Discussion > Why ARE levels of CO2 rising right now?
BBD
The point I tried to make was that IF the change in the C12/C13 ratio was a smoking gun, showing that the burning of fossil fuels was the only cause (of the changing ratio) and therefore man had caused the increased atmospheric CO2 levels, then there can be no other sources of C12 CO2 (otherwise the argument falls flat). If there really are no other sources of C12 CO2 then since plants permanently sequester some of the CO2 every year, it would eventually disappear.
Your WUWT post contains this equation:
dCO2(atm) = CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) + CO2(em) – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…)
showing the basic fact that net rise in all CO2 emissions less net reductions from all sinks = net emissions. He then says we know some of the figures and can substitute them in:
4 GtC = CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) + 8 GtC – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…)
Or rearranged:
CO2(in1 + in2 + in3 +…) – CO2(out1 + out2 + out3 +…) = – 4 GtC
8 GtC being our best guess at human emissions and 4GtC being the annual average increase (trend) each year from Mauna Loa. However this is only true if you work with the trend figures.
What Salby does is ignore the trend and look at the actual annual change in CO2 levels which shows that sometimes levels of atmospheric CO2 go down, it is not a constant rising figure every year. When you look at the annual figures there is absolutely no correlation between human emissions and changes in global CO2.
Dung
Dung, the sharp rise in CO2 over the last half-century is driven by human emissions. There is no other plausible source. Short-term variation in CO2 arising from ENSO etc is irrelevant - a distraction. Look at the *long term trend* - the whole Keeling curve. Look at the bigger picture. That's the logical way to understand what is happening. Why Salby is engaged in a misleading over-focus on annual variations is mystifying.
BBD
BBD you are ignoring the information I am giving you so what is the point of engaging with you?
Dung
What checks/audits have been made on the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements?
Just asking.
Martin A
Martin
In truth I have no idea, it is the source used by everyone so I have assumed it is correct. Having said that, the slopes of an active volcano do seem a bit inappropriate hehe.
I mean all they needed was a remote island with high ground and they picked an active volcano?
Dung
Dung
If there really are no other sources of C12 CO2 then since plants permanently sequester some of the CO2 every year, it would eventually disappear.
What do you mean 'permanently sequester...'? Even with slightly more C12 being taken up by plants than C13, the amount of C12 in the biosphere is limited (around 2000GT according to Wiki), unless the mass of the biosphere (the amount of plant and animal matter) is increasing significantly. Do you suggest that it is? So it can't be 'permanently sequestering... CO2' (presumably you meant C12) in any way that would change the ratio of C12/C13. Considering that the oceans contain 36000GT of carbon, any change to the 2000GT biosphere caused by a preference for C13 is of no significance.
ps. Martin A, if you are there, can you comment on the most recent end of the "UK energy policy faltering" thread, please.
BitBucket
BitBucket
I get the impression that Dung is a bit out of his depth.
BBD
Mr Bucket
Would you like to make up for my ignorance and tell us about the checks/audits made on the Mauna Loa figures?
BBD
you can join in if you like ^.^
I wonder what the collective noun for 2 trolls is?
Fuster cluck must be in with a chance.
Dung
Dung, I know nothing about Mauna Loa but I'm guessing that the CO2 measurements are produced by sensors placed at exactly the wrong position and serviced by people who for the last 50 years have been systematically adjusting the measurements upward and are in league with the IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace, Hanson, Smith and Jones et al. Did I get it right?
I wonder what the name for your arguments is? Bullshot must be in with a chance.
BitBucket
Mr Bucket
Perhaps it would be best if you stopped guessing.
Dung
Dung
The accuracy of the measurements from the ML station over the last 50 years is not in doubt. ML is corroborated by many other measuring stations around the world. Here is a map showing their locations. Select a station by clicking its location, pick 'carbon cycle gasses' then 'time series' to display the data.
Do you contend that the entire network of global monitoring stations are all in error in exactly the same way?
If you think that the entire multi-station monitoring network is guilty of systematic misconduct you are on your own. Conspiracy theories are for loons. They aren't worth engaging in - even in blog comments.
If you think there are problems with ML, get off your digital backside and turn up some evidence for them. By which I mean something from the reviewed literature, not the idle speculations of fellow 'sceptics'. I'm here to tell you now that you will find nothing.
It's just the classic denial two-step: don't like what the data show? Start insinuating that there are problems with the data. It's a miserable tactic but an essential part of every pseudo-sceptic's repertoire. It's as tedious as it is predictable.
BBD
I wonder what the collective noun for 2 trolls is?
Fuster cluck must be in with a chance.
It's instructive how taking the time to answer questions, sometimes with detailed references, abruptly becomes 'trolling' when your interlocutor doesn't 'like' what you show them.
BBD
BBD
It's instructive how taking the time to answer questions, sometimes with detailed references,
Perhaps you should have gone to Specsavers? Maybe then you would know what the question was.
In my post 3.34 pm July 2 I responded to you after having read some WUWT threads you had referred to. I described the Mauna Loa figures as "the actual annual change in CO2 levels", I did not dispute them?
When asked by Martin A whether I knew of any checks on their figures I said no but pointed out that it was (and it is) a bit strange that the source of global "clean" CO2 levels comes from a station on an active volcano. I also said I accepted the figures because everybody else accepts them.
I dont really know what you were blathering about in your post at 11.41 today.
My post at 3.34 on July 2 was a detailed response to your request for me to read a post on WUWT but you did not deal with that post at all, instead you said:
Dung, the sharp rise in CO2 over the last half-century is driven by human emissions. There is no other plausible source.
Does that constitute "taking the time to answer questions, sometimes with detailed references," ?
You are a troll and I stick with Fuster Cluck
Dung
Dung
Your weak grasp of the topic is the problem here, not my responses. The rise in CO2 since the mid-C20th was driven by aCO2 emissions and everybody except the delusional rump understands this. There are no other plausible sources. You can tizzy and name-call all you like, but the facts do not change.
WRT my 11:41am: you seemed to be confusing ML with the global CO2 measurement network, so I provided the necessary information to show that ML isn't the global CO2 measurement network. You insinuated that there are data problems, but obviously, there aren't. I've re-read the comment and it is clear and to the point. Again, either the problem is with your level of topic comprehension, or you are pretending that you didn't understand what was said in order to avoid having to accept or respond substantively to it.
The problem isn't non-existent trolling, it is the very evident denial.
BBD
OK BBD
I am from Barcelona and I know nothing. Now please go and bugger up somebody else's discussion.
Dung
Jul 3, 2012 at 6:22 PM | Dung
BBDI am from Barcelona and I know nothing. Now please go and bugger up somebody else's discussion.
You know it's a funny thing ... I have seen no reason to give either the BBD entity or the BB entity much credit in the truth-in-posting department.
But, in the interest of full disclosure, on my credit-rating scale they are equally morally and rhetorically bankrupt.
Either one could don the cape of the highway robbers of olden times - and no one would know whether 'twas one or t'other who'd attempted to rob them blind!
Hilary Ostrov
Jul 5, 2012 at 5:57 AM | Hilary Ostrov
There are subtle differences if you look very carefully.
Martin A
Hilary
Words of comfort from a heroine of Donna's book. I shall sleep well tonight ^.^
Dung
At the risk of becoming a bore, do people think that human activity is the only reason that global levels of CO2 are rising?
Looking at the day to day Mauna Loa figures it seems that on a given day, the sinks can take out all human contributions and then some, otherwise the ppm figure would always go up.
For me Svensmark's theories of how and why our climate changes, stand up to scrutiny far better than any other and is, by several orders of magnitude more plausible than the GHG theory. In his 2012 paper Svensmark tells us that we are (the solar system is) about to pass out of one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, that means we are moving from an area of intense cosmic ray activity into an area of minimum cosmic ray activity.
We are in a period of transition from cold to warm which may of course last for hundreds of thousands of years.
Is it possible that rising CO2 is an indicator of that change by mechanisms we dont yet understand?
Dung
"...do people think that human activity is the only reason that global levels of CO2 are rising?"
Well, I'd have said that it seems highly likely.
1. Stands to reason, dunnit?
2. The constant 45% - 50% ratio (45% is the one always mentioned; 50% is what I calculate) between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and anthopogenic annual release (if I got it right - it's late and I'm tired) seems about convincing as could be.
3. But Salby's presentation seems convincing in the other direction. I hope in his paper, he'll explain why the conventional theory does not make sense - saying "here's an alternative theory that explains what we see" is ok but only goes part of the way.
So I'd say, at present, I'd put it down to human activity but I'm ready to be convinced otherwise
Martin A
"...do people think that human activity is the only reason that global levels of CO2 are rising?"
Martin A: "Well, I'd have said that it seems highly likely."
Looked at after a night's rest, I spotted the "only". No. even if anthropogenic causes dominate, it would be daft to claim they are the only reason that global levels of CO2 are rising.
Martin A
Hilary, regarding BB and BBD 'entities':
...on my credit-rating scale they are equally morally and rhetorically bankrupt
Insults are easy. Can you explain "moral and rhetorical bankruptcy" in your own words? Does it mean anything concrete? Do you have some examples? And can you tell us what makes us an 'entities' rather than people - is it just because we disagree with you?
BitBucket
Hilary, again regarding BB and BBD 'entities':
I have seen no reason to give either ... much credit in the truth-in-posting department.
So we are lying? About what exactly? Looking back at the thread I can see nothing I have said that could be construed as a lie. It might or might not be inaccurate, misleading etc, but where is there a lie?
BitBucket
BB
+1
Yes Hilary - let's have a list of all factual errors and deliberate distortions in my and Bit's commentary above. If I have made any factual errors, this will give me the opportunity to acknowledge them and if possible, correct them.
Publicly.
BBD
Dung:
Why? Where do you think it goes? Look at the Wiki page on the carbon cycle. The biosphere plus all fossil fuels make up a small proportion of the total carbon cycle, ignoring sedimentary rock. The deep oceans contain far more carbon than plants etc. Once you include the rocks, plant-related carbon is insignificant. Note that rocks weather so the carbon in the isn't locked away for ever.
Note (not that it matters) also that plants' preference for C12 is only small and depends upon the plant type.