Arguments
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
| |||
|
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. |
|||||
Climate Myth...
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne
Update July 2015:
Here is the relevant lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Last updated on 5 July 2015 by skeptickev. View Archives
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?
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.
Firstly, it is not representative of the actual processes going but only shows a snapshot in time.
Secondly, there is no CO2 balance in biomass input/output: CO2 is constantly being locked up/ released at varying rates so there is no dynamic equilibrium.
In (geologically)ancient times CO2 concentrations were as high as 6000ppm...for a long time high enough to preclude oxygen breathers evolving...until sufficent CO2 was locked up by plant life ( the oceans would have been more or less saturated) and O2 levels raised by algae and cyanobacteria.
There is no balance! Check out the Oxygen Cycle.
Evaporation increases and more heat is lost to space in the upper atmosphere.
Land Biomass begins to pick up.
Oceanic CO2 release decreases the acidity of sea water and carbonate fixing biota do better and lock up more CO2 allowing more CO2 to enter the oceans.
The climate has demonstrated historically that it is very stable despite quite large changes in the sub-systems modulating the Heat in - Heat out process.
Life has equally demonstrated it can cope with large climatic changes and that it actually prefers it to be warmer.............
85 - 90% of the 33C elevation of GMT is due to W.vapour.
Thus the GG's are responsible for 10-15% (3.3 - 5C)
MM CO2 emissions are ~27E9 tons so allowing for MM CH4 emissions (3.0E9tons CO2 equivalent), total MM GG's are around 30.0E9tons (2005)
Total atmospheric CO2 = 3.0E12 tons (2005)
Thus MM GG contribute 1% of 3.3-5C (.033-.05C)
To double total atmospheric CO2 content from 3.0E12 to 6.0E12 solely from MM CO2 @ current increase of 30.E9/a requires 200years. (385ppm to 770ppm assuming all CO2 remains in atmosphere - wrong but never mind).
Assume direct lineal warming effect (wrong but never mind)GG's would then contribute to a further GMT rise of 3.3-5C over 200 years. This is 1.65-2.5 C /century.
or .17 - .25C/decade.
GISS data for land/Oceans:
1980-1990 show a rise of .15C
1990-2000 show a rise of .15C
2000-2007 show a rise of .10C
GISS data for met. stations:
1980-1990 show a rise of .15C
1990-2000 show a rise of .19C
2000-2007 show a rise of .12C
So it looks like we can expect GMT to rise from around 14 to 15.5 by 2107
Numbers are fun.
But now of course it will be the sun ( no sunspots) whereas before it was NOT the sun.
It's like pinning down mercury drops...the harder you try the more it splits up into smaller and smaller particles.
I don't think anyone rejects that CO2 is a GG; but that is a whole different ballgame to suggesting it is causing global warming on a scale that we should be concerned with.
The real problem is that the climatologists are only too happy to research positive feedback and include it, but treat negative feedback as inconsequential, even though, as you point out, their own data clearly shows there are very strong negatives at work. And each time something in the overall system starts a +ve trend, something else wakes up and starts a -ve one.
the system has had millions of years to evolve sub-systems to damp oscillations and maintain climate within life supporting limits.
Also, nobody is really sure that we know what all the influencing factors are, so the model at the moment is like a cardboard box on wheels.
(not a even a Ford let alone a Ferrari)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Phytoplankton/
and that process is STILL going on....so how can there be any kind of a balance as the graphic indicates?
The only way you can 'force' equilibrium like that is totally ignore other factors which simply destroys the basis of the argument.
That's a massive non-sequiter unfortunately. It also contains an essential fallacy. The 90% of the Earth's sequestered carbon ISN'T "locked up in ocean sediments"...90% of the earth's sequestered carbon was originally DERIVED from ocean sediments (and is now oil/natural gas and so on...)
Of course we know very well that the evidence indicates that the system described in the graphics in the top article is more or less in balance. This refers to the short term carbon cycle which describes the recycling of non-sequestered carbon through the biosphere, as well as some elements of the longer term carbon cycle involving slow sequestration of carbon and its reintroduction to the biosphere through (largely) ocean sedimentation of carbon fixing life-forms and volcanic activity, respectively.
This is readily apparent in the paleoCO2 record. In the short term (last 10000 years), atmospheric CO2 has maintained a relatively steady CO2 concentration (270 ppm +/- 10 ppm)...
e.g.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
lower resolution data indicate that this sort of level has been in the atmosphere for the last 20-odd million years before the 20th century (i.e. 180-350 ppm; the low values occurring during glacial periods).
e.g.
Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" Nature 406, 695-699.
So that equilibrium in the short/medium term carbon cycle exists and is readily apparent.
Obviously once one starts digging up and burning carbon sequestered out of the cycle for many 10's and 100's of millions of years, the equilibrium is abruptly perturbed, and as we're seeing atmospheric CO2 levels are shooting upwards.
Incidentally, which "other factors" that are being "totally ignored" were you thinking of Mizimi?
Yes, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen in the last 50 years or so....is this short or medium? Climate-wise I suggest it is very short. Paleoproxy data shows atmospheric CO2 rising and falling by very much greater levels over longer periods of time. The system is clearly never in equilibrium.
'More or less in balance' is a cop out. How much out of balance does it have to be before you consider it not in equilibrium?
How does all that CO2 locked up as carbonate sediment compare to the oil/gas/coal deposits? And that form of sequestration is still going on.
Human population is expected to grow from 6 to 9 billion by 2100...which equals (roughly) 540 million tons of carbon locked up in people for say, 60 years?
And yes, people die, but the release of carbon back to the environment is not immediate.
No dynamic system can be in equilibrium...
So to answer your first question:
["How much out of balance does it have to be before you consider it not in equilibrium?"]
If atmospheric CO2 levels haven't varied much more than about 20 ppm (maybe 30 ppm according to some plant stomatal index analyses) around 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years before the 20th century, one can conclude that the system has been more or less in balance. It's not "a cop out" to state the obvious. The flux of carbon into the atmosphere has been reasonably closely balanced by the flux out of the atmosphere for vast periods of time before the 20th century.
And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium. So if one considers only the interglacial periods, the atmospheric CO2 was below or around 300 ppm during this entire period according to the proxy record:
e.g. Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" Nature 406, 695-699.
M. Pagani et al. (2005) "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene", Science 309, 600 – 603.
T. K. Lowenstein and R. V. Demicco (2006) "Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline" Science 313, 1928.
R. M. DeConto et al (2008) "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" Nature 455, 652-656
Note that it's worth distinguishing the interglacial and glacial periods here, since the shift of atmospheric CO2 down to around 170-180 ppm during glacials is similarly part of the short term carbon cycle that relates to the distribution of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere, oceans and atmosphere. In this case it's the temperature-dependent element of the cycle and its response to very slow insolation variation (Milankovitch cycles).
So we can talk about being "near equilibrium" or "more or less in balance" in quite explicit terms:
(i) On the timescale of 1000-10,000 years, the relatively fixed amount of ACCESSIBLE carbon distributing between the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere has maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration that has undergone relatively little variation (the overall variations during 1000's of years of the order of the changes now occurring in about a decade).
(ii) on the timescale of 10 million years the longer term carbon cycle involving the sedimentation of carbon as carbonates in the deep oceans and the slow release of carbon from ocean plate subduction and volcanic activity has also been more or less in balance. The atmospheric CO2 record of the last 10 million years suppoorts that conclusion.
(iii) On top of the equilibrium carbon distributions of the carbon cycle on the millions of years timescale, insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) cause very slow requilibration of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean/terrestrial environments.
Now something quite different is happening. A massive store of excess carbon inaccessible to the carbon cycle for many 10's of millions of years is being rapidly reintroduced into the system in an extraordinarily short time period. Not surprisingly the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising very rapidly indeed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium (there's a large nett flux into the atmosphere from previously long-sequestered sources), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is being driven up towards some new equilibrium concentration.
And the above also address your second question:
["How does all that CO2 locked up as carbonate sediment compare to the oil/gas/coal deposits?"]
That's not quite a relevant question. Considering carbonate sediments and their formation, the long term paleoCO2 record of the last 10 million years or so indicates that carbonate sedimentation has been pretty much in balance with the return of CO2 from subducted carbonate back through volcanoes into the atmosphere.
...where the "out of balance" element has arisen is the awesomely rapid oxidation and return to the atmosphere of massive stores of carbon previously sequestered out of the short and medium carbon cycles for 10's and 100's of millions of years.
Note that dynamic systems CAN be in equilibrium. In general they fluctuate around equilibrium states. Of course one can raise semantic issues about the extent to which a particular fluctuation constitutes a departure from equilibrium. But it's quite easy to be explicit and define exactly what one means by the particular equilibrium in question.
Equilibrium: . A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.
'Dynamic equilibrium' is thus an oxymoron.
Climate is a dynamic system and fluctuates,(sometimes quite severely as history shows)and for man's purposes we would like those fluctuations to be constrained within certain limits. To my knowledge, nobody has defined what those limits should be. (??) Neither do we have the ability to alter in any meaningful and expiditious way the major active components in the system without causing ourselves serious economic problems....it will be interesting to see what effect the current global economic crisis has on fossil fuel consumption, CO2 concentrations and GMT.
Let's not get confused by semantics! Playing with words doesn't change reality.
A thermostat is effectively a "dynamic equilibrium". Have a think about how a thermostat works to maintain the temperature in a room at an equilibrium temperature.
Electronic and compressed air temperature controllers modulate continuously as the detected temp fluctuates and provide closer control, BUT still show a sinusoidal fluctuation around the set point even though much lower than a conventional thermostat (industrial standards of around 0.5C). There is no equilibrium.
Semantics is about the meaning of words; once you start to misuse words then communication is degraded. Better to invent a new word than to misuse an existing one..and science is historically pretty good at inventing new ones.
Our understanding of the natural world is not defined by one individual's ignorance! If you don't know very much about a topic why not make an effort to inform yourself befoe sounding off?
Try googling "dynamic equilibrium". Far from being an "oxymoron" it's a fundamental descriptor of phenomena that involve the summation of a number of (opposing) processes whose net effect constitutes a balance to an extent that is further definable by the amplitude of variation around the equilibrium position. When applied to reversible chemical reactions the variation around the equilibrium (concentration of reactants and products, for example) can be small small. When applied to Earth processes it can be somewhat larger..
...it would be foolish to "invent a new word" for such a well-characterized phenomenon as "dynamic equilibrium".
The temperature in a room that results from the opposing forces of heat loss and heat input controlled by a thermostat is an example of a "dynamic equilibrium". If one needed further description of the nature of the fluctuations around the equilibrium one could explore/measure these.
Likewise with the Earth's atmopheric CO2 concentration. For millions of years the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration has been in dynamic equilibrium between the forces of volcanic influx into the atmosphere and the efflux from weathering and carbonate "fixing" (supplemented during the last couple of million of years with glacial cycles that temporarily perturb the equilibrium CO2 concentration downwards during glacial periods).
In other worlds, since the atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven't varied very much during this period as far as we can tell (apart from the ice age excursions), the evidence indicates that the atmospheric CO2 levels have been in "dynamic equilibrium" (until recently, when they've started progressing upweards at a very very fast rate).
Incidentally your misinformed request for semantic rigour on the subject of equilibria is rather out of keeping with your craven acceptance of the most ludicrous and blatant tosh on plaeotemperature data or pre-present atmospheric CO2 data, and so on. You need to come to some decision about where your "standards" lie science/evidence-wise, and then apply these across the board!
So what is the 'equilibrium position' of CO2 over these millions of years? 200ppm? 1500ppm? 4000ppm?
see papers cited in post #13 above...
Air temps would have ranged even further.
How do we reconcile this?
My post #19 was very short and easily readable. Surely you can't have missed the phrase:
"....apart from the glacial periods of the past few million years when atmospheric CO2 dropped towards 180 ppm."
btw I made a tiny typo in post #19. "(around 20 million years)" should have read "(around 10 million years)" consistent with my post #13.....
You say:
"And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium."
It appears that you are not up to date on the IPCC science. It has been higher in the past couple of million years.
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
"6.3.1 What is the Relationship Between Carbon
Dioxide and Temperature in this Time Period?
Pre-Quaternary climates prior to 2.6 Ma (e.g., Figure 6.1)were mostly warmer than today and associated with higher CO2 levels."
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-1.jpg
It seems as though you have your facts wrong.
You say:
"And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium."
It appears that you are not up to date on the IPCC science. It has been higher in the past couple of million years.
Chapter 6 Palaeoclimate
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
"6.3.1 What is the Relationship Between Carbon
Dioxide and Temperature in this Time Period?
Pre-Quaternary climates prior to 2.6 Ma (e.g., Figure 6.1)were mostly warmer than today and associated with higher CO2 levels."
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-1.jpg
It seems as though you have your facts wrong.
Hang on a minute. Where are you getting THAT from? How are you assuming that? I've never found a CO2 proxy record that comprehensive? If we had such a record we could bring this racket to a close with a bit of luck. What are you going on for that hyper-confident statement? Is it the ice-cores? Or is it just some bogus model that someone plugged into the computer.
Obviously if humans have contributed to higher levels thats a good thing. THAT is what the science says. And it doesn't say anything else.
This is wrong. CO2 absorbed by water generally INCREASES the acidity, thus lowering the ability of organisms to secrete carbonate. And where they do secrete it, it dissolves more readily once they are dead. The only saving grace here may be that calcium carbonate has an inverse solubility relative to temperature, i.e. as temperature goes up, solubility decreases.
The more 'advanced' nations are showing a decline in birth rate that already threatens the continued viabilty of the indigenous population, and so to 'fill the gap' have to rely on immigration to maintain the society.
In order to get people to produce less children you have to deal with a number of problems, not least is their standard of living.
It's a complex subject, frought with difficulties - but you're right, deal with overpopoulation and the 'global warming problem' will fade away.
I googled 'dynamic equilibrium' and was easily able to find not only many definitions but also a host of examples from biology and physics where it applies. I'm no expert on scientific communication, but I think it is critical to have a common conceptual and terminological corpus in order to exchange information with any degree of efficiency. It seems that many of the posters here rely on Chris to provide a rudimentary overview of the science (I mean the stuff that has survived peer-review and been published in reputable journals, not your uncle Jesse's theory of faerie-dust driven tropospheric warming, which he posted last Sunday after a few cold ones on some random website somewhere). There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, unless said posters are arguing passionately that the mainstream science is wrong. After all, what better way to undermine your own credibility than to take a vigorous stand against a position that 1. you do not really understand and 2. is supported by 90% of experts in the field - people who do actually do understand the science? On what basis can you disagree with the majority of professional scientists in a given discipline if you don't even have a handle on something as elementary as the terminology they use?
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/13C_zhao.gif
Source:
Zhao, X.Y., Qian, J.L., Wang, J., He, Q.Y., Wang, Z.L., Chen, C.Z. (2006). Using a tree ring δ13C annual series to reconstruct atmospheric co2 concentration over the past 300 years. Pedosphere,, 16(3), 371-379.
It looks a little bit like the pretended carbon neutrality of bio-fuels. A simplistic assumption that has provoked more CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.
I can develop but Johnshon does it beautifully for me [Johnson, E. (2009) Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 165-168]
The CO2 in the atmosphere is relatively tiny. Visualized as water, our atmosphere is about the same mass as 10m of water spread evenly. Out of that (by weight) the CO2 is currently about 6mm thick. Visualize a layer of glass (the greenhouse!) spread evenly. Now, it is easy to see this is tiny compared to the amount of carbon locked up in fertile soils, forests, or seas with carbonate rich muds. If those ecosystems were not finely balanced the atmosphere would have major fluctuations. But, before human large scale agriculture and industry, the records are of long constancy. And, really not so surprising that a mass of human activity reshaping our environment has produced a rapid change in the atmosphere - from bubbles in the Vostok ice cores, it seems we have produced a spill larger than any in a million years.
So the New Scientist graphic may simplify, but it is basically the inescapable conclusion. The world has operated in rough CO2 balance, and we are the biggest change in the equilibrium for a very long time.
Is this true?
Is this true?
It's not clear what Monckton even means by that. Does he mean that we cut the total 2010-2020 emissions by 30%, but then for the rest of the century our emissions are back up to the "business as usual" trend? If so, the reduction in warming would be relatively small. But that's an absurdly unrealistic scenario.
If he's talking about gradually reducing emissions starting in 2010 by enough to put us 30% below BAU in 2020, then staying 30% below the BAU trend for the rest of the century, then he's wrong -- that would yield a much, much greater reduction in warming than 0.02C.
In my experience, many people dramatically overestimate the difficulty of changing course while also underestimating the impacts. See Pacala and Socolow (2004) for a good demonstration that effective reductions in CO2 are very feasible, or google "stabilization wedges".
are you aware of a natural process that pours so much CO2 in the atmosphere in such a short time? I don't know any and none has been seen from when the time resolution of paleo data is good enough (hundreds thousands years).
We can make any hypothesis, but it needs to be supported by facts or known science.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/3158.php
In short, how did 6 gigatonnes a few years ago now become 26 gigatonnes of human CO2 releases?
Net(?) human emissions: 29 Gt
Net natural emissions: (220+220+332)-(450+338-0.4x29) = -4 Gt
Which gives a net annual increase of 25 Gt.
That's nearly twice the number you quote in your 'What the science says...' section and five or six times times the number offered by the Mauna Loa observatory. (+2 ppm CO2 pa is about +4 gigatonnes CO2, no?)
What's occurring?
*Salinger actually wrote that 'Human inputs are about 10% of the natural cycle', which is gibberish. If he meant 'about 10% of natural inputs', he's clearly wrong. If he meant 'net human inputs are about 10% of net natural inputs'... That's what I'm trying to find out.
Incidentally, in the same presentation he also claimed that 'Human energy use [is] nearly half of total solar input to Earth'. He was off by about four noughts with that one. Or is it three? Enough to get him sacked, anyway. I dunno Alarmists!
That's nearly twice the number you quote in your 'What the science says...' section and five or six times times the number offered by the Mauna Loa observatory. (+2 ppm CO2 pa is about +4 gigatonnes CO2, no?)
You might be making the same error that oracle2world made in the comment immediately preceding yours. According to CDIAC,
"1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C"
But 1 GT C = 3.67 GT CO2. So +2 ppm a^-1 is about +15.6 GT CO2.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.gif and
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
(cited by the CO2 article in wikipedia)
They are orders of magnitude different! Am I missing something here?
I opted to use units of carbon dioxide in my carbon cycle graph because I thought it would be less confusing - people relate to carbon dioxide emissions, not the carbon element of the carbon dioxide molecule. I've regretted it ever since because the convention is to use carbon and hence much confusion has ensued. I will update my carbon cycle graphs with units of carbon sometime down the track (when I get the time).
not sure what numbers you're looking at. The data you link are fossil fuel carbon emissions which correspond to the data shown in fig.2 here. Where is the orders of magnitude difference?
If instead you need to reconcile fig. 1 (29 GTons) and 2 (8 GTons), it's due to the diffent mass of C and CO2, a factor of 3.6.
yes, G (Giga) is a prefix. There are many more indeed.
It seems to me that ocean temperatures must be rising. If they were static then the oceans would absorb any amount of CO2 due to equalisation of partial pressures given thay there is 50 times as much CO2 in the oceans as in the air. How much has the average ocean temperature changed from 2000 to 2010.
While it is not conclusive on most points it is conclusive on the fact that no one has a handle on global sea temperatures. There seems to have been a concensus developed that average atmospheric temperatures have increased by 0.7C over the last century but there is none on average seawater temperatures.
The reason I am interested is that on an holistic basis it seems that the solubility curve of CO2 would require the oceans to give up 4% of their CO2 for a 1.0C temperature increase. ie it would take a 0.03C increase in average seawater temperature from 2000 to 2010 to explain the 43Pg's/GT's increase of atmospheric carbon over that ten year period.
"To the lay person, a "sink" implies an essentially non-reversible storage system. In other words, once the carbon is absorbed into a "sink", it will never come out. In reality we know that there are very few essentially irreversible carbon storage systems out there."
Really, than why do we now have coal and oil to burn, and how by not burning them will we beable to prevent the release of CO2? If these sinks are essentially non-reversable, and the same mechanizms that produced these fuels are currently going on today.