While CO2 has increased to “record” levels, the pause in global temperature continues.
Via AP: Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post’s account: The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world.
Here is the press release:
Record Greenhouse Gas Levels Impact Atmosphere and Oceans
Carbon Dioxide Concentration Surges
Geneva, 9 September 2014 (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, propelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide. This is according to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which injected even greater urgency into the need for concerted international action against accelerating and potentially devastating climate change.
The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin showed that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.
In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.
The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984. Preliminary data indicated that this was possibly related to reduced CO2 uptake by the earth’s biosphere in addition to the steadily increasing CO2 emissions.
The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations – and not emissions – of greenhouse gases. Emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere. Concentrations represent what remains in the atmosphere after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans. About a quarter of the total emissions are taken up by the oceans and another quarter by the biosphere, reducing in this way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ocean cushions the increase in CO2 that would otherwise occur in the atmosphere, but with far-reaching impacts. The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”
“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making. We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The inclusion of a section on ocean acidification in this issue of WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is appropriate and needed. It is high time the ocean, as the primary driver of the planet’s climate and attenuator of climate change, becomesa central part of climate change discussions,” said Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.
“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be, since its effects are already being felt and will increase for many decades to come. I echo WMO Secretary General Jarraud’s concern – we ARE running out of time,” she said.
Atmospheric Concentrations
Carbon dioxide accounted for 80% of the 34% increase in radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2013, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index.
On the global scale, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 396.0 parts per million in 2013. The atmospheric increase of CO2 from 2012 to 2013 was 2.9 parts per million, which is the largest annual increase for the period 1984-2013. Concentrations of CO2 are subject to seasonal and regional fluctuations. At the current rate of increase, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross the symbolic 400 parts per million threshold in 2015 or 2016.
Methane is the second most important long-lived greenhouse gas. Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (e.g., wetlands and termites), and about 60 % comes from human activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning. Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1824 parts per billion (ppb) in 2013, due to increased emissions from anthropogenic sources. Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been increasing again after a temporary period of leveling-off.
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%), including oceans, soil, biomass burning, fertilizer use, and various industrial processes. Its atmospheric concentration in 2013 was about 325.9 parts per billion. Its impact on climate, over a 100-year period, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of carbon dioxide. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
Ocean Acidification:
For the first time, this Bulletin contains a section on ocean acidification prepared in collaboration with the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO), the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), and the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OA-ICC) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The ocean currently absorbs one-fourth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, reducing the increase in atmospheric CO2 that would otherwise occur because of fossil fuel combustion. Enhanced ocean CO2 uptake alters the marine carbonate system and lead to increasing acidity. The ocean’s acidity increase is already measurable as oceans take up about 4 kilogrammes of CO2 per day per person.
The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, based on proxy-data from paleo archives. In the future, acidification will continue to accelerate at least until mid-century, based on projections from Earth system models.
The potential consequences of ocean acidification on marine organisms are complex. A major concern is the response of calcifying organisms, such as corals, algae, mollusks and some plankton, because their ability to build shell or skeletal material (via calcification) depends on the abundance of carbonate ion. For many organisms, calcification declines with increased acidification. Other impacts of acidification include reduced survival, development, and growth rates as well as changes in physiological functions and reduced biodiversity.
===========================================
But despite all this, there is still no warming in the lower troposphere:
and no warming at the surface:
NOTE: (added) Some people saw the green line in the figure above as a trend line. It is not. It is a comparison line to show the similarity of global temperatures 19 years apart in relation to McKittrick’s paper on the pause. It simply shows the “plateau” of temperatures has not changed much since then. To see more about the pause in trends, this essay will be informative.
Presumably they (re)announced the 2013 figure because the 2014 one isn’t so supportive of their aims. But is anyone listening any more? The media dutifully parrot the press releases but who cares? It’s just background noise to most people, who accept the AGW line but have given up worrying about it.
I have a question about ocean acidification, or rather ocean alkalinity . Why is the ocean pH >8.0 when pure water in equilibrium with an atmosphere containing CO2 has a pH of 5.5-5.7. The neutral alkaline and alkaline earth salts (Na, K, Mg , Cl, SO4, PO4 etc) are not going to change the pH .
The only type of mechanism that would give rise to an excess of OH(-) is something like the hydrolysis of orthosilicate anions :
SiO3(–) + H2O = SiO2 + 2 OH(-) and similarly with aluminate anions .
Now that equilibrium shifts to the right with acidification and the presence of alkaline earth salts ( it is the basis of the K2SiO3/Ba(NO3)2 reaction used to cement phosphor particles with silica to the glass surface of cathode ray tube screens). So silicate anions probably have a small lifetime in the ocean and a corresponding low soluble silica content on analysis. However if that process has been going on for 4 billion years I suppose that it might produce an alkaline solution .
I tried asking Google , but it responded with a million papers , most of which involved global warming so I
gave up. I thought if anyone knows it will be you guys .
The ocean waters are an ionic solution. Extra CO2 will continue in a reaction producing bi-carbonate which raises pH. This important reaction actually provides more building blocks for molusc growth and the extra food. Molusc species love extra CO2.
Sulfate and chloride salts of Ca, Mg, K, Na are about neutral or slightly acidic, but (bi)carbonates of the same anions are quite alkaline, because H2CO3 is a weak acid. The large amount of these salts in seawater make that the oceans are slightly alkaline at pH around 8.0. And that they are (weak) buffers against further pH drops with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Pure water contains no buffering salts and there CO2 dissolves to form H2CO3 that dissociates into HCO3- + H+ and further to CO3– and another H+, thus is slightly acid, which prevents further uptake of CO2. That makes that the solubility of CO2 in fresh water (rain) is quite low, but in seawater a factor ~10 higher than in fresh water.
Much of the fresh supply of Ca and Mg bicarbonates in seawater comes from dissolving carbonate rocks by the slightly acidic rainwater. On the other side, new rocks/sediments are formed by corals and carbonate bearing plankton…
So where this is all going to lead is that CO2 is beneficial to the ocean biosphere as well as the land surface biosphere.
Simplified answer: because there is a lot of carbonate and alkali metal ions in seawater.
Solutions of salts from of a strong acid and a strong base are close to neutral, solutions of salts from a weak acid and a strong base are alkaline while solutions of a strong acid and a weak base are acid.
Almost all bases (cations) in seawater are strong (alkali metals: K, Na, Mg). There are a lot of anions from strong acid (mostly sulphate and chloride ions), but there is also a significant amount of carbonate ions (from carbonic acid – which is a very weak acid).
So the salts in solution in the sea are either strong base + strong acid (=close to neutral) or strong base + weak acid (= alkaline).
Salt lakes, which tend to contain proportionally more carbonate ions than seawater can have pH up to 11-12 and are known as “alkali lakes” or “soda lakes”.
As a geologist told me once “oceans consists of an alkaline liquid in an alkaline container”
The pH of a saturated solution of CaHCO3 solution is 8.3. How does one prepare a solution one might ask since CaHCO3 is not a stable solid? Simple, bubble CO2 gas into a solution of finely powdered CaCO3. The CaCO3 dissolves fairly quickly. Once all of the CaCO3 just disappears, the pH of the resulting solution is…. wait for it…… 8.3. Imagine that.
Oops should be Ca(HCO3)2
The “record” readings were *only at Mauna Loa earlier this year. The *global readings have still not reached 400 ppm. .. Links are in this previous comment above :-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/study-shows-record-high-increases-for-atmospheric-co2-in-2013-but-theres-still-no-warming/#comment-1732506
It is all them beer drinkers! They burp one and pass the other out the other end. They are coming for your beer!
Anthony, your graphic posting ap is great! How is it done? A curious thing about Earth and CO2 is that 50% always gets sequestered no matter how much we emit. The big exceptions are big el Nino years.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sequesterd_emissions_percent.png
And at risk of being branded a spammer 😉 There is far too much focus on CO2. It is “The Methane Time Bomb” that ought to scare us most. According to NOAA this accounts for 20% of climate forcing. Go figure…
http://euanmearns.com/the-methane-time-bomb/
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/barrow_methane_100ppmscale.png
During the last interglacial arctic temperatures were 5-10 degrees (Celsius) warmer than today, forest extended to the arctic coast and the Arctic ocean was almost certainly ice-free in summer. Did the time bomb explode then? No.
I think perhaps you ought to read the article and familiarise yourself with satire 🙂 Unless of course this is a double bluff?
Overhyped rubbish. Current CO2 levels are so low as to be nearly off the bottom of the historic CO2 level graph. Average levels over the last 500Ma are 2500ppmv with no problems with ocean acidification. In fact higher levels produced a thriving community of moluscs as shown in the fossil record.
Increases could be the result of CO2 sinks reaching capacity.
Or more likely, it’s the result of increasing economic activity as the world slowly recovers from a world wide recession.
“Atmospheric Concentrations”
“Methane… Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources …, and about 60 % comes from human activities…”
“Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%)…”
But I looked in vain for a similar statement as to the proportions of “Carbon dioxide” emitted by natural sources and by human activities. Is that still in contention?
Solomon Green
I think what you want to know is that nature emits more than 30 molecules of CO2 for each CO2 molecule emitted from human activities.
Richard
And absorbs about 30.5 for a net year-on-year increase of ~0.5 molecules/molecule emitted by human activities.
Phil.
You are improving. You said something that was not plain wrong.
To continue the improvement, next time try to also say something relevant to the question that was asked.
Richard
Phil says..
And absorbs about 30.5 for a net year-on-year increase of ~0.5 molecules/molecule emitted by human activities.
=========================
Yea, as now world food production has increased about 15% vs a 280 ppm world. And on the same amount of water!!! Double yea. And no increase in droughts hurricanes etc etc etc. Verily verily yea yea yea!
+
I would assert yes. The atomic bomb 14C data cannot be used the way it has been to deduce a super fast sequestration of CO2 that then calls on net natural flux to make up the rest of CO2 rise.
Let me make an obvious prediction predicated on the prediction that the Earth has recently begun to cool and assuming that some appreciable level of cooling (0.1-0.3 degree C) takes place over the next several years.
Atmospheric CO2 is going to spike hard in the coming years. And before it stops spiking it will likely attain an annual contribution level appreciably larger than the then-current anthropogenic emission.
The baseline increase of 2ppm/year has become 3ppm/year. Soon it will be >4ppm/year.
To the contrary, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 will decline with declining temperatures. The rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is essentially an affine function of temperature.
Nope. The tallest spikes occur at the temp turn points.
I directed you to a graph which showed otherwise, and you answered with an assertion.
The problem is not rising CO2 or changing ocean pH. The problem is that the UN recommended solution involves economic suicide for the world, which in real terms will result in significantly more death and hardship for human beings than the worst case projected harm from Global Warming.
Why cannot the UN come up with a solution that will raise the standard of living for the peoples of the earth, rather than a plan that leads to bankruptcy? Isn’t that the real problem?
If Climate Scientists are so smart, why cannot they come up with a plan that works? So far, not a single country that has tried the Climate Science Prescription has been able to reduce CO2 emissions in a meaningful way.
Along with an economic meltdown, the US reduced emissions (from a very high level) by switching from Coal to Natural Gas via fracking, and by moving manufacturing and millions of jobs to China, but nowhere is that a recommended solution.
100 thousand abandoned buildings and homes in Detroit is not the sort of global solution that the world needs right now.
As I’ve said before:
The only solutions will give the pols more tax money to spend or make billionaires out of millionaires on the exchanges.
And neither one reduces the earth’s temperature.
How are these solutions?
‘The inclusion of a section on ocean acidification in this issue of WMO’s’
That fact they used acidification rather the more accurate but less scary less alkaline shows that its yet another science by press release special whose value is not in facts but in impact .
No, ‘acidification’ is the correct term for adding H+ ions to a solution.
How can it be a record high CO2 level when it was 10 X higher than today’s level during the last major ice age? I guess this reported increase is what is know as “grabing at straws”.
How can it be a record high CO2 level when it was 10 X higher than today’s level during the last major ice age?
You appear to be the one ‘grabbing at straws’, this statement isn’t remotely true!
What is the actual ‘certainty’ of the ice core CO2 levels?
Based on research I’m doing for a book I’m working on, CO2 levels HAD to be above 800 ppm (and possibly much higher) in the past 12,000 yrs, otherwise, the growth rates of the plants would not have been high enough to support the depth of the topsoils or the size of the forests at the start of recent history. So, it doesn’t really matter if it’s 2x, 5x or 10x…it was higher than now, in the last 20,000 yrs.
mjc
September 10, 2014 at 2:32 pm
mjc, ice cores CO2 levels are real, be it averaged over a decade (Law Dome) to 600 years (Vostok). The individual measurements over one ice core don’t differ more than 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma) for the same part of one ice core and not more than 5 ppmv between different ice cores for the same average gas age of the enclosed bubbles.
There is some theoretical migration possible, based on CO2 accumulation in the neighborhood of remelt layers of relative “warm” ice cores, but that doesn’t affect the much colder inland ice cores like Vostok and Dome C where there is no measurable migration over 420 and 800 kyears.
What may be underestimated is that the local CO2 levels over land are in average higher than in the bulk of the atmosphere, due to the decay of fallen leaves and other crop parts. But that is in the order of 40-50 ppmv above background, not hundreds of ppmv.
The problem is that ice cores have no good equivalent in other proxies and the overlap between ice cores and direct measurements in the atmosphere is only about 20 years…
Not the last major ice age. But BearCub might have been thinking of the dip during the Ordovician when CO2 was over 4000 ppm.
http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/global-temp-co2-over-geological-time1.jpg
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
We do?
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”
How long have we been running out of time now? When exactly will we be out of time?
I’ve never quite gotten the whole link between “sustainability” and Gorebal Warming, at least the way it is often sold. I mean, “sustainability” still generates too much CO2, so Gorebal Warming would continue, at a reduced pace perhaps, but it would continue.
The more obvious link between the two is that Gorebal Warming is a ruse to deal with “peak oil” (the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline), when all those “sustainability” options will be all that is left.
Originally, it was expected that “peak oil” would occur in the year 2000. Now it is expected some time after 2020 thanks in large part to “fracking.” With the emergence of tar sands, it will probably be even later. Which certainly explains my “environmentals” (and their “sustainability” investor friends) hate both fracking and tar sands.
Anything published by a group with “World” and “Organization” in their title about climate cannot be taken seriously. Any group calling themselves a world organization has only one goal; promote themselves and propagate the idea that you must conform to their way of thinking.
The stoppage of global warming after 1998 during the continued increase of global CO2 atmospheric concentration shows, to me, that global CO2 atmospheric concentration does not control global temperatures.
What a failed thermostat control!
“The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984.”
Nonsense, the record growth was in 1998.
MLO
year ppm/yr
1984 1.36
1985 1.25
1986 1.48
1987 2.29
1988 2.13
1989 1.32
1990 1.19
1991 0.99
1992 0.48
1993 1.40
1994 1.91
1995 1.99
1996 1.25
1997 1.91
1998 2.93
1999 0.93
2000 1.62
2001 1.58
2002 2.53
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.52
2006 1.76
2007 2.22
2008 1.60
2009 1.89
2010 2.44
2011 1.84
2012 2.66
2013 2.05
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
The average for 2011-2013 is 2.2 ppm/year
GLOBAL
Year ppm/yr Unc.
1984 1.25 0.11
1985 1.64 0.08
1986 1.03 0.14
1987 2.71 0.09
1988 2.24 0.09
1989 1.36 0.09
1990 1.17 0.08
1991 0.79 0.09
1992 0.67 0.10
1993 1.22 0.07
1994 1.69 0.12
1995 1.94 0.11
1996 1.07 0.07
1997 1.97 0.07
1998 2.84 0.10
1999 1.34 0.07
2000 1.25 0.10
2001 1.80 0.10
2002 2.38 0.07
2003 2.24 0.10
2004 1.61 0.05
2005 2.43 0.07
2006 1.74 0.06
2007 2.09 0.07
2008 1.77 0.05
2009 1.69 0.10
2010 2.41 0.06
2011 1.71 0.09
2012 2.40 0.09
2013 2.54 0.09
The average for 2011-2013 is 2.2 ppm/year
Since the annual change correlates with global temperatures, it should decrease with the upcoming cooling. Human emissions are still increasing (~2% per year lately) and are at ~10 GtC/year in 2013 (‘fossil’ fuels and cement, without land use). That’s ~4.7 ppmv of atmospheric CO2.
So, the natural CO2 uptake is not reduced – it’s increasing in average, which means that the airborne fraction is decreasing. The trend will continue, assuming human emissions keep increasing ‘steadily’. I predict that the average growth in this decade will be significantly lower than in the last (~2 ppm/year).
Upcoming cooling? Remains to be seen. Anyway, such a cooling is good for maximum a few ppmv in the first year(s), but is overruled by human emissions within 2-3 years. There is a lot of natural variability in the rate of change over the decades, as can be seen in the growth rate at Mauna Loa. That shows that the 1990-2000 increase rate was below 1980-1990. Nothing unusual, just a question of volcanic events (1992 Pinatubo) and an increase in uptake by vegetation since ~1990.
It’s already been more than a decade since temperatures stagnated, and so did the rate of change of CO2. There is no evidence that this effect has been “overruled” by human emissions. Indeed, human emissions are accelerating, while atmospheric concentration is not. And, has not, for as long as the temperature plateau has been observable.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen on September 10, 2014 at 3:42 am
Are you sure the numbers you give in your comment are correct?
At 400 ppmv CO2 and an average residence time of 5 years, the exchange rate of CO2 must be 400/5 = 80 ppmv/year instead of the 2.15 you mention.
Or, at 400 ppmv CO2 and an exchange rate of 2.15 ppmv/year, the average residence time of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere would be 400/2.15 = 186 years.
Similarly, the average residence time of H2O molecules in the atmosphere can be calculated straight forward as:
(slightly less than) 26 mm precitable water column / 2.6 mm average precipitation per day ~9-10 days
Frans, the difference between residence time and e-fold decay is similar as the difference between turnover of capital (and goods) in a factory over a year and the gain (or loss) of that capital after a year of the same factory.
Thus while the residence time of water in the atmosphere indeed is 9-10 days, that says next to nothing if the total amount of water in the atmosphere increased or decreased over time. The same for the residence time of CO2: the within a year changes are about 90 GtC between oceans and atmosphere and 60/120 GtC between the biosphere and the atmosphere. That are huge exchanges, but the net result is an increase of only ~4.5 GtC/year, where humans emit ~9 GtC/year.
Most of the CO2 exchanges between atmosphere and the other reservoirs are temperature driven: over the seasons and between the upwelling in the tropics and the downwelling near the poles. The net loss of ~4.5 GtC/year is pressure driven: for the current temperature, the historical equilibrium was ~290 ppmv. We are now ~110 ppmv above that equilibrium. That reduces the CO2 output of the oceans near the equator and pushes more CO2 into the cold polar waters (and leaf alveoli). But that is not enough to remove the full human contribution.
Slightly OT: Can anyone say whether the ocean waters are saturated with CO2?
Ian M
Saturated is not the right word. Henry’s law required that the partial pressures of gasses dissolved innwater equilibrate to those in the atmosphere. For the ocean mixed layer this takes a matter of days. LeChatelliers principal says colder water contains more dissolved gas. As the oceans warm in interglacials, CO2 rises. The current ice core evidence is about an 800 year lag. So we can infer that Henry ‘equilibrium’ would take about that long for the entire ocean at depth.
So with rising anthropogenic CO2, it is safe to say this ‘equilibrium’ is far from having been reached.
So No, the oceans are not yet ‘saturated’.
“The current ice core evidence is about an 800 year lag.”
It’s not that simple. That 800 year lag only applies to the warming phase of interglacials, during the cooling phase the lag is much larger, on the order of 5,000 years, and this large lag means that temperatures and CO2 trends can even go in opposite directions.
I find it facinating that we distinguish between natural souces and man-made sources. Since I feel fairly confident to say that humanity is not man-made but has spawned on earth as part of nature, isn’t it obvious that humanity and everything in it produces a natural resource? Is it a backasswards God-complex narcissism, that places us outside of nature?
Solomon Green September 10, 2014 at 5:14 am
“Atmospheric Concentrations”
“Methane… Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources …, and about 60 % comes from human activities…”
“Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%)…”
But I looked in vain for a similar statement as to the proportions of “Carbon dioxide” emitted by natural sources and by human activities. Is that still in contention?
richardscourtney September 10, 2014 at 7:08 am
Phil.
You are improving. You said something that was not plain wrong.
To continue the improvement, next time try to also say something relevant to the question that was asked.
I did indeed richard, as usual what I said was correct and also relevant to the question asked. The question referred to the net emission into the atmosphere of CH4 and N2O, your answer was incomplete as it failed to take account of the absorption from the atmosphere to the biosphere and oceans. In fact the oceans and biosphere are net sinks of CO2 as I pointed out in my answer, approximately equal to half the amount added to the atmosphere by human activity.
Phil.
Please don’t try to be clever: you never succeed.
I gave a complete answer to the question that was asked.
The question mentioned the relative proportions of anthropogenic and natural sources for methane and nitrous oxide, and it asked the proportions of anthropogenic and natural sources for CO2.
If my complete answer to the question were incomplete then your addition must have also been incomplete. This is because your addition was about sequestration of CO2 but it said nothing about sequestration of methane and nitrous oxide.
Richard
The question quoted the net values for N2O and CH4 therefore the answer should give like information, you failed to do so as always.
Phil.
I am saddened that you failed to head my advice that you should not try to be clever because you never succeed. Your response is to do it again.
Instead of admitting you were wrong or merely doing nothing you wrote
No, Phil. I gave a complete answer to the question. which did NOT quote net values.
The question stated – and you copied it stating – emissions and made no mention of sequestration when it said.
Phil., In am trying to help you. Your attempts to seem clever always backfire. Just stop it.
Richard
In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.
If in 2013 CO2, CH4 and N2O were ( in ppm ) 396, 1.824, & 0.326 = 398.15 total ppm
Reading 1995 (graph above) were ( in ppm ) 360, 1.75 , & 0.312 = 362.062 total ppm
percentages of total atmosphere 2013 (remember water vapor is not included in above ppm)
398.15 / 1,040,000.00 = 0.0383% to 398.15 / 1,010,000.00 = 0.03942%
percentages of total atmosphere 1995
362.062 / 1,040,000.00 = 0.0348% to 362.062 / 1,010,000.00 = 0.0358%
So the rest of the atmosphere has changed (at 4% humidity) 99.9617% from 99.9652% = 0.0035%
That is the real change.
Robert Austin September 10, 2014 at 10:06 am
No need to have to ask, though coral is not noted for having the power of speech. The coral reefs are thriving where they are not being threatened by pollution, excess sediment and man’s upsetting of the ecosystem by over exploitation of the resource. Hypothetical decreased alkalinity by a miniscule to unmeasurable level is simply ludicrous as a factor in coral degradation.
You are misusing the term ‘alkalinity’ here, it does not mean what you appear to think it means, the correct term is ‘acidification’. The alkalinity of seawater is the sum of all access proton acceptors present, and this is what buffers the changes in ocean pH.
No.. The correct chemistry term is neutralization. When I add an acid to an alkaline buffer, I’m neutralizing it via titration.
No, it’s only ‘neutralization’ when you add exactly enough acid to balance the bases (i.e. to pH 7), ‘acidification’ is adding acid to a solution thereby reducing its pH, not necessarily to pH 7.
Nope. That’s still neutralization in a titration.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen
Having read Pieter Dietze’s excerpt at your reference http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
I understand now that the 2.15 ppmv/year you mentioned is not the total CO2 exchange rate but the unbalance between CO2 entering and leaving the atmosphere, and of course that atmospheric CO2 is currently not in equilibrium (contrary to H2O).
Indeed…
The remarkable point is that the 55 years e-fold decay rate for the excess CO2 in the atmosphere of Peter Dietze’s calculation in 1997 did not change much over the past 17 years: It is even a little smaller, just over 50 years with the current CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. Less if one includes land use changes (which add to the human emissions).
That is partly by the increase in uptake by the biosphere (the earth is greening…) and no saturation of the deep oceans (contrary to the WMO claims). That means trouble for the IPCC’s Bern model and good news for all plants on earth…