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

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 30, 2014 1:48 pm

Samuel C Cogar says:
July 30, 2014 at 10:14 am
Don’t be “talking trash” to me ….. by first claiming that atmospheric CO2 has generally been increasing since the Industrial Age and specifically increasing since 1958 ….. and then claiming those increases are undetectable even in the Mauna Loa record.
I was talking about the year by year <I<variability of the human emissions. Human emissions indeed are increasing, but the year by year variability and the increase rate from one year to next year is maximum 0.2 ppmv. As about halve of that variation remains in the atmosphere, the variability itself is undetectable in the Mauna Loa record.
That has led Bart, Salby and many others to believe that the increase itself is not caused by human emissions because all observed variability is natural.

richardscourtney

July 30, 2014 3:54 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thanks for your post addressed to me at July 30, 2014 at 1:17 pm which says in total

richardscourtney says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:17 am

And nobody can weigh the oceans.

Indeed quite difficult, but one can measure what is in the oceans: all measurements taken at ships tracks and fixed stations show that the pH is decreasing and DIC is increasing over time. Which proves that the pH decrease is not caused by an addition of some acidic components but from increased CO2 input into the oceans…

Firstly, I apologise for using sardonic humour. Your extraordinary linguistic skills make it easy to forget that English is not your first language.
My comment was intended to be ‘shorthand’ for “you can’t do that”.
Your reply clearly demonstrates that my intention was too unclear. Sorry.
There is no possibility that available data can indicate a consistent change of 0.1 to the pH of ocean surface layer. The pH varies at localities by much more than that on an hourly basis and there is insufficient spatial sampling to discern what has or has not happened to the average pH. Please see the data here.
However, let us assume you are right that “the pH is decreasing and DIC is increasing over time”. Then that IS consistent with addition of some acidic components reducing the pH to alter the equilibrium of CO2 concentrations in the air and ocean surface layer. Hence, such an addition being the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration is a possibility. Similarly, the anthropogenic CO2 emission is another possible cause of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. And other causes are also possible.
I have yet to see conclusive evidence for any single possibility being the true cause.
Richard

Denica Bozhinova

July 30, 2014 4:15 pm

I apologize in advance for interrupting your fantastic scientific discussion with what might seem like a “blast from the past”. This blog came to my attention only this morning (CET time zone) and took quite a lot of time to read and digest. So if you allow me, I would like to try to address several issues that seem to be recurring and where my name or my work is mentioned.
First, the pipe analogy, part of which was cited here, contained a bit more information. More precisely, my original post was trying to address the problem with the table, also corrected by many people here, that the table is showing gross (annual) fluxes to the atmosphere, not the total amount.
“With regard to your gross fluxes question – imagine the atmosphere (as a reservoir of CO2) as a pool. You have several pipes that control the in/out flow. You have this huge pipe of biospheric inflow, almost as big as the pipe for the biospheric outflow. You have silimar pipes for the ocean inflow and outflow in the pool. Regardless of the actual size of the big pipes – they are relatively balanced between inflow and outflow – their net contribution to the pool is almost zero when compared to the gross fluxes themselves – in some years the pool level is rising, in other it is going down.
Now you add a much smaller pipe for the inflow from anthropogenic emissions. This pipe does not have outflow to balance it, so it’s net contribution is in fact the entire inflow of it to the pool. And the net contribution of this pipe is in fact bigger than the net contribution of the other huge pipes and is growing. Luckily the outflow pipes to the biosphere and ocean are in fact a bit bigger (or you could say flexible) and manage to take up a bit of the inflow from the anthropogenic flux. Still, the pool is getting filled up faster and faster.”
Second, the original review on Hockey Schtick. It’s mistakes were that it
1. Wrongfully attributed the fossil fuel CO2 we report as -all- the fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere
2. Wrongfully attributed our findings to the global scale and since the preindustrial era
These were the several major points, which a commenter here caught correctly –
Nick Stokes says on July 29, 2014 at 1:04 pm:
CO2bg is the background CO2 outside the limited area of the study, measured in her case at the top of Jungfraujoch in the Alps. The other terms, including CO2ff, are the perturbations in her particular location in a plume of recently emitted CO2.
Thirdly, reply to some comments here which I found very surprising.
WryHeat says on July 28, 2014 at 12:28 pm (copied in the addendum to the original post here)
“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”
Considering the time stamp of the cited e-mail/comment and looking back to the conversation on WryHeat’s blog, there is virtually no discussion on what my article results actually are. I would be happy to elaborate on any “contradiction” that WryHeat thinks I have made with regards to my article, although I am puzzled that he would state here that I am conflicted and not in the discussion where I am actually replying.
“She apparently scared The Hockey Schtick into taking down his post on the matter.”
I have no idea what power I must have in order to “scare” an established blog-writer into taking down his work over the internet. In fact, my reply to his “review” of my work never even made it to the comment section – as all comments are required to pass moderator’s approval he read it first and then decided to take down his own work for revision. Then he notified me about it and asked further questions. And connected to that comes the next part..
Hockey Schtick says on July 29, 2014 at 11:59 am
“The correspondence with the lead author has been delayed waiting ~5 days for a reply from the author to questions, including about the following…”
“…then putting the post in draft mode until this issue is clarified by the lead author, then so be it.”
Considering that the reasons why the original review was “put in draft mode” were that Hockey Schtick realized that my paper does not address the issues he described in it, I am really surprised to read this statements. Even more surprised because, again, the time-stamp shows me that I received the email with his new questions (also copied and posted here) only 2-3 hours before he wrote here repeatedly that he is waiting on my so very much delayed reply.
I confess that my previous reply to him had taken me 5 days to write, which were mostly spent in trying to find all the forums/blogs/sites that have reposted his review and trying to minimize the damage done to my and my article’s credibility. Also, because the questions he asked were not issues directly connected with my work or study and as I pointed out in my recent communication – I prefer not to chat about science, but have time to think over the arguments and evaluate them.
Further claims that “it appears there is a significant erroneous statement in the first conclusion which conflates “concentrations” with “gradients”” are in fact inaccurate again. As I wrote few hours ago in an e-mail reply – the statement in the abstract about the result for the gradients in CO2ff concentrations and the conclusion about the concentrations themselves are not contradicting each other at all. However, this discussion made me realize that Hockey Schtick has a much bigger issue he should deal with – taking responsibility for his own writings and doings.
In this particular discussion he has tried to use my delay in reply to him retroactively as an excuse for his retracted review and the delayed republication. And trying to shift the attention from the original mistakes in the review to something “new and shiny” that he had not verified, but yet in only few paragraphs he states repeatedly:
– appears should have said “gradients” not “concentrations”
– If the author wrote “concentrations” when she meant “gradients”
– it appears there is a significant erroneous statement in the first conclusion which conflates “concentrations” with “gradients”
– apparently incorrect conclusion in the paper
– an incorrect statement in the major conclusion of a paper
– she apparently made a significant incorrect statement in the conclusion
– apparent error written in the conclusion
– she apparently didn’t mean what she wrote
– an apparently incorrect and misleading statement conflating “concentrations” with “gradients”
– if you want to blame me, … , then so be it.
Reading this, I am yet forced to post the last part of my reply to his original “review” on his blog (one which I decided to cut off when posting it on the WryHeat).
“I appreciate all the feedback and skepticism about our results as shown by the commenters here, however I would have to ask the author of the blog entry to try and be more conservative in his summary of this and other scientific studies, especially when he makes claims about the findings that are nowhere in the article itself.”
It might be a bit obvious, but APPARENTLY it needs to be said that a good journalist/reporter that is not a specialist tries to do research on his subject -before- he posts an article and not -after-. It APPEARS that contacting the authors of the article you want to review with tabloid title -before- you actually write it might help you not guess what they APPARENTLY MEAN, but actually know it.
Again, I am sorry for the long reply that is nowhere near the real topic of this discussion about the global carbon cycle and climate change in general. I am afraid my article is also nowhere near closely related to this subject, yet somehow it got mixed into it. I will continue following this discussion, in case there are any more questions.

Alan Robertson

July 30, 2014 5:14 pm

Denica Bozhinova says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:15 pm
________________
Wow! That’s quite a response, Ms. Bozhinova.
Welcome to WUWT. I hope that you will look favorably on our gracious host’s decision to leave this thread unredacted. If you stick around long enough, you will find that this is one of the very few places on the internet where the free and open discussion and exchange of ideas is not just given lip service, but is encouraged and condoned.
Excuse us for wandering away from the original discussion in this thread, as there wasn’t much more to say, while everyone here has a thirst for knowledge and understanding and actively joins the fray at every opportunity which might shed a little light on complex issues.
Ps I’m just some guy and not any kind of a spokesman, or even sure if my level of understanding of climate issues even rises to the level of “layman”.

July 30, 2014 5:40 pm

The pipe analogy is flawed by the assumption that the inlet and outlet are fixed.
Sounds like Houghton has a lot of disciples.
Here is a better analogy. Start with a small river of 100 liters per minute. Sink follows source.
Add a dam, such that the resulting reservoir holds 500 liters. In 5 minutes the reservoir is filled, and 100 liters per minute begin to overflow the dam. Sink and source are again matched. The reservoir is the atmosphere. The river is the natural CO2 fluxes into and out of the atmosphere.
Increase the inlet by 3 liters per minute for a total of 103 liters per minute entering the reservoir.
There is a small increase in the reservoir volume, but the overflow reaches 103 liters per minute almost immediately.
The 3 liters per minute is the anthropogenic addition to the atmosphere/reservoir. The amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the reservoir never exceeds 3 percent of the total volume, and never “accumulates” in the atmosphere past 3 percent. 0.03 times 400ppm is 12 ppm. If the source becomes 104 liters per minute, then the outlet adapts almost immediately. 0.04 times 400ppm is 16 ppm.
There may be a transient (short term delay) in the sink response. The stable isotope and other approaches to analysis of atmosphere CO2 indicate a possible maximum of 25 ppm due to anthropogenic addition, with the remaining 100 ppm increase due to slight shifts in natural sources and sinks. Likely eutrophication or tropical forest destruction, or shifts in deep ocean upwelling.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 “accumulates” in the atmosphere, any more than bacterial or bovine CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere from any source. CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere because it is part of a much larger flowing system. Houghton knows this, but would never admit it.

u.k.(us)

July 30, 2014 5:56 pm

Here’s my take:
Denica Bozhinova can nail you to the cross and be nice about it.
Beware.
(one of my bosses mentioned his partner could do the same, without the niceties).

Alan Robertson

July 30, 2014 6:10 pm

bw says:
July 30, 2014 at 5:40 pm
__________________
How does your analogy cope with the fact that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing? If CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere from any source, then how have pre- industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 risen from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv?

Nick Stokes

July 30, 2014 6:13 pm

The bottom line to all this is this plot, which shows over time the relation in mass terms between the cumulative CO2 we have emitted, and the mass in the atmosphere. Some people here say it is all coincidence.

Alan Robertson

July 30, 2014 6:21 pm

Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:13 pm
The bottom line to all this is this plot, which shows over time the relation in mass terms between the cumulative CO2 we have emitted, and the mass in the atmosphere. Some people here say it is all coincidence.
_____________
That’s interesting, but do you have some attribution to the presented plot, other than SkS? The plot may be accurate, but those people don’t enjoy a high (or much of any level,) of credibility.

ferd berple

July 30, 2014 6:23 pm

Luckily the outflow pipes to the biosphere and ocean are in fact a bit bigger (or you could say flexible) and manage to take up a bit of the inflow from the anthropogenic flux. Still, the pool is getting filled up faster and faster.”
===============
I have problems with this model. the outflow pipe grows annually at about 1/2 the rate of human emissions. yet the outflow pipe only sees the growth in cumulative emissions (which has a much lower growth rate than human emissions). somehow from this the outflow pipe is able to isolate the increase in human emissions. this suggests the outflow pipe is a whole lot more than simply flexible. rather it is a dynamic system, aggressively responding to increased nutrient supply, and responding by aggressively increasing its population and mass.

Nick Stokes

July 30, 2014 6:33 pm

Alan Robertson says: July 30, 2014 at 6:21 pm
“That’s interesting, but do you have some attribution to the presented plot, other than SkS”
It’s the best plot I could find that puts both, with a comparable mass scale, on the same graph. Here is the standard plot of cumulative emissions (in Gton C, mult by 3.666 to get Gton CO2). The CO2 curve is in many places.
You can easily check the numbers. There is no fancy math involved.

Alan Robertson

July 30, 2014 6:39 pm

Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:33 pm
________________
Thanks.

Phil.

July 30, 2014 7:23 pm

richardscourtney says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:33 pm
Phil.:
I see that you again demonstrate your self delusion with your post at July 30, 2014 at 11:53 am.
I have NOT been “shown to be wrong” and I would be grateful if I were.
Are you still claiming that a 26% change is ‘minute’?
I am content to discuss matters with knowledgeable and honourable people who disagree with me such as Ferdinand.
There is no way I will lower myself to engage with you.
That would be a move up in class for you, unfortunately you can’t handle it so you keep spouting the same old mistakes just like here.
I have made that mistake before when I have always discovered the truth of the old maxim, “Never wrestle with a greasy pig: you can’t win and the pig likes it”.
You can’t win because you’re wrong!

Mervyn

July 30, 2014 7:25 pm

3% or 3.75% … it makes not much difference to its contribution to the greenhouse heat effect (GHE). Simple arithmetic demonstrates that, at best, this 3% is responsible for about 0.11 of 1% of the total GHE.
95% of the GHE is due to water in the atmosphere. 5% of the GHE is due to greenhouse trace gases, which CO2 represents 72% … i.e. CO2 represents 3.6% (5% x 72%) of the GHE.
IPCC AR4 asserted that 97% of CO2 entering the atmosphere each year is from natural sources while 3% is from human activity.
Therefore at best, the human contribution to the GHE is 0.11 of 1% (3.6% x 3%) of the total GHE.
If we double, triple or quadruple human CO2 emissions, it would still have no real effect on temperature.
The EPA is barking up the wrong tree with what it is trying to do at the beck and call of Obama!

davidmhoffer

July 30, 2014 8:36 pm

Denica Bozhinova says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:15 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for dropping in and providing valuable commentary. I hope that you keep coming back. This forum is frequented by a spectrum of participants whose science credentials range from world leaders in their respective fields to complete kooks. It doesn’t take long to figure out which ones are which. Discussing (arguing?) the science with the kooks is, alas, a fruitless task, though it must sometimes be undertaken if for no other reason than to set the record straight for those who are new to the forum. But for every loud mouthed kook there are hundreds who read, listen, and learn, though they may sometimes disagree with you, and as I am sure you are aware, when it comes to contentious issues, learning is a two way street.

Janice Moore

July 30, 2014 10:10 pm

Re: “Luckily the outflow pipes to the biosphere and ocean are in fact a bit bigger… .” Denica Bozhinova (4:15pm) quoted above by Ferd Berple (with excellent commentary) at 6:23pm:
While this dryly humorous understatement brings a chuckle to the informed, it may mislead some readers if not clarified.
(Times in brackets are from video of Dr. Murry Salby’s April, 2013, Hamburg lecture — English after Deutsche intro — posted below)
Native Sources of CO2 – 150 (96%) gigatons/yr — Human CO2 – 5 (4%) gtons/yr
(native = 2 orders of magnitude greater than human)
{37:01} Native Sinks Approximately* Balance Native Sources (net CO2) —
— *Approximately = even a small imbalance can overwhelm any human CO2.
– What controls atmospheric CO2 is net emission from ALL sources and sinks. {33:47}
– {39:40} High CO2 values (per SCIAMACHY satellites), i.e., big CO2 sources, are NOT in industrialized nor highly populated regions; they are in Amazon basin, tropical Africa, and SE Asia.
(Note: Since many native sources also involve Carbon 13, leaner than in the atmosphere, “ALL BETS ARE OFF.”) {37:34}
Dr. Murry Salby — Hamburg, Germany, April, 2013

davidmhoffer

July 30, 2014 10:41 pm

Denica Bozhinova says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:15 pm
I will continue following this discussion, in case there are any more questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
1. A link to the original article would be appreciated.
2. The table appears to have been published in 2003, and is based on IPCC data from 2001. Is this correct?
3. If 2. above is correct, I’d think that is data that is nearly stale. Instrumentation has improved significantly since then, and another decade’s worth of data is causing us to rethink many other aspects of the earth system as a whole. Can you comment on that aspect?

Nick Stokes

July 30, 2014 10:52 pm

davidmhoffer says: July 30, 2014 at 10:41 pm
The paper is published online here. The table was introduced by one of the bloggers, not Dr Bozhinova.

davidmhoffer

July 30, 2014 11:23 pm

Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2014 at 10:52 pm
davidmhoffer says: July 30, 2014 at 10:41 pm
The paper is published online here. The table was introduced by one of the bloggers, not Dr Bozhinova.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Thanks Nick. I read the paper and then re-read the article above. As you said, it was a blogger who claimed that the table supported the paper which is downright silly. Confused the day lights out of me before I clued in. Dr Bozhinova’s response (now in context) is quite correct. (No need to respond to my previous questions Dr Bozhinova, I gots it all figured out now).
An unfortunate bit of confusion instigated by bad journalism. I applaud Anth_ny for leaving it up, I fear we jump to conclusions in this forum too often, and this is a lesson learned. On the other hand, it has been some time since we were last treated to a serious dust up between Richard and Ferdinand, which I always find both educational and amusing, so there are some positive results as well.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 12:07 am

Alan Robertson says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:21 pm
Here is the plot of emissions and CO2 increase, together with temperature since 1900:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
emissions inventory from DOE and others and CO2 increase from Mauna Loa.
The ratio between human emissions and increase in the atmosphere is remarkably constant:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
probably because the human emissions increased slightly quadratic over time. That gives a slightly quadratic increase in the atmosphere and a slightly quadratic increase in sink rate.
That the increase in the atmosphere induces an increase in sink rate in a quite constant ratio shows that the whole carbon cycle behaves as a simple first order linear process.
Something people like Bart and DesertYote don’t see as they are overfocused on the short term variability caused by temperature variations, which has very little to do with the longer term increase of CO2.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 12:13 am

Denica Bozhinova says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Thanks a lot for the clarification…
I had already reacted on HS ‘blog, but my comments disappeared together with the article.
As always, I am interested in new research that sheds light on different aspects of the carbon cycle, but as you have experienced now, a lot of people have difficulties to make a differentiation between (parts of) a cycle and the net result at the end of the full cycle…

Bart

July 31, 2014 12:19 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:45 pm
“That means that the short term variability and the long term increase of the CO2 rate of change are completely disconnected and the first can’t be used as proof that the second also is caused by temperature.”
That is completely unphysical. They are completely accounted for by the temperature relationship, and you cannot “disconnect” those components of the temperature impetus without some physical mechanism, and that physical mechanism has to high pass “filter” the low frequency components of the temperature variation out and – this is the impossible part – leave no trace of phase distortion in doing so. If you had a deep understanding of feedback systems in general, you would know that your proposal is physically impossible.
“Thus while the short term variability of CO2 is largely caused by temperature variability, there is not the slightest reason to assume that the current 100+ ppmv CO2 increase is caused by temperature…”
Except that they match, for all practical purposes, perfectly. Which is overwhelming reason to believe that the current 100+ ppmv CO2 increase is caused by temperature dependent natural pumping action into the atmosphere.
You cannot explain why CO2 is currently increasing in the atmosphere at essentially constant rate, while emissions are accelerating. I can. You lose.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm
When will you get it in your head once and for all that this proves nothing? This is your silly “mass balance” argument.
Natural sink activity is a response to forcing from all sources. Therefore, you cannot look at natural sink activity and say that it would be the same if you were to remove the human inputs. That is a portion of that sink activity which is a response to human inputs. Take away the human inputs, and the sink activity goes down.
Hence, your “Y” variable is composed of two components, Y1 from natural forcing, and Y2 from anthropogenic forcing. You need to know X – Y1 to conclude nature is a net sink. But, you do not have the information available to solve for Y1.

Bart

July 31, 2014 12:22 am

Denica Bozhinova says:
July 30, 2014 at 4:15 pm
“This pipe does not have outflow to balance it, so it’s net contribution is in fact the entire inflow of it to the pool”
This is not how a feedback system works. Your argument has no merit. Sorry.
bw says:
July 30, 2014 at 5:40 pm
“The pipe analogy is flawed by the assumption that the inlet and outlet are fixed.”
Exactly. Your explanation describes how a feedback system works. Others, take heed.
Alan Robertson says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:10 pm
“If CO2 never accumulates in the atmosphere from any source, then how have pre- industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 risen from 280 ppmv to 400 ppmv?”
By a shift in the natural equilibrium level brought on by some natural event which effectively has created a temperature dependent pumping action into the atmosphere in the modern era.

Bart

July 31, 2014 12:23 am

Nick Stokes says:
July 30, 2014 at 6:13 pm
A superficial, low order polynomial match, with artful graphics to promote a predetermined conclusion. Emissions do not match the short term variations like temperature does. And, the spurious, low order polynomial match with emissions is now diverging.

Ferdinand Engelbeen

July 31, 2014 12:29 am

bw says:
July 30, 2014 at 5:40 pm
There is a small increase in the reservoir volume, but the overflow reaches 103 liters per minute almost immediately.
That is the main error that you and Bart make; the increase in sink rate is not immediately.
The fact that there is a measured increase in the atmosphere already proves that the CO2 sinks can’t accommodate with an increase in inflows and only increase their output if the atmospheric pressure increases.
That isn’t 100% proof that humans are the cause, but to accommodate the 3-fold increase of human emissions over the past 50 years, the natural cycle should have increased a 3-fold too to give the increased pressure necessary to increase the sink rate in ratio with human emissions.
But there is not the slightest sign that the natural cycle increased a threefold: not in residence time (which slightly increased), not in 14C/12C ratio, not in 13C/12C ratio, oxygen use, seasonal amplitude,…