Global Warming Cont...

[Guisslapp]

Your animal respiration number is not that high. Most of the CO2 from biota and soil litter comes from decomposition, not animal respiration.. So your numbers on the effect of human respiration are way off. Maybe 1% contribution to total annual anthropogenic CO2 production.

My numbers stated "animal respiration" specifically. Animal/Human respiration was considered natural (not anthropogenic) in the source I used.

[Guisslapp]

Total annual production of CO2 from natural processes is about 150 gigatons. The total annual consumption of CO2 from natural processes (photosynthesis and rain) is about 154 gigatons. The extra 4 gigtons of CO2 consumed is out of the 7 gigtons created annually by burning fussil fuels and deforestation.

The remaining 3 gigatons remain in the atmosphere.

The annual production of C02 is at a high right now because we are in a stage of positive flux in the carbon cycle. When that reverses, there will be more consumption of CO2 than production and we will head into the next ice age.

[randerizer]

No, the numbers he's using are pretty close to the same ones you are using. 7/150 ~ 4.67%, the NOAA number of combined FF and deforestation is 4.5%. It's not like the rain and photosynthetic processes, etc., are SELECTIVE in which CO2 they take out of the atmosphere. So really, only 4.x% of the 3gt net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to anthropogenic production.

What evidence suggests that:
1) The carbon cycle is in "long-term" balance, meaning that it roughly equals out every year or even on a timescale judged in human lifetimes? The evidence presented suggests that it is balanced over a period of ~ 100k years.

If you were going to do an instantaneous balance on the CO2 in the atmosphere, how much would you find at any point in time?

Why do you suggest that there is an upper limit to the sinking ability of the atmosphere, and why does it not increase as a function of CO2 atmospheric concentration, temperature, etc?

Total annual production of CO2 from natural processes is about 150 gigatons. The total annual consumption of CO2 from natural processes (photosynthesis and rain) is about 154 gigatons. The extra 4 gigtons of CO2 consumed is out of the 7 gigtons created annually by burning fussil fuels and deforestation.

The remaining 3 gigatons remain in the atmosphere.

Your animal respiration number is not that high. Most of the CO2 from biota and soil litter comes from decomposition, not animal respiration.. So your numbers on the effect of human respiration are way off. Maybe 1% contribution to total annual anthropogenic CO2 production.

The amounts of CO2 produced and consumed by nature are in long-term balance. The increases in anthropogenic CO2 cannot be totally absorbed by the ocean and biomass sinks. So there is no comparison between naturally produced CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 because they are operating on different time horizons.

Hence, while both natural and anthropogenic produced CO2 cause the greenhouse effect, it is only the anthropogenic CO2 which is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Likewise, while atmospheric CO2 constitutes 3% of the greenhouse gases, it has the ability to increase (force) global warming whereas water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, is more a function of atmospheric temperature. Thus, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases global temperatures and allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which contributes to a 60% increase in average global temperature when compared to CO2 by itself.

[saltydawg]

This is dead wrong. They are not in balance, they are in a constant state of negative and positive flux. If there is anything the ice cores prove definitively, it is that.

They are in long-term flux, over hundreds and thousands of years. The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is not a natural event. It is unnatural.

[saltydawg]

My numbers stated "animal respiration" specifically. Animal/Human respiration was considered natural (not anthropogenic) in the source I used.

How about a link so I can look at them?

[randerizer]

They are in long-term flux, over hundreds and thousands of years. The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels is not a natural event. It is unnatural.

With the "baseline" in CO2 levels established with which data?

[saltydawg]

The annual production of C02 is at a high right now because we are in a stage of positive flux in the carbon cycle. When that reverses, there will be more consumption of CO2 than production and we will head into the next ice age.

Yeah, a high flux of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels. You got that right!

[Guisslapp]

Hence, while both natural and anthropogenic produced CO2 cause the greenhouse effect, it is only the anthropogenic CO2 which is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Likewise, while atmospheric CO2 constitutes 3% of the greenhouse gases, it has the ability to increase (force) global warming whereas water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, is more a function of atmospheric temperature. Thus, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels increases global temperatures and allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which contributes to a 60% increase in average global temperature when compared to CO2 by itself.

Each statement in this paragraph is logically flawed.

Sentence 1 - it is funny how you compartmentalize the molecules of CO2 as if they are somehow different. This statement would lead one to believe that it is only the balance of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere - everything else somehow gets consumed. This sentence has Al Gore spin all over it.

Sentence 2 - there is no reason that water vapor cannot cause a positive feedback loop. Water vapor increases temperature increases water vapor increases temperature, etc. Water vapor itself (because it is a more powerful greenhouse gas) would be much more capable of getting the process started than the CO2.

Sentence 3 - the numbers already clearly show that Total atmospheric CO2 only represents 3% of greenhouse effect and anthropogenic CO2 represents 0.117%. Any compounding that CO2 makes is washed out by how minimal percentage we contribute to the actual greenhouse effect (0.117%). Multiply that times the change in temperature (if there is in fact a change in average temperature) and that is how much is theoretically our fault or at least within a modicum of our control.

[Guisslapp]

Why do you suggest that there is an upper limit to the sinking ability of the atmosphere, and why does it not increase as a function of CO2 atmospheric concentration, temperature, etc?

Because it is an "inconvenient truth."

[Guisslapp]

How about a link so I can look at them?

Here is one:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/6-4-1-1.html

[saltydawg]

No, the numbers he's using are pretty close to the same ones you are using. 7/150 ~ 4.67%, the NOAA number of combined FF and deforestation is 4.5%. It's not like the rain and photosynthetic processes, etc., are SELECTIVE in which CO2 they take out of the atmosphere. So really, only 4.x% of the 3gt net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to anthropogenic production.

What evidence suggests that:
1) The carbon cycle is in "long-term" balance, meaning that it roughly equals out every year or even on a timescale judged in human lifetimes? The evidence presented suggests that it is balanced over a period of ~ 100k years.

If you were going to do an instantaneous balance on the CO2 in the atmosphere, how much would you find at any point in time?

Why do you suggest that there is an upper limit to the sinking ability of the atmosphere, and why does it not increase as a function of CO2 atmospheric concentration, temperature, etc?

One quarter of atmospheric CO2 cycles in and out of the biota and ocean CO2 sinks every year. However, those 2 are very much larger than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Releasing just 2% of the CO2 in the ocean would double our atmospheric CO2 level. The top level of the ocean and earth exchange CO2 in terms of decades whereas the deep ocean and soils exchange CO2 in terms of millennia. Consequently, human activities have become a significant disturbance to atmospheric CO2 levels. When compared to geological timescales, the level of atmospheric CO2 is remarkably constant.

Why doesn't the increases in atmospheric CO2 don't go immediately into the ocean sink. Since CO2 dissolves in water, it has something to do with some chemical law which limits how much can be dissolved in the atmosphere at one time.

Probably the numbers are close. But there is more to it than just looking at the numbers.

[saltydawg]

Here is one:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/resources/gcc/6-4-1-1.html

The key word is "includes". My common sense feeling is that the world's forest and plants, on land and in the sea, cycle more CO2 than land or sea animals.

[randerizer]

Why doesn't the increases in atmospheric CO2 don't go immediately into the ocean sink. Since CO2 dissolves in water, it has something to do with some chemical law which limits how much can be dissolved in the atmosphere at one time.

we're far from an upper solubility limit of CO2 in water.

[Guisslapp]

The key word is "includes". My common sense feeling is that the world's forest and plants, on land and in the sea, cycle more CO2 than land or sea animals.

This would make the anthropogenic contributions to be LOWER than the percentages I used in my calculation then.

[Guisslapp]

When compared to geological timescales, the level of atmospheric CO2 is remarkably constant.

The ice cores clearly show that there is a cyclical process at work. The "balance" shifts back and forth between atmospheric accumulation of CO2 and atmospheric losses of CO2 every 100,000 years. The widespread combustion of fossil fuels is clearly a new thing but I have yet to see any evidence that our anthropogenic CO2 contributions exceed that which nature can handle.