Introducing the WUWT CO2 Reference Page

Guest Post by WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”

While the Pause in Earth’s temperature continues, currently 17 years and 10 months based upon RSS satellite data, it is important to note that Fossil Fuel and Cement CO2 emissions are at their highest levels ever.

We have been told by NASA “that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG)” and by NOAA’s UCAR that “the current spike in carbon dioxide is sure to result in a rapid increase in global temperature”. Anthroprogenic CO2 emissions have increased by over 60% since 1990;

Global Carbon Project, Le Quere et al 2013, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

and “the world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.”

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center – Click the pic to view at source

“That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, ‘the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.’” Economist

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Base Period 1951-1980 – Click the pic to view at source

In order to make it easier to watch Atmospheric CO2 levels rise;

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

while Earth’s Temperature does not, we are pleased to introduce WUWT’s newest addition, the WUWT CO2 Reference Page. The WUWT CO2 Page offers an array of graphs on Atmospheric CO2, Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions and Land Use Change Based CO2 Estimates. In addition to the WUWT CO2 Reference Page. if you have not had the opportunity to our other Reference Pages they are highly recommended:

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data within the Reference Pages, as WUWT is simply an aggregator. All of the data is linked from third party sources. If you have doubts about the accuracy of any of the graphs on the WUWT Reference Pages, or have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the pages, please let us know in comments below.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David Walton

It appears that the biggest contributors to global warming is NASA and NOAA,

Russell Klier

I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The source of the carbon in the CO2 is fossil fuels. The source of the carbon in fossil fuels was prehistoric plant matter, and the source of the carbon in prehistoric plant matter was the atmosphere. Man burning fossil fuels is but a very small part of the age old natural carbon cycle. Man is simply facilitating getting the CO2 back into the atmosphere, whence it came.

NikFromNYC

Obfuscation nation. Where is your *fraud* page?!
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
You don’t even include a simple plot of the world average of tide gauges!!!!! [snip too many ! -mod]
http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg

Don Perry

Russell Klier says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm
I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
——————————————————
While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere.

the more I learn about Climate Change.. the more I realize that increased warmth and CO2 concentration are a net benefit to the planet….
all of the major life/evolution explosions happened during periods of higher than current warmth/CO2…

Douglas Proctor

Don Perry says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:44 pm
Russell Klier says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm
I reject the conclusion that human beings are the source of any of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
——————————————————
While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere.
————————————
Go over to Skeptical Science and ask them about this and they will say, I kid you not, that humans don’t breathe out CO2.

mbur

Thanks to “Just the Facts” and WUWT for being an aggravator…oh, I mean aggregator of all this data, references and information, After being to a third party and all ( All of the data is linked from third party sources. ) it’s great to come here for some recovery and interesting reading.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.

mark l

What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.

Russell Klier

Don Perry says:
“While I agree with your statements in general, the above statement would mean that none of us exhales. Respiration produces CO2 and is exhaled into the atmosphere”
Yes…. but the carbon came from our food…and the food all goes back to plant matter….and the carbon in the plant matter came out of the atmosphere.

mark l says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:03 pm
What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.
Mark, let the Pause make it 20 years, then you will see they finally will wake up. Cheers

I object to the smokestack photo in the Carbon Scene chart showing dark smoke entering the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is invisible…as well as odorless and tasteless. That picture implies a great inaccuracy often thrown at us by Al Gore et al when they talk of tons and tons of carbon entering our atmosphere each day as a result of the activities of mankind.

K-Bob

John Coleman,
Gore etal show the smoke stacks because a cement truck is not as scary.

Danley Wolfe

To further make the point please show a scatter plot of CO2 emissions version temperature over the last 17 years… you will see a complete shotgun with no correlation Rsquared =zero.zero.

Jimmy Haigh.

Steve Goddard has noticed something interesting: “…the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering” shows a 1:1 correlation.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/#comments

“What bothers me is despite the “pause” and the empirical evidence contrary to AGW the media hasn’t let up one bit and the warmists are getting away with continuing their hoax. You would think by now the average person would suspect a flaw in AGW and tell the emperor he isn’t wearing any clothes.”
Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/3/3/299/pdf
Politicized climate science is just the means to promote an undemocratic global government.
They don’t care if CAGW/UNFCCC is true or not. They only care about dressing CO2 up as being “the belief in the ‘end of history’” etc. it’s a propaganda war against nations and the individual.

Mervyn

If we were to consider a breakdown of the estimated amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year from the oceans, volcanic activity, animals, rotting vegetation, bacteria, etc., it would demonstrate that the number of giga tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity (i.e. burning fossil fuels; land use; etc) is quite insignificant.
To therefore just pick on human-activity carbon dioxide, tweaking it by just a small percentage, in the belief that this will miraculously prevent global average temperature rising by 2 degrees and, in turn, halt climate change and prevent future climate catastrophes, well… that is just unscientific nonsense.
Yet look at some of those who honestly believe this nonsense… individuals like President Obama, Prince Charles, Al Gore, and David Suzuki. What else can we expect from such people when we see the likes of Obama lecturing us with “the science is settled” and Prince Charles preaching a “CO2 tipping point” in a few more years resulting in doom for us all. Such statements make such individuals appear dumber than they look!
But at least we can excuse Obama, Prince Charles, etc for their ignorance. They are just stupid when it comes to climate science.
We cannot, however, excuse the various science academies around the world for their role in promoting dangerous man-made global warming, and allowing themselves to be used as a tool of politics and the environmental movement. Organisations like the Royal Society have thus brought science into disrepute. And that is a damn shame!

“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001

joelobryan

So I have two questions on the CO2 data.
1. The Fossil fuel and cement emissions CO2 graph shows a clear dip in anthropogenic CO2 production in the 2008-2009 time frame as the world’s economies contracted during the Great recession. But if man-made CO2 is driving the majority of the atmospheric increase, why did this dip not show up in the Keeling curve (the Mauna Loa measurement)?
2. The precision Keeling curve CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa started in 1958. If CO2 is actually lagging temperature rise with some delay, meaning CO2rise is an effect not a cause, then the global temperature rise is causing CO2 to increase. Likely culprits could include thawed permafrost breakdown/decay and/or ocean outgassing. IF the previous statement is true, then the CO2 levels should start to level off soon if Global temps are stabilizing or even decreasing. Has anyone predicted a CO2 rate decrease or leveling? If so, are they making credible, verifiable hypotheses?

Greg Goodman

One thing that is too often overlooked is the variation of CO2 with latitude. Too much obsession with MLO as global “average”. While it is accurate to describe it as “well mixed” it is not totally homogenous world over. The annual variation at Arctic stations like Alert , Canada is much larger than at MLO.
If you want a CO2 ref page it should include a broader view than just Mauna Loa data. There is a strong dependance of magnitude of annual swing with latitude.
Here is what Alert looks like. Annual swing of around 18 ppmv,
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=970
You’ll find the data source in the text.
cf 5 or 6 ppmv at MLO
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=721

urederra

First time I see the cummulative CO2 emissions graph, I was more familiar with the Mauna Loa one. Thanks for the reference page.
Obviously, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Big emmisions started in the fifties, first temperature increase started in the thrties. Then temperatures drop (before adjustments were made) while emissions levels keep accelerating, then temperatures raise again, and now the pause. I don’t see any correlation.

joelobryan

Santa Baby wrote. ““Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001”
My reading of Holdren is that he probably regrets saying that on the record.

Greg Goodman

PS Schauinsland , near Freiburg in Germany is very similar to Alert.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=985
Timing of CO2 at high latitude closely resembles changes in ice area, for much of the year.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=996

Greg Goodman

urederra says:
“Obviously, there is no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. Big emmisions started in the fifties, first temperature increase started in the thrties. Then temperatures drop (before adjustments were made) while emissions levels keep accelerating, then temperatures raise again, and now the pause. I don’t see any correlation.”
The correlation is the other way around. Change in SST causing CO2 change:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=225

Joel O’Bryan says:
August 2, 2014 at 11:43 pm
1. The year by year change of human emissions in general is less than 0.2 GtC/year (except for the recovery year 2009-2010). As about 50% of all human emissions (as mass, not original molecules) stay in the atmosphere, the change is less than the accuracy of the detection method used world wide, including Mauna Loa which is around 0.2 ppmv.
Further the year by year by year natural variability is about +/- 1 ppmv, which makes that the small variability from human emissions is non-detectable.
2. The temperature effect on CO2 is 4-5 ppmv/°C short term (seasons to 2-3 years) up to 8 ppmv/°C (decades to multi-millennia). The temperature drop between MWP and LIA was good for a drop of 6 ppmv. Thus the increase in temperature since the LIA is good for not more 8 ppmv, assuming an increase in temperature of 1°C. The measured increase is over 100 ppmv, of which 80 ppmv since Mauna Loa and the South Pole series started…
Thus at maximum an 8 ppmv/°C drop while the increase is 2 ppmv/year…

Greg Goodman

John Coleman says: “I object to the smokestack photo in the Carbon Scene chart showing dark smoke entering the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is invisible…as well as odorless and tasteless. ”
I agree. It is also pretty poor linking to photobucket copy of the graph, in addition that you loose the links to sources that way.
The graphic comes from this document, where the links can be retieved:
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/13/files/GCP_budget_2013.pdf
I would suggest reposting it here without the smoke stack photo which is propaganda and not science.
Better still find the data source from that paper and plot it youself without the BS. The just link to the source data and don’t mention thier little “carbon project”.

Greg Goodman says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:23 am
Timing of CO2 at high latitude closely resembles changes in ice area, for much of the year.
Greg, we have been there before…
Ice area is influenced by temperature, as good as vegetation growth and decay. In the case of the seasonal variations it is vegetation which causes the variations:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
If the variation was caused by the ocean surface / ice cover, the CO2 changes and δ13C changes would parallel each other. If caused by vegetation, CO2 changes and δ13C changes are opposite, as is the case here.
The correlation is the other way around. Change in SST causing CO2 change:
That is the short term correlation, which also is caused by temperature, but opposite to the seasonal changes: higher T here is more CO2 (rate of change), while higher T over the seasons is less CO2…
The long term trend has nothing to do with temperature and is opposite to the short term correlation as vegetation is a net growing sink for CO2…

Nice initiative! WUWT is an incredible source for a lot of data that can be used in discussions. Especially the sea ice page I have used frequently in discussions when the “alarming” rate of North Pole ice melting is mentioned…
Maybe an additional plot of temperature + cumulative human emissions + CO2 increase in the atmosphere gives a nice overview of what causes what?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg

richardscourtney

Joel O’Bryan:
I write to answer the two questions in your post at August 2, 2014 at 11:43 pm that says in total

So I have two questions on the CO2 data.
1. The Fossil fuel and cement emissions CO2 graph shows a clear dip in anthropogenic CO2 production in the 2008-2009 time frame as the world’s economies contracted during the Great recession. But if man-made CO2 is driving the majority of the atmospheric increase, why did this dip not show up in the Keeling curve (the Mauna Loa measurement)?
2. The precision Keeling curve CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa started in 1958. If CO2 is actually lagging temperature rise with some delay, meaning CO2rise is an effect not a cause, then the global temperature rise is causing CO2 to increase. Likely culprits could include thawed permafrost breakdown/decay and/or ocean outgassing. IF the previous statement is true, then the CO2 levels should start to level off soon if Global temps are stabilizing or even decreasing. Has anyone predicted a CO2 rate decrease or leveling? If so, are they making credible, verifiable hypotheses?

Answer 1
The “dip not show up in the Keeling curve” because there is no direct relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

In some years almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seems to be sequestered and in other years almost none. This is why the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses 5-year smoothing of the data to obtain a fit between the predictions of its Bern Model of the rise in atmospheric CO2 emissions and the Keeling Curve. The Bern Model assumes the atmospheric CO2 would not change in the absence of the anthropogenic emission and the anthropogenic emission is overloading the ‘sinks’ of CO2 so CO2 equivalent to about half the anthropogenic emission accumulates in the atmosphere.
Some data smoothing is justifiable. 2-year smoothing is reasonable because data from one year may be accounted to an adjacent year, for example; because an emission is not reported until a subsequent year. And 3-year smoothing is reasonable because countries may not use the same date to start their accounting year. But smoothing of more than 3-years is not justifiable. The IPCC uses 5-year smoothing because less smoothing of the data fails to obtain a fit between the predictions of its model and the Keeling Curve.
Answer 2
One of our 2005 papers provides a credible, verifiable hypothesis of the cause recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958.

(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
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.
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.
Considering the dynamics of the seasonal atmospheric CO2 variation (see e.g. here), it is easy to see that the natural CO2 sinks on the planet can cope with all the CO2 produced naturally and anthropogenically. The seasonal variation has a saw-tooth form. It plummets as net sequestration occurs then rapidly reverses.
There is NO reduction to sequestration rate as sinks fill: clearly, the sinks do NOT fill.
However, the annual rise of atmospheric CO2 is the residual of the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2. So, although the dynamics of the seasonal atmospheric CO2 variation clearly show that the sinks could sequester all the CO2 of a year, the annual rise shows they don’t.
These observed effects are explicable as being a result of adjustment towards changed equilibrium state of the carbon cycle system. The seasonal variation is response to processes with short (i.e. minutes, hours, days, months) rate constants, and the annual rise is response to processes with long (years, decades, centuries) rate constants.
If this explanation of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is correct then there are several possible causes of the altered equilibrium. The anthropogenic CO2 emission is one possible cause but the temperature rise from the Little Ice Age (LIA) is more likely.
Please note that by using this assumption we were able to model the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as being caused by a variety of effects both natural and anthropogenic.
(ref. Rorsch A et al (2005) )
Each of our models matches the Mauna Loa data to within stated measurement accuracy for each year.
The good fit of each our models with the Mauna Loa data contrasts with the poor fit of the Bern Model used by the IPCC: the Bern Model requires unjustifiable 5-year smoothing of the data to obtain agreement with the data. This need for this unjustifiable smoothing is not surprising because the Bern Mode assumes the CO2 sinks are overloaded when it is clear that they are not.
Our assumption of adjustment towards altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle predicts that the rate of rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration should reduce in response to the ‘pause’ at some time after the onset of the ‘pause’ and probably ~30 years after that onset.
Richard
PS Ferdinand Engelbeen disagrees all of this and I anticipate his arrival to say why. Oh! I see he has while I was typing.

joelobryan

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:44 am
Thanks mucho grande, Ferdinand. That is the best info I have seen on CO2 relative to temp change. I will investigate and keep reading literature and research.
Be well.
Joel

richardscourtney

Ferdinand:
At August 3, 2014 at 12:44 am you assert
2. The temperature effect on CO2 is 4-5 ppmv/°C short term (seasons to 2-3 years) up to 8 ppmv/°C (decades to multi-millennia). The temperature drop between MWP and LIA was good for a drop of 6 ppmv. Thus the increase in temperature since the LIA is good for not more 8 ppmv, assuming an increase in temperature of 1°C. The measured increase is over 100 ppmv, of which 80 ppmv since Mauna Loa and the South Pole series started…
Thus at maximum an 8 ppmv/°C drop while the increase is 2 ppmv/year…

No. You use a circular argument to obtain a value, make an erroneous assumption, then reach an unjustifiable conclusion.
The “temperature effect on CO2” is not known with any accuracy but you assert it is 4-5 ppmv/°C short term (seasons to 2-3 years) up to 8 ppmv/°C (decades to multi-millennia). Your values derive from a circular argument but – for sake of argument – I will here accept them because I think they are ‘in the right ballpark’.
The “temperature effect on CO2” is predominantly an effect of biological activity (on land and in the oceans). And biological activity was not the same in the LIA as now. So, the only thing we can say with certainty about recovery from the LIA is that nobody knows the effect of temperature rise from the LIA on the equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard

richard verney

I have not independently checked the data, but I have seen it posted many times that about one third (may be 30%) of all manmade CO2 emissions have taken place since the pause began (some 17 years 10 months ago), and yet there has been no increase in temps.
This is a startling statistic given what is claimed about TCR as well as ECS. So it is not only the the temp response that one would expect to see as a result of the addition of some 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions that is not being observed today, but also the long term forcing that some claim is built into the system as a consequence of the CO2 emiitted during say the 50 year period between the late 1940s and the late 1990s that is not being observed.
Some warmists are reluctantly acknowledging the pause, and some are even contemplating that there may be no resumption of warming for quite some time. Recently, the UK Met Office has suggsted that there will not be a resumption to warming for 5 years. Perhaps more significantly, their chief scientist said that there may be no resumption to warming before 2030.
Now we are already today in a postion to assess what a continued pause through to say 2019 or for matter 2030 may say with respect to climate sensitivity, since we are able to project the BAU CO2 emissions during that further period. It is too early in the morning for me to do the matts (especially because of a late night before), but if the pause continues through to 2019 probably about 40% of all manmade emisssions will have taken place during such pause, and should it continue through to 2030, probably about 80% of all manmade emissions will have taken place during such pause. And should there be a slight fall of temperatures during the next 5 to 15 years, this will push the commencement of the pause backwards, with even more startling consequences.
Even today, the observational data is beginning to suggest that climate sensitivity is modest (no more than just over 1), but should the pause continue through to 2019, that data will suggest that the climate sensitivity is less than 1, and shoudl it continue through to 2030, then it will suggest that it is considerable less than 1.
In fact, I would not be surprised that should the pause continue through to 2030, especially should there be a fall in temperatures between now and then (even if modest at just 0.1 to 0.2degC through to 2030) which will push back the commencement date of the pause, assessment of climate sensitivity based upon observational evidence will suggest that climate sensitivity is about 0 +/- a little bit, say 0 +/- 0.3.
Should there be no significant ENSO, and should there be no resumption of warming between now and 2019, I do not expect to see an AR6. The reason for this is that one can expect to see all the papers on climate sensitivity that are published between now and then, will be showing ever smaller figures for climate sensitivity, and these will be suggesting that climate sensitivity is in the range of about 1.1 to 1.8, such that the IPCC will have to admit that there is a consensus for a sensitivity of less than 2, and they will have to admit the problem with model divergence (the models will by then be outside the 95% band). It will not be possible to conceal that problem/
To admit these things, will essentially require them to admit that the claims for alarm were false, and there is no way that the IPCC will hold up its hands and say that we got it wrong. So they will quietly disappear saying that their job has been done, with the current drive towards renewables we are satisfactorily controlling the problem, just keep up the good work.

GeeJam

Sorry that I’ve said this before – but to newcomers, this may be of interest. Why does the above ‘WUWT CO2 Reference Page’ again not include the countless additional ways that humans ‘manufacture’ (or add) their 3.225% CO2 to the 96.775% of naturally occuring CO2? It’s not just about fossil fuels and cement. There must be an enormous amount of anthropogenic CO2 emitted by other sources. Sadly, no one has added it all up.
Global Alcoholic Beverage Market: (CO2 fermentation) Brewing Industry (Beers & Lagers), worldwide Wine & Champagne production, Beer Dispensing (man-made canisters of CO2) and Distillation processes.
Soft Drinks & Beverage Industry: All Carbonated Drinks – Worldwide (man-made manufactured CO2 is injected into sparkling wines, cola & lemonade purely as a novelty effect); Decaffeinated Coffee Manufacture (Caffeine is removed from steamed coffee beans as they fall through 100 feet holding vats of pressurised man-made CO2)
Food Manufacture Worldwide: This includes . . . .
The World’s entire Bread Production (fermented pockets of ‘air bubbles’ are man-made CO2). Estimated value of the world’s annual CO2 emissions just from bread alone is 85.5M tonnes.
Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Powder) – Aeration used in snack-food industry, biscuit & cracker manufacture and all cakes & sponges.
Yeast Extract Manufacture.
CO2 Induced agricultural poly-tunnels, greenhouses & germination rooms.
Fermented Soya Bean (for soy sauce, tofu, etc.).
Modified Air Packaging (MAP) CO2 is injected into most food packaging to extend food life & prevent oxidisation.
Dry Ice (used to keep fruit & vegetables fresh and essential for freeze drying).
Refrigeration: Most (but not all) refrigeration gas is based on man-made CO2, This includes Air-Conditioning in vehicles, homes, shops, offices & aircraft.
Industrial Processes: This includes . . . .
Coolant Gas (as used in all welding & fabrication)
Lime Kiln Processes (the only one included in the above new ‘WUWT CO2 Reference Page’)
Industrial Waste Incinerators
The large-scale burning of rubbish
Sand Blasting Processes (highly pressurised pellet’s of frozen CO2 replaced sand and water in the mid 1970’s. This process is also used by large scale bakeries to clean down equipment more efficiently than just using water & detergents).
Laser Cutting (Fires an arc of particle-charged CO2 to cut all printed circuit boards for electronics, TV’s, computers, car components, etc.)
Propellants:
Canisters of highly pressurised man-made manufactured CO2 @ 150 psi are used in . . . .
All Fire Extinguishers
Air Bags in Cars
Inflatable Life Jackets
Emergency Exit ‘Slides’ on Aircraft
Stage, Film & Theatre: Dry Ice (used to create smoke effects on set) and CO2 Cannons (as used in stunts for film and TV to propel & topple vehicles).
Other Uses: These include . . . .
Controlling Ph of Water (as used in swimming pools & water purification plants)
All Limescale Removal Products (Sulfamic Acid dissolves limescale and produces bubbles of CO2)
Liver Salts (The fizz is CO2)
Denture Cleaning Products (CO2 bubbles help lift debris from enamel plates)
Anything that humans throw out for Composting (decomposing garden waste, peelings, etc.)
Cremation: Taking one hour to cremate every 7 stone (100 lbs) of body weight, a casket containing a deceased person is placed in an oil or gas fired furnace which generates temperatures of 870oC to 980oC. All human tissue (except bones) evaporates. The remaining bones (3.5% of original body mass) are ground into ashes. The cremation process generates man-made CO2 from the fuel used for heat, the incinerated casket (usually wood) and the combustion of human remains. According to the Office of National Statistics, of the 493,242 registered deaths in the UK in 2010 alone, 360,066 people were cremated (73%).
and, yet, despite all this, the whole CAGW swindle continues . . . .

I’m sort of reluctant to say this as it has been drummed in to me that “CO2 is a pollutant,” but I’m looking at the Cumulative CO2 Emissions graph and I see that over the last 15 years or so that CO2 emissions have just gone through the roof. CO2 is supposed to cause such deleterious warming, but… …there’s nothing. Skyrocketing CO2, but as far the temperature: crickets. Silence. Zilch. No change.
And historically, we got nothing, no evidence at all that CO2 causes temperatures to change. This short video makes that clear. It changed me from a warmist to a skeptic. It’s that powerful, so I hope you all will Facebook it or blog it or do whatever you can to try to spread the word about the video because everyone should see it:

joelobryan

To Richardscourtney,
It took me several readings through your post, but I think I got most of what you said. Seems quite honest to me. Will ponder, write down some notes and research further. Thanks for the time it took to write that out. I am in much appreciation that what you say and what Ferdinand says may be in opposition. But that is science. I am an immunologist by training, but I have degrees in (BS) civil engineering (soil mechanics) and (MS) electrical engineering (control systems feedback, and statistics of noise in feedback control) and a PhD in human immunology-virology. What you wrote and what Ferdinand wrote, both makes sense. This is what often occurs in science debates. The beauty of internet blogs.
It was much appreciated to both Ferdinand and Richard.
Everyone on this thread should consider the points Richard and Ferdinand make here on CO2.

SanityP

For me, the bit slow of comprehension, can someone tell me in numbers the (current) total weight of the atmosphere, the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere and the weight of the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, please ?
Sorry for the bother. I just like to have “easy figures” as talking points.

richard verney

Ferdinand Engelbeen (August 3, 2014 at 1:07 am) posted a useful plot dealing with CO2 and temps (see http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg ), however, when considering the temp data post the 1960s, one should not overlook two important points.
First, Michael Mann’s trees post 1960s did not show that warming was taking place (hence the divergence problem that he sort to ‘hide’ by splicing data sets together). Michael Mann’s trees suggest that the land based thermometer record may have been falsely distorted by issues such as poor station siting, UHI, station drop out and the like; and
Second, the satelitte temperature data set does not show a linear temp rise since 1979, but rather a one off and isolated step change in and around the Super El Nino of 1998.
It may well be the case that since the late 1960s, there has been little warming, and just some step changes in response to EL NIno conditions. If that is the correct interpretation of the data, then climate sensitivity, if any, to CO2 will be small indeed.

Another interesting graph would be the breakdown of co2 production per country, which would make it evident that the increase of the last ten years was caused by china. (Figure 2.1 of the report below)
http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report

bair polaire

Great news!
I can now erase the folder “CO2 graphics” from my bookmarks.
Thanks a lot!

urederra

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:56 am

Greg Goodman says:
August 3, 2014 at 12:23 am
The correlation is the other way around. Change in SST causing CO2 change:

That is the short term correlation, which also is caused by temperature, but opposite to the seasonal changes: higher T here is more CO2 (rate of change), while higher T over the seasons is less CO2…
The long term trend has nothing to do with temperature and is opposite to the short term correlation as vegetation is a net growing sink for CO2…

Thanks for the imput. Maybe I should have said that there is no correlation between human CO2 emissions and temperature change.
Anyway, I despise the term ‘CO2 sink’ when applied to trees and other living organisms. It sounds like Starbucks greennie newspeak to me. A real environmentalist or biologist should never refer plants as ‘sinks’ They are living beings, for Pete’s sake, and they should be grateful that the more carbon we liberate from fosil fuels and spew to the atmosphere, the faster and higher plants will grow, and the more animals will be fed with those plants.
The real sink is carbon trapped in fossil fuels.
Referring plants as CO2 sinks is part of their propaganda war. War they are winning despite they are wrong.

ralfellis

Just one thought. Why does the CO2 graph go up so steadily and remorselessly?
Economic activity and thus productive output crashed in Russia in 1990, and their CO2 emissions would have dropped considerably. If CO2 concentrations are mostly man-made, then why do we not see that signature in the Mauna Loa CO2 graph?
China emerged in 2001 as a major power-house of the world economy, rising in stature to eventually pump out more emissions than anyone else. If CO2 concentrations are mostly man-made, then why do we not see that signature in the Mauna Loa CO2 graph?
We had a major economic crash in the West in 2008, that effected most of the world, and the slow-down in economies and world production was easily measurable. If CO2 concentrations are mostly man-made, then why do we not see that signature in the Mauna Loa CO2 graph?
The evidence appears to suggest that CO2 concentrations are not primarily man made. Or if they are, then there must be a smoothing mechanism that has not been fully explained thus far. I know that the sea acts as a CO2 reservoir, but surely it cannot smooth out the fluctuations of mankind, if mankind is truly the primary source of atmospheric CO2.
Ralph

GeeJam says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:40 am
Sadly, no one has added it all up.
Yeas they have added it up:
CO2 from beverages, microbes, insects, animals, humans is all directly or indirectly from plants: they only emit CO2 which was captured by plants out of the atmosphere some months to years before. That doesn’t count for human emissions, as that is part of the natural cycle.
Any discrepancy between amounts captured by plants and released by plant decay and food/feed can be detected via the oxygen balance: plant uptake of CO2 releases O2, plant decay and food digestion needs oxygen.
The oxygen balance currently shows that the whole biosphere is a net absorber of CO2 of around 1 GtC/year. Humans emit around 9 GtC/year:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Cement manufacturing, ore processing, etc. uses fossil fuels and may emit CO2 from the raw materials (chalk). These are added to the human emissions…

richardscourtney says: August 3, 2014 at 1:14 am
“The “dip not show up in the Keeling curve” because there is no direct relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

The relationship is clearly and quantitatively shown in this plot of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions, including land use, with total air carbon in Gtons. There is an explanatory post here.
There wasn’t really a dip in global CO2 emissions in 2009; they were the same as in 2008. Numbers from 2007-2010 were 8543, 8749, 8740, 9167 Mtons C from fossil fuel.

richardscourtney

ralfellis:
re your post at August 3, 2014 at 2:37 am.
I refer you to my above post at August 3, 2014 at 1:14 am which is here.
Richard

nobodyknows

I think that most of the commentators act as science is settled the opposite way of IPPC. I don\t know if we should sleep so well with this huge amount og CO2 emission. There is a global warming (in oceans), and there is a TOA radiative imbalance. The long term consequenses are unknown. We need more and better science. In 20 years I think we see the results of this experiment.

ralfellis says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:37 am
CO2 rate of change from year to year is quite variable (+/- 1 ppmv), but the increase over longer time completely parallels human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2011.jpg
or accumulated human emissions and increase in the atmosphere plotted together:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_cur.jpg
The “smoothing out” is because the sink rate of CO2 is caused by the total pressure of CO2 above the temperature dictated equilibrium setpoint which is ~290 ppmv for the current temperature. Not by the yearly human release of CO2. A 10% change in human emissions only gives a 1% change in extra pressure of the atmosphere…
The year by year variability in rate of change is caused by the temperature (and precipitation) influence on changes in CO2 release/uptake in the tropical forests (El Niño, Pinatubo), but that effect lasts only for 2-3 years.

richardscourtney

Nick Stokes:
Thankyou for your post at August 3, 2014 at 2:45 am.
As I said, there is no direct relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In some years almost all the anthropogenic CO2 seems to be sequestered and in other years almost none.
That is simply true.
And I am aware that – as your links show – assumptions can be made to adjust the data so there is an apparent relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Your links assume the discrepancy results from land use changes which are not – and at present cannot be – adequately quantified.
The underlying issue is that so little actual data is available concerning the complex carbon cycle that almost anything can be assumed and modeled (as is shown by our paper which I referenced).
Richard

urederra says:
August 3, 2014 at 2:28 am
The term “sinks” for plants really is for the more permanent storage of C in plant roots, debris, peat,… which ultimately leads to the formation of (brown)coal…
The day/night fluxes of plants are enormous (some 60 GtC in/out), the seasonal fluxes too: again some 60 GtC in and out over the seasons, but the ultimate storage is currently not more than 1 GtC/year.

richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:39 am
No. You use a circular argument to obtain a value, make an erroneous assumption, then reach an unjustifiable conclusion.
Sorry Richard, but the 5 ppmv/°C is what is really measured today as the global CO2 change for a global temperature change of 1°C over the seasons. Mainly a NH effect as there is less temperature and CO2 change in the SH. Nothing circular about that.
The 4-5 ppmv/°C can be deduced from the year-by-year variability peaks (1992 Pinatubo, 1998 El Niño). Again direct measurements, no circular reasoning.
The 8 ppmv/°C is from ice cores over the past 800,000 years. I do know that you don’t like ice core CO2 data, but I don’t see any reason to distrust them, as ice cores formed under extremely different conditions of temperature and accumulation rates show the same CO2 levels for the same average age. And the same CO2 / temperature (proxy) ratio for each glacial/interglacial period 100,000 years back in time. If there was any measurable diffusion of CO2 in the ice, the ratio would fade out for each period further back.