THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hi Peter,
You wrote, “I think we can safely say that thanks to Loehle, we now all know that temperatures of the last decade are warmer than the warmest of the MWP.”
Apparently you did not read Loehle.
Read it again, Peter, and you will see that he does not conclude “that temperatures of the last decade are warmer than the warmest of the MWP”. Quite to the contrary. Even his “revised” study shows the MWP marginally warmer than today.
But, as I wrote, the physical and historical evidence is much more important that proxy studies. And these data show a MWP a few tenths of a degree C warmer than the late 20th century.
Just the facts, Peter, that’s all.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Regarding Peter’s comment:
It doesn’t matter much to the Alarmist because their argument and the “solutions” that they propose have nothing to do with the “environment”…..the ends justify the means in their case.
As their assertions and prophecies unravel and are proven false, they are continuously back peddling with claims such as “well it would be getting warmer except for (this or that) “unexpected” occurrence” ……occurrences/conditions that their computer models failed to predict (even though their entire theory is based upon these same computer models)…..a circular argument of deceit.
To begin with, the finger of condemnation was pointed at the United States as the greatest “offender” as we emitted the lion’s share of CO2. This distinction was recently surpassed by China; however, the focus as the “worst” offender has remained the United States based on “per capita” calculations…..no matter the statistics or ratios, the United States and Western society will remain the “great Satan” in the eyes of these political ideologist….they understand that our form of government and freedom affords them the greatest chance of success in their crusade against democracy, individual freedom, capitalism as well as freedom to choose ones own destiny. They know that petitioning a government such as China would be met with harsh consequences and absolutely no success, so they focus on using the open media and clever marketing to “sell” their snake oil.
The Alarmists, (Socialists) are intensely resentful of successful, prosperous societies and demonize the achievements of western society through class envy and class warfare now on a global scale…… whereas previously this occurred on only a national basis.
You’ll notice that Peter’s comments over a year ago focused on “leaving politics out of it”; however, the majority of his comments are interlaced with political diatribes.
These people are ideological revolutionaries…..having lost their cause celeb with the demise of the Soviet Union and Communist China, they now turn to a phony, concocted situation to bring about political and social “change”. They previously cowered behind phraseology such as “social justice” and “equality”; however, these buzzwords and rhetoric have nothing to do with either justice or equality…..it’s about blaming others for their own shortcomings; now they are using an intangible condition……”climate change” to further their political doctrine and religious beliefs. The same tactic applies to the “civil rights” movement….whereas previously, the demand was for “equal opportunity”…..achieving that, now the cry is for equal outcome regardless of effort.
The religion of AGWism has nothing to do with “saving the planet”, it is about political ideology, money and power…..demonizing and scapegoating one group in an effort to mobilize another group to achieve a political goal.
That’s why Peter states that past climate records and present observations are immaterial.
Watching the news this morning and counting the times that the word “crisis” has been coined…..amazing.
Credit “crisis”, Climate “crisis”, Economic “crisis”, Political “crisis”, Energy “crisis”, Religious “crisis”, Military “crisis”, Environmental “crisis”, Planetary “crisis”, Morality “crisis, Racial “crisis”……..on and, and on and on……………….
Re: #2725, Peter
The climate reconstruction that Craig Loehle published in E&E was discussed extensively at ClimateAudit while it was in preparation. He is a long-time contributor to that blog and it is reasonable to suspect that, in the present febrile atmostphere that surrounds climate research, this would be reason enough for the top climate journals to shun his work.
To be fair to Loehle, I don’t remember that he made any claims that his paper would up-end the orthodox paleoclimate reconstructions; there were far too few suitable non-dendro proxies, and they were spatially too limited, for that to be even remotely possible.
At that time, even climate scientists of the stature of Rob Wilson and Judith Currey were expressing concerns about the reliability of dendro proxies, and at CA too. These were not people who could possibly be described as sceptics.
If climate research was conducted in the same way as research in other disciplines, then the idea of testing the robustness of dendro proxies by comparing them with findings from non-dendro proxies would be a very obvious next step. Sadly, testing mainstream paleoclimatology in any way is presently considered to be heresy rather than good science.
As I remember the discussions that took place at CA, the hope was that Loehle’s paper might encourage some of the younger paleoclimateologists, — who were also showing signs of restlessness at the constraints being imposed on their discipline by the likes of Mann, Jones, Bradley and, of course, Gavin Schmidt and the team at RealClimate — to pick up the ball and run. Sadly this has not happened.
You are mistaken in trying to characterise Loehle’s paper as a failed attempt to emulate the Hockey Stick. That was not what it was about, but it did have one interesting side effect. Steve McIntyre borrowed the phrase ‘the silence of the lambs’ to describe high profile climatologists who are prepared to express concerns privately about what is happing in their profession, but are not willing to take the risk of doing so publicly. And that label has stuck.
Craig Loehle is made of rather sterner stuff, but there is no doubt that he will pay a high price for it.
Hi Peter,
From Abstract:
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1 data are available in a CSV file.
Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.
”Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.”
From second report:
“A climatic reconstruction in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillenial average during most of the period 820-1040 AD. The Little Ice Age was significantly cooler than the average during most of 1440-1740 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.”
Hope this clears this story up for you, once and for all, i.e. Loehle finds MWP warmer than current warm period.
Regards,
Max
Peter 2725
I am using ‘real’ temperatures.
After making his unfortunate mistake with the American 1930’s algorithm Hansen was asked to look at the algorithm for 1930’s ‘global temperatures’ but has felt unable to do so. No doubt he is too busy going round predicting sea level rises of 20 foot and trying to stop the Brits building the much needed Kingsnorth power stations that will help fend off the impending energy shortages.
All this material was posted in great depth previously if you would like to re read it.
I would be interested to read one or two links from you concerning your understanding of how ‘global temperatures’ are compiled and the similarities in the manner temperature data was collected in the 1930’s and currently.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
When comparing numbers, it is always better to go to the basic data (if available), rather than trying to “eyeball” charts.
Loehle’s raw data show a 30-year average anomaly for the period 840-870AD of 0.519C, relative to his baseline.
The 1935 reading of Loehle is 0.114C.
The 1935 reading of Hadley is –0.187C
This means the adjustment to convert from Hadley to Loehle is the difference or 0.301C.
Hadley shows a 30-year average anomaly for the period 1970-2000 of 0.083C, relative to the Hadley baseline.
Correcting this to the Loehle baseline equals 0.384C.
Compared to the modern tridecade 1970-2000, the MWP tridecade 840-870 at 0.519C, is 0.135C warmer.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Back again with some more numbers, comparing the MWP temperature with that of modern times, according to Loehle.
Instead of using simply the year 1935 difference between Loehle and Hadley to arrive at the adjustment between the baselines used for the two records, I could have used the average difference over the entire 1850-1935 time frame, where both records exist.
I then get a correction between the Loehle and Hadley baseline of 0.219C (instead of 0.301C); is this possibly due to some early signs of the Hadley distortion due to the UHI effect? Who knows.
At any rate, this would then show that the tridecadal period 840-870AD was 0.217C warmer than the tridecadal period 1970-2000.
Or I could have used the last 30 years before Loehle made his study (1976-2005) as the tridecadal modern period.
Here the Hadley average anomaly was 0.182C.
Correcting for the different baselines makes this 0.182C + 0.219C = 0.401C.
This is 0.118C lower than the MWP tridecadal period 840 to 870AD of 0.519C.
So Peter, you see, no matter how you twist or turn it, Loehle is right when he says that the MWP was a bit warmer than the current warm period.
If you want to check this all out to see if my calculations (and Loehle’s conclusions) are correct, check out the basic data as reported by Loehle and Hadley (rather than adding an arbitrary 0.4C to an eyeballed figure for 1935).
It’s always the basic raw data that tell the real story, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
I must say that Loehle has succeeded spectacularly where I have failed. I really struggled to convince you guys that you should forget about yearly averages and apply some smoothing to your graphs. I seem to remember even monthly ones being quoted when it suited you.
But now we read you discussing tridecadal temperatures! That’s 30 years.
The temperature increase per decade in the late 20th century was higher than the 0.135 degC figure that you are now claiming. If what you are saying about the last tridecade of the 20th century is true this would correspond to the world temperature in 1985. By the end of the 20th century the temperatures of the MWP had been exceeded.
So it looks that Loehle and Mann are in agreement in saying that temperature anomalies of the late 20th century are unprecedented.
If Dr Loehle contributes to Climate Audit, I might just put this argument to him and we’ll see what he says.
Brute,
You are right. (That’s not a sentence I use often about you!) I did start off trying to keep the politics out of the discussion. I have always suspected that politics was the real driver of climate denialism though, and after I while I decided to tackle the issue head on rather than try to pretend it didn’t exist.
JZ,
I did have a good look at your website. It was more evidence of what I was just saying to Brute. It is politics, rather than science, that is your underlying motivation for wanting to cast as much doubt as you can on the scientific evidence for AGW.
TonyB,
Look, if you don’t like Hansen just use the Hadley data. Or take an average of the two. I’ve no problem with that. But please do try to remember that it is global warming we are discussing and not American warming.
Hi Peter,
You are correct when you say (2734) “that Loehle has succeeded spectacularly where” you (Peter) “have failed”.
He quoted tridecadal averages to show that the MWP was warmer than the latest warm period, where you tried unsuccessfully to claim otherwise.
The rest of your post is silly “blah-blah”.
Your “statement of faith”, “By the end of the 20th century the temperatures of the MWP had been exceeded”, is not supported by the study of Loehle. Sorry.
Other studies (forget the discredited Mann blunder) also confirm this.
You write, “So it looks that Loehle and Mann are in agreement in saying that temperature anomalies of the late 20th century are unprecedented.” Huh? Get serious, Peter.
Read Loehle. Check his figures and conclusions, and you will see that this is not correct, despite the fact that you are desperately hoping it is. Others have also shown that Mann’s conclusion is false.
The MWP (according to Loehle) was somewhere around 0.1C to 0.3C warmer than the late 20th century, as he reported.
Those are the facts, Peter.
Do yourself a favor, Peter, and dig out the basic data that are reported, rather than just blindly believing what you “want” to believe.
It makes you look sort of silly otherwise.
As a sidetrack (to avoid the MWP / current comparison) you threw in, “The temperature increase per decade in the late 20th century was higher than the 0.135 degC figure that you are now claiming”. Peter, it always depends which record you take over which period. The Hadley record over 1970-2000 shows 0.145 degC per decade, while the UAH record shows a slightly lower rate of increase of 0.130degC per decade. No big deal.
But just so you will understand it I will write this in caps.
THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE, NAMELY THE COMPARISON OF THE TEMPERATURES OF THE MWP AND THOSE OF OUR CURRENT WARM PERIOD, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE MWP WAS A BIT WARMER.
Got it?
It’s really not that complicated, Peter, once you clear your mind of the clutter from discredited hockey-stick studies, such as that of Mann, and other “spaghetti copy-hockey-sticks”, which try to resuscitate Mann’s long-buried hoax.
Regards,
Max,
Quoting Loehle, “The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade”.
Can you understand this, Peter, or is it too complicated?
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
We’re beating a dead horse here, but since you object to Loehle using a tridecadal average to show that the MWP was warmer than the current warm period, let’s use the single year 858AD as compared to the latest year 2008.
We see that 858AD had a Loehle anomaly of 0.558C.
And 2008 (latest 12 months) had a Hadley anomaly of 0.314C.
Correcting for the difference in the baselines between Hadley and Loehle, we add 0.219C to the 2008 Hadley figure and arrive at 0.533C.
Still lower than Loehle’s figure for the year 858AD.
Again, no matter how you parse it or slice it, the MWP was a bit warmer than the current temperature.
This is my absolute last post on this subject, which is becoming very repetitive and boring.
You can wiggle and squirm as much as you want to, Peter, but you can’t change the facts.
Regards,
Max
Max #2716
In calculating the various co2 sinks you asked where does the rest of the man made emissions go?
With a half life of 40 years or so around half created to date have disappeared- see my graph look, along the co2 line to 1960 and it can be seen that represents around half of what we’ve put into the atmosphere since 1750 (so britains 0.5 a molecule created since 1750 I calculated earlier become 0.25)
Does additional co2 go into space? Into the oceans? Into increased plant growth? Hide under the door mat?
The answer on whether it goes into space depends on the velocity speed. The calculations are here;
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/evol/evol_lecture_new.html
Obviously its all so simple I’ll let you do the calculations and tell me the answer and I’ll tell you whether you’re right or not…
TonyB
Max,
I’m not sure why you think I’m trying to wriggle out of anything here. You might think it an odd point of view, but I am more interested in the future than the past. But you guys certainly seem to have taken exception to the use of the phrase “unprecedented warmth” so lets just get to the bottom of it all as best we can.
The Loehle graph ends at 1935 at the temperature anomaly value of +0.1 If you look at both the Hadley value for 1935 and the GISS value for 1935 you can see approximately 0.5 degs difference between then and the end of the century. Although they don’t seem to agree on the +0.1 figure. Maybe they have a different zero? Nevertheless the difference would still be the same.
This does put the CWP as being warmer than the MWP. Don’t forget that it is you guys who consider this to be a very important point to be sure about.
This has also been extensively discussed on Climate Audit too:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641
and this graph from posting(#230) on the topic illustrates this very effectively:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/sodshappy.png
Just thought that I should clear that point up. After all, facts are, as you say, facts! :-)
You are more interested in the future because the past blows the AGW theory away.
Pete Reur 2739
Thanks for your link to the Craig Loehle discussion @ ClimateAudit
I’ve been truly enjoying reading through the first 144 posts over about the past three hours, (on a blank Sunday avo’), although I should really return to #95 to study some of the links therein in more detail. I estimate that at this rate, it may take me another two or three days to fully enjoy the discussion there.
I currently have copy-pasted to file, a bunch of posts for rational consideration that I especially wonder if you have read. (or have simply misunderstood/dismissed because they do not align with your dogma)
I may be in a position to ask you some questions in several days from now concerning your recent attempt to deride the work of Loehle.
It will not matter much if you ignore my comments or waffle-off, as is your normal practice.
Other readers on this site can make their own judgements, including that no response from you indicates that you have nothing sensible to say.
Meanwhile, I give you the benefit of the doubt that you have CAREFULLY studied Steve McIntyre’s article and the ensuing 355 comments. (355 as of a moment ago).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pete, Reur 2734, you wrote in part:
Did you write: If Dr Loehle contributes to Climate Audit?
Well yes, he does, as you would well know, if you had adequately visited that site that you quote.
Gee, you are a really funny guy Pete!
Did you get your killer information indirectly from the RC church?
Hi Peter,
In his 2008 correction to his earlier study, Craig Loehle concludes: “A climatic reconstruction published in E&E (Loehle, 2007) is here corrected for various errors and data issues, with little change in the results. Standard erors and 95% confidence intervals are added. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was significantly warmer than the bimillenial average during most of the period 820 – 1040 AD. The warmest tridecade of the MWP was warmer than the most recent tridecade, but not significantly so.”
Is there any part of that that you have difficulty understanding, Peter?
Sure, ithe MWP was only a fraction of a degree warmer than the present (according to Loehle’s study), but it was warmer.
Those are the facts according to Loehle, Peter, not some rehashed curves or discussions on ClimateAudit.
Tell me, why are you in DENIAL of Loehle’s conclusion, when it has been expressed so clearly and concisely?
Do you have some some emotional, socio-political or theological attachment to an “unprecedented” current warm period, which is threatened by Loehle’s conclusion?
Just curious why you would react so irrationally to a slightly warmer MWP.
Regards,
Max
Bob_FJ,
“….attempt to deride the work of Loehle.”
Not at all. I’d just like to see it published in a something better recognised than Energy and Environment.
For what it is worth I do think that there is probably more of a MWP that is shown in the Mann hockey stick graphs. That ties in better with the Greenland and European records. I’m also intrigued by Roman ports in the Med, some of which are now under water and some of which are inland. I know that there is evidence of Roman harbours in the UK that are now inland.
Also the sea gates at Harlech Castle which I remember visiting some years ago are now some distance from the sea.
These phenomena tends to be attributed to silting up of harbours rather than changes in sea level. I agree that is a worthy topic for more investigation.
It doesn’t mean that because there may have been a warm period in the middle ages that it is Ok to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we do though!
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “I am more interested in the future than the past.”
GREAT!
Then I take it you will refrain from unsuccessfully trying over and again to change the conclusion reached by the Loehle study of a marginally warmer MWP than today, and we can talk instead about IPCC model studies for “the future” and the “success rate” (or lack thereof) of these models in predicting the future.
Let’s start with the recent IPCC prediction of a 0.2C per decade rise in global temperature over the first two decades of the 21st century.
The period 2001-2008 showed an actual cooling of 0.05C.
What happened? Are the models really that awful?
Regards,
Max
Max #your 2715 in response to my #2698 that demonstrated the tiny amounts of c02 and GHG we are talking about.
Lets assume the ice cores are right and 280ppm is the pre industrial level, so we have put 100ppm of ‘extra’ carbon into the atmosphere that shouldn’t be there. Lets also assume that mans co2 input is removed after 50 years.
If you look at my graph again
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
and look back to 1960-in effect everything to the left hand side has therefore been removed. I make that around 40% of the total (if you are able to make an exact calculation I will use that!)
So if we have added 100ppm since 1750 that means arounbd 40ppm has been removed. So the real ‘natural’ level today should be 340 not 380.
If you extrapolate backwards and remove half the man made co2 emissions every 50 years we end up with the following;
2008 ‘natural’should be 340 but is 380 (actual)
1960- should have been 298 but is 315 (actual)
1910 should be 285 but was 290 (estimate)
if you look at it in that context and draw a line through those points our impact on co2 levels and resultant temperatures becomes even more difficult to see. Also the already rather vague relationship betwen natural co2 levels and temperature becomes ever more removed.
Would you agree with this calculation or would you like to supply me with something a little more accurate?
I intend to do another mencken graph with those parameters, but before I do that I would appreciate your input.
It would also be interesting to repeat that exercise with the correct proportion of co2 to overall GHG but first things first!
TonyB
Peter #2743
I have posted numerous historical references to Romans, Harlech castle, Greenland, contemporary MWP references and sea levels.
All we have ever said is that the MWP was slighhtly warmer than today. That the Roman warm period was rather warmer than the current day, and that other Holocene maximums were somewhat warmer than the Roman warm period. That means that todays temperatures are by no means unprecedented.
As a historian I dislike the work of Dr Mann who concocted a theses that went against evertything we knew. As I have posted before, I suspect this was intended as something he would work on in obscurity over the years and became startled when it became an Icon and he was catapulted to fame.
When somebody has invested their time and reputation on something, it is very difficult to admit you were wrong. Hansen should know better as he has been around longer, and it is a shame Al Gore didnt take the lessons from his own 1992 book ‘Earth in the balance’ This is that temperatures have risen and fallen in the past (and great civilisations with it) without any benefit at all from human activity.
From research it is clear to see how Charles Keeling was influenced by Callandars ‘global warming due to increasing co2’ theory.It was put together by an amateur who went on the lecture circuit with it and he was determined to prove it with no evidence whatsover-as is clear from the numerous historic documents I have found.
Pollution etc is a different thing and no one on this forum condones the profligate use of our resources.
TonyB
This article (Germany wants CO2 relief for energy guzzling firms), reporting Chancellor Merkel’s chief spokesman’s comment that “We’ve got to prevent companies from being threatened by climate protection requirements”, illustrates the near-impossibility of the world getting anywhere near the reductions in GHG emissions demanded by activists. Benny Peiser (see my post 2714) observes:
Hi TonyB,
Reur 2745:
The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy publishes a table showing world CO2 emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels by country since 1980. Last update posted was September 18, 2007, which contains data through 2005.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
These figures do not include CO2 emissions from cement production, which are estimated to be around 5% of the world total.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303
http://ies.lbl.gov/node/233
If we add up the EIA data for the 26-year period 1980-2005 we get 567.5 GtCO2. Adding in the CO2 from cement production puts the man-made CO2 at around 600 GtCO2 over the period.
IPCC tells us that CO2 is a “well-mixed” greenhouse gas, so let’s assume that these human CO2 emissions are dispersed throughout our atmosphere.
We know that Earth’s atmosphere represents a total mass of 5.1480×1018 kg, or 5,148,000 Gt.
The 600 Gt CO2 should have increased atmospheric CO2 by:
600 / 5.148 = 116.7 ppm(mass)
Adjusting for different molecular weight = 76.8 ppmv
Mauna Loa tells us that atmospheric CO2 concentration was:
338 ppmv in 1980
379 ppmv in 2005
For a net increase of 41 ppmv
So the % of the emitted CO2 that stayed in the atmosphere is 41 / 76.8 = 53.4%
Since human CO2 is such a small part of our planet’s carbon cycle, it is very difficult to answer the question, “what happened to the missing CO2?”
IPCC assumes that it has a half-life of several hundred years (i.e. it stays somewhere in our planet’s oceans, soils and atmosphere for several hundred years before being dissipated into space and leaving our planet). This half-life estimate seems to be a fairly arbitrarily picked figure. I have seen other estimates of as low as 30-40 years.
The oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as our atmosphere. Annually the oceans absorb and re-emit an estimated 800 GtCO2 (25 times the amount emitted by humans). We know that warmer oceans should emit more CO2 than colder oceans, which could contribute to an increase in atmospheric CO2 with global temperature.
IPCC 2007 SPM states: “Warming tends to reduce land and ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, increasing the fraction that remains in the atmosphere.”
IPCC further tells us that climate models are programmed to include these “stronger climate-carbon cycle feedbacks”.
Photosynthesis absorbs 7.5 times the amount of CO2 emitted by humans, with animal respiration and plant decay slightly under this amount. We know that photosynthesis should occur more rapidly with higher CO2 concentrations and temperatures, which could contribute to a decrease in atmospheric CO2 with global temperature.
So it is very difficult to make a long term carbon balance for our planet.
The AGW assumption is that everything was in balance until man started burning large quantities of fossil fuel, which has thrown everything off balance.
AGW hypothesis suggest that if only 53% of the CO2 emitted by humans stays in the atmosphere, that means that the rest was absorbed by the oceans (even if it cannot be measured in any way).
This is an unsubtantiated and overly simplistic view of how our planet’s carbon cycle works.
Now back to your calculation. I can roughly confirm your 40% number, as follows:
The data I have on total cumulated fossil fuel consumption up to year 2005 show that these should have generated the following cumulated CO2:
981 Gt CO2 from coal
687 Gt CO2 from oil
171 Gt CO2 from natural gas
1839 Gt CO2 from fossil fuels
100 Gt CO2 from cement production (guess)
1939 Gt CO2 total man-made CO2 to year 2005
Mass of atmosphere:
5,140,000 Gt
Theoretical increase of atmospheric CO2 from human emissions:
1939 / 5.14 = 377 ppm(mass) = 248 ppmv
“pre-industrial” atmospheric CO2 (per IPCC) = 280 ppmv
Year 2005 atmospheric CO2 (per Mauna Loa) = 379 ppmv
Increase “caused by man?” = 99 ppmv
% that stayed in atmosphere = 99 / 248 = 40%
As the song goes: “Where has all the carbon gone…?”
As indicated above, a shorter term comparison (25 years) shows around 53% stays in atmosphere, while the longer-term comparison shows that only 40% does. A real short-term comparison (5 years) shows that 56% stays in the atmosphere. This may show that the CO2 is leaving the “system” somehow, but it would be almost impossible to calculate a “half life” with all the many variables that are so much greater than the small amount of human CO2 emission.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Max
Hi Max #2748
Thanks for all the great calculations. As you say half life is difficult to definitively count even with thousands of scientists doing the expensive counting! If I use fifty years I don’t think we are far wrong.
So the 60% Co2 remaining and the 40% disappeared since 1960 is probably roughly right. I only want an approximate rule of thuimb at present. I will redo the graph on that basis and see what it looks like.
I also hope to post the Mencken graph with added Beck tomorrow!
TonyB
Re Robin 2747
Ach du lieber!
De Tschermans vant relief from karbon kaps for deir induschtries – vere vill diss all lead?
(Vy not tschust skrap de karbon kaps?)
Max