Thursday
Aug012013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A new look at the carbon dioxide budget - Part 2
Aug 1, 2013 Climate: carbon budget David Coe's post on problems with the official carbon dioxide budget generated a lot of interest and more than 100 comments. David and I have therefore decided to bring forward publication of the second part of the paper, in which he sets out a new approach to these questions.
The paper itself is attached below. For those who are interested, David is also making available the data behind the key figures: Figs 2.4 and 2.5 and Figs 2.6 and 2.7
Reader Comments (85)
Many thanks, I await episode 3.
You're a quick reader. :)
A surprisingly subtle set of technical arguments. It confirms my bias that it is too easy to adopt simplistic viewpoints in complex physical situations. Politicians take note.
Tony.
I'm printing it out and I'm going to take it outside and read it in the shade of a big tree, with a cool drink at my side.
The IPCC view is based on the so-called Bern model, if I remember correctly. In addition to being yet another complicated model inherently incapable of validation, it has some fundamental problems, such as exhibiting dynamic behaviour that is not physically realisable. Something better is overdue.
Climate science will presumably, one day, emerge from the swamp.
Oh, dear! I think a cat’s got in amongst the pigeons!
Perhaps I'm too cynical, but it seems now like all the arguments regarding the "unexplained" deep sea temps produced in part 1 were simply a way to introduce the explanation in part 2.
However, I don't think many people were convinced that the deep sea temps are "unexplained" and hence there is no need for the explanation presented in part 2.
steveta
Mea culpa. Your cynicism is not unfounded. I still do not believe the previous hand waving theories for the deep ocean however.
David,
relevant to this and to part 1, it is worth noting that others have achieved an energy balance for the abyssal ocean, even including geothermal heat flux from the Earth's interior, without needing the cooling effect you propose from the endothermic dissociation of calcium carbonate.
Mashayek et al. (2013, GRL, doi:10.1002/grl.50640) give a useful summary of some recent work that includes the geothermal heat flux. In case it is paywalled, here are some excerpts:
and the heat is removed by transport to the surface, perhaps in the Southern Ocean:
Regarding the effect on ocean circulation:
I think a version of the latter paper is available without paywall here:
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/9389/1/geosubgrl_revised_TEST.pdf
Hofmann and Maqueda (2009) find some improvement in their simulation (e.g. their figure 2) when they include geothermal heat flux, yet they still have a cold and dense deep ocean (their figure 3) without invoking endothermic reactions to keep the abyssal ocean cool.
Comparing calculations with and without the geothermal heat flux, it seems that the additional warming arising from geothermal heat flux is relatively small because the warming enhances some aspects of the ocean circulation, and it is the ocean circulation that is keeping the abyssal ocean cold in the first place (as other comments have pointed out). Heat is being input into the abyssal ocean by vertical mixing from the (mostly) warmer oceans above and from geothermal heating below. But don't forget about circulation (advection and convection)! Water flows into, through and out of the abyssal ocean. Overall, the incoming water is colder than the water leaving the abysscal ocean. Why? Well, the incoming water sinks from the high latitudes where it was greatly cooled by heat loss to the cold atmosphere. It has to be cold to be dense enough to sink to the deep ocean. The water is warmed from above and below as you describe, increasing its buoyancy, allowing new incoming cold water from high latitudes to flow below it and raise it upwards -- this is the outflow and it will be warmed relative to the inflow.
As the temperature of the incoming water is colder than the temperature of water leaving the abyssal ocean, the circulation causes a net heat transport out of the abyssal ocean which can balance the heat inputs that you focus on and maintain a cold abyssal ocean. This is a simplistic picture, but demonstrates that it is possible to maintain a cold deep ocean.
Again a lot of words where the author confuses tracer mixing time (5 years) with CO2 pulse absorption half life (52 years)
Well whether or not there is a difference depends on the model you assume for the dynamics of CO2 concentation in the atmosphere.
___________________________________________________
Added: Although perhaps I have mistaken what the term "tracer mixing time" means?
Hmm. I struggled with part 2. Is anyone who fully understands it able to give a brief outline of it?
Hans Erren
Sorry Hans, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Please educate me.
I think Hans may be referring to the belief that the time for a dollop of CO2 injected into the atmosphere to reduce to half its original mass is different from the time for half of the originally injected molecules to be absorbed.
"Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries." http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
Or I may have completely misunderstood what he is on about.
________________________________________________________________________________
Some tiny points...
If the fig 2.3 tanks were capacitors, the connecting pipes were resistors, the volume of water in each tank were the voltage to which it was charged, then I think you would call g1 or g2 the conductance of the resistor.
Would something like that be a better term than 'transfer function' (which in control engineering has a very specific meaning)?
[p9 uses the term 'transfer factor']
Page 14 says 'Like all chemical reactions this is reversible...'. All?
[just skimmed through so far - hardly started reading it properly]
Michael Larkin:
After a very rapid read, here is my interpretation.
The vast majority of the world's CO2 is held in the deep ocean. This is large enough to be considered infinite when compared to the mass in the ocean surface and the atmosphere.
There are flows of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere/upper ocean caused by photosynthesis and burning of fossil fuels.
As the levels of CO2 change, the deep ocean reservoir either gives up CO2, or absorbs it to maintain a level consistent with its own. There are "constrictions" in the flow at each boundary, so the leveling effect takes time. The time constant of the deep ocean flow is long compared to the much more rapid changes that happen in the upper layers (they have MUCH less mass and so react more rapidly).
However, averaged over time, equilibrium will be reached, and that equilibrium will be pretty constant, and determined by the deep ocean.
The key thing is that the concentration of CO2 is the atmosphere would be determined not by the volume of CO2 added to it by fossil fuels, but the by the rate of addition.
-----
The rest is examining the O2 concentrations to determine exactly what the time-constant of CO2 exchange is, and a theory of how maintaining the deep ocean CO2 levels could also contribute to explaining its low temperature. My own take on that is that it may well contribute, but it is probably mostly due to ocean circulation and radiative losses at the poles.
Martin A
Yes indeed in the electrical analogy conductance would be the appropriate term. I was struggling to find an appropriate descriptor for fluid or gaseous flow.
As for the CO2 lifetime issue, I am suggesting that we get away from the concept of molecular lifetimes. Since one molecule is identical to another the concept is meaningless. Equilibrium is determined by the relevant net CO2 fluxes being equal so that the rate of change of CO2 is zero, with the oceanic fluxes being the controlling factor. Throw in a slug of CO2 and you have forced a step change into the dynamic. It will take a time determined by the two time constants, the sea surface/ atmosphere and thermocline for the equilibrium to be re- established. The oceanic fluxes are determined simply by the partial pressure differences.
@Martin A
Indeed electrical circuit analogies can be used. The equations are the same. We can separate the big annual alternating current with a refresh period of 5 years from the small DC current of CO2 that is added to the atmosphere which dissipates in the sinks with a half life of 55 years. (per Peter Dietze http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm )
Atomic bomb tracers simply show CO2 metabolism, not the net uptake in the sinks.
David Coe,
Part 1 was very interesting. I intended to comment but the comments, which I follow closely on topics of interest, were progressing quite rapidly.
I read part 2 and will need to study this much more closely. Things like this really exercise the gray matter, but inquiring minds need to know. You are probably going to have to interpret part 2 for much of the readership. Others will be coming forward more on your terms. I look forward to all.
Just a quick clarification for me. Is a quantity of energy being removed from the water of the deep abyss through the "settling" of CO2 or C to the ocean floor?
Nice that David is providing data for the "key figures" (2.4-2.7). However, he has not responded to my request for the data for Figure 1.5 in Part 1, which is repeated as Figure 2.1 in Part 2 and so would seem to be a "key figure" as well. This figure shows anthropogenic increases in units of ppm/year, whereas the usual units are millions of metric tons C per year. So OK, perhaps he has divided by the volume of the atmosphere. But then the figure also shows that a few ppm/year CO2 emissions is associated with about 10 times that level of increase in atmospheric CO2. WUWT?
David Coe states (p. 5):
For the atmosphere the balance of fluxes is given by
(Ca − Cs) .g2 = Fa
so that atmospheric CO2 levels Ca = Cs – 1/g2.Fa (1)
These equations are not equivalent. Please correct.
David Coe also states (p. 5)
while for the sea surface
(Co − Cs).g1 = (Ca − Cs) .g2 + Fs = (Fa + Fs)
and sea surface CO2 levels Cs = Co – 1/g1.(Fa+ Fs) (2)
Again these equations seem inconsistent. Looking at the first line here, the last equation on the right has the term Fs on both sides of the equal sign so it should disappear, leaving a rather simple relationship between Ca and Cs: (Ca-Cs)*g2=Fa. Is that correct?
David Coe
From my earlier comment:
"Just a quick clarification for me. Is a quantity of energy being removed from the water of the deep abyss through the "settling" of CO2 or C to the ocean floor?"
You have answered that in your paper. More of a closer review needed on my part. ;-)
Thanks
Philip Peake:
Thanks very much for taking the trouble to answer my request for help in interpreting part 2. You said:
"As the levels of CO2 change, the deep ocean reservoir either gives up CO2, or absorbs it to maintain a level consistent with its own. There are "constrictions" in the flow at each boundary, so the leveling effect takes time. The time constant of the deep ocean flow is long compared to the much more rapid changes that happen in the upper layers (they have MUCH less mass and so react more rapidly).
"However, averaged over time, equilibrium will be reached, and that equilibrium will be pretty constant, and determined by the deep ocean.
"The key thing is that the concentration of CO2 is the atmosphere would be determined not by the volume of CO2 added to it by fossil fuels, but the by the rate of addition."
If so--and I'm not doubting you--the CO2 concentration has gone up in the atmosphere in fairly recent times. How come it also fits in with calculated emissions, if we are to believe standard explanations? Didn't David Coe reject the idea of mere coincidence?
Hopefully he'll comment soon and clear up any key misunderstandings.
David
I have to confess I skimmed part 1 but this I find very satisfying as an explanation of a number of things about the carbon cycle that have never made sense to me in the IPCC and related accounts. Not to pretend that one can track individual molecules, the heat transfer from surface to deep ocean powering the production of CO2 there, under such pressures, how equilibrium is re-established after man's emissions, the role of oxygen, etc. So thanks for all that, even if the observations finally go against you.
One point I found confusing at first is the labelling of Figure 2.1, particularly the use of the word Increase on the left hand side. We're just looking at the normal ppm value, baselined at the 1960 level - 280 or whatever it was - right? The text in the paper on this is I think fine but the graph could be clearer.
I look forward to your discussion with those who already differ with you and especially to how you think the observations support your view.
Phrasing: "An alternative explanation for what appears to happen is that atmospheric CO2 levels are proportional to the rate of anthropogenic emissions"
should surely be:
"An alternative explanation for what appears to happen is that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are proportional to the rate of anthropogenic emissions"
The original suggests that absolute levels, rather than the rate of change (increase) of atmospheric CO2 levels, vary with the instantaneous rate of emissions. In calculus terms, it's an integral (sum), not a derivative (tangent).
Lance Wallace
I think its a typo. If I am correct, the 1st equation should be as follows to agree with the next line (and to represent fig. 2.3 correctly):
(Cs − Ca) .g2 = Fa
For the second, think of it as
(Co − Cs).g1 = (Cs − Ca) .g2 + Fs
. . . . . . . . . = Fa + Fs
David Coe:
Your "g" variables depend on residence time and you present a table with many estimates of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Using the most recent data from all sources for the Carbon-14 "bomb pulse", which has now decayed to <5% of its original peak, Gosta Petterson calculated a residence time of about 14 years for 14-CO2. This is rather different from the 5-8 years estimated for one "residence time" and the 50 or so years estimated for another "residence time" depending on different definitions (time for a particular "average" molecule to disappear and time for a batch of molecules to both be absorbed and replaced by biological and chemical processes. Petterson wrote a guest blog for WUWT on her calculations:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
This blog engendered an extraordinary discussion (>500 comments), with some of the usual foes (e.g. Willis Eschenbach and Nick Stokes) coming together (for once) to reject Petterson's approach. Ferdinand Engelbeen joined the chorus objecting to Petterson.
The point of my comment is that perhaps the residence time you are using (I assume somewhere in the 5-8 year mark indicated by your table?) could be mistaken, and is either closer to the 14 years estimated by Petterson (and corroborated by myself independently using regression) or the 50-odd year value supported by Engelbeen etc. How would your calculations be affected by using one of these other estimates for residence time?
Ah, understand the absolute level "setting" better now. How would an analogy to charging/discharging a battery from/to another work out? The closer the voltage of the smaller unit comes to the larger's, the slower the flow. Externally altering the smaller's charge state during the process is countered by the larger's inertia, so to speak.
The trouble with electric analogies seems to be the time element. It's hard to introduce sensible lag times into the circuitry without storage buffers and other complications.
- - -
Fascinating that increasing CO2a inhibits sea surface outflow (photosynthesis). Land greening has been observed resulting from higher CO2a, exploiting it. Not so with gs?
Lance Wallace
Sorry to have missed responding to you in part 1. I will try to recover that situation.
For your first question about fig 1.5 part 1. This is indeed a key figure but owes nothing to my machinations. It is simply a plot of CO2 levels from Mona Loa v rate of anthropogenic emissions compiled from CDIAC which as you say is usually presented in Gt/yr. I have simply converted this value to an equivalent ppm/yr from the current known atmospheric CO2 content. This figure is important in that it establishes a vital relationship that is totally at odds with the IPCC approach. My analysis based upon equilibrium of CO2 fluxes predicts such a relationship in the form of equations 1 & 2. This totally changes future predictions of atmospheric CO2 levels and suggests that IPCC working group 1 has got it spectacularly wrong.
Your questions on the equations have been answered for me by Martin A. Proof reading your own work never quite works out right. Where were you Martin when I needed you?
In the meantime I am grateful to everyone for taking the time to actually read this post let alone ask searching questions.
Michael Larkin
Its starting to feel like discussing with old friends whom I have never met! You are right about me distrusting coincidences. Philip Peake's explanation was correct. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is proportional to the CO2 flux in much the same way as if you drilled a hole in the base of your toilet cistern. After the wife has near killed you, you will see that the level of the water in the cistern will drop and consequently the ball cock will begin to open. The water will stabilise at a level sufficient to allow a flow of water via the ball cock equal to the flow of water lost through the hole that you have drilled. The drop in level is proportional to the flow of water.
Brian H
"Fascinating that increasing CO2a inhibits sea surface outflow (photosynthesis). Land greening has been observed resulting from higher CO2a, exploiting it. Not so with gs?"
I am afraid I don't follow this comment. Can you explain further?
I think the question asks why does increased marine CO2 reduce photosynthetic biomass, when atmospheric CO2 enhances it.
Lance Wallace
"The point of my comment is that perhaps the residence time you are using (I assume somewhere in the 5-8 year mark indicated by your table?) could be mistaken, and is either closer to the 14 years estimated by Petterson (and corroborated by myself independently using regression) or the 50-odd year value supported by Engelbeen etc. How would your calculations be affected by using one of these other estimates for residence time?"
In producing this paper the maths was perhaps the easiest part. A far harder task was allocating credible values to the various real world parameters used in the calculations. The two absolutely critical parameters are the two time constants (related to the g values) for the thermocline and sea surface atmosphere interface. For the latter there are numerous examples of residence times which I have indicated in table 1. I have taken a stab at 3 years. All I can claim is that it is in the right ball park. The total unknown is the thermocline response. I have taken a worst case position (as a skeptic that is) that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is derived solely from anthropogenic emissions plus the reduction in sea surface photosynthetic activity suggested by the declining oxygen levels. I have then used that data to effectively calibrate the equations to determine the thermocline response. If a higher figure for the sea surface response is chosen a corresponding lower figure would be required for the thermocline. All these figures would be subject to to adjustment as better data becomes available. All I can say is that I am satisfied that the numbers that I have selected produce good agreement with all observed data as I will show in part 3. Please feel free to "play" with the spreadsheets to get a feel for parameter value dependency.
Brian H & Pharos
The point is that I don't know either. I am simply suggesting that the equations suggest a link between declining O2 levels and a reported reduction in sea surface photosynthetic activity. This may or may not be attributed to increasing CO2 levels. The O2 data I have used covered only a ten year period between 1990 and 2000 reported by Gregg et al. I would hope more data is now available. I have been unable to find it.
Coming from a geological background, my only caution is that the Earth is characterised by a magnitude of dynamic processes where equilibrium is constantly strived for, but never actually attained.
David Coe -
'Biome' was a new word to me. Not sure what it means in this context - 'land-based vegetation?'
Part 2 talks about how the ocean produces CO2 which is then absorbed by plants. If I have not missed something, it seems like the description of a steady unidirectional flow [deep ocean > shallow ocean > atmosphere > land plant life].
I did not see discussion of how these plants then eventually die and decay (or are burnt), producing CO2, and how this CO2 comes into the picture. Can the analysis be realistic without considering flow in the reverse direction? (other than fossil fuel CO2). Or have I simply missed something, in my bacon-slicer style of reading?
Firstly, I also found the inconsistencies in equations noted by Lance Wallace, which seems to be some sort of typo, or poor proof reading.
But, this is of little importance when weighed against the many thoughtful comments, of a truly scientific nature. I' m sure there will be many more.
David Coe
"In Part 1 we noted that the energy input conducted from the earth’s core totaled some 6.7 x
1017 kj/yr and wondered where this energy went since it could not be convected or
conducted upwards to the sea surface zone, already at a higher temperature. We now
realise that this energy could well be the energy source for CO2 production in the deep
ocean."
This assumption is false. Without it you geothermal energy driven model fails.
Martin A
A biome is a community of living organisms defined partly by the species it contains and partly by the climatic conditions. Thus tundra is the high latitude rim of bog and sparse woodland common to the north of Canada , Europe and Asia, usually overlying permafrost.
Taiga is the conifir forests found at slightly lower latitudes,
Without human intervention the UK would be mostly temperate forest, with broadleaf trees such as Oak, Elm and Beech.
I really do not believe this is it. I believe you are getting only a superficial resemblance between your model and the data, owing to the fact that you are using total accumulations, which have had all but the lowest frequency content severely attenuated. As a result, you essentially end up with two trending variables, one for the CO2 since 1960, and one for the rate of emissions. It is not difficult to determine an affine transformation to match two linearly trending variables. It's basically a tautology - two affine functions are always related by an affine transformation.
What is hard is matching up both the high and the low frequencies, the trend and the variation around it. However, it turns out that the rate of change of CO2 and the temperature are precisely so related. When you integrate that relationship, you find you can get a very good affine match between CO2 concentration and the integrated temperature. This is the relationship Murry Salby has pointed out in his lectures which have been distributed about.
Since reliable CO2 measurements began in the late 50's, you can determine the CO2 concentration at any time since by integrating the affine relationship. Human inputs are superfluous. This is consistent with a high feedback gain loop which maintains CO2 at an equilibrium level dictated by temperatures, and which tracks changes in that equilibrium state. A toy model with similar characteristics could be written as
dCO2eq/dt = k*(T - Teq)
dCO2/dt = (CO2eq - CO2) / tau + H
CO2eq = equilibrium level of CO2
Teq = temperature equilibrium
T = temperature
CO2 = atmospheric CO2 level
tau = time constant
H = human rate of emissions
If tau is "short", then H will be rapidly sequestered, and CO2 will track CO2eq.
My hypothesis for how the relationship comes about is that irregularities in the distribution of CO2 within the thermohaline pipeline result in "bubbles" of high CO2 content waters surfacing from time to time, one such bubble having begun surfacing a little before the halfway mark of the last century, and continuing on to this day. This bubble is dynamically shifting the equilibirum level of CO2 in the atmosphere as it upwells, resulting in a continuous pumping action of CO2 into the atmosphere. The equilibrium between the oceans and the atmosphere is very temperature dependent, so the pump could be shut down, and even reversed, if T were to approach and then pass below Teq.
Already, with the lull in temperatures of the last decade+, we have seen the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 level off, too. This is creating a divergence between the superficial affine resemblance between the rate of human emissions and measured atmospheric rate of change. They tracked fairly well before 1990, experience almost a step offset in the early 90's, and completely started going separate ways in the early 2000's. Keep watching these time series - I expect they are going to diverge more and more rapidly as temperatures decline.
As Cromwell may have said.
'Paint me, warts and all'
This is true crowd sourcing; the future of science perhaps.
Here's what I think may be says David.
Some agree, others don't.
'Why should I show you my data ..."
" Here's my data, if I'm wrong then so be it..."
Night and day.
Thanks David for the chutzpah
Thanks Bishop for the platform
A fascinating paper. However, as I pointed out in my comments to Part 1, the missing part is the substantial entropy decrease in the rising deep cold water as its salinity increases by counter diffusion of ions from higher ionic strength Equatorial surface water. The other part of this effect is the Hadley cells transporting evaporated water towards the Poles.
This entropy decrease leads to an increase of Gibbs' free energy at constant enthalpy hence the isotherms, the geological heat being a minor part of the enthalpy offset by the -T deltaS term. Your idea of the endothermic dissociation of CaCO3 and its interaction with the atmospheric is interesting because the increase of atmospheric [CO2] acts in the same way as a 'heat valve'. But the bulk of the CO2 in the ocean deeps is apparently in the form of soluble polysaccharides and the same maths would apply to this decomposition.
A key parameter is pressure. This drives CO2 to combine in substances which have lower molal volume than the CO2 molecule because the vibrational amplitude of the C-O bonds in the compound is lower so you need less space. This is Le Chatelier's principle.
Thus you need a 3-d coupled thermodynamic model where the heat flows are offset by the T deltaS terms from mass transport with the chemical equilibria determined by pressure as well as temperature change.
The geological heat flux is minor compared with the mostly advection of negative enthalpy from the poles in the deeps offset by positive enthalpy advection in the atmosphere to the poles.
Because the present heat flows are wrong, you need to correct that problem first before introducing the chemical thermodynamics!
@ Tim Osborn Aug 1, 2013 at 1:23 PM: thank you, Dr Osborn, for taking the time and trouble to comment here. Whether or not the literature you refer to is regarded by David Coe as 'arm-waving', it seems to me to be essential for David Coe to respond to the points you have made before he continues his essay (that is if he wishes his conclusions to be taken seriously).
Thank you EM. If I had mentioned that I had already looked it up, it would have saved you the trouble.
But are you confirming that is the exact meaning David Coe intended when he wrote "This partial pressure reduction will result in a new equilibrium condition where a flux of CO2 from the deep ocean generated by the developing partial pressure differences exactly balances the net biome production"?
Gentlemen
There are numerous comments which deserve my full response. Many of them go to the core of the ideas which form the basis for this paper. Allow to me to expand upon those ideas in a way which might perhaps answer some of the criticism being offered. As Andrew pointed out this is a paper offered for discussion and that is precisel what we are getting.
My initial interest in this subject began when I finally got down to reading the IPCC assesment reports, particularly the parts related to working group 1, Basic Science. I frankly was incredulous of the argument based around a balanced ecosphere with photosynthetic CO2 absorption being perfectly balanced by heterotrophic respiration and decomposition. This concept leads climate science into many contortions to expain numerous observations.
My idea was to abandon any preconceived ideas about the biosphere other than that there are numerous CO2 fluxes in and out of both the atmosphere and sea surface zone. Photosynthesis and respiration are probably the main ones. Anthropogenic emissions are a relatively new and increasing flux. There is absolutely no reason why the sum of these fluxes should ever be zero. Additionally these fluxes hold no priority over any other. CO2 from one flux is exactly equivalent to that from another.
In order to maintain a stable atmosphere however there has to be a controlling source. I postulate that that source is the oceans and that there will be a net flow of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere dependent on partial pressure differences between the two. Sea surface and oceanic CO2 partial pressures are proportional to the concentration of disolved CO2 (Henry's Law). The result is a simple equation of state whereby
dC/dt = (Cs - C).g - F
where C represents the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, Cs the sea surface partial pressure, F is the net absortive biospheric CO2 flux and g a constant which determines the resistance to flow of CO2 across the sea/atmosphere interface.
This I maintain to be basic elementary physics.
The equations become slightly more complicated when I factor in the effects of the thermocline and make the first important assumption, that the deep ocean acts as an infinite source of CO2. I am postulating that there is indeed a continuous CO2 flux from the deep ocean in order to feed the persistent positive net biome production, the fossil fuel of the future. I do not not know the exact value of this NBP. I am making a guess, which is probably wrong, as most guesses are. A wrong guess for this value however does not invalidate the theory, it simply leads the path open for more enlightened estimates.
While the deepovean undoubtedly holds far more CO2 than the atmosphere it cannot continually supply CO2 indefinitely without becoming depleted. At this point I postulated that CO2 generation takes place within the deep ocean from dissociation of inorganic carbonates, particularly CaCO3. Realising that such a reaction is endothermic lead me into the discussion on deep ocean heat content and temperature. With hindsight that was probably a mistake, but it does not necessarily invalidate the assumption of continuous CO2 generation.
The result of all this is the development of a set of equations which link sea surface and atmospheric CO2 levels with CO2 fluxes, from whatever source. The importance of the anthropogenic flux is that of all the fluxes it is the only one which is varying annually and predictably. It is no coincidence that there is a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and the rate of anthropogenic emissions. I have simply used that observed relationship to calibrate the equations in respect of the two key parameters, the response times of the thermocline and the sea surface/atmosphere interface.
In part 3 I will demonstrate how those calibrated equations provide results in line with every observation I can think of, including seasonal variability of CO2 and O2, interannual variability of CO2, isotopic CO2 variation within both atmosphere and sea surface and global stratification, or northern hemisphere bias.
Tim Osborn
Thank you for your earlier comment on the significant impact of deep ocean circulation. As you may have gathered I am no expert on ocean fluidics. It usually takes a novice to ask a stupid question. My stupid question relates to the circulation of water. It is easy to envisage cold polar waters sinking into the abyssal ocean, it is not so easy to see where the waters rise gain in order to complete the circuit. In order to rise the water needs to have gained temperature and reduced in density, but all I see when looking at deep ocean data is a uniformly cold body of water. What am I missing here?
Bart
When I began this project having decided that I could not trust a word delivered by the IPCC I fully expected to be able to show that the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels would be explained by natural phenomena. It was a great disappointment initially when I realised that only wishful thinking was going to bring about the desired outcome. Reality overcame doctrine. Nature does indeed follow the laws of physics. For current CO2 levels to be explained by natural events requires a huge leap of faith and while proof would stop this ridiculous climate change circus dead in its tracks I cannot see it happening. In the meantime I have presented a set of equations based upon the simplest of physical concepts that provides a rational and consistent explanation for current observations of CO2 and O2. Yes it suggests that the increase in CO2 is due to human activity. That was not my intention but I am not going to argue with the equations simply because I don't like the answers they are providing.
The question I am asking myself and anyone who cares to listen is - am I right or am I wrong?
Fascinating. I have to wonder what the thermocline looks like at higher latitudes where the surface is often colder than the deeps, and how this affects the story. Obviously there is some sort of stability if the water at depth is denser than the layers above, but there is also a transition between two stable states: higher levels > 4 C therefore less dense, and higher levels < 4 C and therefore less dense. During the transition the thermocline will be unstable, in an interesting way, and in the band of instability the depths will be fed with water at 4C.
Anyhow: 1. it is clear we cannot understand atmospheric gas variation without understanding oceanic gas content variation, and 2. the temperature stability of the deep ocean over millions of years is just as much in need of explanation as narrow band of variability of the global climate over the same timescales.
*** apols for posting previously on Gore post ***
Robbo: I thought it made a brilliant start to comments on the Gore post!
Robbo
Conventional wisdom is that the thermocline effectively rises to the surface at high latitudes and the deep ocean is in direct contact with the atmosphere. This clearly has implications for this Ocean Control Theory but I've not got my head round those yet.
David Coe - I'm still not sure whether
A. you forgot all about the CO2 flux from dead plants
B. you included it in the analysis but I did not notice where you mentioned it
C. you considered it and it's just not relevant
D. none of the above.
A single letter answer would be sufficient enable me to stop fretting about the question - tia