Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

Everything is bringing up this topic for me at present. Ferdinand Engelbeen, Dr Glassman, Derek, J Floor Anthoni, Jonathan Drake, have all brought up issues. We may all still have a lot to learn. I hope we can help each other nudge the science forward at this key point.

The CO2 flux (the flow through the air, into and out of the seas, and into and out of vegetation) is, I now tend to think, absolutely enormous, dwarfing human input, and totally under-appreciated.

I think we need new levels of scientific understanding to sense, to measure, to intuit this dynamic power - as part of showing the even greater dynamics of the Sun heating the waters to expel the CO2 to dwarf human contributions.

I would like help with this! I've started a "laboratory" here stating the first problems. It will change as more issues get raised and as I can add them and put them into the picture. Please post your theories, figures, evidence etc on this thread to make it possible for us to hammer out a bit of shared understanding - if possible! It may be a bit slow at times, if I've got work elsewhere. But it will build up.

[FerdiEgb]

Dear Lucy,

I have already sent this comment to you by mail, but I think it is appropriate that others may come in and give their comment on my comments...

----------

I have read with a lot of interest your page Curious Anomalies in Climate Science. I am a skeptic myself, and agree for over 90% with what is said there. But I disagree with some of the points, as the science there is rather dubious.

To begin with: temperature driving CO2 levels in current times: while it is true that CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes over the last 420,000 years (an average 8 ppmv/°C over the Vostok ice core), this isn't true for recent times anymore. At this moment the increase is about 100 ppmv over the pre-industrial level (comment on Beck's data follows further), while the temperature increase since the LIA is not more than 1°C, adding some 8 ppmv to the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

The graph of Endersbee should be discarded: it is a serious statistical sin to compare a 12 month smoothed CO2 trend with a 21 year smoothed temperature trend. If you smooth over a long enough period, you find high correlations for everything with everything else... Further, if you extend the graph over a longer period than Endersbee did, the high correlation vanishes:

:

Endersbee's excellent correlation starts at 345 ppmv, that is after 1980 (baseline of CO2 in this graph is 300 ppmv)... In reality, there is an excellent correlation between accumulated emissions and increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the whole century.

Further, you can't have it both ways: Endersbee gives a R^2 of 0.996 for the temperature - CO2 correlation after 1980 (which one is leading then?) while the adjacent graph 1 of Joe d'Aleo shows a weak correlation with R^2 of 0.44 over the whole past century... Either there is an excellent correlation (which can be used to "prove" an opposite causation), or there is a weak one... This kind of contradictions isn't good for the credibility of the page...

In modern times, there still is a correlation between temperature and the derivative of the CO2 increase, the rate of change, as MacRae indicated, where temperature variability leads CO2 variability with one to a few months. But that is only about the variability around the trend, NOT the trend itself. The trend itself is (near) completely the result of the emissions.

If you integrate the detrended CO2 variability over the past 50 years, one sees a positive result of only a few ppmv, while the trend is +60 ppmv (btw, any theoretical influence of CO2 on temperature works on trends, less on rate of change of trends). The short-time influence of temperature on CO2 levels is about 3 ppmv/°C, based on the 1992 Pinatubo cooling and the 1998 El Niño warming. The about 0.6°C temperature increase in the past century thus caused somewhere between 1.8 (short term) and 5.4 ppmv (long term) increase of CO2.

Next point: the historical data of Beck.
I had a lot of direct discussions with him. While I admire the incredible amount of work he has done, I completely differ with him in interpretation of the results.

In short: most historical data were collected at places with huge local sources and/or sinks. These places are completely unsuited to measure "background" CO2 levels, as they show extreme diurnal variances, over 100 ppmv over a day. Further, he rejects the notion of a "background" level, because that is what C.D. Keeling was "inclined to believe". He forgets that this was said by Keeling before the start of the Mauna Loa series, and was later confirmed by millions of measurements over the oceans (70% of the atmosphere) and over land, above the inversion layer (about 25% of the atmosphere). Only below the inversion layer over land, the influence of local sources and sinks is not dispersed fast enough. Unfortunately, that are the places where the bulk of the historical measurements were done. Including Giessen (in his response to R.F. Keeling), which is the main data series responsible for the 1942 peak in Beck's CO2 graph. Giessen is in W-Germany and showed huge diurnal, day by day and month by month variations. The author himself explained that by local influences of vegetation, industry and town. Historical measurements over the oceans show a lot of variation, modern measurements very little, only seasonal variations.
More about background CO2 measurements at my page:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

Further, Barrow, also mentioned in his response to R.F. Keeling indeed is a good location (as long as the wind in summer is not from land side - tundra), and currently is one of the base stations for CO2 measurements. Unfortunately, the historical equipment used there had an accuracy of +/- 150 ppmv, good enough for exhailing air O2/CO2 tests (where it was intended for), but far to coarse for ambient CO2 in air tests (that was used to calibrate the equipment!).

Last, but not least, none of the data series Beck retrieved is over a period longer than a few years. Most even are mini series of one day to a few weeks. There are no long term trends from any place on earth longer than a few years in the pre-Mauna Loa period.

In summary:

The historical data which Ernst Beck retrieved have little relevance to the real historical global CO2 data because there were no long term trends of any place and most data series are from places with huge local sources/sinks.

You can compare that to a temperature record, where you put a few years of data from Oslo, followed by a few years data from Rome and again a few years from Oslo in one trend. Of course this shows a peak value in the middle period, but that has no bearing with the average temperature of the earth in that period...

So please, be as skeptic against what (some) skeptics say as to what (some) warmers say...

Best regards,

Ferdinand

[FerdiEgb]

Here my comment on Jaworowski's stake with ice core CO2 data. On first sight, what he says sounds credible, as he was an expert on ice cores. But most of his comments are outdated and based on work done in the 1970-1980's, while modern methods are more or less proven to be robust. The 1998 work of Etheridge e.a. at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JD03410.shtml (unfortunately for a -reasonable- fee) answers many of the objections of Jaworowski...

In his latest work (see http://www.nzcpr.com/Research papers (4).pdf you need to copy the whole URL in a new web page) he shows several points which are anyway discutable...

Page 22: the Antarctic temperature curve is a regional average of coastal (ocean) temperatures based on coastal ice cores. There is no correlation of this curve with the SH ocean temperatures, which are measured by ice core proxies of the high altitude inland ice cores and SH land/ocean temperatures. But they correlate well with the average temperature of mainly land based CO2 measurements in the NH, many of them influenced by local sources. Maybe there is some teleconnection between the Antarctic coast and Giessen in Germany, bypassing the SH oceans?

Further, I have problems with several of his remarks about ice cores. The main point is that several of the (possible) defects he describes lead to too high CO2 levels, not too low, as he suggests. And much of his remarks are often based on completely outdated work, while newer work answers many of his objections.

Page 24: The decrompression of ice cores lead to clathrate "explosions" which may give cracks and loss of CO2.
As N2 and O2 clathrates decompose long before CO2 clathrates, the loss of O2/N2 would be higher than for CO2. CO2 is only 0.03% of the volume, the possibility of escape and "explosions" long after N2/O2 is much smaller.

Page 25/26: The Siple Dome curve shift of CO2 in the ice core and atmospheric concentrations is arbitrarely choosen.
I don't know for Siple Dome, but the more recent work (1998) of Etheridge e.a. (see the link before) for Law Dome clearly shows that the gas phase CO2 of the firn / ice core from top to closing depth follows a curve which is close to what can be expected from the CO2 migration speed in firn/ice.

Thus there is nothing arbitrarely in the difference in average age of air in the enclosed bubbles and the ice at the same depth. Moreover, there is an overlap of about 20 years of the ice core bubble CO2 and the South Pole atmospheric data, which are within the error margin (1.2 ppmv, one sigma) of the ice core measurements.

Law Dome used three different drilling methods (wet and dry), the results of the three ice cores for the same air age is what did give the error margin, not really problematic.

-------------------

There are other objections to what Jaworowski says in other web pages: e.g. that cracks in the ice cause a CO2 loss. But how can that be, if the outside world is at 385 ppmv, and the bubbles show 280 ppmv (and lower)?

In my opinion, it is physically impossible that cracks in the ice lead to too low CO2 levels. The outside CO2 level is 380 ppmv, the inside (for e.g. Vostok) is 180-320 ppmv. Moreover the inside is originally at higher pressure than the outside. And N2/O2 will escape first, leading to too high CO2 measurements of the bubbles, if that was true.

In my opinion, if one (as Jaworowski) thinks that the ice age - gas age difference is manipulated to match the CO2 data from Mauna Loa (which is anyway not true for Law Dome data), why shouldn't the warmers manipulate a little more, to show that CO2 is leading the temperature record over the (Vostok) ice core(s)? That CO2 is lagging the temperature record is quite inconvinient for the AGW hypothesis, so with a little help...

Although the increase of CO2 due to humans is one of the cornerstones of AGW theory, the main point is that the amount of CO2 and AGW are only weakly correlated, as all evidence points to a weak influence of CO2 on temperature. Jaworowski makes the common error to want to falsify the AGW theory by attacking all cornerstones, but in this case it is one where AGW scientists stand strong...

He doubts the CO2 levels found in ice cores, based on direct chemical measurements (no discussion here, was enough discussed in the past) and stomata data. The latter have far more problems about reliability than ice cores... To begin with, they have a spring bias: stomata start forming in spring, when CO2 is at the highest seasonal level. Secondly, they have a local bias: As stomata are on leaves, and for this purpose on land, local CO2 levels (in spring) are the main influence. And third, there may be changes in vegetation/human surroundings in the time period of interest, which can change the local CO2 levels in spring over time. The latter makes calibration in modern times (against ice cores!) problematic.
As an aside, stomata index data trends are in sharp contrast with the trend of historical measurements by chemical methods, as they show no peak values around 1942.

At last, what I find quite remarkable in Jaworowski's work, is dat he mainly refers to... Jaworowski for most of the complaints and that many of the references are from the begin 1990's. Not a good sign...

--------------------

In general, the relaxation should be sufficient in time to allow the ice core to expand and clathrates to decompose. If that was not the case, the effect would be a lower CO2 measurement than reality.

Now about the work that Etheridge e.a. has done with the Law Dome ice cores. I have the impression that Etheridge did know the objections by Jaworowski, as he sums up a lot of difficulties which may influence the result, and that he addresses many of them by using different alternatives (like three drilling methods) to see the impact.

The gas phase of firn (open air inclusions in the densifying snow) was measured at different depths (including on the surface), with apparatus made from different material, different air pumps and further steel, stainless steel and glass sampling flasks. The steel flasks did give problems, probably caused by the pretreatment of the inner surface, the glass and stainless steel flasks did show reliable values, and the differences in the rest of the equipment had no influence.

Further results: the first 10 m still is in close contact with the surface, and no enrichment or depletion is seen by wind and/or convection. At about 72 m depth, there is no diffusion anymore, as the layers are sufficiently sealed. At that depth, the age of the gas phase is about 10 years. But still open air is present and already closed bubbles start to form. Both open air bubbles in the firn (air pump, flasks, direct measurement) and closed bubbles in ice (crushing method) were measured for CO2 levels (against the same calibration gases with the same GCM) over the closing traject. They match each other within 1.3 ppmv (1 sigma, nonsystematic).

This seems to confirm that:
There is no conspiracy in the fact that the air age is different from the ice age at any depth after enclosing. This can be measured directly (as for the Law Dome fast accumulating ice core), or by firn densification models (for the low accumulation ice cores, like Vostok). Law Dome ice core bubbles and direct air measurements at the South Pole match each other for the same gas age in an overlapping period of about 20 years.
There is no difference in CO2 level measured directly in the gas phase and from the closed bubbles by ice crushing at the same depth.

Of course, bubbles in low accumulation ice cores like Vostok at enormous depths may show different behaviour, as the pressure and temperatures differ widely from Law Dome. But here we have the advantage of overlapping ice cores with different accumulation rates: Two of the Law Dome ice cores only show 150 years of CO2 levels, but these overlap with the third core (with lower accumulation), which shows 1,000 years. Which overlaps with Taylor Dome (and others) which shows 20,000 years. Which overlaps with Vostok, which shows 420,000 years,...

The overlapping portions of the different ice cores are all within 5 ppmv of each other...

Thus I am inclined to accept that the ice core measurements are sufficient reliable and show the CO2 levels of the ancient atmosphere as it was, be it more and more smoothed as the accumulation needs to be lower to obtain longer time frames...

------------

That it was about Jaworowski: please take his comments with a grain of salt!

Best regards,

Ferdinand

[FerdiEgb]

[Lucy Skywalker]

Dear Ferdinand
Thank you for responding. It will take me, at least, time to work through all the issues you bring up here - and I'd like everyone on board!

I'm going to email Endersbee and Glassman and Floor Anthoni as soon as I can, to join in because I think this is a really crucial and under-developed part of the skeptics' science. I want to give Endersbee a chance to respond and I've got several questions that he might be able to answer which would answer your very reasonable reservations.

[ian]

Would absolutely luv to participate in the discussion but I well realise my limitations when it comes to such complex matters of science. Lucy, think it is a great idea to get other 'experts' on board and it would be even more helpful if after they discuss the issue on a scientific level they could then somehow reformat them for the layman.
Best wishes, ian

[Lucy Skywalker]

Ian, thanks for saying this - my problem too! I feel we need to get the science really simple and agreed enough for sceptical newcomers and non-scientists to see clearly. Then we will not be so vulnerable to people who are simply loud.

[Richard111]

I can only echo Ian's comments and hope for more layman explanations.
Lots of interest for me just reading FerdiEgb's comments, even if my confusion level rises. So as not to interupt the flow of this thread I will ask my questions elsewhere.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Hi Ferdinand
finally ready to start commenting...

"The graph of Endersbee should be discarded: it is a serious statistical sin to compare a 12 month smoothed CO2 trend with a 21 year smoothed temperature trend. If you smooth over a long enough period, you find high correlations for everything with everything else... Further, if you extend the graph over a longer period than Endersbee did, the high correlation vanishes [pic]. Endersbee's excellent correlation starts at 345 ppmv, that is after 1980 (baseline of CO2 in this graph is 300 ppmv)... In reality, there is an excellent correlation between accumulated emissions and increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the whole century."

I've put your challenges to him - still waiting for replies... Floor Anthoni and I are still not convinced that the graph is *totally* invalidated by your "bad stats" claim (see his new notes here - just scroll down a little). Endersbee's temperature axis is SST (sea surface temperatures) - this is the record you need for the direct link between water and CO2. What does your temperature axis represent? I presume that average SST was not available before satellites pinged us enough SST records - it seems likely this is why his record starts in 1985...

"Further, you can't have it both ways: Endersbee gives a R^2 of 0.996 for the temperature - CO2 correlation after 1980 (which one is leading then?) while the adjacent graph 1 of Joe d'Aleo shows a weak correlation with R^2 of 0.44 over the whole past century... "

Endersbee correlates SST directly toCO2 levels during the time of satellite pics; Joe D'Aleo is not plotting this at all, if you look again, perhaps I need to make it clear. All Joe's graphs show temperature over time, but this is OVERALL sea-plus-land temperatures, which naturally lowers the correlation. In addition, (1) shows CO2; (2) shows TSI; (3) shows ocean currents (I'm not quite clear exactly what this is and will check it out) and (4) shows the lot. The purpose of this set was to see what the OVERALL temperatures correlated with best - CO2, Sun, or ocean currents. Even here, it's quite clear that the overall temp levels correlate far better with the ocean currents, with r=0.85, than does the correlation with CO2 of 0.44 that you quote. So I don't think this is bad science either.

Have to break for now. Cheers - look forward to meeting you! I'm in London this week and only got intermittent Internet connections. Will return to your material asap.

[FerdiEgb]

Hi Lucy,

I will remake the century trend with the SST... These are available, but for the SH based on sparse data (ships measurements).

But I don't expect that it will be better, as the shape is more or less the same as for land+oceans, only the amplitude is different.

Further, I have calculated the different residuals for yearly averages in the period 1959-2003 (Mauna Loa, Hadley global/SST), instead of the 21-year smoothed temperature trend.

For the ocean temperature - CO2 trend (both yearly averages), the R^2 decreases from 0.996 to 0.854, still high but nevertheless not a perfect match anymore.

For the global temperature - CO2 trend, the R^2 = 0.950 over that period, seems a lot better to me (but may be just coinsidence, wait for the longer trend)...

For the emissions - CO2 trend, R^2 = 0.964

And last but not least:
For the accumulated emissions - CO2 trend, R^2 = 0.998

Beste regards,

Ferdinand

[Derek]

Great thread.

CO2 solubility (in water) / temperature relationship can be proved in a lab,
if the natural world shows corresponding observations / measurements.
Then it is a great step forward.

Then sort out the oceanic currents / phases (there may well be a solar element) as well
to see if it helps explain, or does not explain any CO2 / temperature lag.

WA-LLA - quantum leap forward in our understanding.

[ian]

I just came across this article from the US National Academy of Sciences

(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/10/03/0807624105.full.pdf+html?sid=62ec340d-a22f-4a36-bf11-31c50a8a35d4)

which posits that...ummm...well...not overly sure what it is infering except perhaps that CO2...well here's the intro anyway:

Complementary to measurements in Antarctic ice cores, stomatal
frequency analysis of leaves of land plants preserved in peat and
lake deposits can provide a proxy record of preindustrial atmospheric
CO2 concentration. CO2 trends based on leaf remains of
Quercus robur (English oak) from the Netherlands support the
presence of significant CO2 variability during the first half of the
last millennium. The amplitude of the reconstructed multidecadal
fluctuations, up to 34 parts per million by volume, considerably
exceeds maximum shifts measured in Antarctic ice. Inferred
changes in CO2 radiative forcing are of a magnitude similar to
variations ascribed to other mechanisms, particularly solar irradiance
and volcanic activity, and may therefore call into question the
concept of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which
assumes an insignificant role of CO2 as a preindustrial climateforcing
factor. The stomata-based CO2 trends correlate with coeval
sea-surface temperature trends in the North Atlantic Ocean, suggesting
the possibility of an oceanic source/sink mechanism for the
recorded CO2 changes.

If this adds to the discussion I would love an interpretation!
best wishes, ian

[Derek]

[Richard111]

I have read else where that scientists are questioning the accuracy of the Antarctic ice core data. Something to do with clathrates "popping" and CO2 being absorbed over time into the ice. I don't understand all the ramifications but the idea seems to be the data under records CO2 levels. The stomata data seems to verify that.

One good thing, the science of recovering fossil temperature data is sure getting a good workout.

[FerdiEgb]