Geoscientist explains why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:

1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.

2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere.  Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.

Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,

"One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change."

Dr. Humlum's reply to comments below, followed by the original article: [Google translation]

Climate debate: Humlum match Prestrud

Professor Ole Humlum can not be convinced by Paul Prestrud argument that "the majority has the right." He chooses instead to rely on empirical data.

---

Ole Humlum

---

It's always nice to exchange views on climate with Prestrud (read 'Rejects Humlum ideas') , which has impressively strong belief in man-made CO2's greenhouse dominance, a perception that I respect, although I do not share it. I think even on the basis of empirical data (GEO 06/2012, "Temperature controls CO2 levels - not vice versa ") that the natural climate change dominates, even in recent times.

The applied computing in that new article is without error. The interpretation of the results can however debated, which is quite common in science. But who has the most correct in his interpretation is not determined by either the majority or head-shaking as Prestrud obviously think. It is determined by nature itself a not so distant future.

It is true that Bacastow already in 1976 was built on similar ideas as we in our article (why we refers to Bacastow), but it should also be noted that Bacastow subsequent met resistance, rather as we do and will do for some time. We show, however, in our article period of time how changes in temperature systematically comes in changes in CO2, why the sum of the periods (it considerably period) course is characterized by this basic correlation.

We go in our analysis a bit longer than Bacastow in 1976, and amongst others that temperature changes starting at sea level and from there transmitted to the troposphere, and not the opposite as CO 2 hypothesis forecasts. Moreover, we show that the geographic distribution of changes in atmospheric CO 2 does not start in the range between 30 and 50 degrees north, the source of the vast majority of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, but rather initiated a little south of the equator. If anthropogenic CO2 is believed to be the cause of atmospheric contemporary CO2 increase, there should be a sobering thought that it is not seen in the empirical data?

All these empirical results are contrary to the perception that the atmospheric CO 2 increase alone comes from the combustion of cool gas and oil. However, they can be perceived as a sign that our knowledge of carbon cycle is still incomplete.

Probably we simply data and knowledge enough. The fact that the natural uptake of CO2 apparently decreases as expected, but rather seems to grow, also suggests that carbon cycle are inadequately understood.

Moreover, we are still without empirical data demonstrating that temperature changes following CO2 changes, as predicted by the CO2 hypothesis, while the opposite now vides to apply to both variations over a relatively short time (our study) and long-term variations (ice cores).

A general conclusion of this is that current climate models much well build the whole or partial failure
basis, since they assume that the CO2 control temperature. The last 15-16 years of global temperature standstill in conflict with the predicted temperature rise and growing donor support to this suspicion. So far climate models have not been able to deliver usable predictions, probably because the significance of CO2 in the models is overvalued in relation to the importance of natural climate variations. One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both they can be related to the sun, and those which may have different causes. It is most likely where we will seek main reason for the present (and future) climate change.

Read the article about Humlum theory with recent comments

The temperature controls CO2 levels - not the other way

In a recent, scientific paper argues that changes in temperature controls, the dramatic increase in the CO ₂ content of the atmosphere. This is contrary to prevailing theory.

---

Ronny Setså

---

Ole Humlum is a professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Svalbard. Photo: Ronny Setså

- Data from ice cores have previously demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO₂ has followed temperature changes in the past hundreds of years. Now we have found evidence that this also applies in modern times, says Ole Humlum, professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Svalbard.

The article, which will soon be published in the journal Global and Planetary Change , suggest that there are temperature changes on Earth that has governed the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent decades.

The scientists behind the article, besides Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, statistician at Telenor and Jan-Erik Solheim, professor emeritus at the Institute of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø.

"Atmospheric CO 2 is there would not initiating the large glacial-interglacial climate changes, and presumably these are controlled by Milankovitch orbital cycles.

The investigations are based on eight different data sets in the time period from January 1980 to December 2011. The datasets include measurements of sea surface temperature, temperature of land surface and tropospheric temperatures, and measurements of CO ₂ in the atmosphere and estimates of how much CO _2-emissions people behind.

Classic performance should be reassessed

The researchers show in the article that it has been assumed that global warming since 1975 has been a result of the increase of the concentration of CO ₂ in the atmosphere. However, it is argued, results from their research shows the opposite.

- That which is communicated to decision makers and the general public is that the increase in CO ₂ levels lead to global warming. This classical notion should be reconsidered in light of the new results, maintains Humlum.

Since 1980, the increase of atmospheric CO ₂ remained eleven to twelve months after the increase in global surface temperature of the oceans, almost ten months after the increase in global air temperature, and about nine months after the increase in global temperatures in the troposphere.

"Changes in ocean Temperatures Appear two explain a considerate part of the Observed changes in atmospheric CO ₂ since January 1980

Similarly, correlation has also been found from the ice core over the past 420,000 years. The time between cause and effect, however, has been slower than in modern times. There is talk of centuries to millennia.

The researchers write that while the link between increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures is very weak in the opposite direction. In some cases they have actually seen an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases has resulted in lower global temperatures.

Oceans important than human emissions

Humlum and authors further point out that the correlation between human (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide emissions and changes of CO ₂ in the atmosphere is unstable and shows little correlation.

They therefore believe that it is primarily the temperature of the surface waters of the oceans that control changes in atmospheric CO _2.

The researchers also examined the relationship between anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and atmospheric CO ₂ levels by looking at a pole-to-pole cross-section of the globe. The cross section suggests that the major source of atmospheric CO ₂ is located just south of the equator. The largest amount of human emissions of greenhouse gas originates however from the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, that is, from the Western industrialized countries.

The authors conclude that it is not human emissions of CO _2, but possibly oceans, which has controlled the atmospheric transformation of CO ₂ since 1980.

"CO ₂ released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the Observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO ₂

Request more open attitude

Humlum said the results suggest that the details of the CO _2-cycle is not well enough known, and that human emissions of greenhouse gases can be overrated.

- I think that CO ₂ plays too large a role in current climate models, and that they are not nearly describe the natural climate variations in a good way.

- In terms of research, I hope our findings can contribute to a more open attitude about the causes of the present climate change, says Ole Humlum.

The figure shows the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1980 (green), steadily rising towards 390 ppm today. Blue curve shows the surface temperature of the oceans has changed, while the red curve shows the changes in the global air temperature. Notice how the CO2 curve undulating in time with the seasons, caused by changes in ocean temperature and photosynthesis in the terrestrial biosphere.Illustration: Humlum et al., 2012

The figure shows the global changes of atmospheric CO2 since 1980 (green), global surface temperature of the oceans (blue) and global surface temperature (red). Note that the green curve is for both blue and red curve. Illustration: Humlum et al., 2012

Reference:

Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl and Jan-Erik Solheim: The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature; Global and Planetary Change, 2012.

Simple climate model outperforms IPCC models, demonstrates climate effect of CO2 is miniscule

Geoscience professors Dr. Ole Humlum and Dr. Jan-Erik Solheim have described a simple, empircal harmonic climate model that accurately explains global temperature observations since 1850, without incorporating any forcing from man-made CO2 or aerosols. According to the authors, "What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols." "If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as the IPCC claims in their reports, thus the assumed CO2 effects in IPCC climate models are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data."

Google translation from Norwegian + light editing, from the geoscience site Geoforskning.no:

A simple empirical harmonic climate model

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum  8/5/13  Geoforskning

Jan-Erik Solheim and Ole Humlum describe here a climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850 and gives an indication of trends over the next 20 - 30 years.

In previous posts, we have identified weaknesses in the complex climate models the IPCC uses, and that our government is basing its planning.

The main weakness of these models is that they are unable to predict future climate variations. We have shown that modern climate models are unable to describe the observed climate variations - either in the past or future:

Can we trust climate models? 
Volcanoes and climate models 
Natural variability and climate models

In this post we describe a simple empirical climate model that explains global temperature change since 1850, which gives us an idea of ​​the temperature trend for the next 20-30 years.

Our simple model is based on the fact that a system put in oscillation must continue to oscillate a while before these fluctuations die out. Similarly, fluctuations can be amplified by external influences so that they are maintained over long periods. In the following, we demonstrate a simple harmonic model of the Earth's global temperature.

Initially, we emphasize that our hypothesis is that different regions of the world have different harmonic periods in its climate response. Adding these up, they will in some cases be in anti-phase and zero each other out, other times they can be in phase and reinforce each other. This will particularly be the case if they are controlled by something outside the Earth. Possible candidates for external control is the moon, the sun and the other planets mass and orbits.

The global temperature has risen, but not uniformly, since 1850

Figure 1 Global monthly temperature values ​​calculated by the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). The blue straight line corresponds to a temperature rise of 0.47 ^o C per 100 years.

Figure 2 Global temperature curve with trend removed. We see clear maxima around 1880, 1945 and 2005.

If we remove the trend of 0.47 ^o C per one hundred years, we get a curve as shown in Figure 2 Here we see distinct peaks around 1880, 1945 and 2005, ie by approx. 60-65 years. We also see that there are larger variations from month to month until 1900. This is because the time was far fewer monitoring stations than we have now.

From the curve in Figure 2, we find the frequency analysis there are four significant periods (69, 148, 21 and 9.2 years). We therefore create a model based on these four periods + the linear trend. It is shown as a thick red curve in Figure 3 We see that this model follows the observations very well. It indicates that the temperature decline that has been observed since 2002 will last 30-40 years.

Figure 3 Observed monthly values ​​of global temperature with forecast based on 4 periodic variations plus trend.

What puzzles many is that this model does not have contributions from CO2 and aerosols. We can see in Figure 4, where we show variations compared to the simple model. We see that there are rapid fluctuations both up and down, but no systematic trend or slow variations.

We can not look particularly noticeable traces of the major volcanic eruptions Pinatubo in 1991, El Chichon in 1992 and Agnung 1963, suggesting that the cooling effects due to emissions of particles (aerosols) are modest, at least for these eruptions. This strengthens our claim in an earlier post that aerosols in climate models are exaggerated.

Figure 4 Deviation of monthly global temperature variations relative to simple harmonic model as shown in Figure 3

If we'd had a warming due to CO2, this should appear as a deviation from the simple harmonic model since 1950. There are no signs of any additional heating due to CO2 as IPCC claims in their reports also CO2 effects of climate models for the IPCC based are exaggerated. The net effect of CO2 is thus so modest that it can not be seen in this data.

Prognosis based on simple harmonic model and 44 IPCC models compared with observations

We can now compare the observed ground temperatures with average values ​​of the 44 IPCC models we showed in our post of 14 June 2013 . We assume that these models have taken into account the known temperature gradient before 2000. We have designed an empirical harmonic model, also based on data prior to 2000. This model is called Harmonic Model 2000 or HM2000. It has a trend and four periodic variations.

The result is shown in Figure 5 There we see that the IPCC models provide an average of a warming of 0.8 ⁰ C over the period 2000-2025, ie approx. 0.3 ^o C per decade while HM2000 rise until 2005 and then drops slightly over the next 20 years. The observations through May 2013 show that they follow HM 2000 and not the IPCC models. According to the IPCC forecast global temperature would reach in 2013 to 0.4 ^o C warmer than observed.

Figure 5 Global monthly values ​​(HadCRUT4) through May 2013 compared to a simple harmonic model based on data before 2000 (HM2000) (red curve), and 44 advanced climate models used by the IPCC, described in our post of 16 June.

A harmonic model is explained by fluctuations linked to variations in the sun, moon and planets. We assume that the trend of 0.47 ^o C per one hundred years due to a period of about 1000 years corresponding to the time between known historical warm periods. This is also found in the analysis of the GISP2 ice core from Greenland (Humlum et al. 2012). This long period, at least between 1350 and 1850 and will probably have a new maximum at the end of this century. This leads to the linear trend to decrease and gradually changing shape.

New paper predicts temperature decrease by 2020 of up to 1C due to low solar activity

A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds long solar cycles predict lower temperatures during the following solar cycle. A lag of 11 years [the average solar cycle length] is found to provide maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature. On the basis of the long sunspot cycle of the last solar cycle 23, the authors predict an average temperature decrease of 1C over the current solar cycle 24 from 2009-2020 for certain locations.

The authors also find "solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase" and "For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution [to the temperature increase of the past 150 years]. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal."

A co-author of the paper is geoscientist Dr. Ole Humlum, who demonstrated in a prior paper that CO2 levels lag temperature on a short-term basis and that CO2 is not the driver of global temperature. 


Update: As pointed out by commenters at WUWT, this paper was published in 2012. For some odd reason it appeared for the first time in my RSS feed from the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics today and thus was incorrectly stated to have been published online today. 

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

• Jan-Erik Solheim^a, , , 
• Kjell Stordahl^b, , 
• Ole Humlum^c, d, 

 Show more

DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008

  Open Access

---

Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least $\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$ from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

---

Highlights

► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle. ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations. ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase. ► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.

Keywords

• Solar cycle lengths; 
• Climate change; 
• Forecasts; 
• North Atlantic climate response

---

1. Introduction

The question of a possible relation between solar activity and the Earth's climate has received considerable attention during the last 200 years. Periods with many sunspots and faculae correspond with periods with higher irradiance in the visual spectrum and even stronger response in the ultraviolet, which acts on the ozone level. It is also proposed that galactic cosmic rays can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which may link variations in the cloud coverage to solar activity, since more cosmic rays penetrate the Earth's magnetic field when the solar activity is low. A review of possible connections between the Sun and the Earth's climate is given by Gray and et al. (2010).

Based on strong correlation between the production rate of the cosmogenic nucleids ¹⁴C and ¹⁰Be and proxies for sea ice drift, Bond et al. (2001) concluded that extremely weak perturbations in the Sun's energy output on decadal to millennial timescales generate a strong climate response in the North Atlantic deep water (NADW). This affects the global thermohaline circulation and the global climate. The possible sun–ocean–climate connection may be detectable in temperature series from the North Atlantic region. Since the ocean with its large heat capacity can store and transport huge amounts of heat, a time lag between solar activity and air temperature increase is expected. An observed time lag gives us an opportunity for forecasting, which is the rationale for the present investigation.

Comparing sunspot numbers with the Northern Hemisphere land temperature anomaly, Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) noticed a similar behavior of temperature and sunspot numbers from 1861 to 1990, but it seemed that the sunspot number R appeared to lag the temperature anomaly. They found a much better correlation between the solar cycle length (SCL) and the temperature anomaly. In their study they used a smoothed mean value for the SCL with five solar cycles weighted 1-2-2-2-1. They correlated the temperature during the central sunspot cycle of the filter with this smoothed weighted mean value for SCL. The reason for choosing this type of filter was that it has traditionally been used to describe long time trends in solar activity. However, it is surprising that the temperature was not smoothed the same way. In a follow up paper Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the 20th century at the 99% significance level. This suggests that there may exist a physical mechanism linking solar activity to climate variations.

The length of a solar cycle is determined as the time from the appearance of the first spot in a cycle at high solar latitude, to the disappearance of the last spot in the same cycle near the solar equator. However, before the last spot in a cycle disappears, the first spot in the next cycle appears at high latitude, and there is normally a two years overlap. The time of the minimum is defined as the central time of overlap between the two cycles (Waldmeier, 1939), and the length of a cycle can be measured between successive minima or maxima. A recent description of how the time of minimum is calculated is given by NGDC (2011): “When observations permit, a date selected as either a cycle minimum or maximum is based in part on an average of the times extremes are reached in the monthly mean sunspot number, in the smoothed monthly mean sunspot number, and in the monthly mean number of spot groups alone. Two more measures are used at time of sunspot minimum: the number of spotless days and the frequency of occurrence of old and new cycle spot groups.”

It was for a long time thought that the appearance of a solar cycle was a random event, which means that each cycle length and amplitude were independent of the previous. However, Dicke (1978) showed that an internal chronometer has to exist inside the Sun, which after a number of short cycles, reset the cycle length so the average length of 11.2 years is kept. Richards et al. (2009) analyzed the length of cycles 1610–2000 using median trace analyses of the cycle lengths and power spectrum analyses of the O–C residuals of the dates of sunspot maxima and minima. They identified a period of 188±38 years. They also found a correspondence between long cycles and minima of number of spots. Their study suggests that the length of sunspot cycles should increase gradually over the next $\mathrm{}$. accompanied by a gradual decrease in the number of sunspots.

An autocorrelation study by Solanki et al. (2002) showed that the length of a solar cycle is a good predictor for the maximum sunspot number in the next cycle, in the sense that short cycles predict high R_max${}_{\mathit{}}$ and long cycles predict small R_max${}_{\mathit{}}$. They explain this with the solar dynamo having a memory of the previous cycle's length.

Assuming a relation between the sunspot number and global temperature, the secular periodic change of SCL may then correlate with the global temperature, and as long as we are on the ascending (or descending) branches of the 188 year period, we may predict a warmer (or cooler) climate.

It was also demonstrated (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1992, Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 and Lassen and Friis-Christensen, 1995) that the correlation between SCL and climate probably has been in operation for centuries. A statistical study of 69 tree rings sets, covering more than 594 years, and SCL demonstrated that wider tree-rings (better growth conditions) were associated with shorter sunspot cycles (Zhou and Butler, 1998).

The relation between the smoothed SCL and temperature worked well as long as SCL decreased as shown inFig. 1. But when the short cycle SC22 was finished Thejll and Lassen (2000) reported a developing inconsistency. In order to explain the high temperatures at the turn of the millennium, the not yet finished SC23 had to be shorter than 8 years, which was very unlikely, since there had never been observed two such short cycles in a row (see Fig. 1). They concluded that the type of solar forcing described with this SCL model had ceased to dominate the temperature change. Since the final length of SC23 became 12.2 years, the discrepancy became even bigger.

Fig. 1. 

Length of solar cycles (inverted) 1680–2009. The last point refers to SC23 which is 12.2 years long. The gradual decrease in solar cycle length 1850–2000 is indicated with a straight line.

...

5. Conclusions

Significant linear relations are found between the average air temperature in a solar cycle and the length of the previous solar cycle (PSCL) for 12 out of 13 meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic. For nine of these stations no autocorrelation on the 5% significance level was found in the residuals. For four stations the autocorrelation test was undetermined, but the significance of the PSCL relations allowed for 95% confidence level in forecasting for three of these stations. Significant relations are also found for temperatures averaged for Norway, 60 European stations temperature anomaly, and for the HadCRUT3N temperature anomaly. Temperatures for Norway and the average of 60 European stations showed indifferent or no autocorrelations in the residuals. The HadCRUT3N series showed significant autocorrelations in the residuals.

For the average temperatures of Norway and the 60 European stations, the solar contribution to the temperature variations in the period investigated is of the order 40%. An even higher contribution (63–72%) is found for stations at Faroe Islands, Iceland and Svalbard. This is higher than the 7% attributed to the Sun for the global temperature rise in AR4 (IPCC, 2007). About 50% of the HadCRUT3N temperature variations since 1850 may be attributed solar activity. However, this conclusion is more uncertain because of the strong autocorrelations found in the residuals.

The significant linear relations indicate a connection between solar activity and temperature variations for the locations and areas investigated. A regression forecast model based on the relation between PSCL and the average air temperature is used to forecast the temperature in the newly started solar cycle 24. This forecast model benefits, as opposed to the majority of other regression models with explanatory variables, to use an explanatory variable–the solar cycle length–nearly without uncertainty. Usually the explanatory variables have to be forecasted, which of cause induce significant additional forecasting uncertainties.

Our forecast indicates an annual average temperature drop of 0.9 °C in the Northern Hemisphere during solar cycle 24. For the measuring stations south of 75N, the temperature decline is of the order 1.0–1.8 °C and may already have already started. For Svalbard a temperature decline of 3.5 °C is forecasted in solar cycle 24 for the yearly average temperature. An even higher temperature drop is forecasted in the winter months (Solheim et al., 2011).

Arctic amplification due to feedbacks because of changes in snow and ice cover has increased the temperature north of 70N a factor 3 more than below 60N (Moritz et al., 2002). An Arctic cooling may relate to a global cooling in the same way, resulting in a smaller global cooling, about 0.3–0.5 °C in SC24.

Our study has concentrated on an effect with lag once solar cycle in order to make a model for prediction. Since solar forcing on climate is present on many timescales, we do not claim that our result gives a complete picture of the Sun's forcing on our planet's climate.

Paper finds lifetime of CO2 in atmosphere is only 5.4 years

A paper presented at the SEVENTEENTH SYMPOSIUM ON THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES finds that the lifetime and residence time of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere are only about 5.4 years, far less than assumed by the IPCC. The paper corroborates prior work by Salby, Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey etl, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, Spencer, Segalstad, and others which has demonstrated that man-made CO2 is not the primary driver of atmospheric CO2.

Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere

Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy

The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC, corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) which occurred in the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2, have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.

Related: New paper finds ocean along Baja California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

H/T to The Stockholm Initiative site for finding this abstract [Google translation from Swedish]:

David Coe - another kolcykelkritiker

08/05/2013 by CG Ribbing .

43 Comments

This summer, there have been numerous posts and lively discussion of the carbon cycle.Earlier critics: Jaworowski, Beck, Sail City, Humlum and Kouwenberg have questioned the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and its variation before Manua Loa measurements began in the 1950s. A brief description of this on science page ( link)

Last summer was extended discussion in that Gösta Pettersson book "False Alarm" was published. Among other Pehr wrote a post about this in May ( link ). There is now a question of a much broader criticism of the IPCC's carbon cycle is quantitatively incorrect. An appropriate introduction to this newer criticism is to consider this chart.

The lower blue bars show the atmospheric CO 2 -upptag/år ago Manua Loa measurements started. The red-tagged curve is CO 2 -tillförseln/år measured in Gtons carbon. The difference between these rather precise curves must represent the other CO 2 uptake, ie, in the oceans and the biosphere, ie the green field. On the x-axis has ENSO outbreak, ie emerging warm ocean currents, marked with black arrows. It is obvious that the strong variations in atmospheric absorption - high blue bars - correlates strongly with these ENSO outbreak. There is, however, no correlation with the fossil injections.

I highly recommend anyone interested to read chapter 7-9 in the book that is freely available ( link ). Gösta Pettersson shows that AGW supporters provided that increasing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere solely due to the anthropogenic addition, and this causes errors in the results. It has used the Bern model with three widely different decay times for the natural processes that regulate the addition of CO 2 . Since the longest time parameter is more than a hundred years, so the forecasts landed in the often-quoted long lifetimes of carbon dioxide at 100 and even 500 years. Pettersson describes how this differs from the results that the decay of the 14 C isotope after 50's nuclear tests have shown."Bomb curve" decays much faster, and with only one decay time. The difference between Berne and Bomb curve led here for a detailed discussion, and it became almost an overdose of red and white beads. I do not think a consensus was reached, which iofs is very rare on this forum. However shows Göstas making very convincing that the IPCC's carbon cycle has serious quantitative problem, which in turn is disastrous for the validity of the "scenarios" which is based on a strongly increasing CO 2 content in the future.

Discussion of Göstas preparation was replaced in turn by some messages by Pehrson about Salby and his differential equation for the relationship between the CO 2 -content and temperature. The relationship between Göstas and Salbys criticism he is the right person to explain, so I will instead conclude by mentioning another kolcykelkritiker: David Coe . He observations are collected in four manuscripts of which so far published two at Andrew Montfords blog Bishop Hill ( link ). David deals with the two most recent IPCC reports are making when it comes to the carbon cycle and what is controlled atmospheric levels of CO 2 .Like other critics, he finds inconsistencies which shows that there are major flaws in the IPCC's theory that carbon dioxide is only determined by the anthropogenic contribution. I would have quoted one or two of his figures, but have not managed to copy them. Coe discusses include the concentration measurements of the stable 13 C isotope made. The usual description has been confirm that anthropogenic origin. Coe shows that this pioneer Keeling's 13 δ measurements indicated that there were problems with the evidence. Some time ago I referred Leporis conference paper on a new detailed analysis ( link ) which clearly showed that 13 δ values ​​rather showed that the CO 2 -increase was not predominantly derived from humans. Neither Coe, Salbys or Leporis works have been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Experience shows that this may be because they either  have no weakness that I did not realize. Or it may also be because they are so accurate that they represent a serious blow to climate science theses why the elite of tidkriftsredaktörer not want or dare to publish them.