UK Carbon Footprint

The atmospheric content of CO2 has been monitored since 1958 by the Keeling observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The resultant graph shows a steadily increasing sawtooth pattern from the first measurements until the present. The sawtooth pattern is attributed to seasonal variations. (spring and summer CO2 is being absorbed by biomass, autumn and winter die off releases it) 

Scenario A: Many air samples are analysed and recorded daily, totalled up and an average figure for the year is calculated and the annual increase, to an accuracy of one ten thousandth of 1%, is published. The suggestion is that it continues to accumulate year on year, and the carbon cycle was in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coil, oil and gas.

Scenario B: It is known to within a few thousand tonnes how much fuel is mined, drilled, fracked and burned each year, so the increase is calculated from this figure alone. This works out at around 5 parts per million per annum, but they acknowledge that there will be some uptake from nature so they publish a figure of about half that and blame human activity alone for the difference. If measurements are taken, it is performative as actual figures would be wildly different every year.

Points to note:

1: The seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemisphere, so whilst it is spring and summer in the NH, the SH has autumn and winter and vice versa. How come the Keeling curve only reflects NH seasonal variations? Logic would suggest that a sawtooth pattern would not be formed, that the hemispheres would compensate for each other and the increase, if true, would show a straight line. The argument has been that the NH has more land, therefore more plants, therefore more seasonal variation. A counter argument might be that the SH has the huge rain forests, and phytoplankton on the ocean surface that photosynthesise too, and there’s much more of it. And provides for ecosystems that are largely hidden from view. How much biomass is supported by the oceans? Does anybody really know?

2: The largest natural source of CO2 is outgassing from the tropical oceans (55%), second largest is volcanic activity. Muana Loa is at latitude 19.475° N, very much inside the tropic of Cancer, and is also home to Kilauea, currently the world’s most active volcano which has been continually erupting since 1983. They say they only take air samples upwind of the volcano, but as stated, the warm ocean outgasses vast amounts. There are no locations upwind of a large CO2 source in Hawaii. 

3: NASA satellites have observed that there has been an increase in biomass around the planet, that it has ‘greened’ by around 20% since the turn of the century, an area equivalent to approx. twice the area of the USA and this is continuing. All of that biomass is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2, and all that extra flora will be supporting extra fauna. Put simply, more trees provide for more monkeys. And again, this study does not account for ocean life. It is reasonable to assume there has been an upsurge in aquatic life too.

4: Atmospheric CO2 levels have been monitored since the gas was first discovered in the early 1800’s, and similar levels to today have been recorded. (See 180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS by Ernst-Georg Beck https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X0701800206). Such records are ignored by Keeling.

Scenario A assumes that precisely the same amount of CO2 is circulated every year, and precisely the same amount of biomass, from algae to sequioa, from amoeba to blue whale is created, grows and dies every year. Precisely the same amount is burned every year in wildfires, precisely the same amount is emitted from volcanoes, both on land and under the sea, precisely the same amount of limestone is formed by all its various biogenic and chemical processes and decomposes by weathering every year. And was always so before we came along.

Scenario B would suggest that the whole thing is a construct, a fiction, a lie, abject propaganda. Call it whatever you consider apt. A system with so many sources and sinks could never have been in perfect equilibrium, and anyone that claims that it is only human activity that disturbs the balance is delusional.

Assess the evidence. 
Which scenario is more plausible?