Proof that anthropogenic CO2 is not accumulating
by Alan Siddons
Anthropogenic CO2
By current estimates, man is pumping about 4 ppm of CO2 into the air every year. But the atmospheric level is rising only 2 ppm every year. Theory has it, then, that half of human emissions are presently getting absorbed by so-called carbon sinks, thereby cutting the net emission in half every year.
Yet if half of human emissions stay in the air and the other half goes elsewhere, this proves that anthropogenic CO2 is not accumulating — the reason being that absorption is an ongoing process. A 50% reduction factor cannot be applicable only once. The next year would naturally see a further reduction. And so forth.
Article continues below this advert:
Simplify the problem to grasp this idea. Assume that from 2000 to 2008 man has been emitting a steady 4 ppm annually, half of which stays in the air. The theory says, therefore, that within this timeframe the atmospheric level will go up a total of 18 ppm, which is consistent with the observed rate of increase. But every year’s emissions must KEEP getting absorbed as time passes. Nothing else makes sense.
A linear reduction rate would be very rapid, erasing a year’s emissions in two years. A logarithmic rate would be more gradual, and it would look like the above chart. That is, 2 ppm in the year 2000 would be reduced to 1 ppm the next year, and so on, gradually diminishing every year. That is, 2 ppm in the year 2000 would be reduced to 1 ppm the next year, and so on, gradually diminishing every year.
Such a continuous annual reduction will have surprising long-term consequences, as the above chart shows.
The level observed in 2008 would be the total of all the previous amounts that remain (in blue). Thus with a yearly emission of 4 ppm from 2000 to 2008 and a 50% reduction rate, the atmosphere would increase by only 4 ppm, not 18. In other words, the accumulation-reduction model is actually self-contradictory. Yes, by imagining a 50% reduction
for a single year, the conjecture matches the observed trend: CO2 is seen to rise by 2 ppm annually. But since previous years would necessarily suffer further absorption losses, the result
after 8 years would be just a 4 ppm increase — meaning that the yearly observed rate would
have to have been around 0.09 ppm per year, not 2 ppm per year!
Year .09increase
2000 .0887
2001 .1774
2002 .2661
2003 .3548
2004 .4435
2005 .5322
2006 .6209
2007 .7096
2008 .7983
Total 3.99
Notice that you can fiddle with the parameters to get the total
accumulation correct, but only by drastically reducing the human estimate
plus getting the annually observed increase wrong.
Yearly Emission 2.57
Unabsorbed 95%
Year
2000 2.44
2001 2.32
2002 2.20
2003 2.09
2004 1.99
2005 1.89
2006 1.79
2007 1.70
2008 1.62
Total 18.05
This model is flawed and it can’t be repaired. Proposing a one-time absorption by carbon sinks is absurd. There are
several parameters involved in an accumulation/reduction model, parameters that not only have to agree with each other but also agree with reality.
Conclusion: Human emissions cannot explain the rising CO2 trend.
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
It also makes no reference to the scientific literature on this subject and comes purely out of the mind of the author. It is purely arbitrary.
Many attempts have been made to measure, model and predict the absorption of CO2. Here are two articles on the results of the scientific research by different workers.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/02_carbon.shtml
http://www.ccas.ru/tarko/co2_e.htm#1
Here is an article which discusses the various processes in detail and provides a 6 year old perspective on how the added industrial CO2 will be absorbed by the environment in the future.
Different models vary in their projections:
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_55/iss_8/30_1.shtml
All this shows is that the algorithm proposed by Siddons is probably not the one operating in nature. It does not show that human emissions added to the natural sources are not responsible for the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What this idea shows is the silly illogical lengths to which so called "sceptics" to argue their case. Any silly argument is triumphantly put forward as proof, no matter how foolish and illogical, and with no reference to the actual scientific work done on the subject.
This blog would be improved if such arrant nonsense were filtered out, to admit only sensible arguments against AGW.
Comment edited by eadler2 on Saturday August 30, 2008 at 4:57 PM BST