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

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 4 votes

Article Rating

311 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Samuel C Cogar

July 31, 2014 9:25 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:24 am
“The inventories thus are the absolute minimum of the human emissions. That is a fact.
That minimum is larger than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. That is a fact.”
——————-
YUP, and the minimum that nature emits into the atmosphere is far greater than what fossil fuel burning emits into the atmosphere and thus far, far larger than what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. That is also a fact.
And ps, none of your stated facts in the above referenced post explains that “steady n’ consistent” occurring 55 years of an average 1 to 2 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.
Will you be attributing it to the actions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Here, Ferdinand, …. explain this, to wit:
Year and Month of Maximum yearly CO2 ppm data
year month CO2 ppm
1979 6 1979.458 339.20
1980 5 1980.375 341.47
1981 5 1981.375 343.01
1982 5 1982.375 344.67
1983 5 1983.375 345.96
1984 5 1984.375 347.55
1985 5 1985.375 348.92
1986 5 1986.375 350.53
1987 5 1987.375 352.14
1988 5 1988.375 354.18
1989 5 1989.375 355.89
1990 5 1990.375 357.29
1991 5 1991.375 359.09
1992 5 1992.375 359.55 Pinatubo
1993 5 1993.375 360.19
1994 5 1994.375 361.68
1995 5 1995.375 363.77
1996 5 1996.375 365.16
1997 5 1997.375 366.69
1998 5 1998.375 369.49 El Niño
1999 4 1999.292 370.96
2000 4 2000.292 371.82
2001 5 2001.375 373.82
2002 5 2002.375 375.65
2003 5 2003.375 378.50
2004 5 2004.375 380.63
2005 5 2005.375 382.47
2006 5 2006.375 384.98
2007 5 2007.375 386.58
2008 5 2008.375 388.50
2009 5 2009.375 390.19
2010 5 2010.375 393.04
2011 5 2011.375 394.21
2012 5 2012.375 396.78
2013 5 2013.375 399.76
You can include the 1958 thru 1978 data iffen you want …. but it will “track” likewise, “steady n’ consistently”.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 9:33 am

Samuel C Cogar says:
July 31, 2014 at 8:42 am
But you went “POOF”, like the Magic Dagon and did not respond to my post discrediting your unsupported “tripe n’ piffle”
That is a discussion of January? Maybe I missed that.
It is quite simple: almost all CO2 processes in the biosphere are directly linked to oxygen: any uptake by plants releases oxygen. Almost all bacterial, fungal, insect, animal use of plants needs oxygen. Thus based on the oxygen use measured in the atmosphere and the oxygen use by fossil fuels, one can calculate how much net CO2 was captured or released by the whole biosphere. That has nothing to do with the isotopic composition of oxygen in water.
All CO2 processes in the biosphere prefer 12CO2 above 13CO2. Some kind of plants more than others, but anyway, if plants absorb CO2 they use relative more 12CO2 than is in the atmosphere, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Conversely, plant decay will release low 13C CO2 as that was built in (as good as in fossil fuels).
On the other side, the 13C/12C ratio of the oceans is a lot higher than In the atmosphere. Even taking into account the faster release of 12CO2 from ocean waters, ocean releases still will increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
Thus in summary: more CO2 coming from the oceans will increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. More CO2 coming from the biosphere (vegetation decay/consumption) will decrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere.
That makes it easy to know the (natural) cause of an increase or decrease of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 9:43 am

Samuel C Cogar says:
July 31, 2014 at 9:25 am
Samuel, again, the total amounts of CO2 cycling through the atmosphere are completely irrelevant for the end result after a full cycle. What is relevant is how much of the full cycle remains in the atmosphere and that is negative over the past 55 years. That is not constant, but variable: starting around -0.5 ppmv in 1959 and increasing to currently -2 ppmv with a variability of +/- 1 ppmv around the increase in uptake:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg

Hockey Schtick

July 31, 2014 9:51 am

The corrected Hockey Schtick post is now converted from draft mode back to published mode at the same original link, including the original comments, and an added big mea culpa/apology/thanks from me for the kind and detailed efforts of the lead author Denika Bozhinova via email and elsewhere in the blogosphere to clarify my misunderstandings:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html
I apologize big time to all for the commotion and confusion that resulted from putting the post in draft mode for what I initially thought would be a short time while having a private email correspondence with the author, but that’s not the way things turned out, so that was the 1st and last time out of 3,500 posts I will ever put a previously published post temporarily back in draft mode. Lesson learned, my apologies, and on the bright side it has stimulated a lot of ongoing discussion of the contribution of man to background CO2 levels even though (soon to be Dr) Bozhinova’s paper does not address that issue.

Alan Robertson

July 31, 2014 10:13 am

Hockey Schtick says:
July 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
__________________
Thanks for the heads- up.

Phil.

July 31, 2014 11:08 am

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 1:53 am
Phil.:
If it makes you happy to think it, then you ‘won’. OK?
Now, be a dear and tidy up your room yourself because I have no intention of going near it.
That’s fine there’s no point arguing anything with you anyway since you’ll never admit your mistakes. Like here for example, anyone with basic math skills can see that 10^0.1 is ~1.26.
Just when you make your usual nonsense posts I’ll rebut them as always in case some reader might think you had a clue about what you’re talking about.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 11:18 am

Hockey Schtick says:
July 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
Thanks for the clarification and restoration of the comments…
The discussions still goes on, but I like a good fight…

Hockey Schtick

July 31, 2014 11:33 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:18 am
Alan Robertson says:
July 31, 2014 at 10:13 am
Thanks for your kind remarks and ongoing gentlemanly discussions

richardscourtney

July 31, 2014 12:02 pm

Phil.:
re your post at July 31, 2014 at 11:08 am.
Yes, dear. Don’t worry your little head about it. Its only a bad dream. So go back to sleep and let the grown-ups do their things.
Richard

Alan Robertson

July 31, 2014 1:42 pm

Hockey Schtick says:
July 31, 2014 at 9:51 am
_______________________
We take action based on our best guess as to what the “correct” action might be. Except for the most mundane action, (if even then,) we rarely know beforehand what final result of our action might be and only until the act plays out (which can be a very long time,) can we discover if our original action was correct, or if we missed the mark, or if ever, consequence be known.
Without your decision to temporarily close your thread, in concert with our gracious host’s decision to leave this thread open, the lively discussion which took place in this thread may not have happened. As result of this series of events, many people have had the opportunity to increase their understanding and we are richer for the experience. Many thanks for your part in this small bit of the unfolding drama of mankind’s quest for knowledge and understanding.

Phil.

July 31, 2014 2:24 pm

richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Phil.:
re your post at July 31, 2014 at 11:08 am.
Yes, dear. Don’t worry your little head about it. Its only a bad dream. So go back to sleep and let the grown-ups do their things.
I’ll remind you of site policy:
Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

Latitude

July 31, 2014 3:32 pm

you can’t change pH without changing alkalinity…and CO2 moves some protons around but doesn’t change alkalinity
I’m so sick and tried of this ocean acidification pH crap…………

Denica Bozhinova

Reply to Latitude

July 31, 2014 3:41 pm

This lecture notes in chemistry might help you understand this:
http://ion.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3650/Carbonate/Carbonic%20Acid.html

Nick Stokes

July 31, 2014 3:50 pm

Latitude says: July 31, 2014 at 3:32 pm
“you can’t change pH without changing alkalinity…and CO2 moves some protons around but doesn’t change alkalinity”
Yes, it moves protons around and some end up on water. It’s a Lewis acid.
Total Alkalinity amounts to total nett charge on species involved in acid-base reactions (HCO3-, H+ etc but not Na+, Cl-). CO2 does not carry charge, and so does not change TA.

Latitude

July 31, 2014 5:39 pm

exactly…it’s called the Principle of Conservation of Alkalinity
every proton that leaves the acid….forms a new carbonate or bicarbonate that adds to the alkalinity
…net change…..zero
I’m sick and tired of ocean acidification

Phil.

July 31, 2014 6:11 pm

Latitude says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:39 pm
exactly…it’s called the Principle of Conservation of Alkalinity
And Total Alkalinity (TA) is given by something like this:
TA ≡ 2[CO3-2] + [HCO3-] + [H2BO3-] + 2[HBO3-2] + 3[BO3-3]+ [OH-] + [organic/inorganic H+ acceptors] – [H+]
Note the -[H+] term. When CO2 is added the pH goes down (i.e. [H+] increases) so that the alkalinity stays constant. The Conservation of Alkalinity requires that the pH decreases when CO2 is added.

Nick Stokes

July 31, 2014 7:11 pm

There is an interactive gadget where you can try adding CO2 and see what changes. H*, HCO3- increase, CO3– decreases.

Nick Stokes

July 31, 2014 7:12 pm

Sorry, missed the link

Bart

July 31, 2014 10:16 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 31, 2014 at 6:43 am
“In your plot the emissions are in Mt/year of CO2…”
It absolutely does not matter, Ferdinand. All you have to do is cover the labels on the right hand axis, and Presto! same units. This is really basic math.
“Your plot gives a false impression of decreasing airborne fraction because you used different units.”
Nope. And, your rate of emissions is rising for the last decade, while the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is stagnant. You can always change the slope and offset of the emissions so that your line appears to fall within the variability. That proves nothing but your propensity to fool yourself. But, the slopes do not match, at the precise time that temperatures have stagnated.
And, that temperature stagnation falls right on top of the atmospheric CO2 stagnation. Open your eyes. The game is already over. You lost. The longer you remain in denial, the more painful it is going to be when the truth comes home to you.
“No, that is whole point of the discussion: there never is or was a sensitivity as ppmv/°C/unit of time.”
That is flatly contradicted by the evidence.
“If you integrate dT/dt that will…”
That will give you a time series whose variability is 90 degrees out of phase with the variability in the derivative of CO2. You can’t just slop phase around arbitrarily. Natural systems cannot produce a 90 degree phase lag across all frequencies without an integral relationship in the offing. It is math. It is unequivocal.
“The proven fact that slope and variability are from different processes confirms that the “match” is entirely spurious.”
There is no such proof. There is no such spuriousness. It is a fact: in the modern era, CO2 follows the integral of appropriately scaled and baselined mean temperature. It’s not even a close call, and you are wandering around blind. This is as good a match as anyone could hope to get, and it says precisely what it appears to say: atmospheric CO2 is being driven by a temperature dependent natural process, and human inputs have little effect.

Nick Stokes

July 31, 2014 10:35 pm

Bart says: July 31, 2014 at 10:16 pm
“It is a fact: in the modern era, CO2 follows the integral of appropriately scaled and baselined mean temperature.”
So there <a href="mine“>really is a temperature hockey stick? 🙂

Ferdinand Engelbeen

August 1, 2014 12:14 am

Bart says:
July 31, 2014 at 10:16 pm
All you have to do is cover the labels on the right hand axis, and Presto! same units.
What you have done is not only using different units, but you also moved the trend of emissions with an offset. Its you who changed the slope (by using different units) and offset, I did plot both on the same scale without any manipulation:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
Which shows that there is hardly any change in “airborne fraction” if you follow the 53% line. The red line is the residual CO2 as function of the extra (total) CO2 pressure in the atmosphere and temperature changes. That is the real process giving the sink rate and thus the residual increase in the atmosphere, the 53% is just coincidence.
That is flatly contradicted by the evidence.
That is not evidence, that is (not even so good) curve fitting, where either the amplitude or the variability of the slopes match and only by coincidence both, as slope and variability are caused by totally independent processes.
That will give you a time series whose variability is 90 degrees out of phase with the variability in the derivative of CO2. You can’t just slop phase around arbitrarily. Natural systems cannot produce a 90 degree phase lag across all frequencies without an integral relationship in the offing.
Yes, it gives a 90 deg. out of phase for the simple reason that CO2 changes follow T changes with 90 deg. If you take the derivatives they both will shift back 90 deg., still the same lag. But it is the integration of dT/dt which gives you the temperature increase of 0.6°C accompanied by 5 ppmv CO2 increase. Not the 100+ ppmv. And the full variability of the CO2 rate of change, without problems of non-matching slopes or non-matching amplitudes.
There is not the slightest indication of a physical process in the past or present where CO2 will continue to be released by a sustained temperature difference without feedback from the whole CO2 cycle. That is not the way that an equilibrium process works…
There is no such proof. There is no such spuriousness.
Bart, the short time variability is caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation. That is a proven fact.
Since 1990, vegetation is an increasing net absorber of CO2 over the longer term. That is a proven fact. The slope of the CO2 rate of change from vegetation thus is either flat or negative.
Thus it is a proven fact that slope and variability of the CO2 rate of change are from different processes.
Of course, if you don’t accept any evidence that contradicts your theory, then there is no discussion possible…

richardscourtney

August 1, 2014 2:24 am

Phil.:
I take severe exception to your post at July 31, 2014 at 2:24 pm which says to me

I’ll remind you of site policy:
Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

Site policy does NOT approve your pestering of me.
I have repeatedly told you to stop pestering me but you childishly persist.
So, I have adopted the policy of replying in appropriate manner to your childish behaviour.
Now, dear, pack up your toys and be good.
Richard

richardscourtney

August 1, 2014 2:34 am

Nick Stokes:
Many thanks for your excellent “widget” which you link July 31, 2014 at 7:12 pm.
It is useful, easy to use and fun to pl;ay with. I was not aware of it and I commend everyone to look at it.

It is a superb demonstration of the ‘ocean acidification’ issue.
However, this thread is about affects of anthropogenic CO2 on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard

Nick Stokes

August 1, 2014 4:24 am

richardscourtney says: August 1, 2014 at 2:34 am
Thanks

Phil.

August 1, 2014 5:27 am

richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 2:24 am
Phil.:
I take severe exception to your post at July 31, 2014 at 2:24 pm which says to me
I’ll remind you of site policy:
Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.
Site policy does NOT approve your pestering of me.
I have repeatedly told you to stop pestering me but you childishly persist.
So, I have adopted the policy of replying in appropriate manner to your childish behavior.
Tough, when you post nonsense you can be expect to have it corrected. The solution is in your own hands, don’t post nonsense. Claiming that a 26% change in [H+] is ‘minute’ is nonsense for example.

Samuel C Cogar

August 1, 2014 5:59 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 31, 2014 at 9:33 am
“Almost all bacterial, fungal, insect, animal use of plants needs oxygen. Thus based on the oxygen use measured in the atmosphere and the oxygen use by fossil fuels, one can calculate how much net CO2 was captured or released by the whole biosphere.”
—————
OH GOOD GRIER, …. Ferdinand, you don’t have a clue as to what all the “sinks n’ sources n’ quantities” are for CO2 ….. and now you are inferring that you know EXACTLY what all the “sinks n’ sources n’ quantities” are for O2 ….. thus permitting you to accurately calculate/determine said “sinks n’ sources n’ quantities” for the CO2.
Do you really not know how to spell “circular reasoning”?
Ferdinand, do you know what these items are, to wit: …. magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (Fe2O3), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH).n(H2O)), siderite (FeCO3), gibbsite Al(OH)3, boehmite AlO(OH) and diaspore AlO(OH), ….. and/or how many giga-tons of them are processed each and every year?
Or what happens to their “finished products” ….. when neglected or discarded?
================
“All CO2 processes in the biosphere prefer 12CO2 above 13CO2. Some kind of plants more than others, but anyway, if plants absorb CO2 they use relative more 12CO2 than is in the atmosphere, thus leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. Conversely, plant decay will release low 13C CO2 as that was built in (as good as in fossil fuels).”
—————
And that is your “story”, …… and come hell or high water, …. you are sticking to it, …. RIGHT?
Well now, I can’t argue with a Jukebox that insists on playing the “same ole, same ole” tune.
HA, …. maybe I should find myself an old mimeograph machine and then publish a dozen or so papers and a couple books …. then I could be a highly recognized “expert” with one hellava a resume for “tootin” my own horn with