or Time step (1 year step in our case)
u = Initial velocity (in GtC/yr). Start Y0
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225+0.225+0.225, 9.45
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225+0.225+0.225+0.225, 10.35
In only 4 time steps you overshoot your target by 0.45 (10.35 – 9.9)
Wrong (missed the target completely)
>”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″
No, doesn’t work that way. Both 9.9 GtC and 8.1 GtC are estimated cumulative amounts for each year respectively e.g. for 9.9 in 2012, the daily amount is 0.027 GtC (9.9 / 365). So we get the approximation:
Day, Cum amount
1, 0.027
2. 0.027+0.027 = 0.054
3, 0.027+0.027+0.027 = 0.081
And so on to 9.9 on Day 365. Actual amounts each day will differ of course but estimates are for each year’s cumulative amount, they don’t estimate day-by-day. There are also cumulative assessments for each reservoir: Atm, Land, and Ocean (see Tans ESRL pdf way upthread).
However, for apportionment calcs of AE to Atm, Land, and Ocean (not what we’re doing here, but what I’ve been doing on other threads), the 0.027 on Day 1 doesn’t carry through fully to Day 365. For apportionment calcs, the Day 365 cumulative total must be reduced by a factor (45% in 2012 approx) to account for Land and Ocean uptake of Atm AE over the course of 365 days.
The factor (45% 2012 approx) is known as the Airborne Fraction (AF) i.e. the amount of AE CO2 left in the atmosphere each year from each year’s emissions. The AF factor varies between 10% and 90%. You can get recent AF factors from the graph in the 2010 Carbon Budget Report way upthread.
Correction (Uniform Acceleration)
v = u + at
Where:
v = Final velocity (in GtC/yr). End target Y8
a = Rate of [acceleration] (in GtC/yr/yr) [This is uniform acceleration]
t = Time period or Time step (1 year step in our case)
u = Initial velocity (in GtC/yr). Start Y0
Hi Richard C,
You say:
“No, doesn’t work that way. Both 9.9 GtC and 8.1 GtC are estimated cumulative amounts for each year respectively e.g. for 9.9 in 2012, the daily amount is 0.027 GtC (9.9 / 365).”
Fine so your calculation becomes:
Growth of AE 2005 – 2013
0.027GtC (first day of 2013) – 0.022GtC (first day of 2005) = 0.005 GtC
0.005 GtC / 8yr = 0.000625 GtC/yr – Which is clearly wrong.
If you had the units right (0.027GtC/day) however you would get 0.000625GtC/(day.y) which converted to more sensible units gives 0.23GtC/y^2
Nick says:
>”Fine so your calculation becomes:
Growth of AE 2005 – 2013
0.027GtC (first day of 2013) – 0.022GtC (first day of 2005) = 0.005 GtC
0.005 GtC / 8yr = 0.000625 GtC/yr”
Wrong. There was no average growth in 2012 (zero growth) from taking an average of the cumulative 2012 total. Day 1 – Day 365, 0.027 each day, is simply an average approximation of the cumulative emissions estimate per day. The 365 day series is:
Day, AE (GtC)
1. 0.027
2, 0.027
3, 0.027
[….Day 3 – Day 363….]
363, 0.027
364, 0.027
365, 0.027
9.9 GtC – cumulative total for 2012.
>”If you had the units right (0.027GtC/day)”
I have, see above. But 0.027GtC/day is not growth in this case (it’s zero growth), it is simply the amount each day. The amount remains 0.027 GtC/day for every day of the year because it is an average of the cumulative total,
>”however you would get 0.000625GtC/(day.y) which converted to more sensible units gives 0.23GtC/y^2″
No, this is rubbish Nick. You’re trying to create accelerating growth out of zero growth – give it up!
You cannot escape the following from here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-639764
Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b
Let y = 9.9 GtC, m = 0,225 GtC/yr, x = 1, b = 8.1 GtC,
Year#(x Step 1yr), Year, b(GtC), m(GtC/yr), y(GtC) = mx + b
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225, 8.55
Y3, 2008, 8.55, 0.225, 8.775
Y4, 2008, 8.775, 0.225, 9.0
Y5, 2009, 9.0, 0.225, 9.225
Y6, 2010, 9.225, 0.225, 9.45
Y7, 2011, 9.45, 0.225, 9.675
Y8, 2012, 9.675, 0.225, 9.9
Correct (hit the target exactly)
Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225+0.225+0.225, 9.45
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225+0.225+0.225+0.225, 10.35
In only 4 time steps you overshoot your target by 0.45 (10.35 – 9.9)
Wrong (missed the target completely)
>”There was no average growth in 2012 (zero growth) from taking an average of the cumulative 2012 total”
If we knew Day 1 AE (x) we could apply y = mx + b where m = 0.00062 GtC/day linear growth (0.0225 / 365) and b = Day 1 AE to get the approximate amount for each day of the year
If we knew Day 365 AE (y) we could apply y = mx + b where m = -0.00062 GtC/day linear DECAY (0.0225 / 365) and b = Day 365 AE to get the approximate amount for each day of the year
If we knew Day 152 AE (x) and Day 298 AE (y) we could apply y = mx + b where m = 0.00062 or -0.00062 GtC/day linear growth or DECAY each way (0.0225 / 365) and where b = Day 152 and y = Day 298 AE to get the approximate amount for each day of the year Day 1 – Day 365.
This is Linear Interpolation (you can also use the linear interpolation formula).
But we don’t know Day 1 AE, or Day 365 AE, or Day 152 AE, or Day 298 AE so we can’t apply y = mx + b. We can only average the cumulative 2012 total over 365 days as I’ve done.
Hi Richard C,
It shouldn’t matter if the values used in your equation are over a year or over a day and you have not explained why your equation gives wildly different results depending on which one was used. This is not just a little rounding error, it’s 3 orders of magnitude. The correct form of the equation a(GtC/y^2) = Δv(GtC/y)/Δt(y) gives the same result no matter what units are used so long as the magnitudes are equivalent.
If you are stuck on your Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics (v = u + at) equation it is because you are doing it wrong. You left the units off your time element. It should be:
Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1y, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
This mean you just add 0.225GtC/y to the year before to get this year’s total. Giving:
Y0, 2005, 8.1GtC/y
Y1, 2006, 8.1GtC/y + 0.225GtC/y = 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325GtC/y + 0.225GtC/y = 8.55
etc.
Which works just fine. You just have to get the units right though, I’m not sure why you thought time was dimensionless.
Nick says >”It shouldn’t matter if the values used in your equation are over a year or over a day and you have not explained why your equation gives wildly different results depending on which one was used. This is not just a little rounding error, it’s 3 orders of magnitude. The correct form of the equation a(GtC/y^2) = Δv(GtC/y)/Δt(y) gives the same result no matter what units are used so long as the magnitudes are equivalent.”
No, the reason Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at gives “wildly different results” to Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b is because Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b hits the 9.9 target but Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at overshoots the 9.9 target in only 4 time steps i.e. Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at is the wrong formula, Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b is the right formula as proven by the results:
Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b
Let y = 9.9 GtC, m = 0,225 GtC/yr, x = 1, b = 8.1 GtC,
Year#(x Step 1yr), Year, b(GtC), m(GtC/yr), y(GtC) = mx + b
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225, 8.55
Y3, 2008, 8.55, 0.225, 8.775
Y4, 2008, 8.775, 0.225, 9.0
Y5, 2009, 9.0, 0.225, 9.225
Y6, 2010, 9.225, 0.225, 9.45
Y7, 2011, 9.45, 0.225, 9.675
Y8, 2012, 9.675, 0.225, 9.9
Correct (hit the target exactly)
Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225+0.225+0.225, 9.45
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225+0.225+0.225+0.225, 10.35
In only 4 time steps you overshoot your target by 0.45 (10.35 – 9.9)
Wrong (missed the target completely)
>”If you are stuck on your Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics (v = u + at) equation it is because you are doing it wrong.”
No, I’m doing it right Nick. You can confirm my results using the Velocity, Acceleration, Time Calculator here:
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/velocity.php
>”Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1y, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
This mean you just add 0.225GtC/y to the year before to get this year’s total.”
No. No. No,. and No.
a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr is ACCELERATION not linear, therefore the progression is:
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
0.23/yr/yr uniform 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
You can confirm this series with the Velocity, Acceleration, Time Calculator here:
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/velocity.php
>’Giving:
Y0, 2005, 8.1GtC/y
Y1, 2006, 8.1GtC/y + 0.225GtC/y = 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325GtC/y + 0.225GtC/y = 8.55
etc.”
No. No. No,. and No.
That’s Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b
>”Which works just fine.”
Well, yes. For Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b.
As it should.
When I put
8.1GtC/y (m/s)
0.225GtC/y^2 (m/s^2)
8y (s)
into the calculator you link I get 9.9GtC/y (m/s) which is exactly what I would expect. It also works for any year in between.
Maybe you could explain what you are putting into the calculator that results in you overshooting the target.
Nick says >”When I put 8.1GtC/y (m/s) 0.225GtC/y^2 (m/s^2) 8y (s)
into the calculator you link I get 9.9GtC/y (m/s) which is exactly what I would expect. It also works for any year in between. Maybe you could explain what you are putting into the calculator that results in you overshooting the target.”
Our time step is 1, not 8. All you’ve done is calculate the linear growth over 8 years using
y = mx + c. You might have noticed that the first time step (Y1) always produces identical results for both Linear and Acceleration. Not so for Y2 however.
So the calculation is:
Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
That’s just the parameters for Y1. We have to renew the parameters for Y2, then renew again for Y3, then renew again for Y4 i.e. 4 calcs.
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Initial Velocity a = 0,
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Time step 1, a = 0.225 GtC/yr/yr [Calc 1]
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Time step 1, a = 0.225 GtC/yr/yr x 2 = 0.45 GtC/yr/yr [Calc 2]
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
Time step 1, a = 0.225 GtC/yr/yr x 3 = 0.675 GtC/yr/yr [Calc 3]
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225+0.225+0.225, 9.45
Time step 1, a = 0.225 GtC/yr’yr x 4 = 0.9 GtC/yr/yr [Calc 4]
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225+0.225+0.225+0.225, 10.35
That’s Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at Nick i.e. PER YER / PER YEAR.
And you’ve tumbled on the simple calculation for Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b too – that’s great. You’ll be a numeric sceptic in no time now.
>”You might have noticed that the first time step (Y1) always produces identical results for both Linear and Acceleration. Not so for Y2 however”
What I meant was:
You might have noticed that the first time step (Y1) always produces identical results for both Linear y = mx + b and Acceleration v = u + at. Not so for Y2 however.
That’s because m PER YEAR (/yr) is the same as a PER YEAR / PER YEAR (/yr/yr) for time step 1 i.e. m x 1 = a x 1 for Y1. But for Y2 m x 1 does not equal a x 2, and for Y3 m x 1 does not equal a x 3.
Hi Richard C,
Let’s try something simple.
If a car is stationary and then accelerates at 10km/hr^2 for 10 hours how fast do you think it is going at the end of the 10 hours?
Nick says,
>”If a car is stationary and then accelerates at 10km/hr^2″
Key kinematic equations
1. x = x0 + v0Δt + ½ a(Δt)2 (relates position and time)
2. v = v0 + aΔt (relates velocity and time)
3. v2 = v02 + 2a(Δx) (relates velocity and position)
2. v = v0 + aΔt = u + at (uniform acceleration) in this case
Final velocity (speed) v = unknown (km/hr)
Initial velocity u = 0 km/hr
Acceleration a = 10km/hr^2 = 10 km /per hour /per hour (/hr/hr = /hr^2)
Time step t = 1 hr
Hr 0
v0 = 0 km/hr
Hr 1, u = v0 = 0 km/hr, a = 10 km /per hour, t = 1
v1 = u + at
v1 = 0 + 10 x 1
v1 = 10 km/hr [same as linear growth v1 = 10 km/hr]
Hr 2, u = v1 = 10 km/hr, a = 10 km/hr/hr, t = 1
v2 = u + at
v2 = 10 + (10 + 10) x 1
v2 = 30 km/hr [not the same as linear growth v2 = 20 km/hr]
Hr 3, u = v2 = 30 km/hr, a = 10 km/hr/hr, t = 1
v3 = u + at
v3 = 30 + (10 + 10 + 10) x 1
v3 = 60 km/hr [not the same as linear growth v3 = 30 km/hr]
If you graph this series:
0, 0
1, 10
2, 20
3, 30
You get a dead straight line = constant linear increase in speed.
The algebraic line formula is: y = mx + c
Where:
Gradient m = change in y / change in x
Change in y = 30
Change in x = 3
Gradient m = 30 / 3 = 10 (30 / 3 = 10 x 100 = 1000%)
If you graph this series:
0, 0
1, 10
2, 30
3, 60
You get an increasingly rising curve = uniformly accelerating speed
>”how fast do you think it is going at the end of the 10 hours?”
That’s enough homework for me tonight. You can work the rest out now Nick.
Nick says >”…..mention how you think acceleration should be calculated. I prefer Δv/Δt…..”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-632433
Δv/Δt is AVERAGE acceleration:
“Average acceleration over a period of time is the change in velocity Δv divided by the duration of the period Δt”
Average acceleration special symbol
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/e/b/0eb7f5ac50072e4a0f789a3523795a35.png
Not the same as acceleration symbol a
From: Definition and properties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Average acceleration is only the acceleration at each time step when the rate of change is constant i.e. linear, a straight line. If acceleration deviates from constant over the total number of time steps, then average acceleration no longer corresponds to the acceleration at each time step.
Nick,
>”You get an increasingly rising curve = uniformly accelerating speed”
This is wrong, increasingly rising curve = increasingly accelerating speed
>”2. v = v0 + aΔt = u + at (uniform acceleration) in this case”
This is wrong too, From Wiki:
“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
Therefore 10km/hr^2″ is NOT uniform acceleration because the change in VELOCITY at each time step is not equal e.g. from the above example:
v0 = 0 km/hr
v1 = 10 km/hr
v2 = 30 km/hr
v3 = 60 km/hr
This is not uniform acceleration. In terms of growth it IS accelerating growth.
Average acceleration (Δv/Δt) = 60 / 3 = 20 km/hr at 10 km/hr^2 acceleration.
But a constant linear VELOCITY rise IS uniform and in terms of speed CAN be said to be accelerating e.g. from the above example
[v0 = 0 km/hr]
[v1 = 10 km/hr]
[v2 = 20 km/hr]
[v3 = 30 km/hr]
This is uniform acceleration. In terms of growth it is NOT accelerating growth.
Average acceleration (Δv/Δt) = 30 / 3 = 10 km/hr
However, in terms of growth the latter series CANNOT be said to be accelerating, it is simply constant growth at 10 km/hr.
I think this is where you and I are at cross-purposes Nick. You are looking at the GtC growth situation in terms of motion physics and speed. I’m just interested in GtC growth.
>”If a car is stationary and then accelerates at 10km/hr^2 for 10 hours how fast do you think it is going at the end of the 10 hours?”
Velocity, Acceleration and Time Calculator
http://www.endmemo.com/physics/velocity.php
Velocity Converter
http://www.unitconversion.org/unit_converter/velocity.html
1 (km / hr) / hr = 7.71604938 × 10-5 (m / s) / s
v = v0 + a * t
v0 = 0
a = 0.000771604938 m/s/s (10km/hr^2)
t = 36000 s (10 hrs)
v = 27.777777768 m/s = 99.999999965 km/hr = 100 km/hr
But 100 km/hr is simply a constant linear 10 km/hr speed increase every hour (NOT increasing acceleration at 10km/hr^2) so that 10 km/hr increase x 10 hrs = 100 km/hr speed after 10 hours. This is wrong (too slow).
To find the ACTUAL speed at the end of 10 hours, step-by-step calcs must be done in 3600 s steps (1 hr steps) as below at 10 km/hr^2 increasing acceleration e.g. (from above).
Hr 3, u = v2 = 30 km/hr, a = 10 km/hr/hr, t = 1
v3 = u + at
v3 = 30 + (10 + 10 + 10) x 1
v3 = 60 km/hr [not the same as linear speed v3 = 30 km/hr]
The ACTUAL speed at end of Hr 3 is 60 km/hr. At 10 km/hr speed increase every hour we only get 30 km/hr at the end of Hr 3 (too slow).
I’m wrong on this thread since back here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-640042
This is correct
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Linear Growth With Algebra y = mx + b
Let y = 9.9 GtC, m = 0,225 GtC/yr, x = 1, b = 8.1 GtC,
Year#(x Step 1yr), Year, b(GtC), m(GtC/yr), y(GtC) = mx + b
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225, 8.55
Y3, 2008, 8.55, 0.225, 8.775
Y4, 2008, 8.775, 0.225, 9.0
Y5, 2009, 9.0, 0.225, 9.225
Y6, 2010, 9.225, 0.225, 9.45
Y7, 2011, 9.45, 0.225, 9.675
Y8, 2012, 9.675, 0.225, 9.9
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is wrong
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Accelerating Growth With Motion Physics v = u + at
Let v = 9.9 GtC/yr, a = 0,225 GtC/yr/yr, t = 1, u = 8.1 GtC/yr,
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225+0.225, 8.775
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225+0.225+0.225, 9.45
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225+0.225+0.225+0.225, 10.35
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s not “Accelerating” Growth when done properly. It is simply CONSTANT UNIFORM growth. An acceleration in terms of speed but not in terms of growth.
I’ve (erroneously) introduced an acceleration to the constant growth above (and to all similar back up to the comment linked. The calculation is exactly the same as Linear Growth and the title should read and the calcs following should be:
Constant Acceleration With Motion Physics v = u + at
Year#(t Step 1yr), Year, u(GtC/yr), a(GtC/yr/yr), v(GtC/yr) = u + at
Y0, 2005, 8.1, 0, 8.1
Y1, 2006, 8.1, 0.225, 8.325
Y2, 2007, 8.325, 0.225, 8.55
Y3, 2008, 8.775, 0.225, 8.775
Y4, 2008, 9.45, 0.225, 9.0
This will “hit the target”. Increasing acceleration would not however as I’ve proved (what i was trying to show in the first place but came unstuck).
Acceleration Due to Gravity, 9.80 m/s2, is a classic example of CONSTANT UNIFORM acceleration. 10 time steps x 9.8 = 98 m/s velocity at 10 s.
Nick’s “If a car is stationary and then accelerates at 10km/hr^2 for 10 hours how fast do you think it is going at the end of the 10 hours?” is just CONSTANT UNIFORM acceleration – no increase as I introduced. This is the correct series and gradient for both linear rise and constant acceleration:
0, 0
1, 10
2, 20
3, 30
Gradient m = 30 / 3 = 10 (30 / 3 = 10 x 100 = 1000%)
This is correct: v = v0 + a * t
v0 = 0
a = 0.000771604938 m/s/s (10km/hr^2)
t = 36000 s (10 hrs)
v = 27.777777768 m/s = 99.999999965 km/hr = 100 km/hr
Where Nick is wrong was way back but I gave the wrong reason:
Nick >”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).”
0.23 is a CONSTANT acceleration (GtC/y^2) as is Atm carbon rise a CONSTANT acceleration (GtC/y^2). Both are correct yearly rates in terms of linear rise however:
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013
So it’s a direct comparison but not a useful one as it turns out, and somewhat irrelevant now given the more enlightened calcs that have ensued since.
Which brings me back to the to the thread header here replying to Nick:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-637313
>”>”You don’t [care] because you don’t understand the difference between linear growth and accelerating growth”
I can add now: you don’t understand the difference between CONSTANT acceleration and INCREASING acceleration.
>”Everyone else that knows the difference cares totally about the difference and applies the appropriate formula”
In my defense (with some tiredness), my selection of formula was appropriate in each case (e.g. y = mx + b), I just got the “a” wrong in v = u + at for a while. Nick spotted that, well done. But he still has to grasp the difference between INCREASING acceleration or ACCELERATING growth and CONSTANT UNIFORM acceleration or CONSTANT LINEAR growth respectively.
>”…..the difference between INCREASING acceleration or ACCELERATING growth and CONSTANT UNIFORM acceleration or CONSTANT LINEAR growth respectively.”
When you graph the former you get a progressively increasing curve.
When you graph the latter you get a straight line.
AGW requires increasing acceleration from SLR and a progressively increasing curve.
Instead, AGW got a straight line from SLR; possibly now a progressively DEcreasing curve.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
Constant linear growth rate: 3.2 mm/yr (constant uniform acceleration, a = 3.2 mm/yr/yr)
>”AGW requires increasing acceleration from SLR and a progressively increasing curve.
Instead, AGW got a straight line from SLR; possibly now a progressively DEcreasing curve.”
>”Constant linear growth rate: 3.2 mm/yr (constant uniform acceleration, a = 3.2 mm/yr/yr)”
So now we have the comparison:
Linear growth
Cubic growth
Exponential growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
See: ‘Other growth rates’
>”See: ‘Other growth rates’ ”
Growth in Atm CO2 and Fossil Fuel Emissions can be approximated by:
Compartmental Model
Linear
Quadratic
Cubic
Exponential
‘Modeling Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the United States’
http://www.siam.org/students/siuro/vol6/S01235.pdf
Compartmental Model
To model the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we will use a compartmental model discussed in the Peters, Jacobson, and Sweeney paper [8]. The model used is
F(x, y, t) = λrFbio(x, y, t) + λrFoce(x, y, t) + Fff (x, y, t) + Ffire(x, y, t).
Here, Fbio represents the concentration attributable to the natural carbon cycle, Foce denotes the reduction in carbon dioxide through oceanic absorption, Fff represents the addition of carbon dioxide through fossil uel burning, and Ffire denotes the release of carbon dioxide from forest fires. The λr value is a scalar that is unique to each specific location. The presence of λr could give the model a global scope. The Fff and Ffire components will increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, where the Foce will decrease the total concentration of CO2
Continued here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/comment-page-1/#comment-642680
Of course, it is obvious. The Royal Society said so, so it must be true.
They are experts.
This blithering stuffed shirts don’t have a clue what will happen in 200 years time.
The Royal Society used to be something that held a bit of respect and kudos. It has become an embarrassment.
Andy says >”Of course, it is obvious. The Royal Society said so,……”
Andy having replied to Simon here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-639883
That thread having other replies to Simon as well.
PJMedia also has a fairly scating view on the RS, not suprisingly perhaps
http://pjmedia.com/blog/new-global-warming-report-a-disgrace/
[PJ Media]
>”Rather than using the conditional language of real science, it engages in what amounts to propaganda, making absolute assertions concerning topics about which we have little knowledge. For example, the report proclaims, “Continued emissions of these gases [carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases] will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate.” Not “may cause,” or even “probably cause,” but “will cause.” This is not the language of science.”
# # #
Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/27/a-new-cause-of-the-global-warming-pause-according-to-nasa-coincidence-coincidence-conspired-to-dampen-warming-trends/
Hi Richard C, I’m glad you have made some progress on your understanding of acceleration. I still have issue with this claim you make:
“0.23 is a CONSTANT acceleration (GtC/y^2) as is Atm carbon rise a CONSTANT acceleration (GtC/y^2). Both are correct yearly rates in terms of linear rise however:
3.93 GtC per year – total carbon rise 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year – fossil fuel rise 2005 to 2013”
We agree on the point that 0.23 is a constant acceleration (GtC/y^2). I’m not sure how you manage to get it back to GtC/y in the next paragraph though. Calling it “linear rise” doesn’t give you carte blanch to change the units.
Atm carbon rise shows acceleration (GtC/y^2) but when you calculate it between 2005 and 2013 you get 0.09275GtC/y^2. It is pretty variable depending on the start date but it is definitely accelerating. This acceleration is at a lower rate of acceleration than FF emissions.
3.93 GtC/y is the average increase in atmospheric carbon each year which is not comparable to the acceleration of fossil fuel emissions 0.23GtC/y^2.
To summarise:
3.93GtC/y average yearly increase in atmospheric carbon
8.79GtC/y average yearly increase in fossil fuel emissions
0.09GtC/y^2 average acceleration of rise in atmospheric carbon
0.23GtC/y^2 average acceleration of rise in fossil fuel emissions
Nick says: >”I’m glad you have made some progress on your understanding of acceleration”
Sure, I like to get it right. Even if it means March 4, 2014 4:26 am bedtime i.e. I fit this stuff around my life’s activities – including sleeping. Sometimes a tired mind catches up on me. And I start 11 hr night shift soon so it doesn’t get any better.
And you on this below?
>”….the difference between INCREASING acceleration or ACCELERATING growth and CONSTANT UNIFORM acceleration or CONSTANT LINEAR growth respectively”
The original case-in-point being sea level rise:
SLR constant linear growth rate: 3.2 mm/yr (constant uniform acceleration, a = 3.2 mm/yr/yr)
AGW requires an increase in acceleration – not happening, still constant growth and acceleration.
>”To summarise:
3.93GtC/y average yearly increase in atmospheric carbon
8.79GtC/y average yearly increase in fossil fuel emissions
0.09GtC/y^2 average acceleration of rise in atmospheric carbon
0.23GtC/y^2 average acceleration of rise in fossil fuel emissions”
All approximated by constant linear rise.
>”8.79GtC/y average yearly increase in fossil fuel emissions”
This is wrong. AE is not increasing @ 8.79GtC/y, this is average AE flow as for C Budgets. AE is increasing @ 0.23GtC/y from summary. The annual C Budget Reports do not express AE increase as the total amount as you have done, They express increase as a positive percentage of the previous year’s amount. But if there was a decrease from the previous year as there was in 2009 then the it’s expressed as a negative percentage decrease.
Carbon Budget 2009 (page 5):
Emissions:8.4±0.5 PgC
Growth rate: -1.3%
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf
But we (not you possibly) have also been grappling with how to apportion AE to Atm, Land and Ocean. We know now that recently, around 2012, only 45% of each year’s AE remains in the atmosphere each year on average. The other 55% is taken up by the biosphere. We know C residence time is somewhere between 5 and 10 years. 2 corroborating papers (see Segalstad link upthread) show 5.4 years. We also know that although AE is the primary contributor to Atm C rise, it is not the only contributor. My contribution estimate was:
“81% contribution to atmosphere carbon rise from AE, 19% contribution from non-AE 2012”
From here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-631754
We also know that if AE stopped today and the Atm C growth rate turned negative i.e. depleting the Atm reservoir, the reservoir would not deplete to zero because there’s another non-AE Atm C contributor:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-630115
Simon’s link to the Royal Society FAQ Figure 9 appears to corroborate my calcs to a degree (even though it is not directly aplicable to your scenario):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-639927
We have Tans’ paper:
‘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
We have Hemi’s C Flow and Balance sheets for world carbon:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-630115
And having developed a rough-as-guts C modeling rationale (mine anyway) here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-631754
We can now move on to Modeling Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-642812
How have we done?
The model used is: F(x, y, t) = λrFbio(x, y, t) + λrFoce(x, y, t) + Fff (x, y, t) + Ffire(x, y, t).
So we’re not far off.
>”We know now that recently, around 2012, only 45% of each year’s AE remains in the atmosphere each year on average. The other 55% is taken up by the biosphere.”
‘Fraction of total CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere’ (Page 21)
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2010/CarbonBudget_2010.pdf
>”We know C residence time is somewhere between 5 and 10 years. 2 corroborating papers (see Segalstad link upthread) show 5.4 years.”
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
AR5 Figure 6.1:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg
Data sources:
Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide [after Law Dome]
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2010
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems
Data for Global Carbon Emissions 2006-2012
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html
>”We also know that although AE is the primary contributor to Atm C rise, it is not the only contributor.”
Corroborated by:
‘Modeling Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the United States’
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-642812
“Fbio represents the concentration attributable to the natural carbon cycle”
“According to conventional wisdom, the primary source for the upward trend should be fossil fuels burning.”
“…..the largest addition to the natural carbon cycle comes from the burning of fossil fuels.”
>”This is wrong. AE is not increasing @ 8.79GtC/y, this is average AE flow as for C Budgets. AE is increasing @ 0.23GtC/y from summary”
The difference between FLOW and flow GROWTH (or decay).
See Waikato River FLOW updated every three hours
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Regional-services/River-levels-and-rainfall/River-levels-and-flow—latest-reading/
Waikato River FLOW as @ 12:00 AM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3
Huntly, 180.2
We’ll come back in 3 hrs (3pm), 9 hrs (9pm), 21 hrs (9am), 24 hrs (12am), to see if there is a change in FLOW.
If so, then we’ll see if there’s flow GROWTH (or decay) i.e. an acceleration or deceleration, and if there is a change in flow growth; is it a) CONSTANT, or b) ACCELERATING (or decelerating).
Waikato River FLOW is directly comparable to AE (incl FF) FLOW and SLR rise @ constant 3.2 mm/yr (3.2 mm/yr/yr acceleration) i.e. no accelerating SLR acceleration means no anthropogenic “fingerprint”.
Waikato River FLOW GROWTH or decay (if there is any) is directly comparable to AE (incl FF) FLOW GROWTH @ 0.23GtC/y
Correction:
To summarise:
3.93GtC/y average yearly increase in atmospheric carbon
8.79GtC/y average yearly fossil fuel emissions
0.09GtC/y^2 average acceleration of rise in atmospheric carbon
0.23GtC/y^2 average acceleration of total fossil fuel emissions
The units remain the same though so you are still wrong Richard C. You can’t compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2
>”you are still wrong Richard C. You can’t compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2″
Yes I can compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2 in a direct per-year apples-to-apples basis because the data has been AVERAGED to LINEAR GROWTH. Averaging is not appropriate if the growth cannot be approximated by linear algebraic expression i.e. it might be greater or less than linear (see below). I can make a meaningful comparison in this case however because I’m using linear growth and because it’s a short timeframe (see below).
If there’s ZERO GROWTH there’s NO GROWTH RATE and NO GROWTH ACCELERATION. Zero growth is still CONSTANT FLOW however e.g. ZERO GROWTH FLOW @ 8 GtC/yr is 8, 8, 8, 8, …….each year @ 0 GtC/yr/yr GROWTH ACCELERATION. A somewhat redundant exercise but we can still compare ZERO GROWTH with other expressions of growth however (see below).
In this case there is POSITIVE GROWTH of GtC. When TOTAL GROWTH in GtC (total rise) is averaged to AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE in GtC/yr and AVERAGE CONSTANT LINEAR GROWTH ACCELERATION in Gt/’yr/yr the RATE and ACCELERATION values are the same because we have approximated by linear averaging (see below)
My original statement is here (derived from calcs above that after corrections):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-625804
First I’ll qualify (restate) the bottom line in view of subsequent calcs and understanding
Bottom Line:
“Fossil fuel emissions are not driving total carbon rise in the atmosphere, they are the primary driver at about 80% and the sun/ocean drives the other 20% according to calculations derived from Ahlbeck and corroborating statements from atmospheric modeling””.
Calcs derived from Ahlbeck here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-643896
Corroborating statements from atmospheric modeling here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-643125
Now to the comparison (AE includes FF), in respect to 2005 to 2013 incremental rises:
Atm carbon rise 2005 to 2013:
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
TOTAL GROWTH
35.36 GtC – Total Atm carbon rise 2005 to 2013
2.1 GtC – Total AE carbon rise 2005 to 2013 (9.9 – 7.8)
AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE
3.93 GtC per year (/yr) – Average Atm carbon LINEAR growth 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year (/yr) – Average AE carbon LINEAR growth 2005 to 2013
AVERAGE CONSTANT LINEAR GROWTH ACCELERATIONS:
3.93 GtC per year per year (/yr/yr) – Atm carbon LINEAR acceleration 2005 to 2013
0.23 GtC per year per year (/yr/yr) – AE carbon LINEAR acceleration 2005 to 2013
By averaging to LINEAR GROWTH, the RATE value and the ACCELERATION value are exactly the same respectively. I am NOT wrong IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE Nick.
In the first instance atmospheric carbon rise is stated in terms of ppm GROWTH RATE and AE carbon rise is also stated in terms of ppm GROWTH RATE.
In the second instance Atm carbon GROWTH is stated in terms of ppm/yr/yr LINEAR ACCELERATION and AE carbon GROWTH is also stated in terms of ppm/yr/yr LINEAR ACCELERATION.
GROWTH in either Atm Carbon or AE carbon or both, MAY NOT BE LINEAR GROWTH however, even over a short timeframe i.e. one or the other or both MAY BE POLYNOMIAL, OR CUBIC, OR EXPONENTIAL GROWTH in which case AVERAGING TO LINEAR GROWTH RATE WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. Growth that is not linear means there is ACCELERATING acceleration hence the “a” multipliers in non-linear accelerations (what I was thinking of when I got it all wrong a couple of nights ago upthread).
We have the following GROWTH expressionss to choose from:
ZERO
LINEAR
POLYNOMIAL
CUBIC
EXPONENTIAL
I was developing this exploration upthread here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-642224
‘Modeling Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the United States’ uses LINEAR, POLYNOMIAL
CUBIC, and EXPONENTIAL growth here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-642812
>”We’ll come back in 3 hrs (3pm), 9 hrs (9pm), 21 hrs (9am), 24 hrs (12am), to see if there is a change in FLOW.”
Waikato River FLOW as @ 12:00 AM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3
Huntly, 180.2
Waikato River FLOW as @ 3:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 12am
Huntly, 177.0 ……..-3.2 change from 12am
>”POLYNOMIAL, OR CUBIC, OR EXPONENTIAL GROWTH in which case AVERAGING TO LINEAR GROWTH RATE WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE”
In other words, the AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE will be very different to the INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION for each year when growth is NOT linear.
A comparison between average linear growth and exponential growth say, can be made but only year-by-year. For the years in the first part of the overall period INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION will be less than AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE. But for the later years INSTANTANEOUS ACCELERATION will be greater than AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE.
An exponential growth curve can be approximated to instantaneous linear growth rate each year using y = mx + b (v = u + at) and renewing the parameters each year in order to compare the respective growths, average linear vs exponential, in the same terms. At some point (year) along the exponential curve instantaneous growth will equal (or almost equal) average linear growth but at one year only. That year is the crossover of average linear growth by exponential growth.
Ultimately, although exponential growth is slow at the start, it is always eventually faster than any other non-linear growth e.g. polynom or cubic. Lots of discussions and papers on this on the net e.g.
Will 2^x take over x^1000 ?
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/111918/growth-of-exponential-functions-vs-polynomial
Difference between average, constant (uniform), and instantaneous ACCELERATION here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
Difference between zero, linear, polynomial, cubic, and exponential GROWTH here:
http://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/studentservices/els/programs/languagelabs/Math%20Reading/Math%20Reading%203/exponential.pdf
>”We’ll come back in 3 hrs (3pm), [6 hrs (6pm)], 9 hrs (9pm), 21 hrs (9am), 24 hrs (12am), to see if there is a change in FLOW.”
Waikato River FLOW as @ 12:00 AM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3
Huntly, 180.2
Waikato River FLOW as @ 3:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 12am
Huntly, 177.0 ……..-3.2 change from 12am
Waikato River FLOW as @ 6:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 3pm
Huntly, 175.7……..-1.3 change from 3pm
Waikato River FLOW updated every three hours
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Regional-services/River-levels-and-rainfall/River-levels-and-flow—latest-reading/
>”Difference between zero, linear, polynomial, cubic, and exponential GROWTH here:”
Should read “cubic polynomial”. Also a bit clearer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
Cubic is 3rd order polynomial (x^3), quadratic is 2nd order (v^2).
>”We have the following GROWTH expressionss to choose from:
ZERO
LINEAR
POLYNOMIAL
CUBIC
EXPONENTIAL”
Should read:
ZERO
LINEAR
POLYNOMIAL (CUBIC, QUADRATIC)
EXPONENTIAL”
Yes I can compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2
No Richard, you can’t. They represent entirely different things which is why they have different units.
>”We’ll come back in 3 hrs (3pm), [6 hrs (6pm)], 9 hrs (9pm), 21 hrs (9am), 24 hrs (12am), to see if there is a change in FLOW.”
Waikato River FLOW as @ 12:00 AM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3
Huntly, 180.2
Waikato River FLOW as @ 3:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 12am
Huntly, 177.0 ……..-3.2 change from 12am
Waikato River FLOW as @ 6:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 3pm
Huntly, 175.7……..-1.3 change from 3pm
Waikato River FLOW as @ 9:00 PM 5th March 2014
Location, FLOW (m3/sec)
Hamilton, 149.3 ………0 change from 6pm
Huntly, 178.9……..+3.2 change from 6pm
Waikato River FLOW updated every three hours
http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Regional-services/River-levels-and-rainfall/River-levels-and-flow—latest-reading/
Either, there’s ZERO GROWTH FLOW at Hamilton today, or the guage isn’t functioning. We’ll make an assessment and/or assumption tomorrow for Hamilton e.g. the Waipa tributary between Hamilton and Huntly might explain the flow variation at Huntly and the (apparent) constant flow at Hamilton.
OK, that’s enough data for today (5th), I’ll summarize tomorrow’s data after 12:00 AM tomorrow (6th) along with today’s data. We can interpolate (estimate) the missing data between 9pm today and 6am tomorrow (which I can catch anytime between 6am and 9am because it’s 3 hr update).
Me >”Yes I can compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2″
Nick >”No Richard, you can’t. They represent entirely different things which is why they have different units.”
Yes I can when GROWTH is LINEAR Nick (and even when it’s not – see the explanation linked below and the comments following it). When growth is linear, FLOW RATE and ACCELERATION RATE are EXACTLY the same. Read the explanation here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-643975
That and the comments following it is as clear as I can make it. If you can’t get your head around the relevant concepts then you will never understand why AGW requires ACCELERATING acceleration (as the IPCC models prescribe) of SLR and why sceptics are pointing to CONSTANT acceleration of SLR @ 3.1 mm/yr/yr and saying “no ACCELERATING acceleration as the models prescribe”, therefore “no AGW fingerprint in SLR”.
I’ll demonstrate hypothetical ACCELERATING acceleration of SLR tomorrow (6th). Meantime here’s the relevant concepts, in order, from my explanation:
AVERAGED LINEAR GROWTH (GtC/yr)
ZERO GROWTH (GtC)
ZERO GROWTH FLOW (GtC) – CONSTANT FLOW (GtC)
ZERO GROWTH ACCELERATION (GtC/YR/YR)
POSITIVE GROWTH – TOTAL GROWTH (GtC)
AVERAGE LINEAR GROWTH RATE (GtC/yr)
AVERAGE CONSTANT LINEAR GROWTH ACCELERATION {GtC/’yr/yr)
LINEAR GROWTH
POLYNOMIAL GROWTH (CUBIC, QUADRATIC)
EXPONENTIAL GROWTH
My Waikato River FLOW example is also demonstrating these concepts because it’s an apples-to-apples analogy to AE carbon FLOW either ZERO GROWTH or POSITIVE GROWTH.
>”Meantime here’s the relevant concepts”
Add:
ZERO FLOW
FLOW RATE (GtC/yr – positive for ZERO GROWTH – 0 for ZERO FLOW)
ACCELERATION RATE (GtC/yr/yr – 0 for ZERO GROWTH)
>”Meantime here’s the relevant concepts”
Add: COMPOUND GROWTH
>”you are still wrong Richard C. You can’t compare GtC/y with GtC/y^2″
Nick, a question for you now:
The rate of SLR is 3.2 mm/yr:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
What is the acceleration in mm/yr/yr (mm/y^2) ?
Richard C, your ignorance of basic physics is becoming less amusing and more boring and depressing. Let’s look at some of your more obvious errors:
Richard C says:
“AGW requires ACCELERATING acceleration”
”Strawman!” reference please.
Richard C says:
” sceptics are pointing to CONSTANT acceleration of SLR @ 3.1 mm/yr/yr”
Only the ones that can’t calculate acceleration properly.
Richard C says:
“When growth is linear, FLOW RATE and ACCELERATION RATE are EXACTLY the same”
Nope it only looks that way when you don’t know how to calculate acceleration properly and yelling doesn’t make it true.
Linear growth means constant, unvarying flow which by definition gives an acceleration of 0.
If someone is driving at a constant 50km/h then their acceleration is 0km/hr^2. Obviously.
Richard C says:
“The rate of SLR is 3.2 mm/yr:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
What is the acceleration in mm/yr/yr (mm/y^2) ?”
In this case rate (mm/yr) tells us nothing about the underlying acceleration. If you think it is 3.2mm/y^2 though you are deluded.
A better estimate would be using the numbers from here:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Page 11
Which gives us some rough numbers:
1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010
3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010
So something like (3.2 mm/yr -1.7 mm/yr)/110yr = 0.0136mm/yr^2 although that is likely to be low because of the periods the initial rates are calculated over.
Nick >“AGW requires ACCELERATING acceleration” ”Strawman!” reference please.”
Sure. IPCC: FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, AR5 e.g. AR5 here:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/evidence-of-scientific-approval-of-niwa-methodology/#comment-644290
>”sceptics are pointing to CONSTANT acceleration of SLR @ 3.1 mm/yr/yr” Only the ones that can’t calculate acceleration properly
OK that’s a misstatement. I’ll restate it correctly: sceptics are pointing to ZERO acceleration of SLR @ constant rate 3.1 mm/yr or y = 3.2x, a 1st order polynomial (quadratic) and acceleration 0 mm/yr/yr. But as above, AGW (RCP 8.5) requires progressively increasing acceleration at approx y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28, a 2rd order polynomial (quadratic) or y = -0.8333x^3 + 12.143x^2 + 2.9762x – 14, a 3rd order polynomial (cubic) by approximation of IPCC model projection.
>””When growth is linear, FLOW RATE and ACCELERATION RATE are EXACTLY the same” Nope it only looks that way when you don’t know how to calculate acceleration properly and yelling doesn’t make it true.” Linear growth means constant, unvarying flow which by definition gives an acceleration of 0. If someone is driving at a constant 50km/h then their acceleration is 0km/hr^2. Obviously
No you’re dead wrong Nick. There’s no linear growth of SLR, it’s a constant rate of 3.2 m/yr and no acceleration i.e. 0 mm/yr/yr acceleration (“constant, unvarying flow which by definition gives an acceleration of 0” – you said it yourself). See Uof C SLR:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
Linear growth in SLR would mean an acceleration from zero growth @ constant rate 3.2 mm/yr (as SLR is now) and 0 acceleration. So if we said (hypothetically) that SLR was “Linear growth” as you say it is (it isn’t) then we would have the calculations:
After Yr 1
v = u + at, a = 0.01 mm/yr/yr
v = 3.2 + 0.01 x 1
v = 3.21 mm/yr
After Yr 2
v = 3.21 + 0.01 x 1
v = 3.22 mm’yr
And so on. The expression for growth rate y = mx + b or y = 0.01x + b. Clearly that is not happening in the observations above because the SLR growth rate is zero (constant 3.2 mm/yr)
But the IPCC models require accelerating acceleration (a curve) anyway as above (RCP 8.5) y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28 or y = -0.8333x^3 + 12.143x^2 + 2.9762x – 14 by approximation.
>”The rate of SLR is 3.2 mm/yr: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png What is the acceleration in mm/yr/yr (mm/y^2) ?” In this case rate (mm/yr) tells us nothing about the underlying acceleration. If you think it is 3.2mm/y^2 though you are deluded. A better estimate would be using the numbers from here: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Page 11. Which gives us some rough numbers: 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010 So something like (3.2 mm/yr -1.7 mm/yr)/110yr = 0.0136mm/yr^2 although that is likely to be low because of the periods the initial rates are calculated over.
“3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010”
Yes, the satellite series as I have used – constant 3.2 mm/yr, zero acceleration.
“1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010”
Yes, the tide guage series – constant 1.7 mm/yr, zero acceleration.
No AGW “fingerprint” in either satellite SLR or tide guage SLR
You CANNOT subtract tide guage from satellite because there’s a 17 year overlap 1993 – 2010 when the satellite rate was constant 3.2 mm/yr and the tide guage rate was constant 1.7 mm/yr simultaneously, neither of which accelerating in that 17 years.
>””When growth is linear, FLOW RATE and ACCELERATION RATE are EXACTLY the same”
Probably a confusing misstatement too. Should be:
“”When growth is linear, FLOW [GROWTH] RATE and ACCELERATION RATE are EXACTLY the same”
E.g. flow growth rate 0.225 mm/yr, and flow acceleration rate 0.225 mm/yr/yr.
Obviously flow growth rate must be added to the initial flow rate (b or u) to get flow rate each time step using y =mx +b and v = u + at. So Yr2 velocity is 8.326 (8.325 = 8.1 + 0.225 x 1).
Flow rates are then Yr1 8.1, Yr2 8.325, and so on to 9.9.
Nick, SLR is topical under this later post here (re Christchurch floods):
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/evidence-of-scientific-approval-of-niwa-methodology/
Carries on from this thread.
>”sceptics are pointing to ZERO acceleration of SLR @ constant rate [3.2] mm/yr or y = 3.2x”
y = 3.2x is CUMULATIVE SLR here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
Flat Rate (3.2 mm/yr) each year is: 3.2, 3.2, 3.2, 3.2, …………zero acceleration.
Cumulative SLR (roughly) 1995 – 2014 (19 yrs):
y = 3,2x
y = 3.2 x 19
y = 60.8 mm
‘Modeling Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over the United States’
Compartmental Model
To model the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we will use a compartmental model discussed in the Peters, Jacobson, and Sweeney paper [8]. The model used is
F(x, y, t) = λrFbio(x, y, t) + λrFoce(x, y, t) + Fff (x, y, t) + Ffire(x, y, t).
Here, Fbio represents the concentration attributable to the natural carbon cycle, Foce denotes the reduction in carbon dioxide through oceanic absorption, Fff represents the addition of carbon dioxide through fossil uel burning, and Ffire denotes the release of carbon dioxide from forest fires. The λr value is a scalar that is unique to each specific location. The presence of λr could give the model a global scope. The Fff and Ffire components will increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, where the Foce will decrease the total concentration of CO2
http://www.siam.org/students/siuro/vol6/S01235.pdf
From the John Daly website – papers from the past:
‘Absorption of Carbon Dioxide from the Atmosphere’
Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck (D.Sc., Chem.Eng., Research Associate)
Sink flow rates during different centuries:
in the pre-industrial time (280 ppm): 10 % of emissions
today (365 ppm): 10 % of emissions + 4.25 GtC/a
in the future (2xCO2=560 ppm) 10 % of emissions + 14.0 GtC/a
If we imagine a future emission rate of 17 GtC/a at 560 ppm, there will be a net sink flow rate of 1.7 + 14 = 15.7 GtC/a. The “airborne fraction” would be only 8 % of the total emissions.
The IPCC-model implies a net sink flow rate of only 8.5 GtC/a for this situation !
http://www.john-daly.com/co2-conc/ahl-co2.htm
‘Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming’
Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck (D.Sc., Chem.Eng., Research Associate)
Results
The results are shown in the figure. As one could expect, a temperature increase of one degree celsius will increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the range of 8 ppm (150 m layer) to 18 ppm (600 m layer). The influence of the assumed layer thickness is great in the beginning, but for thicker layers the influence will level out. If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm.
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
‘Little Warming with new Global Carbon Cycle Model’
Peter Dietze Dipl.-Ing (abridged excerpt of ESEF Vol. II, 1997)
Greenhouse scientists have been using a constant airborne fraction of about 50% instead of a realistic CO2 lifetime, arriving at a nearly doubled concentration increment until 2100. Then, taking over twice the real temperature sensitivity and burning much more than the available carbon, the climate impact is boosted by up to a factor of 9.
The coupled Waterbox Model
To develop a new global Carbon Cycle Model, the waterbox model was extended (figure 2). Net photosynthesis of land biota amounts to about 60 Gt C/yr, marine photosynthesis is roughly 20 Gt C/yr. The three boxes represent the land biota (700 Gt C), the atmosphere (750 Gt C) and the mixed ocean layer (800 Gt C) which is closely coupled with the atmosphere by precipitation and gas diffusion, exchanging about 100 Gt C/yr with the atmosphere. In high latitudes the icy cold salt water takes up large amounts of CO2 . This is taken into the deep sea and mixing via the conveyor belt into all oceans. The central link is the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
In figure 2 the lower box contains all sinks. A reservoir that takes up CO2 for more than a few centuries is considered as a sink because we need to model no more than 150 years. These sinks are detrius, polar ice, deep sea and sediments including shells and corals. Figure 2 has no missing sinks. These are to be allocated to carbon-fertilized biomass, solubility in the mixed layer, polar water and ice as well as decreasing degassing of upwelling pre-industrial water against the increasing atmospheric concentration. The upwelling water is degassing in tropical latitudes with a time delay of 400 to 1000 years.
The deep sea is still mostly on a preindustrial CO2 level. This means the sink flows will be, in rough approximation, proportional to the atmospheric difference to the CO2 ocean bulk equilibrium [4]. Any greenhouse science statement that the surface water limits the CO2 uptake, thus becoming independent of concentration level (or even reducing with increasing concentration as in IPCC’s HILDA model), cannot be verified. So far, a vivid deep water formation has been observed.
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
>”If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm”
1620 – 2013 Atm rise 126.5 ppm. Assume 1 C temp rise since LIA.
28 / 126.5 = 0.22 or 22%
On those assumptions, 22% of atmospheric CO2ppm rise was due to ocean warming according to Ahlbeck.
And ocean warming was by increased solar energy input therefore 22% of atmospheric CO2ppm rise 1620 – 2013 was due to ocean warming by solar energy.
Hi Richard C
“If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm.”
Could you please give me a source or calc for that, my numbers are wildly different.
Hemi >”Could you please give me a source or calc for that, my numbers are wildly different”
In respect to:
“If we assume that the whole ocean (mean depth 3795 m) is in equilibrium with the atmosphere, a one degree celsius global warming will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 28 ppm.”
My source paper (complete with Review Comments) was at the John Daly website:
‘Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming’
Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck (D.Sc., Chem.Eng., Research Associate)
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
From this comment:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-643303
Richard C
The IPCC numbers for Global Oceanic and land biotic carbon sink seem to be based on the Manning Keeling Paper of 2006. In subsequent years it appears that that number is used as the base and annual numbers are produced by using some minor proxy measures to calculate anomolies from that initial measure now written in stone.
Currently plowing my way through the original paper.
Hemi >”Global Oceanic and land biotic carbon sink”
I discovered upthread we have to be careful when using the terms RESERVOIR and SINK i.e. there’s a distinction.
‘Little Warming with new Global Carbon Cycle Model’
Peter Dietze Dipl.-Ing (abridged excerpt of ESEF Vol. II, 1997)
“A reservoir that takes up CO2 for more than a few centuries is considered as a sink because we need to model no more than 150 years”
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
From this comment:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/02/refute-the-nonsense/#comment-643303
RC – I don’t follow the abstruse mathematics you’re describing, so let me ask about a side issue.
The expression “am” means “ante meridiem” or before noon, “pm” means “post meridiem” or after noon, but neither noon nor midnight occur before or after noon. One is precisely noon, the other is precisely midway between two noons (so it’s both after noon and before noon). So giving a time of 12am just confuses me. What do you mean?
>”The expression “am” means “ante meridiem” or before noon, “pm” means “post meridiem” or after noon, but neither noon nor midnight occur before or after noon. One is precisely noon, the other is precisely midway between two noons (so it’s both after noon and before noon). So giving a time of 12am just confuses me. What do you mean?”
Both myself and the Waikato Regional Council mean midday (noon) i.e. the END of the “ante meridiem” period. The “post meridiem” period begins 12:00 AM/00:00 PM.
The time in “Waikato River FLOW as @ 12:00 AM 5th March 2014″ is a direct copy of the data reading I caught just after midday 5th March.
>”I don’t follow the abstruse mathematics you’re describing”
Stay with it RT because it’s critical to any AGW “fingerprint” in SLR (there isn’t any). The Waikato River analogy is an apples-to-apples analogy to anthropogenic (AE) carbon FLOW either ZERO GROWTH or POSITIVE GROWTH or NEGATIVE GROWTH (with fluctuations) and also to POSITIVE GROWTH in SLR (with fluctuations).
Check in tomorrow (6th) when I demonstrate ACCELERATING acceleration of SLR as the IPCC’s CO2-forced models prescribe just to get an idea of what this is about. The divergence of model projections from observations of SLR is similar to the divergence of model projections from observations (tide guage – satellite) of GAT e.g.
http://www.climate.gov.ki/changing-climate/
Meantime, here’s a simple demonstration that might suffice anyway:
SLR is constantly accelerating @ 3.1 mm/yr/yr (straight line) but model projections exhibit ACCELERATING acceleration (curve) as the projections show in the graph linked above i.e where there’s a progressive multiplier or factor added to 3.1 mm/yr/yr, e.g.
1993 – 2014 SLR acceleration observations in mm/yr/yr (rate is mm/yr) from UofC graph linked below:
1993 3.1 mm/yr/yr
[…..1993 – 2014, 3.1 mm/yr/yr…..]
2014 3.1 mm/yr/yr
1993 – 1996 Hypothetical projected SLR acceleration observations in mm/yr/yr (rate is mm/yr) using a progressively rising factor added to SLR acceleration each year to (very roughly) approximate the model projections:
1993 3.1 mm/yr/yr = 3.10
1994 3.1 mm/yr/yr + 0.02 = 3.12
1995 3.1 mm/yr/yr + 0.06 = 3.16
1996 3.1 mm/yr/yr + 0.14 = 4.20 (Average rate by 1996 3.395, say 3.4 mm/yr)
When you graph that series, 3.10, 3.12, 3.16, 4.20, you get a progressively rising curve. That isn’t happening in satellite SLR from UofC here:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel1/sl_ns_global.png
It’s a constant 3.1 mm/yr rate (3.1 mm/yr/yr acceleration) i.e. no AGW “fingerprint”.
>”1993 – 2014 SLR acceleration observations in mm/yr/yr (rate is mm/yr) from UofC graph linked below: 1993 3.1 mm/yr/yr”
Dang, correction needed. Did that after midnight.
The rate from UofC is 3.2 mm/yr, not 3.1 sorry. But you get the picture.
SLR rate from UofC: 3.2 mm/yr 1993 – 2013 (20 yrs) constant.
AR5 SPM, page 22 (pdf):
Table SPM.2 | Projected change in………..global mean sea level rise for the mid- ……… 21st century relative to the reference period of 1986–2005. [1995.5]
Global Mean Sea Level Rise (m)b 2046–2065 [2039.45, 2039.45 – 1995.5 = 43.95 yrs]
Scenario, Mean
RCP2.6, 0.24 [240 mm = 5.46 mm/yr]
RCP4.5, 0.26 [260 mm = 5.92 mm/yr]
RCP6.0, 0.25 [250 mm = 5.69 mm/yr]
RCP8.5, 0.30 [300 mm = 6.83 mm/yr]
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
# # #
SLR rate projection from 1995.5: 5.46 – 6.83 mm/yr by 2040.
SLR rate last 20 yrs from 1993: 3.2 mm/yr constant
I rest my case.
“Both myself and the Waikato Regional Council mean midday (noon) i.e. the END of the “ante meridiem” period. The “post meridiem” period begins 12:00 AM/00:00 PM.”
The time 12:00 o’clock “midday (noon)” cannot be written as 12:00 am, because it cannot be both noon and before noon, because it cannot be both itself and something else, so you’re both wrong, aren’t you? The time 00:00 pm is similarly undefined.
Giving a time of 12:00 am or pm is in fact meaningless and certainly produces ambiguity because there’s no natural hint of the meanings you have given. The convention is that we simply say noon or midnight. The two times can even be abbreviated to 12 nn or 12 md to fit computer fields. There’s no need to speak ambiguously.
>”The convention is that we simply say noon or midnight”
The Waikato Regional Council used 12.00 AM for noon. It was clear to me (unambiguous) and I just copied their data. If you’ve got a bone to pick, pick it with them.
WRC are effectively rounding 11:59:59.99999 AM to 12.00 AM. It’s obvious when you see the WRC series for the morning:
3 AM
6 AM
9 AM
12 AM
Then for the afternoon:
3 PM
6 PM
9 PM
12 PM
Noon
“The length of the error is determined by the smallest unit of time: 12:00:01 p.m. would be correctly noted, as would even 12:00:00.00001 p.m”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noon
Simply resolved by using a 24 hr clock of course. Noon 12:00 hrs.
>”Noon 12:00 hrs” – Should be1200 hours (twelve hundred hours).
I shared a house with a couple of military guys years ago, one ex-NZ Army/UN Peacekeeper, the other ex-NZ SAS.
It was always – “back at eighteen hundred”.
Approximating the IPCC AR5 SLR growth curve projection here:
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/article_image_big/public/meansealevelrisegraph_0.png
RCP 8.5: increasing greenhouse gas emissions over time
Year, Rise (mm)
2000, 0
2010, 35
2020, 80
2030, 140
2040, 200
SLR Projection RCP 8.5
2rd order polynomial (quadratic)
y = 4.6429x^2 + 22.643x – 28
3rd order polynomial (cubic)
y = -0.8333x^3 + 12.143x^2 + 2.9762x – 14
Actual SLR from observations 1993 – 2013
y = 3.2x
https://www.dropbox.com/s/embfk7ns81m5y9k/Copy%20of%20Carbon%20financial%20model%202012%20updated.xls
Please let me know if this does not open
It updates the model to 2002 to 2012, removes some extraneous stuff and updates error calculations. The sensitivity of co2 to ambient temperature change is reduced considerably as a result of reading above.
The land sea sink are the major unknowns and land sink is used as variable parameter.
Opens OK Hemi.
No average model prediction will ever be anywhere near correct because models are based on an incorrect assumption of isothermal conditions in the absence of greenhouse “pollutants” like water vapour and carbon dioxide.
When my book is available late April there will be advertised in Australian media and on websites a $5,000 reward for anyone in the world who can use valid physics to debunk the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect (on which my hypothesis is based) and produce a similar study to mine which does not show a negative correlation between temperature and precipitation records, but rather one which is in keeping with the implied greenhouse sensitivity of about 10 degrees of warming for every 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere, this calculation being based on a mean of 2.5% water vapour causing 25 degrees of the claimed 33 degrees of warming.
The WUWT article about the Loschmidt effect was flawed in that it overlooked the thermal gradient in solids. When you connect a conductor to the top and bottom of a cylinder of gas you create a new combined system. Then a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with a thermal gradient based on the weighted mean specific heat of the gas and metal) evolves and perpetual circulation of energy is of course impossible.
My four molecule thought experiment clearly demonstrates why the gravito-thermal effect is valid and has set up thermal gradients in tropospheres over the life of planets throughout our Solar System. This occurs by convection, where I use the term as physicists do to embrace both diffusion and advection. Such convection is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy) in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. An isothermal troposphere would not be what the Second Law indicates would evolve.
All this is a matter of thermodynamics at a level requiring at least a major in physics. Only five out of 29 on the SkS team have such qualifications, as I do also, and Neal King is one of them. You can see how he fumbled on Lucia’s blog and his final post has possibly bluffed you, but it depends on a totally false claim that some molecules accelerate downwards under gravity, whilst he incorrectly claims an equal number decelerate – yes, slow down, when “falling” towards the surface.
Climatologists are incorrect in assuming isothermal conditions in tropospheres and even in sealed cylinders. Graeff did at least find some gradient in virtually all his 850 experiments. He got his physics theory wrong, but not his measurements. Advection is measurable net molecular movement which appears to amount to gas flowing over the sloping thermal plane, always in all accessible directions away from any new source of thermal energy which disturbed the previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
It is not a waste of time to consider the validity of the gravito-thermal effect, because it does away with any need to explain the observed thermal gradients in tropospheres using radiation calculations relating to heated surfaces. Of course you can’t do that for Uranus, because there is no direct Solar radiation or any surface at the base of its nominal troposphere. You need to think outside the sphere that is Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a simplistic rule that heat always transfers from warmer to cooler regions if there is a temperature difference.
In the early pre-dawn hours the lower troposphere still exhibits the expected thermal gradient, but meteorologists know that convection stops. Yes energy flow stops even though there is warmer air at lower altitudes. That is because there is thermodynamic equilibrium, and when we have thermodynamic equilibrium – well, you can look up in Wikipedia all the conditions and things that happen.
The real Second Law of Thermodynamics takes quite a bit of understanding and many hours, maybe years of study. You guys have absolutely no understanding of it, as I can detect from my decades of helping students understand physics.
To understand it you have to really understand entropy for starters. Then you have to really understand thermodynamic equilibrium and all the other states, such as mechanical equilibrium, thermal equilibrium etc which the Second Law embraces. That is why, for example, you cannot disregard gravity and gravitational potential energy when determining the state of maximum entropy attainable by an isolated system.
If you want to stay in the mid-19th century when much of this physics was not widely understood, and if you want to imagine, for example, that radiative heat transfer does not obey the Second Law, then all I can say is that you must live in a strange and isolated planet, because you sure can’t answer my questions about other planets with your climatology paradigm.
When you truly understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics then, and only then, will you start to understand how it explains the so-called lapse rate and how the pre-determined thermal profile supports surface temperatures everywhere, not back radiation from a cooler atmosphere. Thus you will understand why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.