Bishop Hill A new look at the carbon dioxide budget
Jul 30, 2013 Climate: carbon budget As readers are probably aware, I don't spend a lot of time on new hypotheses about global warming. Apart from intermittent looks at Svensmark's cosmoclimatology work, I've tended to concentrate on mainstream science and its relationship with policy, as well as a lot of "meta" stuff like peer review.
However, I was recently sent a paper by reader David Coe that piqued my interest. It seemed to me to be put together pretty well, and was about an area of the science that I knew nothing about. Being somewhat wary about this kind of thing though, I've sought expert opinion, and this suggests that at least some of what is said is good and new and interesting. So I am going to post the paper up, with the caveat that it is only a discussion paper and parts of it may be wrong. Readers are cordially invited to throw stones at it.
The paper is written in four parts, which I will post at a rate of one every 3-4 days.
Here is the first part, which sets out the problem.
Reader Comments (122)
Water reaches its maximum density at around 4C so water around this temperature will sink to the bottom. Less than 4 and it will rise to the surface, more than 4 and it will rise to surface.
TerryS
The 4 deg maximum density applies to pure water. Sea water has a maximum density at less than 0 degC. In any case the issue is about what happens to the 6.8 x 10^17 kj of energy inputted annually into the oceans by conduction through the seabed. Why does this not warm the ocean?
Dr Murry Salby also presented arguments that the IPCC CO2 budget was plain wrong.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2155636
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
A small thing: I changed "dig" to "deg" in the 3rd par. on page 13
Having had a quick skim, this paper seems to match my (unsupported) beliefs quite closely.
These are that:
1 - Humans are indeed generating more CO2 than they were 200 years ago.
2 - CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', which effect can be shown in Lab conditions.
3 - HOWEVER, the Earth has many complex negative feedbacks which, in total, maintain many natural phenomena such as temperature and CO2 concentration between fixed bands. This means that any human interaction with the climate (so long as we do not create some huge input, such as crashing the Moon into the Earth) is likely to be lost in the noise as these negative feedbacks reassert themselves.
So I happily believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and yet human output has NO detectable effect on the climate at all, which is a position totally ignored by all surveys...
Also a quick skim. Apart from Martin's comment about Salby disputing the IPCC CO2 analysis, note also that historical chemical measurements (Beck) and stomata data also give very different answers (to the ice core analysis favoured by the IPCC).
Also, why should photosynthesis in C3 plants be more efficient for C12 than for C13? Chemically they are exactly the same.
why should photosynthesis in C3 plants be more efficient for C12 than for C13?
Although their chemical properties are the same, their physical properties are not. Therefore reaction rates can differ.
Tadpoles die in heavy water, though its chemical properties are the same as ordinary water.
I like it. I have always wondered about the carbon cycle and feel this is not well researched. It is almost a hand waving assumption underpinning the entire CAGW theory.
The one thing that has always bugged me is if, as Coe points out, CO2 absorption is such a large part of process that has kept CO2 conctrations in stead state (so large it manages the easily measured seasonal swings in global CO2 concentrations), should human deforestation over earlier centuries have caused a massive departure from the supposed steady state?
Shouldn't we have noticed the effect in CO2 concentrations appearing in proxy data well before the mid 20th century?
Apropos the deforestation question:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
In terms of Coe's presentation that is a 50% reduction in the "NPP" part of the flux that has supposed to have help balance the carbon cycle in a steady state. I don't think it has been well explained how this much large shock had no measurable affect on the carbon cycle but an increase in the puny human emissions is massive and dangerous.
RE deep ocean temperature - a paper discussed on JoNova's site:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/the-deep-oceans-drive-the-atmosphere/
"Although their chemical properties are the same, their physical properties are not. Therefore reaction rates can differ."
Thanks splitpin, although I am surprised it effects photosynthesis to a measurable extent.
I would have thought that C14 could be a better metric - there was a clear anthropogenic pulse from the bomb tests in the 60s, and radioactive decay should give us residency times (Martin A - weren't you writing a paper on this?).
"Why have historical CO2 levels been so stable for the past several thousand years?"
Do the ice cores have the resolution to detect short term changes? Certainly plant stomata studies would suggest CO2 concentrations were far more vairable!
@David Coe: the temperature isotherms in the sea are set buy the continuous flow of cold less saline water from melting polar ice missing with the diffusing ions from the warm very saline water at the equator.
This is an endothermic process. the other part of the loop is in the atmosphere whereby water vapour is transported to the poles and precipitates there, releasing its latent heat.
The partial molar enthalpy of mixing appears to have been completely missed by the IPCC.
Interesting paper and I would say one that deserves more expert thought than I can give it.
I don't know whether this is a misplaced comma or a change of mind that hasn't been re-read or what but as written I can't make sense of it.One small point — there are a couple of paragraphs that look to be in need of a proof reader: for example
Important if you want laymen like me to read it.
AlecM
As always with "climate science" there is much hand waving, without any attempt at supporting physics. It always appears surprising to climate science that nature also follows the principles of physics. It is not surprising therefore that IPPC can forget to consider endothermic reactions. Are those reactions however sufficiently intense to not only absorb the 6.8 x 10^17 kj of energy each year inputted from the seabed but also keep the ocean chilled to less than 5 degC?
I've commented on this IPCC reasoning before; the missing sink oddity, a warming sea being a sink rather than a source, hypothesis-busting stomata measurements, carbon budget errors being larger than the signal and the IPCC bathtub analogy directly contradicting the IPCC isotope ratio argument. Notwithstanding that the FACE experiment raw CO2 data along with other desert CO2 measurements around the world tell us that either deserts are amazing carbon sinks or the ML sausage-machine maybe just rejects data that doesn't agree with the hypothesis while ostensibly rejecting data from the wrong wind direction and volcano CO2. Raw CO2 measurements have an enormous spread so you cannot get that squiggly line without considerable data-mining. And of course, a huge Hockey stick is the fundament of the argument. There is no logical or scientific reason that Earth cannot absorb man's extra 2%. We assume it does on the basis of that hockey-stick. But since all temperature hockey-sticks are phony it is odds-on that the CO2 hockey stick is phoney too. If Earth scientists were as skeptical as they should be then this whole notion could have been stillborn. Groupthink is a depressingly powerful force.
Mike Jackson
You are quite right. The sentence is total b******s.
Let me try to explain the issue another way.
The second law is one of the cornerstones of physics. First postulated by Lord Kelvin in the mid nineteenth century, it is one of the most powerful and enduring laws. Its power lies in its simplicity; heat flows from a hotter to a colder body. It is thought to be inviolate. Almost simultaneously with Kelvin, Clausius introduced the thermodynamic concept of entropy, related it to the second law, and showed that the second law of thermodynamics was equivalent to the statement that the entropy of a system always increases.
Meanwhile, Boltzmann, in developing statistical thermodynamics, further showed that entropy was a measure of randomness or disorder within a system. A further equivalent statement of the second law is that a system will always tend to a state of increased disorder, i.e. increased entropy.
Imagine that I possess a basket of apples and I decide to distribute these apples between three boys, Tom, Dick and Harry, such that Harry receives twice as many apples as each of Tom and Dick. I will have created a degree of organisation in the distribution of the apples and hence a reduction in their entropy. I am only saved from the wrath of the Second Law because, as the agent of that organisation, I have performed work and expended energy in creating it. The entropy increase associated with that energy usage overcomes the entropy reduction due to the apple organisation. Thus, overall, entropy has increased.
Apply this reasoning now to the partitioning of anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. According to TAR, 25% is dissolved in the oceans, 25% is taken up by the biosphere in photosynthesis and 50% enters the atmosphere, where it remains for centuries. We have brought about an organisation of the CO2 molecules in much the same way that I distributed the apples. The entropy of the CO2 has decreased as a result. The questions to be asked are, what is the agent that performed that distribution, how did it work and what energy was expended in carrying it out?
Unless the forces, which produce this organisation of CO2 molecules, can be identified and the work done in achieving the distribution quantified, there is no other conclusion to be made than the TAR model violates the second law with all the subsequent consequences of such a violation.
"So I am going to post the paper up, with the caveat that it is only a discussion paper and parts of it may be wrong. Readers are cordially invited to throw stones at it." What a refreshing and frank turn of phrase Bishop. Some people would have done well to adopt that ethos 10-15 years ago. Your efforts are truly appreciated.
JamesG
We have all become accustomed to distrusting anything said by the climate science fraternity. The CO2 hockey stick however is based upon modern careful measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels. The first thing I did when starting to research this issue was to verify to my satisfaction that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was real and not fabricated by some slight of hand or statistical jiggery pokery. I am convinced that it is real. What I dispute totally is the explanation offered by the IPCC.
David Coe: I have not yet done the calculations but the partial molar enthalpy of mixing is substantial. The N-S isotherms in the Pacific are bathtub shaped. You also have to take account of pressure.
Look at the UNESCO Equation of State for Water.
David Coe. I assume you mean geothermal heat, well this averages at 30W/m2, slightly more in oceanic crust and far more at the ocean ridges. It does heat the ocean to its base temperature of 0-2C which is transported eventually to the surface during thermohaline circulation.
BH- look forward to the other parts.
David Coe
from my perspective as a geologist and geochemist (I did some courses on stable isotope geochemistry, but no real research), I found that section of the paper pretty solid - could be better illustrated (some box model type diagrams) and could do to lose a few of the rhetorical flourishes.
The ocean temperature part - not so good. You are largely ignoring what is known about ocean circulation from sinking deep water at both poles, and the fact that once down there, the residence time is very long indeed. The heating effect from undersea vulcanism is trivial - yes, there are some hot areas, but they amount to 2/3rds of naff all considering the volume of water involved. Oh, and remember that water (even when salty) is a pretty effective heat insulator. A good Oceanography expert (someone not infected with Climate Science) should be able to vastly improve that section of the paper or convince you to remove it completely as not adding to your case.
As for atmospheric CO2 levels, I think most of us accept that from 1957 these are a reasonably accurate measurement of what is happening at Mauna Loa, and subsequent measurements elsewhere suggest similar rates of change globally (even if absolute concentrations vary by a few ppm geographically, and as you highlight, seasonal swings vary by more).
Whether you can put as much faith in the historic measurements is a question that needs further consideration - ice core determinations have more uncertainty with regard to possible fractionation effects during compression of snow to ice and during extraction and measurement (plus the inevitable 'smoothing' effects of the trapped air bubbles representing a period of severa years or decades rather than an instantaneous measurement). My gut feeling is that the 280 +/-10ppm is overly precise (too narrow a range) and that it may be influenced by slow fractionation processes between the trapped air, ice and any interstitial water temporarily present.
Page 2
Sorry, but in my view the above wording has no place in anything that wants to be treated as a serious paper.
The questions in the part about the oceans are the relevant part in your paper imo.
Your statement about the deep oceans being very cold is correct if you want to go for a swim, but their temperature is ~20K above the Effective Temperature (Te) calculated for our Earth, and I haven't seen any mechanism that could transport massive amounts of warm water below the Thermocline.
So their temperature has not been set by solar warming, and most certainly not by whatever effect of the atmosphere you want to come up with. The thermal mass of the atmosphere equals that of about 3 meter of water, so the notion of the cold atmosphere warming the (relatively) warm oceans is absurd imo.
There is a problem with the Te as well. The Te for our moon is ~270K, yet its actual average temperature is ~197K. Using a more correct approach the Te for Earth is ~151K, so we have a temperature deficit to explain of ~140K.
(see this post)
The real explanation for the temperature on our Earth has to be found inside the Earth. The enormous amounts of heat available can't be ignored.
The deep oceans cool down very slowly. The warming by the heat flux through the crust is counteracted by cold water sinking near the poles.
Occasionally extra heating comes from massive magma eruptions.
See this post for details.
David Coe
Thank you for that clarification. All is now ...erm ... less unclear! :-) Any residual fogginess is mine, not yours!
You might be interested in this paper, written just after AR4. It is quite critical of the IPCC.
"The presence of high-amplitude CO2 fluctuations as documented by stomatal frequency studies may falsify the IPCC concept that preindustrial temperature variability is constrained by relatively stable atmospheric CO2 levels".
They report fluctuations of the order of 30ppm, much greater than the IPCC admits.
This website also discusses this question.
I agree with Ian Blanchard that the IPCC has probably underestimated preindustrial variation (and with his other points).
Richard Betts would probably have a view about this.
steveta_uk
Clearly I am not a member of the 97% climate science consensus or even part of academia. I am simply a physicist who has spent a lifetime in industry, used to questioning orthodoxy or established positions. Having read many of the peer reviewed articles referenced by the IPCC I find myself distinctly unimpressed by the quality of the so called science in those papers. If you think that my contempt for this science is showing in this paper, then wait until you reach part 4!
"Why have historical CO2 levels been so stable for the past several thousand years?"
If it has been steady, (big IF), it could be explained as the balance survival point for plant life.
There was only so much CO2 to support the plants. If the plant population tried to expand, it draws CO2 from the atmosphere, making its own existence harder.
Classic predator/prey scenario where a food source is limited.
Plant life is now expanding and is apparently very happy that we are releasing its long-buried CO2 food source.
David Coe
The blade may well be real but that is a high res plot that is tacked onto a low res plot from a different location and they didn't even match until it was "discovered" that the CO2 and the ice that surrounds it are of different ages. My own minor research of deserts (where I'd expect there to be a rise in CO2 too but instead there is a "carbon sink") tells me that the blade is likely a little bit hokey too - especially the wiggles, that seem entirely post-processed. Again I realise that is beyond the pale for some and you can lose credibility just by saying it but I remain skeptical of every single piece of this enviro-hype.
Off topic: "Science left behind: Feel-good fallacies and the rise of the anti-scientific left "
seems a good book. Personally I'm more left that right but I'm glad someone has exposed the feelgood fallacies and green angst of the left. As alistair Cook said : "There is no such thing as ideological truth". I'm disappointed though that everyone feels they have to ringfence "climate change" as immutable truth in order to be published. It's as if they just forgot all those other patently overblown enviro scares we already had.
Paul Matthews
I am not the first to question the explanations offered by the IPCC for the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. There are numerous claims that the changes are natural and temperature based. There may indeed be relevant variations due to temperature, but any alternative theory proposed contrary to the IPCC position must also explain the almost linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and the rate of anthropogenic emissions (see figure 1.5). This relationship is either a shear fluke or has a rational scientific explanation.
JamesG
I don't think there is much difference in our positions. Healthy skepticism is missing from climate science. Unless we ask questions we will receive no answers.
David Coe said:
"There may indeed be relevant variations due to temperature, but any alternative theory proposed contrary to the IPCC position must also explain the almost linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and the rate of anthropogenic emissions (see figure 1.5). This relationship is either a shear fluke or has a rational scientific explanation."
Have you read this analysis?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
You might find a rational explanation there involving the lag in the temperature-driven rise in CO2.
Ian Blanchard
I am not ignoring what is known about ocean circulation from sinking deep water at both poles, and the fact that once down there, the residence time is very long indeed. I am however questioning the reasoning behind that "knowledge'. If the resonance time of the deep ocean is indeed very long why is it not heated by the continuous energy input from earth core conduction? This is not volcanic activity but a continuous leakage of heat from the core through the seabed and it is certainly not insignificant. I simply ask the question - where does this heat go? I cannot buy into the theory that the poles chill the deep ocean when there is 100 times the mass of water in the oceans than in the polar icecaps.
Michael Larkin
It is often an assumption that if the IPCC has got it wrong, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 must have a natural explanation that is nothing to do with human activity. When I started this exercise that was also my default position. However I cannot disregard the unambiguous evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is proportional to the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. That relationship is at the core of understanding what is actually happening. I do not believe in flukes.
I believe Geological Heat is ~0.1 W/m^2. This is 0.07% of the extra energy [137.5 W/m^2] in the models from incorrect physical assumptions, minus that abstracted by artificially increasing cloud albedo!
AndyG55
I believe that you are on the right lines.
David Coe
So did you read the article?
"I cannot buy into the theory that the poles chill the deep ocean when there is 100 times the mass of water in the oceans than in the polar icecaps."
Because its a process that's being going on for thousands of years?
"If the resonance time of the deep ocean is indeed very long why is it not heated by the continuous energy input from earth core conduction?"
Maybe it is. Do the maths and work out how much, then we have something to look at.
(I assume resonance is actually residence, the work of a helpful spellchecker no doubt.)
"why is it not heated by the continuous energy input from earth core conduction? "
"I cannot buy into the theory that the poles chill the deep ocean when there is 100 times the mass of water in the oceans than in the polar icecaps."
Convection is a much more effective method of heat transfer than conduction. Cold water from the polar regions sinks. That cold water doesn't come from melting ice caps, it's just cold polar water.
It's like having an air conditioner at one end of a room, in a flat where the flat below you has the heating turned on!
AlecM
Solar heat input is absorbed by the sea surface layers and results in significant warming of those surface waters, resulting in a thermal equilibrium at the sea surface. That energy tends to stay above the thermocline because of poor mixing between the deep ocean and the mixed layer. Nevertheless heat can only pass downwards from the mixed layer into the deep ocean. Thermal energy from the earth's core is vastly less than the solar input, but is still a huge amount of energy sufficient to heat the oceans by 10 degC in 100,000 years. My question is where does that energy go if it doesn't heat the deep ocean? And furthermore if the oceans are subject to heat input both from above and below, why are they so cold?
Interesting. this has at least answered the question which I have posed on many occasions on related blogs: 'If climate scientists are so concerned about the increase in CO2 levels, when was the atmosphere, in their view, perfect..?'
The answer seems to be: 1800 (and up to 1800).
However - from this paper (and I fully understand that it is not perfect, and has assumptions of its own) it is clear that the science is NOT 'settled' - in particular I sympathise with the questioning of the '50%' assumption - which just seems too convenient by far.
I await parts 2, 3 and 4 with interest....
How refreshing to see the author prepared to visit this sit and discuss his theories. If only more would do it we could have a real debate. I am enjoying reading this thread !
Miclael Larkin
Yes I have read the article. I do not disagree with it. Ice core data is in my opinion very questionable and it is clear that the present modern era CO2 data has simply been stitched onto a stylised historical trend that you can believe or not. It has similar credibility to the paleo temperature data. That is the reason I have based my studies on only the modern era trends, from 1960 onwards. This is a ridiculously short period on which to base any hypothesis, but the question of the linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and rate of CO2 emissions deserves an explanation. There is already too much hand waving in climate science. In this part of the paper I am simply setting the scene for what I believe is such an explanation. If I am wrong I am sure that you lot will shoot me down!
I know this is an incredibly rude question, but who exactly is David Coe ?
eSmiff
David Coe is a regular reader at BH. He is simply sick of reading the tripe published about global warming and has decided to ask some simple questions and search for some simple answers. Whether the answers I suggest are correct or not, will be determined by hopefully by a broad church of "expert" opinion rather than the corrupt peer review process. If I am ultimately proved wrong then I and hopefully others will have learned something. My only desire is for scientific truth.
David Coe: the oceans are cold because they are the obverse of the Hadley cells which take heat from the tropics, transfer it to Space then precipitate the moisture near the poles. Rain is cold and the water which falls as snow at the poles loses even more heat to Space.
SW does penetrate the oceans but there is almost perfect equilibrium with the air as a heat sink, and that takes place at night as well. The key equilibrium is the heat which diffuses into the oceans coupled to ions acting as coupled thermal and mass diffusion, with the endothermic enthalpy of mixing. The equilibrium we see now is 10,00 years' worth. There is no significant CO2-AGW because the planet self-regulates.
I seem to remember the Eemian's CO2 level went up 100ppm without fossil fuel burning.
David Coe,
Thank you for letting me know you read the article. Let me ask you something. You seem to be saying that since 1960, there is a linear relationship between measured CO2 in the atmosphere and anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Are you saying that the two are identical, or that the two are different but of a similar slope? I just want to be clear about that.