8 thoughts on “Study: Human CO2 contribution to atmosphere only 4%, and only 15% since pre-industrial era”

  1. Rud,
    Although carbon’s different isotopes are often thought of as chemically identical, they differ in their chemical kinetics. Would it not follow that C-14 would be more slowly absorbed, increasing residence times?

  2. Go Rud. The residence time used is from the IPCC’s own estimates of removal. Next time try reading the paper. Although this one is probably outside your league.

    And, no, residence time is not what’s indicated by the bomb curve. Decline in the bomb curve is slowed by carbon that was removed from the atmosphere but then partially re-emitted back into the atmosphere. The residence time is determined only by the rate at which carbon is removed. Even if residence time was as long as decline in the bomb curve, it would not change the implications.

  3. Rud, could it not be that the particles of said bomb tests affected said CO2 half-life? I wouldn’t go so far to say ‘completely contradicts’. Theoretical it may be, it is still worth something.

  4. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you can compound our contribution unless you’re going to compound everything else, too.

  5. “Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions”

    This being the first sentence sounds very political. But anyway.

    Percentages can easily be misconstrued, thats just my immediate take. Has anybody actually read it.

  6. Re: New report from Air Pollution Liars: Yet another reason why this out-of-control bureaucracy must be disbanded. The damage they have done for the last 40 plus years, with the disastrous results of their insane over-reaching policies will take many years to fix. If there is an environmental crisis, it sure isn’t climate change, it is most definitely the urgency to disband and reverse EPA policies.
    It’s very disturbing to note that, while we decry and fight ISIS and other terrorists, we are subjected to domestic terrorism from the EPA on an everyday basis.

  7. The new paper is wrong. Detectable from the abstract alone. Asserts average residence time is 4 years. The bomb spike experiments in the 1950s conclusively established that the average residence time (notenthismis not the ~35-50 concentration efold time for net sinking) is 11 years. That experiment flat contradicts the papers theortical calculation. More provably bad Salbyism.

  8. This completely flies in the face of “accepted, settled” statements that mankind is primarily responsible for recent CO2 increases, and that CO2 “dwell time” is long term (hundreds, or even thousands, of years).

    Unfortunately, the study will be swimming against the tide of scientific opinion funded by the above mentioned assumptions. Hopefully it survives the onslaught of criticism and critiques it is guaranteed to generate. I would hope it is not just “dismissed out of hand,” because it does raise important issues about what mankind’s contribution to the CO2 level actually is, how that is determined, and whether radical changes in CO2 output can affect the temperature meaningfully.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.