Subscribe in a reader


Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here


It's the sun
Climate's changed before
There is no consensus
Surface temp is unreliable
Models are unreliable
It's cooling
Ice age predicted in the 70's
Al Gore got it wrong
We're heading into an ice age
CO2 lags temperature
View All Arguments...


Latest Posts


Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

The skeptic argument...

As human CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural CO2 emissions, man's impact on climate is minimal.

What the science says...

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

The carbon cycle

Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.

Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of carbon per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.

Human CO2 emissions

As for human CO2 emissions, about 40% is being absorbed, mostly by the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level over the past 800,00 years (Brook 2008). A natural change of 100ppm takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Carbon isotopes - the human "fingerprint"

How can we know the rising CO2 levels are due to human activity? The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.


Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). Image courtesy of Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.

The ocean's diminishing ability to absorb CO2

While the ocean absorbs around half of human CO2 emissions, empirical observations reveal the oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2. A study released in May 2007 found that the Southern Ocean has reached its saturation point, diminishing its ability to absorb more CO2 (Quéré 2007). Similarly, CO2 absorption by the North Atlantic has dropped even more dramatically, halving over the past decade (Schuster 2007). If this trend continues, it potentially leads to a positive feedback where the oceans take up less CO2 leading to CO2 rising faster in the atmosphere leading to increased global warming.

Further reading

Both graphs from this page are taken from Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Real Climate goes in-depth into the science and history of C13/C12 measurements.

It's not particularly relevant to this argument but World Resources Institute have posted such a great resource, I had to put it somewhere. It's the World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, a visual summary of what's contributing to manmade CO2 (eg - electricity, cars, planes, deforestation, etc):


  1. Some additional ball park figures. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide 385 ppm corresponds to 3e12 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we get:

    year ppm tons
    1970 320 2.49E+12
    2005 385 3.00E+12
    5.06E+11 increase

    apparently the manmade carbon flux has risen from 4E+09 to 8E+09 tons from 1970 to 2005 so on average a flux of 6E+09 for 35 years is 2.10E+11 tons which is 42 % of the total increase and 7 % of the current total atmospheric CO2.

    That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ? And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature?
  2. "That begs the question, what is the cause of the other 48 % ?"

    The 5.06E+11 are tons of CO2
    The (estimated) 2.10E+11 are tons of C which give 2.10*11/3 = 7.70E+11 tons of CO2. So, the net increase in the atmosphere is lower than the "manmade carbon flux". The difference have been taken up by mainly the oceans.

    "And how can a manmade increase of 7 % be the main reason for a global increase in temperature?"

    The pertinent figure would not be 7% (btw raised to 26% if C is converted to CO2) but 65/385 = 17%. However such reasoning is still not pertinent since the effect of CO2 is logarithmic and not linear. The preindustrial CO2 contributes to natural greenhouse effect (33°C) and the additional CO2 to enhanced greenhouse effect.

Post a Comment

Foul language, trolling, personal attacks or non-relevant links will be deleted.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

© John Cook 2008