Thongchai Thailand

A MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF THE CARBON CYCLE

Posted on: June 10, 2020

CARBON CYCLE DIAGRAM  FROM THE IPCC

[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

RELATED POSTS ON THE CARBON CYCLE [LINK] [LINK]  

 

THIS POST IS A STUDY OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS MADE WITH MONTE CARLO SIMULATION. STATED UNCERTAINTIES ARE USED FOR FLOWS FOR WHICH UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATES ARE AVAILABLE. FLOWS FOR WHICH UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATES ARE NOT STATED BY THE IPCC, AN UNCERTAINTY VALUE IS DERIVED FROM THE STATED VALUES.

 

 

PART-1: CARBON CYCLE FLOWS AND THE AIRBORNE FRACTION

The IPCC describes the carbon cycle in terms of carbon dioxide flows among multiple sources and sinks. The atmosphere plays a role in nine of these flows. These mean flows, averaged over the decade 2000-2009 (Figure 7) and their standard deviations (SD) as reported by the IPCC are listed below in units of GTC/y (IPCCAR5, 2013). Non availability of data is indicated by N/A.

  1. Natural: Ocean surface to atmosphere:Mean=78.4,SD=N/A.
  2. Natural: Atmosphere to ocean:surface:Mean=80.0,SD=N/A
  3. Human: Fossil fuel emissions:surface to atmosphere:Mean=7.8,SD=0.6
  4. Human: Land use change:surface to atmosphere:Mean=1.1,SD=0.8
  5. Natural: Photosynthesis:atmosphere to surface:Mean=123.0,SD=8.0
  6. Natural: Respiration/fire:surface to atmosphere:Mean=118.7,SD=N/A
  7. Natural: Freshwater to atmosphere:Mean=1.0,SD=N/A
  8. Natural: Volcanic emissions surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.1,SS =N/A
  9. Natural: Rock weathering:surface to atmosphere:Mean=0.3,SD=N/A
  10. TOTAL TO ATMOSPHERE:  207.4
  11. TOTAL FROM ATMOSPHERE: 203
  12. NET TO ATMOSPHERE=4.4 = 56% AIRBORNE FRACTION OF EMISSIONS.
  13. THIS RESULT SITS AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW)  AND CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY CLAIMED ROLE OF HUMANS, THE SOLE ARGUMENT FOR HUMAN CAUSE, AND THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CALL TO CLIMATE ACTION
  14. THE THEORY OF AGW STATES THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE THE AIRBORNE FRACTION INCREASES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION
  15. HOWEVER, AS WE SHOW BELOW, THE COMPUTED AIRBORNE FRACTION HAS NO INTERPRETATION IN TERMS OF ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT TAKE UNCERTAINTIES INTO ACCOUNT; AND WHEN UNCERTAINTIES ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT AIRBORNE FRACTION IS FOUND IN THE DATA AND THAT THEREFORE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSE AND NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER THE NEED OR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLIMATE ACTION. 

 

 

PART-2: A CARBON CYCLE FLOW BALANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF UNCERTAINTY

 

FIGURE 1: MONTE CARLO SIMULATION VIDEO 

 

 

FINDINGS OF THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION ANALYSIS

 

FIGURE 2: FLOWS TO AND FROM THE ATMOSPHERE WITH FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS

MONTE-1

 

 

FIGURE 3: FLOWS TO AND FROM THE ATMOSPHERE: NO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS

MONTE-3

 

 

FIGURE 4: NET CO2 FLOW TO THE ATMOSPHERE WITH FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS

MONTE-2

 

 

FIGURE 5: NET CO2 FLOW TO THE ATMOSPHERE: NO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS

MONTE-4

 

 

ANALYSIS 

  1. THE IMPORTANT CARBON CYCLE FLOWS ARE AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE LARGER THAN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND THEY CANNOT BE DIRECTLY MEASURED BUT MUST BE INFERRED FROM RELATED DATA. THEREFORE, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO LARGE UNCERTAINTIES THAT ARE OFTEN LARGER THAN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
  2. THE COMPLEX MASS BALANCE OF UNCERTAIN FLOWS IS CARRIED OUT WITH MONTE CARLO SIMULATION WHERE 150 RANDOM VALUES ARE DRAWN FROM ALL POSSIBLE VALUES WITHIN THE STATED UNCERTAINTY OF CARBON CYCLE FLOWS.
  3. THE IPCC PROVIDED AN UNCERTAINTY VALUE FOR THE FLOW OF CO2 REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE BY PHOTOSYNTHESIS AS A STANDARD DEVIATION OF σ=8 IN A FLOW WITH A MEAN VALUE OF μ=123. THE UNCERTAINTY IN THIS CASE CAN BE REPRESENTED AS σ=8/123 OR 6.5% OF THE MEAN . THE UNCERTAINTY FOR THE OTHER UNCERTAIN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS ARE NOT PROVIDED AND ARE THEREFORE ESTIMATED AS 6.5% OF THE MEAN.
  4. IN THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION, 150 POSSIBLE VALUES ARE  DRAWN FROM WITHIN THIS UNCERTAINTY BAND FOR EACH UNCERTAIN CARBON CYCLE FLOW. LINES DRAWN THROUGH THESE 150 VALUES ARE DEPICTED IN THE CHARTS ABOVE FROM FIGURE 1 TO FIGURE 5. 
  5. IN FIGURE 4 ABOVE WE FIND THAT WHEN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS ARE  INSERTED INTO THE CARBON CYCLE FLOWS, THE MEAN OF THE 150 RANDOM MONTE CARLO SIMULATION VALUES OF THE AIRBORNE FRACTION IS μ=4.77 WITH A STANDARD DEVIATION OF σ=12.7 . THE RESULTS SHOW NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION. 
  6. THE MASS BALANCE IS REPEATED IN FIGURE 5 ABOVE WITHOUT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS. HERE WE FIND THE MEAN OF THE AIRBORNE FRACTION IS CLOSE TO ZERO AS WE WOULD EXPECT WITH A COMPUTED MEAN OF μ= –1.7 BUT WITH A LARGE STANDARD DEVIATION OF σ=12.1. THE LARGE STANDARD DEVIATION IMPLIES THAT THE COMPUTED MEAN HAS NO INTERPRETATION BECAUSE IT IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

 

SUMMARY OF NET CO2 FLOWS TO THE ATMOSPHERE

CASE 1: NO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: MEAN=-1.7, STDEV=12.1, TSTAT=0.14

CASE 2: WITH FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS: MEAN=4.77, STDEV=12.7, TSTAT=0.375

THE RESULTS IMPLY THAT THE TWO MEAN CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CARBON CYCLE WITH AND WITHOUT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION HAVE NO INTERPRETATION BECAUSE OF A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE DUE TO LARGE UNCERTAINTIES.

CONCLUSION: WE CONCLUDE THAT WITHIN THE STATED UNCERTAINTIES OF CARBON CYCLE FLOWS, NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND IN THE DATA THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAUSE CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION. THE UNCERTAINTIES IN CARBON CYCLE FLOWS ARE TOO LARGE TO DETECT THESE ASSUMED EFFECTS.

THE ASSUMED SENSITIVITY OF ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION TO FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS IS THE ESSENTIAL BASIS FOR THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING BY THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY AND THE CALL FOR COSTLY CLIMATE ACTION; BUT NO SUCH SENSITIVITY IS FOUND IN THE DATA. THIS RESULT IS SUPPORTED BY CORRELATION ANALYSIS PRESENTED IN A RELATED POST AT THIS SITE [LINK TO CORRELATION ANALYSIS].

POSTSCRIPT: IT IS NOTED THAT THE ESSENTIAL MESSAGE OF THE CLIMATE MOVEMENT IS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE BUT CLIMATE ACTION. CLIMATE CHANGE IS SEEN THROUGHOUT THE HOLOCENE AS CYCLES OF WARMING AND COOLING [LINK] . CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE SERVES ONLY AS THE RATIONALE FOR CLIMATE ACTION. AS SUCH AGW CLIMATE CHANGE IS JUST THE LATEST INCARNATION OF THE ANTI FOSSIL FUEL MOVEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST [LINK] . THE REAL ISSUE IN THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE IS HUMAN CAUSE AND NOT CLIMATE CHANGE.

 

RELATED POSTS  [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT IS MONTE CARLO SIMULATION? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 Responses to "A MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF THE CARBON CYCLE"

Haven’t had time to read the full post, but I was struck by this point:

THIS RESULT SITS AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE THEORY OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

The real fundament of all the climate nonsense is the idea that our cold, thin atmosphere “further heats” the surface above what the sun is able to provide. So suggest to attack this claim as much as possible.
See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47429333_Atmospheric_CO2_Principal_Control_Knob_Governing_Earth's_Temperature
specifically:

The Sun is the source of energy that heats
Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground,
there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming
arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted
by the ground, then absorbed locally within the
atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both
upward and downward directions, further heating
the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

The article also claims that the avg temperature of Earth without atmosphere would be ~255K. Our moon proves this claim wrong.

If the atmosphere “further heats” the surface from ~255K to ~288K, it must also have heated the deep oceans from ~255K to ~275K.
Totally impossible.
The deep oceans were heated during their creation by sitting on (almost) bare magma. With a cooling world, the crust increased in thickness and the oceans cooled as well, to “normal” temperatures in the 275-300K range. The sun provides the last 10-15K to the surface AND thus creates the insulating layer that keeps geothermal heat mostly in the deeper oceans.
The atmosphere only reduces the energy loss from the surface to space.
Due to the hydrostatic equilibrium the atmosphere is in, the entire atmosphere must be involved in this process. Role of CO2 irrelevant at best.

Yes sir of course we an talk about the human caused temperature effect of rising co2 once it is determined that rising co2 is human caused.

I don’t follow you. If the atmosphere can’t increase the temperature of our surface / oceans, how does it make sense to discuss the temperature effect of a (small) part of ~0,04% CO2 of that same atmosphere?

My point is only that there is no evidence that humans are causing atmos co2 to go up.

Without that agw has nothing to go on.

Without that agw has nothing to go on.

That’s the point it seems impossible to get across.
The atmosphere is NOT “further heating” the surface, so any discussion about how much any part of the atmosphere attributes to a non-existent warming is pointless.

Skeptics enable the alarmists by discussing whether the role of CO2 is large or small.

“The atmosphere is NOT “further heating””

THIS IS NOT A TEST OF “HEATING”.

THIS POST IS A TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAUSE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO RISE.

THIS POST IS A TEST OF THE HYPOTHESIS THAT FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS CAUSE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 TO RISE.

No need to shout, I’m fully aware of that.
Problem is that the general public won’t be convinced by Monte Carlo simulations, and alarmists will dismiss them beforehand.

If my ideas get discussed/accepted they CAN be explained to the general public. Everybody will understand that you can’t warm a swimming pool with cold air, let alone 4km deep oceans.

Sorry. The capital letters were accidental and not intended.

So the CAGW hypothesis is without foundation. If Mr. Wouters is correct it is also based on incorrect physics. If either of these assertions were to be accepted by the IPCC the whole “climate crises”scenario would necessarily fail. I have been trying to push the point made in this post since Salby’s first video from Sidney. I have not seen a a really serious attempt to falsify it. The ones I have seen were less than convincing so all of the work based on the assumption of factual CAGW is questionable. I would think someone interested in not wasting their time and money on more studies likely to be shown as baseless would seriously attack this work. I have seen serious works questioning Mr. Wouters contention and they are above my pay grade to assess. I think the work of the Connollys finding the troposphere in thermal equilibrium supports his view.

Thank you for this detailed and interesting comment. The essence of the climate movement is human cause. The human cause argument relies on only one thing and that is the assumed sensitivity of atmospheric composition to fossil fuel emissions. What I have shown is that there is no evidence that atmodpheric composition is responsive to fossil fuel emissions.

I have seen serious works questioning Mr. Wouters contention and they are above my pay grade to assess.

Very interested in those works. I’m not aware of any one even discussing my ideas 😉

Your comment to an antarctica post and my elaboration of that comment in the body of the post have become well known.

The basic contention of AGW is that our CO2 absorbes long wave radiation from the sun heated earth, re-emits some of it back to earth forcing more warming. Dr. Roy Spencer defends this concept and it is contested by many as “breaking” the second law of thermodynamics. I have leaned toward accepting it based on some of the defenders being scientists I trust like Spencer and Lindzen. But the arguments put forward by those opposed seem reasonable to me as well. Then along come the Connollys with their radiosonde analysis showing the troposphere in thermodynamic equilibrium so the radiation absorption and emission takes place without changing temperature. This seems to fit with those that contest the greenhouse heating hypothesis which has only been demonstrated in a lab and not observed in out atmosphere.
If your argument was not about the greenhouse effect hypothesis being in error I apologize for my rambling.

Your comment to an antarctica post and my elaboration of that comment in the body of the post have become well known.

Great, but in which circles?
Haven’t seen any discussion in the places I’m familiar with.
It’s over 6 years since I first had a post on Tallblokes with my ideas.
would be good to see some progress in stopping this whole climate nonsense.

David Albert June 15, 2020 at 3:53 am

If your argument was not about the greenhouse effect hypothesis being in error I apologize for my rambling.

My argument is definitely about the greenhouse effect:
it does not exist 😉
The atmosphere is warmed by the surface (and partly direct by the sun). It DOES reduce the energy loss to space, an Insulation effect.
The entire atmosphere is involved in this Insulation effect, not just CO2.
So yes, without atmosphere it would be colder, same as taking of your coat in cold weather.
But the atmosphere does not HEAT the surface, and most certainly not the deep oceans.

Your comment to an antarctica post and my elaboration of that comment in the body of the post have become well known.

Great, but in which circles?
Haven’t seen any discussion in the places I’m familiar with.
It’s over 6 years since I first had a post on Tallblokes with my ideas.
would be good to see some progress in stopping this whole climate nonsense.

The material balance is always fulfilled for the system :

Inlets + Produced = Outlets + Accumulated

For the atmosphere there is inlet CO2 flowing from the nature (land and oceans), from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use (Anthropogenic) :

• Inlets = Nature_in + Anthrop_in

• Produced = 0 (CH4 & CO concentration is ~0)

• Outlets = Nature_out + Anthrop_out

==>

Nature_in + Anthrop_in + 0 = Nature_out + Anthrop_out + Accumulated

and

• Accumulated, measured at e.g. Mauna Loa.
• Anthrop_out = 0 ppm/year.

==>

(Nature_in – Nature_out) + Anthrop_in = Accumulated

==>

Nature_out – Nature_in = Anthrop_in – Accumulated

The right hand parts of the equation are rather well known and bigger than zero, then the left hand part also is bigger than zero, i.e. atmosphere’s CO3 flow is net to the nature.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Thank you for your comment, sir. The issue is uncertainty.

The fallacy of this argument follows from circular reasoning. It has been undressed by Professor Salby.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is calculated to increase by approximately 4.5 ppm/year if nothing else happens (fossil fuel CO2 emission = 36*10^12 kg/year ; 44 kg/kmole ; atmos weight = 5.2*10^18 kg ; 29 kg/kmole ==> 36/44/5.2*29*10^-6 = 4.5 ppm/year).

If the nature (land and oceans) also are net adding CO2, then the atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase by more than 4.5 ppm/year.

At Mauna Loa the atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured to increase, accumulate, by only 2.5 ppm/year.

The difference, 2 ppm/year, has to be accumulated elsewhere – into the nature. This figure is calculated, without knowing anything about the nature’s CO2 flow, from the atmos material balance, which always is fulfilled :

Nature_out – Nature_in = Anthrop_in – Accumulated

With figures :

Nature_out – Nature_in = 4.5 – 2.5 = 2.0

Even if the nature’s flow into the atmosphere is very big and not fully known, the flow out from the atmosphere into the nature is bigger. All according to the atmos CO2 material balance, net 2 ppm/year to the nature.

Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: