EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources

NOTE: this post has an error, see update below. – Anthony

From a Wry Heat reprinted with permission of Jonathan DuHamel

A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources.  The numbers are from IPCC data. 

Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.

URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

EPA_Table3pct

If one wanted to make fun of the alleged consensus of “climate scientists”, one could say that 97% of carbon dioxide molecules agree that global warming results from natural causes.

===============================================================

UPDATE:

Thanks to everyone who pointed out the difference in the chart and the issues.

I was offered this post by the author in WUWT Tips and Notes, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes/#comment-1696307 and reproduced below.

The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading.

Since the original author had worked for the Tucson Citizen I made the mistake of assuming it was properly vetted.

The fault is mine for not checking further. But as “pokerguy” notes, it won’t disappear. Mistakes are just as valuable for learning. – Anthony Watts

wryheat2 says:

July 28, 2014 at 12:28 pm

Mr. Watts,

John Droz suggested I contact you.

On my blog, I commented on the reasearch by Denica Bozhinova on CO2 content due to fossil fuel burining. She apparently scared The Hockey Schtick into taking down his post on the matter. However, there is an older table from EIA which I reproduce on my post.

Denica Bozhinova has commented extensively, and frankly, I can’t understand her position since she seems to contradict what she wrote in the abstract to “Simulating the integrated summertime Ä14CO2 signature from anthropogenic emissions over Western Europe”

See my post here (you may reprint it if you wish):

http://wryheat.wordpress.com/2014/07/19/only-about-3-of-co2-in-atmosphere-due-to-burning-fossil-fuels/

Jonathan DuHamel

Tucson, AZ

2.3 3 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

311 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David in Cal
July 29, 2014 12:12 am

Note that this result does NOT contradict the likelihood that the increase in CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm was caused (or mostly caused) by man’s emissions.

Zeke
July 29, 2014 12:18 am

Great moment of honesty.
I am not signing for that methane metric. Total sources are not known. Plants release methane in UV light from the sun, which is variable. Methane is released from reserves in the seafloors.
This reminds me of the Josh cartoon, “Stages of Grief” —
http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/07/climate-grief_scr.jpg
“Er, methane?”

Nick Stokes
July 29, 2014 12:19 am

“A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, “
The new paper said nothing of the sort. HS disappeared the entire thread.

glenncz
July 29, 2014 12:27 am

the Hockey Schtick link doesn’t work.
Possibly because the blog post was retracted. The chart does not say that 3.75% of the 400ppm is man-made. Those numbers in the charts refer to annual emissions. The theory is that earth was in a perfect balance before mans fossil emissions and now 50% of that 3.75% is what is causing the 2-3 annual ppm rise in CO2.
The above blog post should be rewritten or deleted.

jaffa
July 29, 2014 12:28 am

Well, David in Cal – Looking at those figures its lucky we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere or levels would have fallen below 100ppm by now and all the plants would have died.
Or maybe it’s not that simple, maybe climate scietivists haven’t accounted for every mechanism that has kept the climate remarkably stable for hundreds of millions of years.

Nick Stokes
July 29, 2014 12:31 am

glenncz says: July 29, 2014 at 12:27 am
“the Hockey Schtick link doesn’t work.
Possibly because the blog post was retracted.”

The first comment at the Wry Heat link is from one of the authors:
“Denica Bozhinova July 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm
A reply from the authors of the scientific article on the “review” on The Hockey Schtick blog has pointed out that the results cited are grossly misinterpreted and the blog has taken down the entire review and following comments.”

July 29, 2014 1:03 am

Big oops moment?
Don’t fret, you can always fiddle with the figures for a set that better supports the theory.. Go ahead it is hardly considered to be unethical -, just supportive of the pre-established ” morally correct position on CAGW”.

“A reply from the authors of the scientific article on the “review” on The Hockey Schtick blog has pointed out that the results cited are grossly misinterpreted and the blog has taken down the entire review and following comments.”

Siberian_husky
July 29, 2014 1:18 am

Oh. My. God. You are stupid.

July 29, 2014 1:22 am

Anyway it is dated 2001 hardly relevant

Nigel Harris
July 29, 2014 1:26 am

I’d take this whole post down quickly before anyone else notices it. Confirmation bias much?

Wu
July 29, 2014 1:26 am

Excuse my ignorance but I thought plants INHALE CO2 and exhale Oxygen. Was my science teacher wrong? He was a tad old to be frank.

July 29, 2014 1:34 am

This post is an embarrassing moment for us sceptics.
As others have mentioned above, this refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount there.
But this has always been a basic tenet of the alarmist’s case.
This does not show any conspiracy by the climate faithful, nor any fact concealed by them. It merely shows that the poster(s) have not understood what both sides have been talking about all along. I must clarify that- in fact its likely that the majority of the faithful do believe humanity is the sole cause of atmospheric CO2- but none of the educated among them do believe that.
The only thing that could make this more embarrassing would be if Anthony were to delete the post. Fortunately he has more integrity than that.
Kudos to all the sceptics who jumped on the mistake and pointed out that the post’s evidence does not support its headline claims.

Dr Ken Pollock
July 29, 2014 1:48 am

Wu, he was right but the message was incomplete. Plants do both – respiration and photosynthesis. The latter fixes CO2 and produces O2, the former uses energy and O2 to produce CO2 and water. All living things respire. Only green plants absorb CO2 to produce the food we all live off.

tonyb
Editor
July 29, 2014 1:48 am

Nick Stokes has already commented that the original article has been completely misinterpreted.
This current article is also therefore misleading and irrelevant
tonyb

July 29, 2014 1:51 am

This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources.

But land use change (deforestation) is a manmade impact.

July 29, 2014 1:53 am

Oops, should have read the comments first.
This is not worth commenting on.
But fortunately most of my comments are not worth reading either so, fair’s fair.

Allen63
July 29, 2014 1:59 am

If Nature cut its production by roughly 1.5 percent, Mankind would be “off the hook”.
If Nature increases its production by roughly 1.5 percent, Mankind would have to cut its CO2 production to “zero” (to stop the “catastrophe”).
Seems like Mankind is not a big “player” — unless one believes Nature is so “balanced and invariant” that a 1.5 percent change in Natural CO2 is “out of the question”.

holts7
July 29, 2014 2:19 am

How about delete it off WUWT also!!!

Nick Stokes
July 29, 2014 2:20 am

Allen63 says: July 29, 2014 at 1:59 am
‘Seems like Mankind is not a big “player” — unless one believes Nature is so “balanced and invariant” that a 1.5 percent change in Natural CO2 is “out of the question”.’

It can’t be sustained, whereas our continual additions are. The plant biosphere, for example, has about 550 Gtons Carbon. Every year, it takes about 123 Gtons from the air via photosynthesis. 60 Gtons returns via plant respiration and 60 Gt by decomposition. It’s a big annual source, but came from the atmosphere in the first place. We’ve brought to the surface and emitted nearly 400 Gtons C. The plant biosphere can’t compete with that.
Likewise the ocean emits and absorbs 90 Gton/yr. That’s mainly seasonal. Water warms in Spring, and emits. It cools in autumn, and absorbs. It’s been going on for millions of years.

GeeJam
July 29, 2014 2:28 am

Sorry David in Cal, but 400 ppm is such a trivial amount of atmospheric gas when compared to all other gasses. 1 x million divided by 400 is 1 x 2,500th of all the air in the sky. It’s really not a lot.
By comparison . . . .
Nitrogen (N2) is around 780,800 ppm (nearly 1,952 times more than total CO2)
Oxygen (O2) is around 209,500 ppm (nearly 524 times more than total CO2)
Argon (Ar) is around 9,297 ppm (nearly 23 times more than total CO2)
Naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is around 388 ppm
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only around 12 ppm (that’s about 1 x 83,000th of the atmosphere)– and yet it still seems to be widely believed that this microscopic amount of gas has dominated the warming of our Earth during the last century. Even UK vehicle excise duty (road tax) is calculated on how much we contribute to this 1 x 83,000th of the sky.
(Combined total for Neon, Methane, Helium, Krypton, Hydrogen and Xenon is around just 3 ppm)

johnmarshall
July 29, 2014 2:44 am

This claim is totally a guess. Volcanogenic CO2 is more plentiful than anthropogenic CO2 and both are isotopically identical. How can you differentiate?????

Alan Robertson
July 29, 2014 2:47 am

GeeJam says:
July 29, 2014 at 2:28 am
“Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only around 12 ppm…”
_________________________
You dropped a digit… 120ppm is more recognized figure.

richardscourtney
July 29, 2014 2:48 am

Nick Stokes:
You repeat the circular mass balance argument in your post at July 29, 2014 at 2:20 am.
Your post says

Allen63 says: July 29, 2014 at 1:59 am

‘Seems like Mankind is not a big “player” — unless one believes Nature is so “balanced and invariant” that a 1.5 percent change in Natural CO2 is “out of the question”.’

It can’t be sustained, whereas our continual additions are.

Really? “It can’t be sustained”? You know that?
There are many possible ways it could be “sustained” because almost all the CO2 circulating in the carbon cycle is in the deep ocean, and it is not known what rate of CO2 exchange occurs between deep ocean and ocean surface layer.
For example, a minute change to ocean surface layer pH of 0.1 would alter the equilibrium of CO2 between air and ocean to induce more change to atmospheric CO2 concentration than has been observed. Such a pH change could not be induced by alterations to CO2 concentrations and fluxes because of the carbonate buffer. But it could be a result of change to the sulphur injected into the thermohaline circulation by submarine volcanoes long ago. When the dissolved sulphur reached the ocean surface layer it would change the ocean surface layer pH with resulting change to atmospheric CO2 concentration. And such a global 0.1 pH change is far too small for the limited available data to indicate it.
I don’t know if the recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration (as observed at Mauna Loa since 1958) has a natural cause, an anthropogenic cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes but I want to know
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
But I do know that the rise is NOT a simple accumulation of CO2 in the air as a result of the anthropogenic CO2 overloading the sinks for CO2: the dynamics of the seasonal variation of CO2 refute such accumulation.
If you want to support the circular mass balance argument then wait for the inevitable arrival of Ferdinand Engelbeen because he promotes it and his knowledge of it is supreme.
Richard

Nylo
July 29, 2014 2:50 am

I don’t think this should disappear from WUWT. Mistakes should be accounted for, not erased as if they never happened. It is only by keeping what was originally said that we can learn some humility, and help in not making similar mistakes so easily in the future. The correct procedure would be to edit the story warning at the beginning that there is some important error in it, and detailing it.

GeeJam
July 29, 2014 2:58 am

Slightly off topic but the following link about UK MP’s bickering over ‘climate reoport’ is worth reading.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28531091

1 2 3 13
Verified by MonsterInsights