Quote:
Originally Posted by onon
I am saying any time period you want to choose shows a higher anthropogenic co2 emission rate than atmospheric co2 rise. You could pick a single year like 2006, or the range of the last decade, or 30 years, 50 years, or 250 years. But obviously if you want more certainty about accuracy of the figures, then the last 10 years is on of the best periods of time.
|
I'm glad you feel that way. I'm glad you like to make these definitive statements which are so easily disproved. All I need to do to disprove your statements is provide one year where the estimated anthropogenic rate of emissions could plausibly (within the rate of error) be less than the estimated rise in atmospheric CO2. In fact, I can find that information right in 2006, as you suggested:
2006 CR = 2.33ppmv, which you've agreed could be as high as 3.33ppmv (even higher if we include the adjustment to globalize it). That equates to 26Gt CO2 (3.33 * 7.8).
HC = 6.0Gt C, which equates to 22Gt CO2 (6.0 * 3.67)
Therefore:
NC = 26 - 22;
NC = 4Gt CO2;
The natural contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is 4Gt. Therefore, the statements:
"The net effect is that nature removes more co2 from the atmosphere than it adds."
and...
"Without human co2 emissions the co2 levels in the atmosphere would start falling."
and...
"any time period you want to choose shows a higher anthropogenic co2 emission rate than atmospheric co2 rise"
are false. And I did it all without "human emissions [being] off by about 50%".
In fact, I could show this relationship for 5 of the past 10 years:
Deltas for Past 10 Years as Reported by MLO
1997 - 1.98
1998 - 2.95
1999 - 0.91
2000 - 1.75
2001 - 1.61
2002 - 2.55
2003 - 2.31
2004 - 1.54
2005 - 2.54
2006 - 2.33
Equally Possible Deltas for Past 10 Years When Adjusted For Errors
1997 - 1.98
1998 -
2.83
1999 - 0.53
2000 - 2.75
2001 - 0.61
2002 -
2.83
2003 -
2.83
2004 - 0.74
2005 -
2.83
2006 -
2.83
Note our equation will work out to a positive natural change with any CR>=2.83ppmv.
Now, I know you're going to think I'm trying to pull one over on you, so I'll show you the math.
If I had the raw data, I would use that. But the only source I've found for the actual annual mean CO2 concentrations as measured by the MLO don't match up with the reported variances on their web site! So, I must have the wrong data, but it sure looks like the right data. I wonder what's going on? Nevertheless, we don't need the actual data because we're only interested in:
a) what are the deltas
b) are the mean values from year to year reasonable given the error rate, i.e. do we have to change a measurement outside the range of error in order to arrive at the number we need to show the natural contribution to CO2 could be positive.
So, we can start at zero, use the deltas from the MLO site, then make sure we're not changing any one measurement outside its respective range.
Hypothetical CO2 Concentrations Given MLO's Deltas
Year .......... Reported Delta .......... CO2
1996 - ........... 0 ........................ 0
1997 - ........... 1.98 ................... 1.98
1998 - ........... 2.95 ................... 4.93
1999 - ........... .91 .................... 5.84
2000 - ........... 1.75 .................... 7.59
2001 - ........... 1.61 .................... 9.2
2002 - ........... 2.55 .................... 11.75
2003 - ........... 2.31 .................... 14.06
2004 - ........... 1.54 .................... 15.6
2005 - ........... 2.54 .................... 18.14
2006 - ........... 2.33 .................... 20.47
There's no magic here, I just took the MLO reported rise in CO2, year over year, and applied it to a base year of 0 in 1996.
Now that we have a baseline of what the possible values for each year could be, we can see what would happen to the variances if the measurements for those years were off by +/-.5ppmv.
Hypothetical CO2 Concentrations Given MLO's Deltas
Year ............. "Measured" CO2 ........... Possible CO2 ............. Variance
1997 - .................. 1.98 .................... 1.98 ......................... 0
1998 - .................. 4.93 .................... 4.81 ......................... -0.12
1999 - .................. 5.84 .................... 5.34 ......................... -0.5
2000 - .................. 7.59 .................... 8.09 ......................... 0.5
2001 - .................. 9.2 .................... 8.7 ........................... -0.5
2002 - .................. 11.75 ................. 11.53 ......................... -0.22
2003 - .................. 14.06 ................ 14.36 ......................... 0.3
2004 - .................. 15.6 ................. 15.1 .......................... -0.5
2005 - .................. 18.14 ............... 17.93 ........................ -0.21
2006 - .................. 20.47 ............... 20.76 ......................... 0.29
So, as you can see, part b) of our requirements is satisfied. No year varies more than +/-.5 from its "measured" amount. Using these new possible CO2 concentrations we get the new deltas posted above. Five of those years resolve to a delta of +2.83ppmv of CO2. This equates to an increase of 22.07Gt CO2 (2.83ppmv * 7.8). So, CR = 22.07.
Plugging into our formula we get:
NC = 22.07 - 22.02;
NC = .05Gt Co2;
There's also one other year which is very close to our 2.83ppmv cut-off (2000). Given the MLO data doesn't accurately reflect the entire globe, it would also be possible to make this year fit if we could figure out how far off from the global data MLO is. However, I'm willing to ignore it.
Quote:
|
I can easily accept a given year's value may be off by .5ppm (but is it measurement error, or natural fluctuation?).
|
Given they take the measurements simultaneously, from the same location, I would have to assume it's a measurement error.
Quote:
|
There is no such thing as anthropogenic sinks because human activity does not absorb co2.
|
First, how do you know there's no such thing as "anthropogenic sinks"? Perhaps we're absorbing extra carbon in our cells? Secondly, and more importantly, that's not the point. I'm not arguing there are "anthropogenic sinks". I'm arguing that, according to your source, it is possible that well over the amount of anthropogenic carbon is absorbed by nature. It's curious you argue we only need to know net natural fluxes (which you haven't been able to prove is negative), but when presented your own source's argument that the net contribution of Man's emissions could be negative you balk.
Quote:
|
The table is to show where the human emitted co2 that doesn't stay in the atmosphere goes to, and in what quantities. We find out that about 28% of human emissions each year end up in the ocean, and about 45% end up in the atmosphere (of course that doesn't mean it's the exact same co2 molecules emitted in that particular year - it's just giving the transfer rates in relation to human emissions)
|
That's not true either. The table shows quite clearly that the authors have the same confidence that ALL AND MORE of the carbon from fossil fuel burning and cement production could possibly be absorbed by the ocean, forests and other terrestrial sinks:
Anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuel burning and cement production: 5.0GtC
Oceanic uptake: 2.8
Forest uptake: 1.0
Additional terrestrial sinks: 2.8
Total NON-Atmospheric storage: 6.6GtC
Meaning all of the anthropogenic carbon from fossil fuel burning and cement production, plus an extra 1.6Gt, could be absorbed somewhere other than the atmosphere.