jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

Subscribe

March 2009
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Please visit

Categories

Nature Photographs

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)

BECAUSE the increase in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has correlated with an increase in the use of fossil fuels, causation has been assumed.

Tom Quirk has tested this assumption including through an analysis of the time delay between northern and southern hemisphere variations in carbon dioxide.  In a new paper in the journal Energy and Environment he writes:

“Over the last 20 years substantial amounts of CO2 derived from fossil fuel have been released into the atmosphere. This has moved from 5.0 gigatonnes of carbon in 1980 to 6.2 gigatonnes  in 1990 to 7.0 gigatonnes in 2000…  Over 95% of this CO2 has been released in the Northern Hemisphere…

“A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2  showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…

“If 75% of CO2 from fossil fuel is emitted north of latitude 30 then some time lag might be expected due to the sharp year-to-year variations in the estimated amounts left in the atmosphere. A simple model, following the example of the 14Cdata with a one year mixing time, would suggest a delay of 6 months for CO2 changes in concentration in the Northern Hemisphere to appear in the Southern Hemisphere.

“A correlation plot of …year on year differences of monthly measurements at Mauna Loa against those at the South Pole [shows]… the time difference is positive when the South Pole data leads the Mauna Loa data. Any negative bias (asymmetry in the plot) would indicate a delayed arrival of CO2 in the Southern Hemisphere.

“There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases [in atmospheric carbon dioxide] may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

********************

Notes

‘Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide’, by Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Volume 20, pages 103-119.  http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm

The abstract reads:

THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes. An examination of the data from:  i) measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes; ii) the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere; and iii) the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2, raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased  atmospheric CO2. The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.

Data drawn from the website http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm  .

Tom Quirk has a Master of Science from the University of Melbourne and Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Oxford.   His early career was spent in the UK and USA as an experimental research physicist, a University Lecturer and Fellow of three Oxford Colleges.

Advertisement

141 Responses to “The Available Evidence Does Not Support Fossil Fuels as the Source of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (Part 1)”

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All

  1. Comment from: Steve Short


    “No, certainly not. The reason why CO2 is not such a likely driver of past change is that there is no obvious reason why its concentration in the atmosphere should increase, apart from temperature. And if temperature is the cause, then it is operating as a feedback rather than a forcer. There’s only a rather fixed amount of CO2 in circulation between atmosphere, biosphere/land and ocean at any time, of order about 2000 Gt.”

    I’m sorry, but I think that is a totally unsafe assumption Nick for the following very good reasons:

    (1) Putting aside actual so-called fossil carbon (i.e. shales, coal, oil, gas tar sands) which are all relatively unreactive geologically overall (unless those pesky humans dig them up and burn them) there are in fact (today) substantial pools of potentially more reactive ‘fixed’ carbon other than the active biosphere’s biomass. I refer to the carbon held in undersea methane hydrate deposits, the methane held in tundral permafrost, the organic carbon held in broad scale peat deposits, the organic carbon held in deep sea ooze deposits, the inorganic carbon held in outcropping karstic limestones, calcretes etc., etc.

    (2) There is plenty of paleological evidence that the Earths biomass has varied widely n magnitude over 100s of million of years, particularly as a result of shifts in the dispositions of the continents, major changes in average continental aridity (and hence land plant biomass), changes in the depths of oceans and degree of circulation available to oceans. For example, what body of carbon reduced dissolved to produce the episodes of bulk oceanic anoxia and atmospheric hydrogen sulfide? It wasn’t volcanos for sure. For example, like the closing of the Panama Isthmus before it, the opening of the Drake Passage only ~41 My ago had a profound effect on the Southern Ocean and on the biomass in the Southern Ocean as it enabled a full global distribution of scare Fe, Si and N-based nutrients – much of it sourced from the volcanos of the Southern Andes. It is implausible to suggest that major global geophysical changes and step shifts did not at least access significant proportions of the above-mentioned ‘non-fossil’ relatively accessible bulk pools of carbon (noting that today about 50% of the biomass carbon resides on the continents and about 48% in the oceans ±2% or so either way).

    (3) Even in just the last 400 My the partial pressure of CO2 has varied from less than half the present level up to at least 10 – 15 times the present level.

  2. Comment from: cohenite


    Steve;

    “Even in just the last 400 My the partial pressure of CO2 has varied from less than half the present level up to at least 10 – 15 times the present level”

    Does that mean the conventional CO2 record is underdone;

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/fig_tab/nature06949_F2.html

  3. Comment from: gavin


    “One need to be cautious with any form of historical measurements, and even more with proxies which may (or not) have a correlation with some ancient variable” is a classic statement by Ferdinand and its followed by a another quality post on the subject.

    Perhaps it would help Kuhnkat if I mentioned other difficulties in obtaining some scientific objective. There were many days when I drove round a sprawling city looking at instruments, checking systems and making measurements, occasionally doing the various types in one day. I could write a whole chapter on personal perception as applied to perceived instrument errors.

    Having assumed certain background readings for temp, humidity O2, CO2, Ph etc it was only necessary to bring client’s private gear into line with the better R&D Labs and UNIs (steady as she goes approach). However this question frequently arose; how long do we wait for readings to stabilise before some new change over runs the present situation?

    Standardizing a particular test every time with aging probes in often crappy conditions becomes a dream. Elitism in so called “scientific” labs becomes a problem too as rigid routines can miss important response factors that cloud normal measurements. We in industry however had an umbrella organisation with international connections called NATA with well established roots in mutual recognition procedures long before some of the scientific disciplines. It’s in this way I can claim that our industrial process control and appropriate standards of measurement quickly out grew other R&D.

    http://www.nata.asn.au/

    Note too in recent times all the above has travelled on the back of the space industry.

  4. Comment from: Steve Short


    Hi Cohenite

    The paper you quote only refers to the last 800 ky i.e. approx. the 2nd half of the Pleistocene.

    I was referring to the last 400 My. I think you owe me an ‘Oops’ (;-)

  5. Comment from: gavin


    Steve; imo cohenite is waiting with baited breath for that moment when we are tipped right over this warming peak

  6. Comment from: Nick Stokes


    Steve,
    First a typo (sort of) – I meant to say 2000 Gt C, not CO2, in circulation.
    I tried to qualify the phrase carefully. I don’t say that it is impossible for CO2 to be a driver, just that it’s not so likely. The reason is partly that there is not so much C in circulation; something approaching half of that is already currently in the atmosphere, so there’s no apparent big source, absent human activity. But of course, the qn then is, what does “in circulation” mean? You’ve listed lots of other carbon reserves. Now they are not currently exchanging C with the atmosphere, and there are various reasons for believing that they haven’t done so in the past (1 My say). Methane hydrates, if they gasified, would leave a big CH4 peak in the ice cores. Limestone requires much acid to liberate CO2 on a large scale, and there’s no obvious candidate. Peat and ooze would require some large scale upheaval to bring them in contact with oxygen.

    It’s hard to imagine anything other than climate itself which could cause the widespread rapid liberation of CO2 from any of its sources. Sure there are much slower processes like tectonic movements which can affect the biosphere etc. And on a scale of millions of years, other possibilities open up.

    The point I am really trying to make here is that there is currently a unique interference with carbon distribution, which it is said will lead to warming. You shouldn’t extend that to saying that all warming is caused by CO2. Some could, but it isn’t a leading candidate. And you always have to go a stage further – if it’s postulated that CO2 rise caused a certain warming, then what made the CO2 rise.

  7. Comment from: Ferdinand Engelbeen


    reaction on comment from: Tom Quirk March 27th, 2009 at 9:50 am

    Dear Tom,

    Thanks for your reaction.

    I don’t think that we have much problems with the way the data are smoothed. But there are two main problems which make your conclusions not very likely:

    - The main problem is that you don’t compare ENSO events with the trend but with the derivative of the trend:

    From the paper (after Fig. 11, which shows the derivative of d13C changes at SPO compared to a simple step model (constant source of low d13C, combined with ENSO):

    “The correlation of changes in d13C with ENSO events and the comparison with a simple model of a series of cascades suggest that the changes in d13C in the atmosphere have little to do with the input of CO2 emissions from the continuous use of fossil fuels.”

    But you have a good correlation between ENSO and the derivative of the d13C decline, not the d13C decline itself, which is completely dominated by the “constant low d13C source”… In the trend itself, ENSO only is the cause of the noise, not the cause of the trend.

    - The second problem is the timing problem:

    From chapter 5:

    “There does not appear to be any time difference between the hemispheres. This suggests that the annual increases may be coming from a global or equatorial source.”

    But that is based on a correlation comparison. But the comparision doesn’t make any differentiation between zero and multiples of 12 months delays…

    For the different NH/SH stations there is a clear delay if you look at the real trends:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg

    It is quite clear that there is an over 12 months delay in CO2 levels between Mauna Loa and the south pole, thus the source is clearly in the NH, and your conclusion is wrong.

    Even more pronounced for the d13C changes:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/d13c_trends.jpg

    Where the delay is several years…

    Thus that are two main objections. I haven’t digged deeper in the lack of amplitude change of the seasonal variability as result of increasing CO2 sinks. Maybe of interest, but the two foregoing problems make your conclusions about the source of the CO2 increase and d13C decline unsubstantiated… The more that the oceans can’t be the cause of the d13C decline, as the (deep) oceans have a higher d13C level than the atmosphere…

    Regards,

    Ferdinand Engelbeen

  8. Comment from: Reed Coray


    Reference: Steve Short March 26th, 2009 at 4:55

    Steve, I gave what you said some thought, and two things still puzzle me. First, you wrote
    “…there are exactly two annual cycles of high cyanobacterial primary productivity in oceans of the NH.” To me, the term “two annual cycles” implies two distinct sinusoids each with a period of one year (and hence a frequency of one cycle per year), but with different phases (i.e., different times at which the sinusoids “peak”) and/or different amplitudes. If this is what you meant, then the net (combined) behavior of these patterns is NOT a sinusoid at two cycles per year, but rather is a single sinusoid at one cycle per year.

    Mathematically, let f be the common frequency of two sinusoids, A the amplitude of the first sinusoid, g the phase of the first sinusoid, B the amplitude of the second sunsoid, and h the phase of the second sinusoid, then the sum of these two sinusoids will be a sinusoid with frequency f, amplitude C, and phase i — i.e.,

    A*COS(2*pi*f*t + g) + B*COS(2*pi*f*t + h) = C*COS(2*pi*f*t + i)

    where C = square root of [A*A + 2*A*B*COS(g - h) + B*B]
    and i is the angle (in radians) between 0 and 2*pi
    whose x component is A*COS(g) + B*COS(h), and
    whose y component is A*SIN(g) + B*SIN(h)

    It may be that the “CO2 patterns” associated with “high cyanobacterial primary productivity” are not sinusoids–maybe more like impulses. If they are “impulse like”, the spectrum would have components of various amplitudes at frequencies equal to all integer multiples of one cycle per year. But then, I would expect to see cyclical CO2 behavior at 3, 4, 5 … cycles per year. I don’t see such behavior in the residuals, but maybe it’s there and swamped by noise.

    However, if by the term “two annual cycles” you meant a single sinusoid with two complete oscillations per year, then such a phenomenon would have a period of one-half year and hence a frequency of two cycles per year. Would you please clarify what you meant by the term “two annual cycles”?

    Second, you wrote “One of those annual phases (the larger) also coincides with the peak spring/summer land plant growing period in the NH. This is the source of the 2.000 cycles per year cosinusoidal frequency i.e. biotic.” If I understand you, the cosinusoid at a frequency of two cycles per year should have a larger amplitude than the cosinusoid at a frequency of one cycle per year. This is opposite to my decomposition. The cosinusoid at frequency one cycle per year has an amplitude of 2.793 ppm and the cosinusoid at frequency two cycles per year has an amplitude of 0.776 ppm.

    Any thoughts you have would be appreciated.

    Reed Coray

  9. Comment from: cohenite


    Steve; Yep, 2 oops actually; any such oops in that presentation; it’s on tommorrow.

    gavin; the only thing I’m waiting for is this hysteria to die down so I can go back to reading old Phantom comics and go surfing.

  10. Comment from: SJT


    “- The main problem is that you don’t compare ENSO events with the trend but with the derivative of the trend:”

    I was puzzling over that, too.

  11. Comment from: Mark A. York


    Still crazy after all these years. Just keep thinking there, Butch. The earth will be flattened yet.

  12. Comment from: Andrew


    The statement is made that

    “A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s.The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…”

    This has an element of truth in that nuclear weapons did create large amounts of 14C and this did allow tracking of the atmosphere containing it. However Tom Quirk omitted to mention are a few other important facts.

    The nuclear weapons injected most of the 14C into the stratosphere and this certainly showed that there is very little mixing of the northern and southern hemisphere regions of the stratosphere. It is also known that there is very little mixing of the stratosphere and troposphere (the layer of atmosphere between ground level and the stratosphere).

    However most anthropogenic CO2 is released into the troposphere, and it is known that there is rapid mixing of the south and northern hemispheric regions of the troposphere through normal weather systems. This rapid mixing rather undermines his whole argument.

    Andrew

  13. Comment from: Steve Short


    Reed Coray

    “However, if by the term “two annual cycles” you meant a single sinusoid with two complete oscillations per year, then such a phenomenon would have a period of one-half year and hence a frequency of two cycles per year. Would you please clarify what you meant by the term “two annual cycles”?”

    Yes, sorry for the confusing language – I meant 2.0 cycles per year (one of larger amplitude,on of smaller).

    “The cosinusoid at frequency one cycle per year has an amplitude of 2.793 ppm and the cosinusoid at frequency two cycles per year has an amplitude of 0.776 ppm.”

    This is to be expected. The cosinusoid at frequency 1.0 cycle per year derives simply from physicochemical exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean. The colder the water the higher the CO2 solubility and vice versa. This is a much more powerful flux than the overlaying balance of the biotic CO2 fluxes which abstract dissolved CO2 (CO2(aq)) (plus bicarbonate) from the water in (near surface) cyanobacterial photosynthesis and partly returns it to the water during the dark (aerobic) decay of sinking organic particles (principally dead cyanobacteria and dead zooplankton who have fed on them).

    Do you see any evidence that the 2.0 cycle per year cosinusoid has differing amplitudes between each of the two cycles? It is certainly evident in the NH satellite-sensed Chlorophyll a signal and the Diffuse Attenuation at 490 nm signal (a measure of total biomass in the top 50 m or so). Email me your address and I’ll send you example plots of these. You can then decide for yourself whether they are more like cycles or pulses.

  14. Comment from: Christopher Hanley


    The temperature of this interglacial is well within historic precedent.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

    Levels of atmospheric CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise, look like being irrelevant.

    Folks, enjoy it while it lasts

  15. Comment from: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.


    [...] This new paper suggests that the increase in atmospheric CO2 may be caused by the ocean currents rather than simply emissions from burning fossil fuels. The science in this paper is very interesting and deserves consideration. [...]

  16. Comment from: Reed Coray


    Steve, March 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    I’d be happy to see the plots you mentioned and to exchange E-mails with you. However, I don’t have your E-mail address, and I’m reluctant to post my E-mail address on this blog. I’m not sure how we overcome this difficulty. One way would be for you to post your E-mail address–but I understand if you too are reluctant. Maybe we can get Jennifer to act as a go between–she could E-mail you my Email address and vice-versa.

    Sincerely, Reed Coray

  17. Comment from: Steve Short


    Hi Reed

    Please just click on my name at the top of my posts and it will take you directly to my company’s little web site front page which has an email address. Please note FYI that on this blog the few names that are highlighted in bold (bold blue in Firefox for me) at the top of each post will take you directly to that person’s web site. We are the hairy chested (dumb?) ones who don’t mind identifying our identity/bona fides in cyberspace. I have no intention of violating your privacy in public.

    Regards
    Steve

  18. Comment from: Steve Short


    Hi Nick

    I broadly agree with you in respect of (say) the last 1 My. Although even there we do have to ask ourselves what event caused the mid-Pleistocene 40 ky glacial cycle to suddenly step jump up to 100 ky? This is a problem for your view.

    There seems to be no external perturbation which caused that and even the most contemporary thinking is reduce to invoking chaos theory:

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/237/2009/cpd-5-237-2009-print.pdf

    http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~gideonh/pppc/week3/Huybers%202006.pdf

    However, it is quite possible that drivers internal to the global climate system (thermal evolution of the Pacific, Heinrich events etc), played a part in that:

    adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.U31A0012M

    In this connection, we also have to consider whether, even in the Pleistocene, mobilization of pools of methane in permafrost and as hydrate in the relatively shallow Arctic Ocean occurred periodically e.g. as a consequence of the long term evolution of the PDO. I would say it is quite likely. Check out the latest New Scientist for the current orthodox AGW camp view on this. There is no doubt that atmospheric CH4 levels are presently on the rise again.

    Regards
    Steve

  19. Comment from: Eyrie


    Andrew, It doesn’t matter where most of the C14 went when created. If you are tracing tropospheric CO2 movement you presumably measure tropospheric CO2 in both hemispheres.

    “and it is known that there is rapid mixing of the south and northern hemispheric regions of the troposphere through normal weather systems. This rapid mixing rather undermines his whole argument.”

    There is? Do you have a reference for that?

  20. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    SJT “In other words, he doesn’t believe the accepted, and obvious, science, but offers nothing at all in it’s place. Jennifer, your topics are getting far to Socraticaly Ironical again”.

    It’s a real stretch to consider proxy studies as science, or have you forgotten how easily Michael Mann’s hockey stick gibberish was uncloaked? I’d be willing to bet that any studies involving proxy data could be successfully countered.

    Cohenite supplied a link to an article by Jaworowski. One argument against his rebuttal a la clathrates was to ridicule him and not to debate the obvious: ice gets weird under tremendous pressure. Glaciers move downhill on ice that has become like plastic due to high pressure. Jaworowski, a world-class expert on ice cores, is only corroborating what Beck tried to point out: there is sound evidence that CO2 levels have been higher than today, within the past century.

    You are intimating that ice core proxies are a viable science. I think not. Anyone who can extract ice from a deep under the surface, and claim it represents conditions a few hundred years ago, never mind thousands of years ago, is not quite dealing with a full deck.

    To hear the ice proxy experts talk is more humourous than anything. One of them claimed it was possible to lower a thermometer down an ice borehole on a rope and detect the actual temperatures from way back when. I think even a pre-school child could see the flaw in that argument, yet people tend to hang onto every word those pseudo-scientists put out.

  21. Comment from: Jan Pompe


    Eyrie, I think what Andrew has missed as have maybe one or two others, is that the much more spallation of N2 -> C14 occurs in the troposphere during a nuclear blast than in the stratosphere. While some will be injected into the stratosphere by no means all of it will. There remains more than enough in the troposphere to act as a tracer (a fact that Tom uses for his analysis) and to wreck the natural concentration for the purposes of carbon dating by nearly doubling the atmospheric concentration of C14 during the 50s and 60s.

    Tom cites two sources in his paper on 14CO2 distribution.

  22. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    toby “It must be time for me to stop reading this blog for a while because I am once again letting SJT sniping get to me”

    Trolls feed off frustration. Don’t feed the trolls, please. And stick around, there aren’t enough people interested in real science these days.

  23. Comment from: Anne


    I have read this post and all reactions. Some good explanations were given. However I am left with two burning questions that I hope someone can answer.

    1. Where do the fossil fuel CO2 emissions go?

    If there is a second source, and that source is the cause of rising CO2 levels, then there must also be an explanation where the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel burning go. What sink absorbs them? And why does that sink only absorb the f.f. CO2 and not the CO2 from ‘the other source’?

    2. What is ‘mystery source’ of CO2?

    Can you name and quantify the unknown source? It all seems so vague to me.

  24. Comment from: SJT


    Anne,

    as with most junk science, it’s often not that hard to spot the obvious flaw.

  25. Comment from: Louis Hissink


    Anne,

    1. It is an assumption that burning fossil fuels is an additional input to the carbon cycle. Carbon locked up in fossil fuel is carbon previously removed from the atmosphere and biosphere, so us burning it is nothing other than sustainable recycling by returning it to the biosphere.

    2. The existence of yet to be identified carbon sinks comes from badly understood science – the CO2 production is a calculation of human burning of CO2, and if that model produces results that are not confirmed by measurement, then the model has to be wrong, or incomplete, as we say in poh faced science jargon.

    As it is the calculations produce CO2 higher than what is being measured, so the pseudoscience assumes the calculation is correct, and Nature is wrong, and that there must be a hidden sink of CO2.

    The scientific method initially assumes an error in the model and hence calculations and no, there is no hidden CO2 sink, its the numbers and the modelling that have to be in error. Unless atmospheric CO2 estimates are in serious error and then we have a real problem.

  26. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    Anne “Where do the fossil fuel CO2 emissions go?”

    The IPCC claims there is a possible +/- 20% error in their calculation of CO2 estimates. That’s pretty hefty when it comes to estimates and knowing IPCC methodology that is highly optimistic.

    Suppose for a minute that the -20% error is a possibility. Based on a 390 ppmv atmospheric CO2 density, that could be as low as 312 ppmv. I am very aware that the 390 ppmv is taken from direct atmospheric measurements but those densities are highly variable based on many factors. I’m just going on what the IPCC claimed in Figure 7.3 of Chapter 7, WG1, AR4. If their estimates of carbon in the carbon cycle are +/-20% then why shouldn’t their measured densities be off as well?

    We have seen the effect of that in satellite tropospheric measurments as opposed to land-based measurements. The satellites cover 95% of the atmosphere as opposed to a far lower percentage for the land-based equivalent. The satellites also show a far lower globally averaged warming than the land-based systems. Why should that not apply to CO2 measurements as well? It seems reasonable to me that a satellite measuring CO2 densities with a 95% cover would find a much lower CO2 density, maybe as much lower as 20%. Unfortunately, that satellite crashed on takeoff this February…or was it sabotaged?

    It’s not as if we have the technology to state positively that the global CO2 average density is 390 ppmv. It may be that high locally, but how about globally? I think the +/- 20% error could just as easily be applied to CO2 densities, especially considering that the main CO2 measurment system is located on a volcano spewing CO2. The rest are probably located on smoke stacks of major factories. Then there’s Beck’s collation that gives good evidence of CO2 densities having been higher as recently as 1940.

    Given that, the same +/-20% applied to the pre Industrial 280 ppmv, ‘could’ range as high as 324 ppmv. Jaworowski claimed that based on errors in ice core sampling theory, but he claimed a 30% to 50 % error. A 30% error would raise the 270 ppmv to 351 ppmv and a 50% error to 405 ppmv. Since one of Beck’s scientists claims to have measured that density directly in the 1940′s, I think that gives credence to Jaworowski’s claim.

    I realize, without SJT pointing out the obvious, that my math is highly speculative. I’m merely trying to point out that we may not even have a problem or that overly-zealous AGW types may have massaged the data a bit.

    Before you ask where the anthropogenic CO2 goes, a more appropriate question may be “how much is there in actuality”? If you insist on an answer, however, please consider the following. When an internal combustion engine burns gasoline or diesel fuel, producing CO2, it does not convert the fuel efficiently. A lot of it will produce carbon as soot rather than CO2. That is deposited in the muffler, on the road, on the sides of buildings, in human lungs, etc.

    There’s no way to tell where the rest of it goes immediately. That was the reson for launching the ill-fated satellite in February 2009. NASA admits that 50% of it goes missing and they don’t know why. I could tell them but I doubt if they’d listen.

  27. Comment from: Eric Adler


    Comment from: Gordon Robertson March 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    “Anne “Where do the fossil fuel CO2 emissions go?”

    The IPCC claims there is a possible +/- 20% error in their calculation of CO2 estimates. That’s pretty hefty when it comes to estimates and knowing IPCC methodology that is highly optimistic.[/quote]
    As best I can tell, the error on the bar chart for human related emissions is about +/- 1 GT out of 8 GT. This results from the uncertainty in Deforestation.

    http://co2now.org/index.php/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-human-responsibility-co2-ghg-concentration-increases.html

    [quote]Suppose for a minute that the -20% error is a possibility. Based on a 390 ppmv atmospheric CO2 density, that could be as low as 312 ppmv. I am very aware that the 390 ppmv is taken from direct atmospheric measurements but those densities are highly variable based on many factors. I’m just going on what the IPCC claimed in Figure 7.3 of Chapter 7, WG1, AR4. If their estimates of carbon in the carbon cycle are +/-20% then why shouldn’t their measured densities be off as well?”
    This is a nonsense argument. The 2 types of data are totally unrelated, and a 20% uncertainty in the estimate of CO2 change due to Deforestation is unrelated to the error in measurement of CO2 increase in PPM over the years, which is highly accurate based on spectroscopy, and duplicated at many sites over the globe.

    “We have seen the effect of that in satellite tropospheric measurments as opposed to land-based measurements. The satellites cover 95% of the atmosphere as opposed to a far lower percentage for the land-based equivalent. The satellites also show a far lower globally averaged warming than the land-based systems. Why should that not apply to CO2 measurements as well? It seems reasonable to me that a satellite measuring CO2 densities with a 95% cover would find a much lower CO2 density, maybe as much lower as 20%. Unfortunately, that satellite crashed on takeoff this February…or was it sabotaged?”
    I guess you ask “why not” because you wish to take the burden of proof of what you believe off of yourself and put it on others. Then you end with some kind of conspiracy theory. What a crock.

    [quote]It’s not as if we have the technology to state positively that the global CO2 average density is 390 ppmv. It may be that high locally, but how about globally? I think the +/- 20% error could just as easily be applied to CO2 densities, especially considering that the main CO2 measurment system is located on a volcano spewing CO2. The rest are probably located on smoke stacks of major factories. Then there’s Beck’s collation that gives good evidence of CO2 densities having been higher as recently as 1940.[/quote]
    You have no evidence for a 20% error in anything related to CO2 measurements. The scientists at MLO are able to eliminate measurements effected by the volcano itself, based on wind direction. You are standing history on its head. It is Beck who is using measurements close to industrial areas, influenced by local sources, and MLO, Barrow, and South Pole that have been placed strategically to eliminate the influence of local sources.

    [quote]Given that, the same +/-20% applied to the pre Industrial 280 ppmv, ‘could’ range as high as 324 ppmv. Jaworowski claimed that based on errors in ice core sampling theory, but he claimed a 30% to 50 % error. A 30% error would raise the 270 ppmv to 351 ppmv and a 50% error to 405 ppmv. Since one of Beck’s scientists claims to have measured that density directly in the 1940’s, I think that gives credence to Jaworowski’s claim.

    I realize, without SJT pointing out the obvious, that my math is highly speculative. I’m merely trying to point out that we may not even have a problem or that overly-zealous AGW types may have massaged the data a bit.[/quote]
    You are using dubious sources, misquote the error in human CO2 emissions estimates as 20% rather than the 13% error given by the IPCC, and arbitrarily ascribe that to some other totally unrelated measurements. Total BS is a better way to describe this, rather then the euphamism “highly speculative.”

    [quote]Before you ask where the anthropogenic CO2 goes, a more appropriate question may be “how much is there in actuality”? If you insist on an answer, however, please consider the following. When an internal combustion engine burns gasoline or diesel fuel, producing CO2, it does not convert the fuel efficiently. A lot of it will produce carbon as soot rather than CO2. That is deposited in the muffler, on the road, on the sides of buildings, in human lungs, etc.[/quote]
    This is totally silly. The fact that soot from some diesel engines is a medical problem does not mean that a the volume of soot is a significant error in the estimate of combustion.
    The IPCC bar chart on emissions show only a +/- .25% error on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement.

    [quote]There’s no way to tell where the rest of it goes immediately. That was the reson for launching the ill-fated satellite in February 2009. NASA admits that 50% of it goes missing and they don’t know why. I could tell them but I doubt if they’d listen.[/quote]
    How can 50% of CO2 be missing? Could you provide a link or a quote from NASA about this.
    I think you are overestimating your knowledge and understanding of this subject, to put it charitably.

  28. Comment from: Global Warming: Two New Scientific Assertions Counteract Fossil Fuels Consensus | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP


    [...] short project, merely reflecting the obvious. Oops. As Jennifer Marohasy quotes the abstract on her blog: “THE conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels [...]

  29. Comment from: Eric Adler


    The paper by Tom Quirk, claiming to prove that emissions due to human activity are not responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is total nonsense, .
    All of the fancy arguments about carbon isotopes are irrelevant.

    To show that emissions due to human industry and forestry are the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a matter of simple arithmetic.

    Here is what we know:
    Annual human emissions due to industry and deforestation are about 8 +/- 1 GTons.
    The annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 4 GTons.
    There are to contributors to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    1) Human emissions
    2) The net result of Natural Emissions, which could be positive or negative in principle.

    Now for the simple equation .
    Change of CO2= Human emisisons + Natural emissions
    Substitution of known variables in the above equations with nominal values, gives
    4Gtons=8G tons- Natural emissions.

    Children in kindergarten can solve this equation and the solution is
    Natural emission = – 4 Gtons.
    This means that the natural environment is absorbing about 4Gtons of CO2 annually on average.
    If natural sources are absorbing CO2, the cannot be the reason for the increase.

  30. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    Eric Adler “This is a nonsense argument. The 2 types of data are totally unrelated…”

    You need to read with a bit more attention, Eric. I pointed out the problem in my own argument already. The +/- 20% does not come from problems with deforestation, it is a disclaimer built in to Figure 7.3, Chapter 7, WG1, AR4 for CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. The IPCC is clearly claiming they cannot estimate CO2 fluxes any better than with a +/- 20% error. On the previous page they admitted the anthropogenic CO2 content was a fraction of the natural CO2 emissions and in Figure 7.3 they include their estimate of anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean, implying it is being recirculated. Only a ponce would do that and call it science.

    How could they do any better? How would anyone estimate the amount of CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere? I stated, probably correctly, that the +/- 20% figure was highly optimistic given the IPCC penchant for selling the CO2 warming paradigm. Based on that conclusion, and the amount of fudging they do to get a globally-averaged warming, I thought it probable that their estimates of a 270 ppmv pre Industrial CO2 density and the current 390 ppmv density were in the same error range.

    How exactly do they arrive at exactly 270 ppmv pre-Industrial and 390 ppmv today? They do it with a whole lot of speculative math and proxy data, just as they do to guesstimate a 0.75 C globally-averaged warming over a century. Again, only an arrogant ponce would make such an assertion without generous error bars. The IPCC had the temerity to include error bars of a few tenths of a degree…pure arrogance.

    Aksofu has argued that they conveniently forgot to include the expected natural recovery warming from the Little Ice Age. He went on to claim that with errors, the warming we are experiencing today is already accounted for. The IPCC did not need to look for a smoking gun, there was one already pointed at it, the LIA.

    As I stated, I am very clear about the difference between the ppmv’s measured by CO2 detectors and the CO2 guesstimated to be flowing in and out of the atmosphere. The ppmv’s can be measured locally but the value measured is highly dependent on the immediate environment and locale, not to mention other variables. That 390 ppmv can change quickly. I am having a lot of trouble with 390 ppmv being declared a global quantity. How do they know that and what’s wrong with applying a +/- 20% quantity to such an unkown variable.

    In electronics, it’s common to rate resistors with tolerances from 0.01% to 20%. The finer tolerances are relatively assured because the resistors are made from material that holds its resistance well. The carbon types do not and their resistance can be out up to 20%. In the same manner, it’s easy to put a close tolerance on a measurable value but how do you measure CO2 all over the globe? I don’t think you can, anymore than anyone can claim one particular temperature for the globe. It’s a stupid inference to make.

    If the satellite that crashed in February 2009 had made it, we might have been in a better position to check the global CO2 density because it was designed for that. There’s just no way anyone can say for sure that the global CO2 density is 390 ppmv. That goes doubly for the claim that pre Industrial CO2 had a density of 270 ppmv. That’s a carefully contrived derivation that ignored good evidence to the contrary and which relies heavily on proxy ice core sampling.

    The more I read about global warming, the more I see a sad hoax. I don’t think it was a contrived hoax, more of a comedy of errors. Many well-intentioned people have put their feet in their mouths just to be onside.

  31. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    Eric Adler “Now for the simple equation . Change of CO2= Human emisisons + Natural emissions Substitution of known variables in the above equations with nominal values, gives
    4Gtons=8G tons- Natural emissions”.

    Maybe you could take your figures to the IPCC. In Figure 7.3, Chapter 7, WG1, AR4, they mathemtically and subjectively spell it out for you. I’m not going throught the math again but the IPCC figures anthropogenic CO2 is about 3% of total CO2. On the previous page, they put it in words, claiming anthropogenic CO2 is a few percent of the natural CO2 fluxes. I figure a few percent is closer to 3% than to your 50%.

    Anyway, please stay away from school children. They’ve had enough bs laid on them for one lifetime with this global warming pseudo-science.

  32. Comment from: Andrew


    Eyrie,
    You missed the point I was making. The conclusion of the studies of 14C distribution from nuclear tests was that the stratosphere took several years to equilibrate between hemispheres. They said nothing about rate of equilibration of the troposphere. Since the anthropogenic sources of CO2 almost wholly inject it into the troposphere, the assumption that it should take several years for the CO2 levels to equilibrate and upon which Tom Quirk based his analysis is not true.

    Jan Pompe

    You are correct in saying that 14C is produced in the troposphere. With atomic blasts yielding less than about 1Mton very little of the 14C enters the stratosphere. However above 1Mton almost all of the 14C produced in the troposphere is carried up by the rising heated air into the stratosphere. (1) 14C injected into the stratosphere did have a long residence time and did equilibrate over a number of years. However almost all the 14C injected into the troposphere settled out locally. Very little entered and equilibrated over the troposphere as a whole. Presumably this was why the authors were unable to make any conclusions about tropospheric mixing.

    Tom Quirk did not do any of the analyses. His statement “A tracer for CO2 transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere was provided by 14C created by nuclear weapons testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The analysis of 14C in atmospheric CO2 showed that it took some years for exchanges of CO2 between the hemispheres before the 14C was uniformly distributed…” is only true for the stratosphere. It is not true for the troposphere which is of interest for anthropogenic CO2. Hence the basic assumption of his analysis is false.

    (Note: 14C is not produced by spallation which is the breakdown of atoms of high atomic mass into much smaller ones. 14C is produced by the capture of a neutron by 14N to give 15N and the loss of a proton to give 14C.)

    In fact, it appears as if the north and south hemisphere regions of the troposphere equilibrate relatively quickly due to the Transequatorial trade winds and such phenomena as the Monsoons. It appears it probably takes about a year to equilibrate, (2)

    1. Albert L. Latter and Milton S. Plesset
    CARBON-14 PRODUCTION FROM NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1960 February; 46(2): 241–247.

    2. M.R. Manning, W.H. Melhuish
    Atmospheric d14C Record from Wellington
    National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd.,
    Carbon dioxide Information Analysis Centre Web site at
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/welling.html

  33. Comment from: Jan Pompe


    Andrew “Note: 14C is not produced by spallation which is the breakdown of atoms of high atomic mass into much smaller ones”

    N15 -> C14 + H isn’t spallation?

    ” Very little entered and equilibrated over the troposphere as a whole.”

    If that was the case then why the problems with carbon dating due to the tests if it is all in the stratosphere? In fact one can tell the age of a body born after 1943 by comparison of C14 levels in tooth enamel.

    http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=509

    of course it helps to know which hemisphere the person was in when the teeth were formed

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiocarbon_bomb_spike.svg

    While Latter and Plesset did not look at mixing across the hemispheres there is data available if one adds this which you have omitted to the Wellington data.
    http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cent-verm.html

    One can see from the above graph that it took about 5 years from the NH peak for equilibrium to be achieved you can see this also in Tom’s Fig 17 which charts the difference between the two data sets which shows it’s about 7 years.

  34. Comment from: Eric Adler


    Comment from: Gordon Robertson March 31st, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    “Eric Adler “This is a nonsense argument. The 2 types of data are totally unrelated…”

    You need to read with a bit more attention, Eric. I pointed out the problem in my own argument already. The +/- 20% does not come from problems with deforestation, it is a disclaimer built in to Figure 7.3, Chapter 7, WG1, AR4 for CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere. The IPCC is clearly claiming they cannot estimate CO2 fluxes any better than with a +/- 20% error. On the previous page they admitted the anthropogenic CO2 content was a fraction of the natural CO2 emissions and in Figure 7.3 they include their estimate of anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean, implying it is being recirculated. Only a ponce would do that and call it science.”

    Your 20% uncertainty is related to the total emissions, and the total absorption from the atmosphere. We do know the difference between the between the emissions and absorptions with much greater accuracy than 20%, because the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is measured more acccurately than that. We know the human caused emissions much more accurately than that as I have pointed out. By simple arithmetic we know the difference between natural emissions and natural absorption and can tell that the sign is negative.

    [quote]How could they do any better? How would anyone estimate the amount of CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere? I stated, probably correctly, that the +/- 20% figure was highly optimistic given the IPCC penchant for selling the CO2 warming paradigm. Based on that conclusion, and the amount of fudging they do to get a globally-averaged warming, I thought it probable that their estimates of a 270 ppmv pre Industrial CO2 density and the current 390 ppmv density were in the same error range.[/quote]

    What you think is not based on any factual evidence.

    [quote]How exactly do they arrive at exactly 270 ppmv pre-Industrial and 390 ppmv today? They do it with a whole lot of speculative math and proxy data, just as they do to guesstimate a 0.75 C globally-averaged warming over a century. Again, only an arrogant ponce would make such an assertion without generous error bars. The IPCC had the temerity to include error bars of a few tenths of a degree…pure arrogance.[/quote]
    The pre industrial CO2 data is based on ice core data, and a number of chemical measurements made during the 19 and 20th century, as was shown by Callendar, once the data was scrubbed to eliminate samples downwind from contaminated areas.

    [quote]Aksofu has argued that they conveniently forgot to include the expected natural recovery warming from the Little Ice Age. He went on to claim that with errors, the warming we are experiencing today is already accounted for. The IPCC did not need to look for a smoking gun, there was one already pointed at it, the LIA.[/quote]
    You are mixing up temperature measurement issues with CO2 measurement issues. The concept of “recovering from the little ice age” whatever that means is irrelevant.

    [quote]As I stated, I am very clear about the difference between the ppmv’s measured by CO2 detectors and the CO2 guesstimated to be flowing in and out of the atmosphere. The ppmv’s can be measured locally but the value measured is highly dependent on the immediate environment and locale, not to mention other variables. That 390 ppmv can change quickly. I am having a lot of trouble with 390 ppmv being declared a global quantity. How do they know that and what’s wrong with applying a +/- 20% quantity to such an unkown variable.[/quote]
    The burden of proof is on you. After allowing for seasonal variations, the MLO, Barrow and South Pole facilities show the same annual increases in CO2 with a very slight lag.
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

    [quote]In electronics, it’s common to rate resistors with tolerances from 0.01% to 20%. The finer tolerances are relatively assured because the resistors are made from material that holds its resistance well. The carbon types do not and their resistance can be out up to 20%. In the same manner, it’s easy to put a close tolerance on a measurable value but how do you measure CO2 all over the globe? I don’t think you can, anymore than anyone can claim one particular temperature for the globe. It’s a stupid inference to make.[/quote]
    The data from various CO2 sites shows that you are wrong, and CO2 increases in the atmosphere can be inferred from measurements with good accuracy.

    [quote]If the satellite that crashed in February 2009 had made it, we might have been in a better position to check the global CO2 density because it was designed for that. There’s just no way anyone can say for sure that the global CO2 density is 390 ppmv. That goes doubly for the claim that pre Industrial CO2 had a density of 270 ppmv. That’s a carefully contrived derivation that ignored good evidence to the contrary and which relies heavily on proxy ice core sampling.[/quote]
    The evidence to the contrary is not valid. The data shows that if one omits local sources of variation due to natural and human sources, the CO2 measurements show good agreement between distant stations.

    The more I read about global warming, the more I see a sad hoax. I don’t think it was a contrived hoax, more of a comedy of errors. Many well-intentioned people have put their feet in their mouths just to be onside.

  35. Comment from: Eric Adler


    Comment from: Gordon Robertson March 31st, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    [quote]Eric Adler “Now for the simple equation . Change of CO2= Human emisisons + Natural emissions Substitution of known variables in the above equations with nominal values, gives
    4Gtons=8G tons- Natural emissions”.

    Maybe you could take your figures to the IPCC. In Figure 7.3, Chapter 7, WG1, AR4, they mathemtically and subjectively spell it out for you. I’m not going throught the math again but the IPCC figures anthropogenic CO2 is about 3% of total CO2. On the previous page, they put it in words, claiming anthropogenic CO2 is a few percent of the natural CO2 fluxes. I figure a few percent is closer to 3% than to your 50%.[/quote]
    I got my figures from the IPCC. They show in figure 1 that the anthropogenic sources from cement and fossil fuel consumptions are 8 +/- 1 GT with the uncertainty coming from deforestation. The uncertainty in the annual CO2 ppM increases in the atmosphere are quite small given the indentical data coming from the large numbers of sources around the world.
    Click on the following to see this data:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

    [quote]Anyway, please stay away from school children. They’ve had enough bs laid on them for one lifetime with this global warming pseudo-science.[/quote]
    I talk to school children about this subject regularly. They need to understand the science behind this subject.

    They also need to understand why their parents generation is refusing to see and act on the real problem of AGW. Here is what is happening:

    http://www.draegerstiftung.de/HG/internet/SD/pdf/charts_marshall.pdf
    The Psychology of Denial
    Why do we find it so hard to act against
    climate change?

  36. Comment from: Ferdinand Engelbeen


    Gordon Robertson March 31st, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    Gordon,

    One need to make a differentiation between what is released to the atmosphere and taken away from the atmosphere due to the seasonal temperature changes within a year and what is a one-way addition from humans during a year.

    While the seasonal flows are huge (100 GtC back and forth between oceans and atmosphere, 50 GtC between the biosphere and the atmosphere), the endresult of these flows is zero over a year, if nothing more or less is released than taken away. Thus the absolute flows are of no interest, only the difference between inputs and outputs of the atmosphere is of interest. And that is calculated as the difference between emissions and what is measured in the atmosphere. The 3% of the natural flows is true, but not relevant at all.

    The measurements in the atmosphere are very accurate: less than +/-1 ppmv for each baseline station. That is better than 0.3% of the range.
    Baseline stations are as far as possible from local sources/sinks. When contamination is found (volcanic vents, upwind depleted by vegetation), these data are flagged and not used for averages. The baseline stations represent over 95% of the atmosphere…

    Stations within one hemisphere differ in yearly averages with less than 2 ppmv, the averages of the NH and the SH differ with about 3 ppmv (and growing lag), which points to a source in the NH (as good as the decreasing d13C levels show). The calculated emissions have a larger error margin, but even at minimum, there is not one year in the past 50 years that the emissions were smaller than the measured increase. Thus in every year, nature was a sink, not a source of CO2… See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg

    If you back-calculate the emissions vs. the increase in the atmosphere over the past 100+ years, the zero emission level is around 300 ppmv, not that far of what can be found in ice cores of 100 year old gas age. The enclosed air in the ice, if handled with care, indeed still is the same air as at closing time, the oldest now about 800,000 years ago. The levels are no proxies in this case but real levels.

    I have read what Jaworowski wrote about ice cores. What he says is simply physically impossible: how can you measure too low CO2 levels (according to him) 180-280 ppmv, because of cracks in the ice, while the outside world is at 380 ppmv? And as an ice core expert, he doesn’t even know that there is a difference between the age of the ice and the age of the exclosed air? See my comment on his take on ice cores:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

    Similar problem with Beck’s data: ice core CO2 levels are within the huge range of data found at different places. The problem is that many historical measurements were performed near huge sources (factories, towns, agriculture,…), especially the measurements which led to the 1942 peak are suspect. Further other data from ice cores (Law Dome: 8 years resolution), stomata data and coralline sponges show no change in the 1935-1950 period of interest other than the influence of increasing CO2 levels with decreasing d13C. See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

  37. Comment from: Steve Short


    Jan Pompe

    “N15 -> C14 + H isn’t spallation?”

    No, it is a thermal neutron reaction with nitrogen:

    1n + 14N -> 14C + 1H

  38. Comment from: Jennifer Marohasy » Fossil Fuels Fail to Explain Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels: AEF Media Release


    [...] This paper was previously discussed at this blog here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-available-evidence-does-not-support-fossil-fuels-as-the… [...]

  39. Comment from: Bart


    Too bad I came so late to this party. Nobody will likely ever read this.

    Comment from: Ferdinand Engelbeen April 1st, 2009 at 1:36 am

    While the seasonal flows are huge (100 GtC back and forth between oceans and atmosphere, 50 GtC between the biosphere and the atmosphere), the endresult of these flows is zero over a year, if nothing more or less is released than taken away. Thus the absolute flows are of no interest, only the difference between inputs and outputs of the atmosphere is of interest. And that is calculated as the difference between emissions and what is measured in the atmosphere. The 3% of the natural flows is true, but not relevant at all.

    Completely and utterly wrong. The fact that natural forces take out such an overwhelming amount of natural emissions places a limit on how slowly anthropogenic emissions will be removed, because nature does not discriminate between the two. Anthropogenic emissions will be removed with the same time vigor as the natural emissions.

  40. Comment from: Old Chemist


    Ferdinand @ April 1st, 2009 at 1:36 am

    Two points —
    1) ice core data are unreliable for absolute CO2 atmospheric concentration determinations due to diffusion (CO2 is electrophilic; H2O is nucleophilic) see Ahn et al, J Glaciology, 54:685-695.

    2) stomatal changes are due to selection pressure. They are not an epigenetic consequence — they therefor will not reflect short term CO2 fluctuation.

  41. Comment from: Blockbuster: Planetary temperature controls CO2 levels — not humans | Independent News Hub


    [...] Hemisphere, and the southern Hemisphere stations ought to take months to record the rises, instead there did not appear to be any lag… (ie. the major source of the CO2 is global rather than from human [...]

Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All