http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
97% from nature, 3% from humans.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- spren on “filled with racist remarks”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Bob G on “falsely labeling”
- Bill on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
How about the error bars? Can’t remember where, but I have read that the uncertainties on Atmosphere and Ocean figures are bigger than the total estimated human contribution
Let’s not confuse the issue lol. They don’t even give measurements for the carbonate and carbonaceous rock on this particular carbon cycle depiction and these are clearly significant sinks and sources of global carbon; certainly moreso than human contributions.
I realize they are pretty hard to measure so we should just ignore them !!
I have been very skeptical of these infographics when I saw the one reported by the CIA in 1974, depicting the atmosphere’s energy balance as balancing out perfectly, even if greenhouse gases were nowhere to be seen.
Do you think I could present an infographic to the Tax Men explaining why I should never give them anything at all?
Even better, the source of the pic is the IPCC itself.
Of that 3%, one tiny sliver of IR frequency is uniquely absorbed by CO2. What percentage is that? http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Of that absorption, less than half gets re-emitted back towards earth.
I’d sure love to see that quantified.
Yep, a big mover and shaker of our climate.
“Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 0.7 and 300 micrometres,” from Wiki. But let’s use 4-100.
CO2 with widen spectrum is 14,15,16 micro or 3 of 96. Or 3.125% of all IR.
People are 3% of CO2 per above per year.
So we are 3% of 3%. With no H2O figured in.
Or put another way: 33 C is what is said we are above a no GHG situation.
Water is said to be 90% of this. Pick your own and do the math.
33 x .9= 29.7
3.3 left for all other GHG.
CO2 is 75% of this or 2.475
97% is natural or 2.4.
So we could be .075 C of total 33 C.
lol, yeh, I was looking for something a bit more involved. But for a back of the envelope, is pretty much consistent with what I’ve seen and done.
I’ve always wondered what this percentage represents. Is it volume of CO2 put into the atmosphere per year. Is it the accumulation of CO2 to this date because then the human caused CO2 percentage would be minimally increasing as time progresses.
I’ve heard warmist make the claim albeit far fetched that natural CO2 is kept in a perfect equilibrium through natural process while man’s CO2 continues to compound, but I’ve been hearing the 3% figure for ever. If the warmists have a case the percent of human CO2 should be creeping up.
Joe, ask them how CO2 levels got to be in the thousands ppm before.
“perfect equilibrium through natural process”
That would be volcano eruptions, limestone formation, plant growth, rotting vegation, oceans cooling and warming, methane to CO2 off California, etc. How does Mother Nature know all this and keep it in perfect equilibrium.
I think the 3% is the human part of the “outgassing” into the atmosphere.
From the above chart 119 + 88 = 207 from natural (3%=6.21)
Anyways, that chart is not much better than throwing darts at a dartboard, albeit from a good dart thrower.
MKelly:
She has an AOGCM that projects the amounts required at future dates so she can release the needed amounts at the correct time and cause events that will sequester additional amounts as required.
It is all part of the SIM Planet game she is playing! 🙂
We are really just virtual characters in Gaia’s game.
While during short periods the natural contribution to and consumption of the CO2 in the carbon cycle MIGHT show a negative balance. If that was the historical case over millennial time periods there would be no life on earth at this time as the carbon would have been sequestered long ago. The Carbon Cycle needs to follow the extent of Biodiversity and play catchup until the cooling phases lower the biological activity by lowering the ability of plants to grow in the colder regions. I would suggest the main cause for increased Carbon at this time is that biological activity has not caught up with the carbon being emitted by all processes. Historical records show a definite lag between temperature and CO2.
Even without human contributions there would still be an increase in the amount of CO2 in the biosphere until a reasonable period had passed of cooling.
Mike, I think you’ve got it 100%.
The planet doesn’t care where CO2 comes from.
It needs it, and it’s in very short supply right now.
mkelly says:
January 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
How does Mother Nature know all this and keep it in perfect equilibrium.
================================================
Mother Nature doesn’t.
Plants evolved and work a whole lot better and more efficiently at much higher CO2 levels.
CO2 levels have been falling ever since.
If this were anything else, we would all be freaking out about how dangerously low CO2 levels are right now.
Latitude I liked the SIM Planet answer better! 🙂
LOL yeah me too.
Here’s a thought massage for you.
We all know CO2 is a fertilizer, right?
Man is actually doing Gaia a favor by releasing all of the sequestered Carbon (which was previously a constituent of the atmoshere) not unlike the bee helps out by polinating plants.
a fine graphic which also fails to consider, they have absolutley no idea how much co2 is produced by undersea volcanoes….because they have no idea how many underseas volcanoe there are.
I think this proves Obama is a Nazi.
ZZZzzzz………
If the units are the same, gigatons of CO2, NASA has a lower value: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php
I will use Nasa numbers.
Humans account for 5.5 Gigatons/ Year, when there are 750 Gigatons on the atmosphere, if these 750 Gigatons correspond to the 390 ppms of CO2 in the atmosphere, the 5.5 Gigatons corresponds to 2.86 ppms/year.
Since 1958 we have had an increase from 314 ppms to 390 ppms, avareging an increase of 1.46 ppms/year, or 2.8 Gigatons/year.
According to this link (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html) one human produces about 1Kg of CO2 a day by breathing, that makes 7 billion Kg a day worldwide, or 0.007 Gigatons a day, times 365 days a year we have 2.5 Gigatons/Year.
If 7 Billions humans produce 2.5 Gigatons/Year just by breathing, how much CO2 do the 1.3 billion cows produce just by breathing? and how does the population of humans, cattle and poultry correlate to the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
Too much numbers, must sleep …