2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years

[geoffrey]

My own take on global warming concerns the idea of "Tragedy of the Commons". If something appears free, people will abuse it to the point where it becomes a problem. That's true of fish in the ocean, Canada's health services and the world's environment.

Good point August. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, fact. Greenhouse effect exists, fact. More CO2 makes more greenhouse effect, true.

The question is about how much.

We're not that warm right now in the grand scheme of things, not much warmer than the middle ages only 600 years ago. I don't think we're at the point right now, it's not a crisis, it's not a cause for panic that hasn't been seen since Godzilla.

But as in all tragedy of the commons situations, it will eventually become an issue, either through GHG or other emissions. We need to take a hard look at emissions and scale them back... but over time, and within reason. Carbon taxes aren't the way to do it, nor are hardline limits. I'm sure other provinces are as well, but I do that in Alberta TransAlta utilities is installing mechanisms (I'm no engineer) in their coal plants to reduce overall emissions.

Really though, there aren't many solutions to our GHG problem other than reverting to old style living. There is only so much we can clean up... as long as we drive to work, fly for business and heat our homes we're going to have much higher emissions than ever before. There are no power substitutes to coal or gas plants that are practical in my opinion... in Quebec ok, you have hydro resources. In Alberta we don't.

We need to burn fossil fuels to maintain our standard of living.

We've got to then look at carbon sinks as the best possible way of protecting ourselves from damage from global warming. Plant more trees, protect our forestry resource... good steps to take. Can't you just see Layton all happy about slapping a reasonable price on our lumber?

It might piss off the unionists, but it would be a big step in protecting our environment, in both emissions and watershed resources.

[stignasty]

Making an analogy between a man and a cigarette.

I'm sorry that was too elaborate for you to understand. I'll try to remember to make it easier in the future.

It is obvious that you can not rebute the fact that many long time smokers live a long life.

Again, the point was that you only provided anecdotal evidence that since some smokers live into old age, smoking isn't as dangerous as some unnamed people claim. My analogy was that since some soldiers live into old age, by your logic, war must not be dangerous. If you don't understand, just post a few more smiley faces and I'll try to explain it to you again.

Since you press the point, please provide valid clinical studies to back your assertion that smoking is safer than we have been lead to believe. Please don't tell me about your Aunt Grace who smoked from age 13 and lived until she was 93. I await your links, although I won't be holding my breath.

[shoggoth]

I have no idea how you can come with this stuff.It is not even a coherent claim.

NOAA does it much better and here is the link:

They make it clear that we emit a small amount of CO2 compared to nature.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html

We actually emit about 3% of the CO2 yearly emission totals.Nature does the rest.

You initially said this:

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

rolleyes.gif

That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount.

The last sentence would only be true if man's contribution to rising co2 levels was less than nature's contribution. But man's contribution is actually near 100% for rising co2 levels. The contribution to co2 accumulation in the atmosphere is based on amount emitted minus amount absorbed, ie the net flux. Not just emissions alone.

The diagram you posted in your first link demonstrates this:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html

You can see that man is overall adding over 5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year (that's out of date - it's now around 7 billion tons).

The diagram shows the ocean emits 70.6 billion tons. If you only use that figure then it looks like man has an insignficant contribution compared to the ocean - 7 vs 70.6. But you have to factor in the other figure in the graph which gives the amount of carbon the ocean absorbs from the atmosphere per year - about 70 billion tons. So overall according to that diagram the ocean adds 70.6 - 70 = 0.7 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year. So according to the diagram the ocean contributes 0.7billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere per year, while man contributes about 5 billion tons.

The diagram says that plants and soil absorb more co2 than they emit. So they are a net sink of carbon rather than a source and therefore cannot be positively contributing to rising co2 levels in the atmosphere at all.

Overall if you add up the natural sources and sinks in that diagram then you see that nature is a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter.

The digram demonstrates that man, and not nature, is the cause of co2 levels rising in the atmosphere.

[B. Max]

Gosh I thought B.Max would be glad to see this post.

Oh well.

Does anyone have anything to say?

More confirmation of what the temperature graphs already show. Which is, a slight cooling in the average temperature since 1998. The global warming gods will soon have to start claiming that CO2 is the cause of global cooling.

[shoggoth]

More confirmation of what the temperature graphs already show. Which is, a slight cooling in the average temperature since 1998. The global warming gods will soon have to start claiming that CO2 is the cause of global cooling.

The running 5 year temperature average has increased almost 0.1C since 1998:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

[sunsettommy]

Gosh I thought B.Max would be glad to see this post.

Oh well.

Does anyone have anything to say?

More confirmation of what the temperature graphs already show. Which is, a slight cooling in the average temperature since 1998. The global warming gods will soon have to start claiming that CO2 is the cause of global cooling.

No Max it is a slowed down warming trend.

Lobos Motl was making his point that since 1998 no year has been as warm as the big el-ninyo year of 1998.

Go look at the charts again max.Lobos clearly knows there is warming since 1998.

I showed you ALL the charts in another thread that irrefutably shows overall warming since 1998.

Why do you still persist in insisting there is a cooling trend since 1998?

[sunsettommy]

Shoggoth why are you persisting in your deflection to my question?

Here is my QUESTION:

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

Why not answer it this time?

Shoggoth:

"The last sentence would only be true if man's contribution to rising co2 levels was less than nature's contribution. But man's contribution is actually near 100% for rising co2 levels. The contribution to co2 accumulation in the atmosphere is based on amount emitted minus amount absorbed, ie the net flux. Not just emissions alone.

The diagram you posted in your first link demonstrates this:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html"

Oh my!

When will you take note of this section in the link?

It includes the preindustrial (black) and anthropogenic (red) ocean-atmosphere and land-atmosphere exchange fluxes. The anthropogenic fluxes are average values for the 1980s and 1990s.

my emphasis

The link clearly shows that Nature is by far the biggest emitter of CO2.

They go on to state:

The fossil fuel component released 5.2 Pg C in 1980 and 6.3 Pg C in 2002. Cement production is the other major industrial release, which increased to 0.22 Pg C in 1999. The combined release of 5.9 Pg C shown in the figure above represents an average emission for the 1980s and 90s.

my emphasis

Now compare that with this:

The exchange of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere is a key driver of the current carbon cycle. Global net primary production (NPP) by land plants is about 57 Pg C y-1. Total NPP is approximately 40% of gross primary production (GPP), with the remainder returned to the atmosphere through plant respiration.

55.5 is a lot bigger than 5.9

Look at the Oceans emission totals.

70.6 versus 20.

Nature wins easily.

[sunsettommy]

The IPCC is even more clear when they have as Chart A) The natural carbon cycle and then chart Human perterbations.

What do you say about them saying that the human perterbation (chart level is ............. 5.9 A small number as compared to the numbers they used for (chart A).

[sunsettommy]

Making an analogy between a man and a cigarette.

I'm sorry that was too elaborate for you to understand. I'll try to remember to make it easier in the future.

It is obvious that you can not rebute the fact that many long time smokers live a long life.

Again, the point was that you only provided anecdotal evidence that since some smokers live into old age, smoking isn't as dangerous as some unnamed people claim. My analogy was that since some soldiers live into old age, by your logic, war must not be dangerous. If you don't understand, just post a few more smiley faces and I'll try to explain it to you again.

Since you press the point, please provide valid clinical studies to back your assertion that smoking is safer than we have been lead to believe. Please don't tell me about your Aunt Grace who smoked from age 13 and lived until she was 93. I await your links, although I won't be holding my breath.

I see that you are going to persist on going way off topic.

I will pass on this because it is well off topic.

Here are the smilies you love.

[shoggoth]

Shoggoth why are you persisting in your deflection to my question?

I wasn't answering your question. I was responding to your argument saying that man's small contribution to co2 emissions reduces mankind's role to the observed warming to a small amount:

That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount.

Man's role to observed warming is not dependant on contribution to co2 emissions. It's dependant on contribution to accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere. The oceans have a negliable contribution compared to man because rule of thumb for every ton of co2 the oceans emit, they also remove a ton.

Oh my!

When will you take note of this section in the link?

It includes the preindustrial (black) and anthropogenic (red) ocean-atmosphere and land-atmosphere exchange fluxes. The anthropogenic fluxes are average values for the 1980s and 1990s.

The diagram tells you how much carbon is being moved in and out of the atmosphere per year. Obviously if the oceans put 70.6 into the atmosphere but take 70 out then their overall contribution is only 0.6

In constrast if fossil fuel burning and cement production puts 5.9 into the atmosphere but takes 0 out. Then man's overall contribution from fossil fuel burning and cement production is 5.9

5.9 (man) is a lot bigger than 0.6 (oceans)

The link clearly shows that Nature is by far the biggest emitter of CO2.

But not the biggest contributor to the ongoing atmospheric co2 rise. That is due to man.

They go on to state:

The fossil fuel component released 5.2 Pg C in 1980 and 6.3 Pg C in 2002. Cement production is the other major industrial release, which increased to 0.22 Pg C in 1999. The combined release of 5.9 Pg C shown in the figure above represents an average emission for the 1980s and 90s.

my emphasis

Now compare that with this:

The exchange of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere and the atmosphere is a key driver of the current carbon cycle. Global net primary production (NPP) by land plants is about 57 Pg C y-1. Total NPP is approximately 40% of gross primary production (GPP), with the remainder returned to the atmosphere through plant respiration.

55.5 is a lot bigger than 5.9

Tthe 57 GtC per year they are talking about here is carbon absorbed from the atmosphere, not carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

Again you have to work out contribution, not just emissions to get the relevant data for explaining the recent and ongoing co2 rise in the atmosphere.

The 55.5 you talk about goes from plants and soil into the atmosphere, and the 57 they talk about goes from the atmosphere into plants and soil.

So overall plants and soil are contributing nothing to the recent co2 rise. They are in fact actually taking 1.5 out of the atmosphere per year. 5.9 (man) is a lot bigger than -1.5 (plants)

[sunsettommy]

GROAN!

I wasn't answering your question. I was responding to your argument saying that man's small contribution to co2 emissions reduces mankind's role to the observed warming to a small amount:

I can see why since it provides the TOTAL emission into the atmosphere facts you are deliberately avoiding.

That Nature is EMITTING far more CO2 than Man is.

The Ocean is adding 70.6 into the atmosphere.Far more than Man addition of a measely 5.9 into the atmosphere.

The 55.5 you talk about goes from plants and soil into the atmosphere, and the 57 they talk about goes from the atmosphere into plants and soil.

Hey at least you noticed that 55.5 of CO2 from plants and soil is emitted into the atmosphere! That is more than mans tiny contribution of 5.9

All along I have been talking about emissions.

EMISSIONS

My original question you keep avoiding:

Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly?

See the key words fella?

Try reading harder next time will ya.

You need to stop deflecting on the irrefutable fact as shown that nature emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind does.

Not once have I talked about NET contribution of CO2 after all the mathematical variables are accounted for.

It is clear that you are not reading very hard since all I talked about was EMISSIONS (meaning what is released into the air).

[sunsettommy]

By the way mankinds small 5.9 yearly contribution is nearly 50% absorbed as according to the IPCC.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

[shoggoth]

GROAN!

I can see why since it provides the TOTAL emission into the atmosphere facts you are deliberately avoiding.

That Nature is EMITTING far more CO2 than Man is.

You are stating a fact, a fact which I do not disagree with. But you are interpreting that fact to mean something it doesn't.

Nature emits far more co2 than man does. But nature absorbs as much co2 as it emits. So the factor causing co2 levels to rise year on year in the atmosphere is not nature at all.

[shoggoth]

By the way mankinds small 5.9 yearly contribution is nearly 50% absorbed as according to the IPCC.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

The IPCC report you linked to says mankind's yearly contribution is 7.1

The 2001 IPCC report also says:

Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#fig31

And mentions the 50% absorbed:

Atmospheric CO2 is, however, increasing only at about half the rate of fossil fuel emissions; the rest of the CO2 emitted either dissolves in sea water and mixes into the deep ocean, or is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems

And:

the global balance in terrestrial systems is currently a net uptake of CO2.

Ie the oceans and land are a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter.

But human activity is a net emitter as shown in data from this table - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#tab31

Contribution to atmospheric carbon during the 90s:

Atmosphere increase = 3.2 ± 0.1

Emissons (fossil fuel, cement) = 6.3 ± 0.4

Ocean-atmosphere flux = -1.7 ± 0.5

Land atmsphere flux= -1.4±0.7

If you regard a 5.9 contribution as small, how small is the oceans contribution of minus 1.7 and the land's contribution of minus 1.4 compared to man's contribution of 6.3?

And carbon is only increasing by 3.2 tons in the atmosphere, that's less than the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere each year (which is why it is known that half is being absorbed and that nature is a net sink, not a net emitter)

[sunsettommy]

GROAN!

I can see why since it provides the TOTAL emission into the atmosphere facts you are deliberately avoiding.

That Nature is EMITTING far more CO2 than Man is.

You are stating a fact, a fact which I do not disagree with. But you are interpreting that fact to mean something it doesn't.

Nature emits far more co2 than man does. But nature absorbs as much co2 as it emits. So the factor causing co2 levels to rise year on year in the atmosphere is not nature at all.

You are getting closer to what I was getting at.Most people would have got it long ago however since I only talked about Emissions.

Come on are you that dense?

I talked about EMISSIONS.

I agree that Nature absorbs just about what it emits.But that was never what I was talking about.I will not dispute you over it

"The Ocean is adding 70.6 into the atmosphere.Far more than Man addition of a measely 5.9 into the atmosphere."

"Hey at least you noticed that 55.5 of CO2 from plants and soil is emitted into the atmosphere! That is more than mans tiny contribution of 5.9"

Nature 126.1 to

Mankind 5.9

That is the emission story.

That was all I was talking about.

Do you finally understand?

Shoggoth:

Nature emits far more co2 than man does. But nature absorbs as much co2 as it emits. So the factor causing co2 levels to rise year on year in the atmosphere is not nature at all.

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

[sunsettommy]

By the way mankinds small 5.9 yearly contribution is nearly 50% absorbed as according to the IPCC.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

The IPCC report you linked to says mankind's yearly contribution is 7.1

The 2001 IPCC report also says:

Several additional lines of evidence confirm that the recent and continuing increase of atmospheric CO2 content is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions – most importantly fossil fuel burning

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#fig31

And mentions the 50% absorbed:

Atmospheric CO2 is, however, increasing only at about half the rate of fossil fuel emissions; the rest of the CO2 emitted either dissolves in sea water and mixes into the deep ocean, or is taken up by terrestrial ecosystems

And:

the global balance in terrestrial systems is currently a net uptake of CO2.

Ie the oceans and land are a net absorber of co2, not a net emitter.

But human activity is a net emitter as shown in data from this table - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm#tab31

Contribution to atmospheric carbon during the 90s:

Atmosphere increase = 3.2 ± 0.1

Emissons (fossil fuel, cement) = 6.3 ± 0.4

Ocean-atmosphere flux = -1.7 ± 0.5

Land atmsphere flux= -1.4±0.7

If you regard a 5.9 contribution as small, how small is the oceans contribution of minus 1.7 and the land's contribution of minus 1.4 compared to man's contribution of 6.3?

And carbon is only increasing by 3.2 tons in the atmosphere, that's less than the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere each year (which is why it is known that half is being absorbed and that nature is a net sink, not a net emitter)

Nice work.

But where did I dispute mankinds CO2 contribution?

[shoggoth]

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

[jbg]

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

With the PDO and NAO cycles, as well as the more well known ENSO cycles continuing, you'd never know the difference, either weatherwise or otherwise.

[sunsettommy]

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

A good question but a conclusive answer is evidently not coming from you.

[jbg]

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

A good question but a conclusive answer is evidently not coming from you.

Or to any other question on this subject from that poster.

[B. Max]

Why do you still persist in insisting there is a cooling trend since 1998?

Because of this. Which clearly shows a slight cooling. Does it not?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.htm

[shoggoth]

That is the presumed story.But not 100% conclusive since CO2 coming from fossil fuels are the same as coming from the soil.

But if we stopped emitting 27 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere per year, how could co2 levels continue to rise about 15 billion tons per year? It's pretty much 100% conclusive

A good question but a conclusive answer is evidently not coming from you.

The evidence for the recent co2 rise being entirely anthropogenic is summed up well in this document:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year

1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and

290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level

observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice

cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from

peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,

but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [schimel 94,

p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history

from fossil fuels and land use changes [schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.

Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils

must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,

p 454] [schimel 94, p 47, 55] [schimel 95, p 79] [siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements

in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind

by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.

The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according

to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [schimel 94, p 43]

[siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon

13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in

the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends

fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible

with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the

ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly

1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life

of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere

by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [butcher,

p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.

Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the

`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,

dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb

tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [butcher, p 256-257]

[schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2

source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,

almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain

less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors

of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in

photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)

[butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and

ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [butcher, p 257]

[C.Keeling] [Quay] [schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2

source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic

carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is

heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the

ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [butcher,

p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause

a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

[shoggoth]

Why do you still persist in insisting there is a cooling trend since 1998?

Because of this. Which clearly shows a slight cooling. Does it not?

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCanomLand.htm

There's actually a slight upward trend since 1998 in that graph. This can be seen by looking at the troughs as well as the peaks and also seeing how the midline is rising. If you add each years monthly temps up in that dataset then 2002 and 2005 are warmer than 1998:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

[B. Max]

There's actually a slight upward trend since 1998 in that graph. This can be seen by looking at the troughs as well as the peaks and also seeing how the midline is rising. If you add each years monthly temps up in that dataset then 2002 and 2005 are warmer than 1998:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

There is no upward trend in that graph, unless you are up side down. We are looking for the averages here. For the most part it is flat, but even Tim Ball agrees there is a slight cooling.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...14/2351620.html

[shoggoth]

There is no upward trend in that graph, unless you are up side down. We are looking for the averages here. For the most part it is flat, but even Tim Ball agrees there is a slight cooling.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Cor...14/2351620.html

Tim Ball is wrong then. There is a definite warming trend in that data for the years 1998 through 2005/2006

The yearly averages for the data the graph uses are here:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

1998 0.8314

1999 0.6847

2000 0.5155

2001 0.7472

2002 0.8497

2003 0.7711

2004 0.7296

2005 0.9887

A line of best fit (calculated from here http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/math/lls/leastsq.html) shows this data represents a 0.025C/yr warming trend. Including 2006 so far, which is looking similar to 2004 lowers it to about 0.02C/yr. That's equivalent to a 0.2C/decade warming.

You can also see the increasing trend when the data is plotted crudely:

1998 ***************************************************************

1999 ************************************************

2000 *******************************

2001 ******************************************************

2002 ****************************************************************

2003 ********************************************************

2004 ****************************************************

2005 *****************************************************************************