Annual atmospheric CO2 rate of change

[glenncz]

Here is something that bother me. I created this graph
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/11/2474018/co2_rate_of_change.png
from here, the data on the right column.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
I have never accepted the Carbon Cycle model, because it is based on way too theory.
http://www.nofreewind.com/2009/06/man-made-and-natural-co2-in-atmosphere.html
from here
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... e-7-3.html
the key part of this graphic is the caption which states "uncertainties are plus/minus 20%", that 20% means the entire chart is speculation and this chart is at the heart of the AGW "theory".
And because mans contribution is such a small amount of the yearly atmospheric CO2. And I think I remember Roy Spencer having a blog post that the carbon dating to separate the man made fraction was not trustworthy.
But when you look at my graph, if the Carbon Cycle, ala IPCC, is correct, then the rate of change should be quite steady year after year. But if the ocean's influence, like the warming ocean should bubble out CO2, and there are so many gradients, (I think Mike Davis explained it better in Q's forum) then it is simply immeasurable, too variable.
And the trendline I created is 3 years, so since 2003 the 3 year trendline has been down, all the while the Chinese are building more coal plants, of course the recession is decreasing emissions to some degree to counteract the new coal plants. Right now the ave 3 yr rate of change is actually back to 1997, 14 years ago, certainly there is more man-made CO2 than 14 year ago, right! Or are the windmills working?

[Stephen Wilde]

Some interesting carbon cycle stuff can be found here:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02 ... pond-scum/

[glenncz]

Roy Spencer has the same questions I do with a better answer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

[universal_soul]

Hi,

I have a simple question.
I just looked at co2 emissions chart (it was difficult to find one with human emitted in million metric tons)
for 1980-2006 + I added roughly 30mln tons per year from 2006-2009. What comes out is 700 mln metric tons. My problem is that I only found information aboutthe global (humn + nature) increase from 1750 to 2009 - from 590 to about 800 billion metric tons.
What I'd really love to find is data from 1980 to 2009 (or at least close) for global increase. I have no idea why it's so hard to find the data?
I have to compare some 'from 1750 to 2000' metric to 1980 to 2006, whilst it would be much clearer to have data for the same periods of time.
I found some diagram here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
and here:
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/gra ... 0-2000.jpg

but they're all obsessed with writing about 'human caused' co2 completely neglecting the natural one.
My feeling, that everything - from both sides - is being blurred and complicated on purpose grows stronger.

[universal_soul]

Well, this starts too look like a conspiracy.
I looked into EPA site:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissi ... tural.html

when you get on the site you can go to "natural emissions", only to get this:

* Educational Carbon Cycle Animation for Kids
* Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry Science page
* NASA Earth Observatory Carbon Cycle Tutorial
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report: The Scientific Basis Exit EPA Disclaimer
* National Research Council. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions Exit EPA Disclaimer

with stupid tutorials.
When I go to "global emissions" I get the same crap.
+ deeper in the site I get a breakdown of only 'human made' co2.

[Mike Davis]

U S:
You are chasing the illusion placed before you to misdirect your attention. It is about like finding the Butterflies in west Africa that flap their wings to create Hurricanes in the Atlantic. With increased biosphere activity allowed by a warming climate which in turn allows increased human population if all goes hand in hand the human contribution to the annual carbon cycle is between 4 and 8 % of the carbon source which would mean between 2 and 4 % of the annual increase of the atmospheric CO2 is human generated.
That leaves the search for CO2 equal to tilting with Windmills. However it does provide nice funding grants for research. The United States EPA along with the Department of Energy were make work programs to keep more people off of welfare rather than to produce any tangible results. Our government is built on the premise of spending other people's money to enhance your political career and personal worth. We have people that have been life time politicians that started out with lower 6 figure worth and are in the 7 or 8 figure position now. I had an uncle who claimed one could become the local sheriff and walk away at the end of the term honest or wealthy. The honest one would receive less accolades than the wealthy one because the wealthy one can line other people's pockets.
A US government agency would be the last place to look for anything that resembles truth.

[universal_soul]

Mike,
But I think it's possible to prove them wrong usuing their own data.
I just found something guy named Siddons done and it appeals to me. Using only their data he stacked up the co2 human made to
the natural production and made diagrams of it. It clearly shows that if there wasn't for some mechanism of getting rid of it by atmosphere,
it would be much more of it (assuming co2 is stagnating in the atmosphere for 150 years, which is questionable itself). From philosophy in high
school I know that the most conclusive method to chop down a theory is to prove it's internal contraditions.
If that's the true:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/f ... php?aid=57
then we need nothing more.
Plus if this is true: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2_study.pdf and lifetime of co2 is only 5-7 years, than they can roll the paper they made
their models on and stick in their boots.
The problem of Siddons's document is that he's not giving full data he based his calculations on. If I'd cite him in full, alarma will claim he's not legitimate, so
I'd rather have their official statistics. I'll look into IPCC website today - maybe it's their.
I know I'm repetitive, but the best way is to keep it simple and fairly understandable, otherwise it's just a nice intelectual excercise leading to pretty much
nowhere.

[Mike Davis]

US:
Yes I have read some of what Alan Siddons has written. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably even less than what he claims but after the Atomic Bomb tests they were able to test radioactive carbon in the atmosphere for 5 to 7 years with signatures of the different bombs. But if the whole life is 5 to 7 then the half life would be considerably less and even as short as less than a year. There is a reason it is called the Carbon CYCLE and there is no way at this time to stop it. But to stop the carbon cycle would destroy all life on earth. See how simple it is! . We are considered a carbon based life form because carbon is the second most prominent element in our bodies after water. If the body of any life form is burned, such as a tree, the primary residue is carbon and carbon dioxide, or some form of carbon is released during the burning process along with other minor gasses and water vapor.

Increased warmth allows increased biotic activity which has a side effect of increased CO2 / carbon in the biosphere (More carbon in the carbon cycle). That promotes more growth and increases the carbon. With cooling comes reduced biosphere activity which leads to a reduction in the CO2 / carbon in the biosphere / carbon cycle. I do not trust the 800 to 100 thousand year smoothing of the CO2 in the ice cores as it removes the desired signal, or rather the required signal to be able to determine less that multi centennial changes. Keep that last in mind when thinking about comparing 50 years of change to 600 or one thousand years of change. The current recrods are to short to make a comparison.
Here is some reading material for you:
http://theresilientearth.com/
Search that site as there is a bunch of information and even a book regarding earth's ability to cope with what we throw at it based on historic records.