Sometime in our distant future CO2 will become dangerously low again.
1. It ignores the fact that the biological carbon cycle is balanced. 439 Gt from biological sources is reabsorbed by photosynthesis.
2. The ocean is a net absorber of carbon dioxide
http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=8...
3. It also looks suspiciously like someone is assuming that water vapor is constant or varies independently of its dance partner.
Carbon dioxide causes some warming.
This warming adds water vapor to the atmosphere.
This water vapor causes more warming.
Nice job with your art of deception especially with your misrepresentation of the environmentalist aims. The only "environmentalist" who fit your description is the corporate who pretend to help the environment to make money while falsely accusing the real environmentalist for deceiving the people.
You need to understand the question before you can understand how to answer it.
You're looking at a RATE and not the TOTAL. Humans have increased CO2 by roughly 40%, so they are responsible for that fraction of the total.
A 1% increase in the surface atmosphere temperature would be about 5 degrees (f), enough to change the climate of New York to that that of Charleston SC, 700 miles to the south. We had targeted a limit of 3.6 degrees f (2 degrees C) increase, but experts have calculated reported that 7 degrees (f) are already built into the future due the the equilibrium that will be reached by the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere. You have pointed out that we put enough CO2 in the atmosphere every year to cause an increase of 5 degrees -- remember that CO2 once put in the atmosphere does not cycle out for centuries so it builds up.
Perhaps you can further explain your question. Your tone seems to indicate that 1% is not much, but your actual math shows the worst case of the most alarming projections. Which do you really mean?
I don’t know which IPCC report you’re referring to but it’s obviously not the one I’m looking at. Please provide a link.
Here’s the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report on the Natural Carbon Cycle:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Total CO2 emissions are 119.5Gt from vegetation, 1.6Gt from land-use change, 90.6Gt from the oceans, 6.4Gt from fossil fuels = total of 218.1Gt of emissions.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Total CO2 emissions in 2013 were 36Gt. 36 ÷ 218.1 = 16.5%.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/1...
In my original answer I used the 2012 figure of 34.5Gt. 34.5 ÷ 218.1 = 15.8%.
http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/...
The upper limit for CO2 contribution is 26% (not 27% as you stated), the lower limit is 9%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_...
Therefore maximum human contribution, in relation to CO2, is 4.108%. This ignores the 14Gt CO2 equivalence emitted in the form of other greenhouse gases, take these into consideration and the max human contribution becomes 6.001%.
Isn’t it strange that I can back up EVERY statement I make, do you think you could ever do that?
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR OWN ANSWER AND UDPATE 1
Regarding the graphic on Skeptical Science, it’s misleading and should be better explained or revised. The site gives the source as being figure 7.3 from the IPCC 4AR- it’s not. This is the real Fig 7.3 (note it’s from the IPCC itself):
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
What it appears Skeptical Science may have done is to calculate gross fluxes from the net figures, quite why they should do that is a mystery as it’s not representative of the carbon cycle or global warming.
If you relied on Skeptical Science for your figures I can understand why you got it wrong. I have already taken it up with them and will advise of any feedback received.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR UPDATE 2
What’s all this about Wikipedia? You’ve added a link that only serves to further confirm that I’m right and you’re wrong. I’ve told you, when you’re in a hole – stop digging.
In my original answer I stated that total emissions were 220Gt per year. You then stated the IPCC figures were 871Gt. I linked to the IPCC figures which clearly show they’re 218.1Gt, thus confirming what I said. Now you’ve added Wikipedia which shows total emissions are 221Gt, further confirming what I said.
Thank you for doing such an excellent job of showing that my figures are correct. You’ve done enough already and don’t need to add any more links.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR UPDATE 3
You know that the human emissions of CO2 exceed 9Gt per year and that the Wikipedia figure is obviously a mistake. You asked previously what CO2 emissions were in 1910 and I told you they were 3.4Gt. Just a few hours ago you stated that this was “less than 1/10th of what they are now”. Try and be consistent. Earlier in this very answer I stated that in 2013 they were 36Gt and in 2012 they were 34.5Gt, and provided links to both sources.
It’s unfortunate you’ve encountered two errors in your quest to prove nothing, but if you knew anything about climates you’d immediately know that they were errors and wouldn’t end up quoting them.
- - - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR UPDATE 4
Please stop digging yourself deeper and deeper.
1998 was a super El Nino, it has a counterpart called La Nina. Once causes warming, the other causes cooling; they balance each other out. Over time they do not add to, or detract from, global warming.
During the period in question ENSO did favour El Nino conditions and across the time horizon there is an Oceanic Nino Index of 0.6, this would have caused a very small amount of warming. Several years ago I produced an algorithm to calculate the effects of ENSO on global temperatures, when applied to the data it’s likely that ENSO caused a maximum 0.04°C of warming. There is no ONI data prior to 1950 so we don’t reliably know what the ENSO effect for 1910 to 1940 was.
Ave global temp in 1910 was 13.67563°C, in 1940 it was 13.92865°C, a rise of 0.25302°C.
Ave global temp in 1975 was 14.05038°C, in 2005 it was 14.47557°C, a rise of 0.42159°C.
If we allow the maximum possible ENSO contribution to the later period and assume no effect at all on the earlier period, then it means that 1975 to 2005 saw 0.38159°C of warming, still more than 50% greater than the earlier time.
Bad news, if we’re now going to take ENSO into consideration then 2014 (to date) becomes the hottest year on record. That’s not in selected temperature records, but every one of them. It also means that the 15 years from 2000 to 2014 are the 15 warmest on record, 1998 drops right down into 18th place.
Seriously now, it’s time to stop digging. You know you’ll only be wrong again if you persist.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR COMMENT
Seriously, you really need a link for that? The internet is overflowing with sources you can reference, here’s one anyway:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
For at least 20myr CO2 had remained between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume, the most dramatic change was 100ppmv in a million years. In the last 100 years it’s risen by more than this, this is more than 10,000 times the maximum known natural variation. CO2 was 280ppmv before industrialisation, now it’s 401ppmv – that’s a 43% increase. What’s more, anthropogenic CO2 has a different isotopic ratio to natural CO2 so there’s no disputing this increase comes from human sources.
You’ve failed yet again. I did suggest you stop digging this hole for yourself but you just kept on digging anyway. You must be getting close to the centre of the Earth by now.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co...
Skeptical Science isn't so skeptical it seems. The "cumulative effect" is what they are talking about here, but does not address the temperature anomalies showing an abrupt rise from 1910 to 1940 when fossil fuel consumption (CO2 emissions) were less than 1/10th of what they are now.
You are forgetting to add the carbon sinks. If the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of 2ppm per year, which is equal to 15.6Gt, and human emissions from various sources are more than double that, at roughly 33.5Gt per year, and, as a result, natural carbon sinks are taking up more than what natural emissions are, the increase in CO2 in recent times is due to human activity.
It seems that certain "self-proclaimed" experts here are giving out information that is contrary to what the IP CC is reporting in their reports, specifically AR4.
This report clearly shows that humans emit less than 4% of all CO2 emitters. 439 Gt. (land emissions - biosphere) + 332 Gt. (ocean emission) = 871 Gt. total natural emissions versus 29Gt. by fossil fuels. Of the 900 total Gt. humans emit 29 Gt. 29 divided by 900 = 3.2%
If the greenhouse effect of CO2 is between 9% and 27%, then the "maximum" effect of the greenhouse by humans can only be less than 1%.
Where is the math wrong?
