Study Finds Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Lead To Only Max. 500-800 PPM CO2 Atmospheric Concentration

Another new study dampens climate alarm even more: “Summary of “Simple model for the anthropogenically forced CO2 cycle tested on measured quantities“.

A new paper by Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and Carl Otto Weiss appearing in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International has found: “the increase of atmospheric CO2 will gradually come to an end” and that the “the ocean as well as the biosphere will be the primary sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind“.

Try as hard as mankind may, but according to the results of this paper we may in fact never even succeed in doubling the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration.

The authors found that a maximum of 500-800 ppm will be reached. Today we are at just over 400 ppm. What follows is the abstract:

The carbon dioxide information analysis center (CDIAC) provides a remarkable 163 years of data on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, man-made CO2 emissions, and from 1959 onwards CO2 net-fluxes into oceans and biosphere. Currently, half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere. Predominantly the ocean and the biosphere absorb the second half in about equal parts. We describe the anthropogenically forced CO2 dynamics by a linear model of only two parameters which represent physics and biological laws. Our model reproduces the CDIAC measurements perfectly, and allows thus predictions for the future. It does not deal with the equilibrium exchanges of CO2 between atmosphere, oceans and biosphere, but treats merely the net-fluxes resulting from the perturbation of the equilibrium by the anthropogenic emissions. Details as yielded by tracer measurements or ocean chemistry are not required. We applied the model for a tentative projection of the future CO2 cycle based on prospective anthropogenic emission scenarios from the literature. As a result, the increase of atmospheric CO2 will gradually come to an end and the ocean as well as the biosphere will be the primary sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind.

The authors devised a model that describes the net flows of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere.

Integration yields the CO2 amounts taken up by these sinks. Since the CO2 content of the oceans is more than 40 times larger than that of the atmosphere, the flow into the oceans can be described by the linear mass action law. This flow is proportional to the difference of partial CO2 pressures in oceans and atmosphere with a proportionality factor. While the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere changes, the CO2 partial pressure of the ocean remains practically constant.

The CO2 flow from atmosphere to biosphere can equally be described linearly. It is assumed to be proportional to the CO2 flow into the atmosphere. This assumption is plausible since increased concentration of CO2 results in linearly increased plant growth.

As the authors state in the abstract, their model reproduces the CDIAC measurements perfectly, and thus allows predictions for the future. The authors summarize that assuming the strongest human emission scenario of burning all global carbon resources the main result concerning the future CO2 content of the atmosphere is that it cannot exceed about 800 ppm.

They conclude:

With regard to the actual discussion about an assumed dangerous climate change by anthropogenic CO2 emissions in future, our most important model result yields the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emission scenarios given in [20] until the year 2100 AD (completed by own tentative continuations from 2100 to 2150AD). For all scenarios, between 2080 to 2140 AD atmospheric CO2 concentrations up to at most 500 until 800 ppm occur. These future turning points of the atmospheric CO2 content take place 30 years after the pertinent emissions maxima. The maximum of 800 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration seems to be safe because the pertinent emission scenario assumes burning a twofold of the actual known coal reserves worldwide. After the apogee of atmospheric CO2 concentration predominantly the ocean and the biosphere will be the sinks of future CO2 emissions of mankind.

 

96 responses to “Study Finds Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Lead To Only Max. 500-800 PPM CO2 Atmospheric Concentration”

  1. tom0mason

    “Readers interested in the full summary of the paper by the authors can get a copy by contacting this site.”
    Maybe I’m misread something but does that mean this notrickszone site, or is there a link missing?

    1. tom0mason

      Oops, I rescind the question I’ve found it at the top of the page.

    2. Kenneth Richard

      According to a 2012 paper by James Hansen, CO2 levels will reach 1,400 ppm in 2130 (118 years from 2012) due to humans burning a cumulative 10,000 GtC worth of fossil fuels. (Our emissions are currently about 9 GtC/year, which means we only currently emit a cumulative 1,000 GtC every 110 years, but apparently I’m missing something.)

      1,400 ppm will warm up land surfaces by 20 degrees C and make the Earth uninhabitable…according to Hansen.

      Why is junk science like this even published?

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.short
      If we assume that fossil fuel emissions increase by 3% per year, typical of the past decade and of the entire period since 1950, cumulative fossil fuel emissions will reach 10 000 Gt C in 118 years. Are there sufficient fossil fuel reserves to yield 5000–10 000 Gt C? Recent updates of potential reserves, including unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands, tar shale and hydrofracking-derived shale gas) in addition to conventional oil, gas and coal, suggest that 5×CO2 (1400 ppm) is indeed feasible.

      Our calculated global warming in this case [1400 ppm] is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer. More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.

      1. SebastianH

        but apparently I’m missing something

        Math?! Never heard of compound interest?

        An increase of 3% per year in emissions means a doubling every 23.45 years. Or integrated from a starting point of 9 GtC over 118 years to 9810 GtC of total carbon emissions (with an emission amount of 294,5 GtC in the final year).

        However, I don’t think CO2 output on this planet will peak this late. The authors of the paper in the post above are most likely right on point with their chosen scenarios if there is no tipping point where oceans would stop being a net sink.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “Math?! Never heard of compound interest? An increase of 3% per year in emissions means a doubling every 23.45 years.”

          But the increase in emissions has not doubled every 23.45 years. Nor has it increased by 3% per year. CO2 GtC has been hovering around 9 since 2010. And yet the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by almost 20 ppm during this time (385 in 2010). So the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, but human CO2 emissions are not. What’s causing the lag?

          1. SebastianH

            3% might be a bit on the high side. I’ve gone with 2% for this spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SbamVjz4Popxn32C1R0Ji2EgbzRIEKzZ3FLBRgzHAw0/edit?usp=sharing

            That’s a doubling every 35 years which seems to reflect the last decades of the 20th century a little better:
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CO2-Emissions-GtC-1900-2016-Glacier-Melt-Contradiction-300×212.jpg

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Human GtC emission has been hovering around 9 since 2010. And yet the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by almost 20 ppm during this time (385 in 2010). So the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, but human CO2 emissions are not. What’s causing the lag?

          3. AndyG55

            Bank pays compound interest.. then takes it all back.. and often more, in fees.

            You pointless analogy is, as always.. totally meaningless, seb.

  2. Scooter

    What will 800 ppm atmospheric CO2 do to ocean chemistry and what will be the impact?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      You do realize that the IPCC claims that the oceans release about 900% more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans do via fossil fuel burning, right?

      1. SebastianH

        The ocean is a net sink as the model used in the linked paper clearly shows. This means it absorbs more CO2 than it releases.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “The ocean is a net sink as the model used in the linked paper clearly shows.”

          Ah yes, the model. Models of oceanic CO2 outgassing are quite accurate, right, SebastianH?

          Since models also say that oceans release more of their vast stores of CO2 when they warm, and they retain more of their vast stores of CO2 when they cool (or don’t warm), if oceans are a net sink for CO2, does that mean that the models say they should be cooling? Why is it that CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm during glacials and 300 ppm during interglacials if oceans are a net sink for CO2? Wouldn’t they continue to be a net sink during interglacials too, never allowing the 180 ppm concentrations to rise? If not, is one of the reasons why CO2 levels rose from glacials to interglacials because the oceans outgassed more of their CO2 as they warmed? If so, at what point did those cause-effect processes stop working such that today oceans are still a net sink as they warm?

          According to Science, the ocean (0-700 m) temperature plummeted by -0.9 C between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. CO2 concentrations rose during this time. So answer these two questions: (a) What mechanism or mechanisms caused the ocean temperatures to drop so dramatically during that time period when CO2 concentrations were rising? (b) Whatever that mechanism was that you identify for answer (a), what has happened to that mechanism in the modern era? Has it ceased factoring into the CO2 warming vs. cooling equation?

          Of course, I fully expect you to dodge each of these questions, make up statements and thoughts I didn’t write and dishonestly claim I wrote them, call me names and insult me, and/or concoct another of your patented analogies.

          Welcome back. You lasted what, 4 days?

          1. SebastianH

            Why is it that CO2 concentrations were 180 ppm during glacials and 300 ppm during interglacials if oceans are a net sink for CO2?

            It’s temperature dependent (7.5 ppm per °C above/below the anomaly centered on 1850 degrees, according to the paper linked in the post).

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “It’s temperature dependent (7.5 ppm per °C above/below the anomaly centered on 1850 degrees, according to the paper linked in the post).”

            So you apparently agree that oceans are a net source of CO2 when ocean waters warm. So why do you believe the oceans are now a net sink for CO2? Are they not warming?

            And if it’s 7.5 ppm per degree C, why have we had only 0.1°C of warming since 1998 (satellites)? CO2 concentrations have risen by 45 ppm since that time. So the temperature increase should be 6°C. The modeled formula hasn’t been working. Why?

          3. SebastianH

            I suggest you read up on the law of mass action to understand what the model is based on.

            a) why is that important for the ocean to be a net sink?
            b) the same mechanisms continue to influence the climate, but one thing changed, didn’t it? We artificially increased the CO2 concentration.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            “why is that important for the ocean to be a net sink?”

            The models need to say that the oceans are a net sink so that the narrative that says CO2 concentration changes are almost exclusively human-caused can continue to be promulgated.

            The modeled outcome was pre-determined.

          5. SebastianH

            That makes no sense at all. We know how much CO2 is emitted by humans and is more than the increase in the atmosphere. Let’s say the ocean is a source and not a sink of additional CO2 … what is that giant sink that sinks both human and oceanic CO2 then?

          6. Kenneth Richard

            “We know how much CO2 is emitted by humans and is more than the increase in the atmosphere.”

            While the extent to which we “know” how much we emit is debatable, we do not not how much nature emits from year to year. Yet it’s widely accepted that nature emits about 50-100 times more CO2 than humans do. And that means that natural emission is “more than the increase in the atmosphere” too…and more than the increase in human emission.

            Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.”


            Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate textbook

          7. SebastianH

            Kenneth, please explain how you think this might work. Let’s say natural emissions are currently overshadowing human emissions. Of the 3 ppm increase each year 2.5 ppm would be caused by nature, ok? So nature would be the dominant source of that additional CO2, like you imagine it to be.

            So now we have the human emissions on the other side which would add 5 ppm to the concentration. But in our scenario above only 0.5 ppm would actually stay in the atmosphere, so 4.5 ppm would be sinked by nature. Ok, so far?

            Here is what I don’t get: if we would stop emitting tomorrow then 5 ppm less CO2 would enter the atmosphere. Since the previous increase was 3 ppm … wouldn’t that mean that the new change would be a decrease by 2 ppm in the following year? Or would nature detect that human emissions are gone now and suddenly reduce its sinking capability?

            So how is it that the human emission are then not a 100% responsible for the increase? It’s simple math, isn’t it?

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “Of the 3 ppm increase each year 2.5 ppm would be caused by nature”

            “human emissions on the other side which would add 5 ppm to the concentration.”

            I don’t assume that human emissions “would add 5 ppm to the concentration” and nature would add 2.5 ppm to the concentration. This is your assumption. You necessarily maintain the belief that natural sources and sinks move neatly in tandem and without imbalance on their own, and thus, without human interference, CO2 concentrations would not change.

            Considering natural emissions are anywhere from 30 to 100 times greater than human emissions, any small imbalance in the natural sink vs. natural source could override the tiny anthropogenic emission. Of course, you dismiss this as even a possibility.

            To play along with your “explanation” above, I would have to accept that your assumptions and beliefs about anthropogenic vs. natural emissions are accurate. I do not.

          9. AndyG55

            “I would have to accept that your assumptions and beliefs about anthropogenic vs. natural emissions are accurate.”

            And as we have seen, seb’s “ASSumptions” have generally been a load of unsupportable garbage.

            CO2 warming oceans.. UNSUPPORTABLE GARBAGE

            CO2 warming convective atmosphere.. UNSUPPORTABLE GARBAGE.

            Poor guy is STILL batting zero. !!

          10. SebastianH

            Kenneth, we know how much CO2 humans emit and we know how much CO2 equals a 1 ppm increase. Humans do add around 5 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 content and since the concentration does increase by less than that nature sinks part of this. Is that so hard to accept?

            I do not dismiss natures fluctuations. Here is a graph of natures monthly/yearly fluctuations:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:12/detrend:0.15

            I don’t understand how you could possible derive anything different from the data? Unless you believe in some magic mechanism that only sinks human CO2.

          11. Kenneth Richard

            Once again you are assuming that the massive increase in natural CO2 emissions (inherent in the increase in atmospheric CO2) in recent decades has been neatly and equally counterbalanced by a massive increase in natural sinks of the very same size and magnitude as the change in natural emission such that an imbalance does not occur without human interference.

            First, the formula:
            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3-1-3.html
            Determined from atmospheric CO2 measurements (Keeling and Whorf, 2005, updated by S. Piper until 2006) at Mauna Loa (19°N) and South Pole (90°S) stations, consistent with the data shown in Figure 7.4, using a conversion factor of 2.12 GtC yr–1 = 1 ppm.

            “Humans do add around 5 ppm to the atmospheric CO2 content.”

            Considering the IPCC has a ratio of 95.7% (natural) to 4.3% (human) yearly emissions, for every 5 ppm humans emit per year (10.6 GtC), nature adds 115 ppm (243.8 GtC). (Actually, the IPCC has the human emission at 8.9 GtC for 2013, which is 4.2 ppm, which would make the natural emission 97 ppm, or 206 GtC — very close to what the IPCC has shown in AR5).

            The 115 ppm (243.8 GtC) that nature adds per year (versus the 5 ppm or 10.6 GtC humans add per year) has necessarily not remained the same over the course of decades. Both the yearly human emissions rate and the natural emissions rate have grown — not just the human emission rate.

            According to the IPCC, humans emitted 4.3 GtC per year in 1970, and 8.9 per year in 2013, a net change of 4.6 GtC.

            Again using the conversion factor 2.12 Gt C = 1ppmv CO2 and the Mauna Loa CO2 ppm values for 1970 and 2013, we learn that the change, or increase, in all CO2 carbon for 1970 to 2013 was 150.1 GtC (396.48 ppm [2013] – 325.68 ppm [1970] = 70.8 ppm x 2.12 GtC = 150.1 GtC)

            -150.1 GtC – total CO2 carbon increase from 1970 to 2013
            -4.6 GtC – anthropogenic CO2 carbon increase from 1970 (4.3 GtC) to 2013 (8.9)

            Now, for your scenarios to be true, one must necessarily believe that there was never a time in which the natural sinks for CO2 were unable to keep up with the massive natural CO2 emissions increases such that, each and every month of each and every year, an A-sized sink opened up its absorption function in equal measure with the A-sized emission. Do we have direct observational evidence that a colossal number of new natural sinks have opened up all across the planet since 1950? No, of course we don’t. It’s only ASSUMED that natural sinks just happen to balance out the vast natural emissions increases.

          12. SebastianH

            Oh dear Kenneth, please stop trying to use math to persuade other people …

            150.1 GtC from 1970 to 2013 is an absolute value. The 4.6 GtC (1970) and 8.9 GtC (2013) values are yearly emission rates. Take the average (6.75 GtC) and multiply by the number of years (43) and you get a total amount of 290.25 GtC emitted by humans in that period vs. an increase of 150.1 GtC …

            That’s the math I am talking about and you somehow manage to twist and ignore. We emit far more carbon than the increase, therefor we are responsible for the increase. Should be simple enough to crasp …

          13. Kenneth Richard

            “150.1 GtC from 1970 to 2013 is an absolute value. The 4.6 GtC (1970) and 8.9 GtC (2013) values are yearly emission rates.”

            You’ve missed it (intentionally?) yet again. You continue to pretend that the natural emissions don’t matter and/or don’t increase proportionally (96:4) with the human emission.

            If humans emitted 290.25 GtC between 1970 and 2013, then nature emitted 6,501.6 GtC between 1970 and 2013. That’s a discrepancy of 6,211.4 GtC that you are, once again, pretending isn’t there, or presuming that natural sinks neatly and proportionately absorbed, leaving only the human emission that wasn’t absorbed.

            Again, if humans contribute 4.2 ppm per year, nature contributes 97 ppm per year. If nature added 6,211.4 GtC that needed to be absorbed by the Earth system between 1970 and 2013, and humans only added 290.25 GtC, which amount is less likely to lead to imbalances? Which amount is more likely to lead to imbalances? For some reason (well, I know the reason), you wish to pretend that the 6,211.4 GtC necessarily added by nature between 1970 and 2013 didn’t happen, and only the 290.25 GtC added by humans counts. Do you realize you’re doing this, or is this just another dishonest tactic on your part?

          14. Kenneth Richard

            “We emit far more carbon than the increase, therefor we are responsible for the increase.”

            So using your version of “math”, SebastianH….

            It is acknowledged by the IPCC that for every 1 ppm of CO2 emitted by humans there is 22.25 ppm emitted by nature (95.7 : 4.3). So if humans emit 4.5 ppm (~9.5 GtC) per year (like they have for about the last 6 years straight), nature emits about 100 ppm (212 GtC) per year. And using your calculations and logic, then, since 100 ppm is greater than both the Mauna Loa increase (3 ppm) and the contribution from humans (4.5 ppm), therefore the increase is mostly natural. It’s magical thinking to assume (as you obviously do) that only the 100 ppm of natural emission is matched perfectly by sinks, but the 4.5 ppm is not. That’s because you wish to pretend that the natural increase (100 ppm) doesn’t exist,or is hypothetically about 2.5 ppm instead.

            Your version of math involves conveniently disappearing values.

          15. SebastianH

            This is insane Kenneth, you really can’t see the flaw in your perception of this problem, can you?

            Do you really think that natural fluctuations are the main reason for the increase in CO2 concentration?

            What do you think would happen if humanity suddenly stopped to emit CO2 into the atmosphere? 4.2 ppm would be missing, correct? Do you think natural sink can differentiate between human and natural CO2? Would those sinks suddenly stop absorbing CO2 when humans stop producing CO2? Would nature step in an suddenly increase it’s emissions by the missing 4.2 ppm? I don’t get how you imagine this to work?

            Analogy time one last time and then I am out of this topic:

            A gives you 97 coins, B gives you 4 coins. A takes away 99 coins and you have 2 coins left. How many coins would you have if B had not given you 4 coins?

          16. Kenneth Richard

            “you really can’t see the flaw in your perception of this problem, can you?”

            SebastianH, the flaw in perception(or logic) is the one that YOU have in claiming that the “5 ppm” increase in human emissions per year is more than the (3 ppm) atmospheric increase, so therefore the increase is due to human emission…while at the same time ignoring that the “5 ppm” increase in human emissions per year is necessarily concurrent with a 112 ppm increase in natural emission per year. And then you illogically claim that THAT 112 ppm increase — and that 112 ppm increase alone — is 100% absorbed by fluctuations in natural sinks, but the 5 ppm increase from anthropogenic emissions is magically NOT absorbed by natural sinks. Nature can absorb increases of 112 ppm per year, but not another 5 ppm?

            And then, to top it off, you wish to pretend that 112 ppm of natural emissions is “hypothetically” only 2.5 ppm because you were just trying to illustrate a mathematical point, and you actually were not trying to dramatically shrink the natural emission rate to fit your biases? Everyone knows why you really chose to use 2.5 ppm instead of 112 ppm, SebastianH. Your dishonest “explanation” is unsupportable.

            Simply put, your stated logic is this (direct quote): “We emit far more carbon than the increase, therefor we are responsible for the increase.” But natural carbon emission is far, far, far greater than the anthropogenic emission, but yet you don’t say that “therefore, nature is responsible for the increase.” Instead, you just pretend that the natural emission doesn’t exist. It disappears. Or it conveniently morphs from 112 ppm into 2.5 ppm. And after all this circuitous “logic”, you have the audacity to claim that what I have pointed out to you about natural emissions is “insane” — even though I am quoting the IPCC’s own values and ratios!

            Sigh. The carbon cycle is not a set of coins. Or balls behind walls. Or a bank statement. Your analogies are completely and laughably gratuitous. How many times do you need to be told that they don’t work and we find them annoying and asinine?

          17. AndyG55

            “asinine” adjective

            extremely stupid or foolish

            synonyms: stupid, foolish, pointless, brainless, mindless, senseless, doltish, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, insane, lunatic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, childish, infantile, puerile, immature, juvenile, inane, witless, half-baked, empty-headed, unintelligent, half-witted, slow-witted, weak-minded;

            That about sums up seb’s contributions !!

          18. SebastianH

            And I quote myself here too:

            Let’s say natural emissions are currently overshadowing human emissions. Of the 3 ppm increase each year 2.5 ppm would be caused by nature, ok?

            I don’t understand how can you read what you wrote above into this.

            Nature does not differentiate between human CO2 and natural CO2. Of course you could say that all CO2 that remains in the atmosphere is natural and human CO2 gets completely absorbed. That does not change that without human CO2 emissions the total emissions would be lower than the total absorption. Math.

            And IPCC’s ratios and numbers aren’t wrong … never wrote something like that.

          19. Kenneth Richard

            “Nature does not differentiate between human CO2 and natural CO2.”

            Exactly. And if humans emitted 290.25 GtC between 1970 and 2013, then nature emitted 6,501.6 GtC between 1970 and 2013. That’s a discrepancy of 6,211.4 GtC that you are, once again, pretending isn’t there, or presuming that natural sinks neatly and proportionately absorbed, leaving only the human emission that wasn’t absorbed…allowing you to claim that 100% of CO2 increases are human-caused.

          20. SebastianH

            I repeat … I am not saying that every CO2 molecule that is now in the atmosphere that wasn’t in the atmosphere before industrialisation is of human origin. I don’t know how you would get that impression.

            You are completely ignoring what nature has absorbed in that timespan. It must be more than what nature emitted, otherwise the concentration would be at ~400 ppm right now, correct?

            And of course we are responsible for the increase, because we are the new guys. Without us the total emissions would not have been greater than the absorption for over 60 years in a row. Simple math.

          21. Kenneth Richard

            “And of course we are responsible for the increase, because we are the new guys.”

            Natural CO2 emissions have increased substantially more than anthropogenic emissions have in the last several decades. For every 1 GtC more emitted by humans, there is 22 more GtC emitted by nature. In other words, the net change difference between the anthropogenic emissions and natural emissions is many, many times greater than the much tinier net difference between what humans emitted in, say, 1970 than what they emitted in 2013. And therefore it is the increase in natural emissions that is far better characterized as “the new guys.”

            “You are completely ignoring what nature has absorbed in that timespan. It must be more than what nature emitted”

            As you have here acknowledged, you have absolutely no idea “what nature has absorbed”. You ASSUME it “must be more than what nature emitted”, but that’s because you ASSUME that the massive increase in natural CO2 emissions have been wholly counterbalanced by massive increases in natural sinks — though you have no evidence to support this presupposition. You ASSUME it’s true, so therefore, it is.

        2. AndyG55

          But as you KNOW, seb,

          CO2 does NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere.

          Increased atmospheric CO2 at ANY level we are ever likely to be able to reach is TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL to all life on Earth.

    2. Graeme No.3

      Practically nil. The alarmist claims of “ocean acidification” come from those who know very very little chemistry.

      Think of the White Cliffs of Dover which were laid down over millions of years in the Cretaceous period by very small marine organisms when the CO2 level was around 1650 to 1900ppm.
      Actually the calcium carbonate deposit is the remains after 65 million years of weathering, and includes the South Downs (hills in SE England) and similar deposits in France. That is a lot of microscopic calcium carbonate shells built up into the chalk, so obviously basic marine life was thriving. For larger animals look for pictures of the fossils of ammonites, (or belemnites but the ammonites are more spectacular) both had calcium carbonate shells but are now extinct.

      1. SebastianH

        http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112136

        Some ocean chemistry for you. Doesn’t sound particular bad, but these changes are happening over the course of decades instead of thousands or million of years in past time periods. Species will have a hard time to adjust (the last big acidification event some 252 million years ago led to mass extinction)

        1. Kenneth Richard

          Ah, SebastianH is an “acidification” believer.

          You do realize, SebastianH, that the total amount of pH change in the last 200 years of modeling (yes, modeling) is -0.1, right? Since you believe that species are having a hard time adjusting to -0.1 pH every 200 years, can you explain how species can adjust to pH fluctuations of +/- 0.2 to 0.5 every 10 years? In other words, explain why you believe the green trend line is dangerous to the oceanic biosphere, but the fluctuations depicted in violet do not harm the oceanic biosphere. Will you answer this question?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-West-SSTs-pH-Wei-15_edited-1.jpg

          1. SebastianH

            Well, let’s see if an analogy can help you understand the problem.

            Can the human body survive temperature fluctuations? Sure it can, you can stay in a sweatbath for some time and you can swim in ice water for some time.

            Can the human body survive at constant sweatbath/ice water conditions? No it can’t.

            Same goes for creatures that depend on the acidity of sea water and whoever follow them in the food chain.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “Well, let’s see if an analogy can help you understand the problem.”

            No, the human body doesn’t apply here. Your analogies are worthless once again.

            I asked you a specific question that you have ignored. I’ll ask again. Why do you believe the oceanic biosphere is NOT harmed or put in danger by pH changes of +/- 0.2 to 0.5 in 10 years, but it IS endangering the biosphere for pH to change by 0.1 over the course of 200 years? (Hint: the first rate change is much faster than the second.)
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-West-SSTs-pH-Wei-15_edited-1.jpg

          3. SebastianH

            Why is a person still alive after swimming in cold water? Why is a person still alive after spending half an hour in a sweatbath? Because we can buffer short environmental changes! Is that enough of an explanation for you to see that it’s not a worthless analogy?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            No, it’s a worthless analogy. And it doesn’t answer the question in the slightest. Stick to the subject (pH level changes of 0.1 vs. 0.5) instead of veering off to talk about humans swimming in cold water or “sweatbaths”.

            If pH dropping by -0.1 over the course of 200 years (which is what models say has happened since the 1800s) is dangerous to the oceanic biosphere, why aren’t pH drops of -0.5 within a 10 year time span dangerous if it truly is the case that the problem is the spectacularly fast rate of change?

            No one thinks your unrelated analogies have any merit, SebastianH. Why do you insist on talking about “sweatbaths” when we’re talking about pH? It just makes you look like you’re trying to dodge the question. Which you are, of course.

          5. AndyG55

            Your simplistic analogy is still totally worthless.

            People who live in cold climate “acclimatise”

            The oceans are buffered against ANY change in pH.

            The millions of rivers that have run into the oceans for millions of years have nearly all been sub-pH7, yet the oceans remain steadfastly around pH8.2-pH7.8, massively buffered by carbonates that have collected over millennia.

            Only a complete fool would think a tiny change in atmospheric CO2 would have even the slightest effect on whole of ocean pH.

            But there you are seb… a complete fool.

          6. SebastianH

            Just read the link AndyG55 that you declared nonsense below. There is a section about fresh water dilution and salt buffers.

            Kenneth, so you don’t get math and you don’t get analogies. Plain and simple: short term fluctuations in environmental parameters can be “buffered” by organisms, otherwise life would be even more fragile than it already is. But longterm changes of the environment require evolutionary changes. If those longterm changes happen too fast, extinction can happen. It looks like it was too fast 252 million years ago, is the current change of 0.11 pH in 200 years. BTW: the pH scale is logarithmic, this – in your eyes – small change equals a 29% change in hydrogen ion concentration and the expected 0.3-0.4 pH change until the end of this century equals a change by 100-150%.

          7. Kenneth Richard

            “the current change of 0.11 pH in 200 years”

            According to modeled results from Wei et al. (2015), it was .07 to .08 in 200 years…and the error range was about 70% as large as the guessed-at change itself. And the decadal rate of change varied by pH 0.74 (7.66–8.40), which means the variable rate change range was an order of magnitude larger than the overall 200-year trend itself. One must possess an enormous amount of faith to assume that the modeled data of pH levels in the 1800s is accurate to within thousandths. But that’s why we know you’re not the least bit skeptical, SebastianH. You have no desire to critically review that which you’re told…as long as what you’re told aligns with your presuppositions.

            Wei et al., 2015
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gangjian_Wei/publication/283946141_Decadal_variability_in_seawater_pH_in_the_West_Pacific_Evidence_from_coral_d_11_B_records/links/5653244708aefe619b191e48.pdf
            “We here estimate the OA rates from the two long (>150 years) annually resolved pH records from the northern SCS (this study) and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], and the results indicate annual rates of -0.00039 +/- 0.00025 yr and -0.00034 +/- 0.00022 yr for the northern SCS [South China Sea] and the northern GBR [Great Barrier Reef], respectively. … [T]hese two time-series do not show significant decreasing trend for pH. Despite such large errors, estimated from these rates, the seawater pH has decreased by about 0.07–0.08 U over the past 200 years in these regions. … The average calculated seawater pH over the past 159 years was 8.04 [with a] a seawater pH variation range of 7.66–8.40.”

            “If those longterm changes happen too fast, extinction can happen.”

            So, again, 0.07-0.08 pH changes over 200 years are “too fast” and cause extinction, and yet changes of 0.5 over 10 years is not too fast because organisms are “buffered” from that short-term damage. Do you just make stuff up as you go along, SebastianH?

            “the expected 0.3-0.4 pH change until the end of this century”

            So modeled pH changes are 0.07-0.08 over 200 years, but the models expect this change to explode to 0.3-0.4 pH in the next 80 years. Kind of like how we’re going to get 1 million species extinctions by the year 2050, right? Do you believe that too? Do you believe we’ll get 20 feet of sea level rise by 2100 too? Is there ANYTHING you don’t believe that you’re told by those who ascribe to the catastrophic global warming paradigm?

          8. SebastianH

            [is the current change of 0.11 pH in 200 years] * any slower?

          9. AndyG55

            “is the current change of 0.11 pH in 200 years] * any slower”

            ROFLMAO

            and how the stuff do you think they could ever MEASURE a change in pH of 0.11 from 200 year ago

            You seriously are a NON-science, gullible moronic idiot

            Go back and do your FAILED Arts/farts degree again.

            and FFS try to LEARN something this time. !!

            Your analogies are those of a 10 year old.!!

          10. AndyG55

            Seb obviously know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about pH.

            A modelled change, (totally unmeasured) of 30% H+ ion concentration.

            But the moronic, scientifically illiterate doesn’t seem to comprehend that it requires some further 2000% change in H/+ ions to even become neutral.

            You really are a very sad case of MONUMENTAL IGNORANCE, seb.

          11. SebastianH

            Maybe this link helps you better understand the problem Kenneth: http://funwithkrill.blogspot.de/2012/09/seawater-chemistry-north-atlantic-vs.html

          12. Kenneth Richard

            Even if a model-generated pH change of 0.07-0.08 over 200 years was a problem (and pH changes of -0.5 in 10 years are not a problem), you’re still going to have to figure out how you’re going to affirm that the 0.07-0.08 change in 200 years was not outside the range of natural variability. You just believe it is, apparently. And you wholly believe that 0.07-0.08 over 200 years is going to morph into 0.3-0.4 in the next 80 years…because that’s what the models say is true. If you believe it’s true, therefore, it is.

            Goodkin et al., 2015
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064431/abstract
            Here we reconstruct 222 years of biennial seawater pH variability in the Sargasso Sea from a brain coral, Diploria labyrinthiformis. Using hydrographic data from the Bermuda Atlantic Time-Series Study (BATS) and the coral derived pH record, we are able to differentiate pH changes due to surface temperature versus those from ocean circulation and biogeochemical changes. We find that ocean pH does not simply reflect atmospheric CO2 trends, but rather that circulation/biogeochemical changes account for >90% of pH variability in the Sargasso Sea and more variability in the last century than would be predicted from anthropogenic uptake of CO2 alone.

            Duarte et al., 2015
            http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/24/biosci.biu198.full.pdf+html
            [T]he link between these declines and ocean acidification through anthropogenic CO2 is unclear. Corrosive waters affecting oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon coast were associated with upwelling (Barton et al. 2012), not anthropogenic CO2. The decline in pH affecting oysters in Chesapeake Bay (Waldbusser et al. 2011) was not attributable to anthropogenic CO2 but was likely attributable to excess respiration associated with eutrophication. Therefore, there is, as yet, no robust evidence for realized severe disruptions of marine socioecological links from ocean acidification to anthropogenic CO2, and there are significant uncertainties regarding the level of pH change that would prompt such impacts. … A number of biases internal and external to the scientific community contribute to perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence.

        2. AndyG55

          “but these changes are happening over the course of decades”

          What a LOAD OF UNSUPOORTABLE RUBBISH you keep coming up with, seb.. !!

    3. sunsettommy

      Scooter, the ocean waters already have 99% of free CO2 of the system in it.

  3. DMA

    It seems to me that this paper is based on a misconception promoted by the IPCC that the increase in CO2 is all anthropogenic. This is in conflict with Humlum (Climate4you.com) and Salby. The logical process I have followed to analyze this is as follows:
    Consider this: since natural sources and sinks are about 30 times larger than anthropogenic sources and the rate of CO2 rise in the atmosphere is pretty constant on an annual basis but varies from positive to negative during each year and the anthropogenic sources are mostly constant, then the contention of all CO2 increase being anthropogenic implies that the sinks are controlled so as to just take enough ACO2 to keep the atmospheric rate constant. I cannot imagine a mechanism capable of doing that. In fact I cannot think of a mechanism that can differentiate between “natural” CO2 and fossil fuel CO2.

    If the trees can’t discriminate how do they just leave the fossil fuel CO2 year after year leaving all the increased CO2 in the atmosphere coming from fossil fuel ? How do they just take the right amount to keep the atmospheric increase constant(about 50% of ACO2) and leave the half that will then hang around for 1000s of years. Shouldn’t the amount removed be the same proportion as the whole atmosphere and some other explanation for the increase need to be found? If we put about 1 part in 30 into the atmosphere each year and the sinks remove it in the same proportion but the content only grows by an amount equal to about 1/2 of the fossil fuel emissions one would think that the sinks must have to process the whole atmosphere in a couple months to be able to remove half of the fossil fuel CO2 each year. I think it is more likely that the natural sources and sinks are so large and variable that the fossil fuel emissions are lost in the noise of the process and that is why there is no correlation of fossil fuel emissions and rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    1. SebastianH

      CO2 increase is not constant: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative

      The model used in the linked paper in the posts seems to describe the ocean’s ability to sink CO2 with the difference between it’s CO2 concentration and that of the air (law of mass action). Since the absolute amount of CO2 in sea water is about 40 times higher than the amount of CO2 in the air, the concentration in sea water will not change by much when CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed.

      It’s similar to what happens when you drink salt water (dehydration of your cells). The concentrations “want” to equalize and so water in your cells is used to dillute the salt water.

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Isn’t it interesting that the woodfortrees graph SebastianH provided clearly shows that CO2 changes track (lag) temperature changes related to ENSO and volcanic events quite well?

        I wonder why…

        https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf
        A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.

        …a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023027/full
        There is clear similarity between Figures 1b and 1c, with the positive CO2 growth rate anomalies corresponding to El Niño events, and the negative growth rate anomalies corresponding to La Niña events. The largest positive CO2 growth rate anomalies are coincident with large Niño3 values in 1973, 1988 and 1998. … It is unlikely that these anomalies can be explained by an abrupt increase in anthropogenic emissions, as the anomalies are much larger than annual increases in fossil fuel emissions. Most interannual variability in the CO2 growth rate is attributable to variations in land-atmosphere CO2 exchange with climate (e.g., associated with ENSO or volcanic perturbations)

        1. SebastianH

          Congratulations, you found out about the temperature dependence of carbon release/absorption by the ocean … (see formula 2.6 in the paper linked in the post.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            Yes, when ocean waters warm, they release more CO2. When ocean waters cool, they release less CO2. So the temperature begets the CO2 change. The temperature change happens first. So why do you believe CO2 causes the water temperature?

          2. SebastianH

            So the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly, but human CO2 emissions are not.

            Do you really believe that CO2 concentration should only increase when CO2 emissions increase?

            Yes, when ocean waters warm, they release more CO2. When ocean waters cool, they release less CO2. So the temperature begets the CO2 change. The temperature change happens first.

            The equilibrium ppmV depends on the temperature. That’s all. If the ppmV in the atmosphere is different from the one in the ocean an exchange of CO2 happens in the corresponding direction (law of mass action).

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “Do you really believe that CO2 concentration should only increase when CO2 emissions increase?”

            Um, no. But that’s because I don’t really expect CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations to correlate anyway. You, obviously, must believe they do correlate, and that correlation = causation.

            Why did CO2 concentrations rise during the Little Ice Age just as ocean temperatures were plummeting? Does the correlation = causation belief go the other way too (more CO2 causes cooling)?

            But you’ve never answered the question (as usual). Why have CO2 emissions been flat since 2010 (hovering around 9 GtC/yr) while CO2 concentrations nonetheless rose by 20 ppm? Why the lack of correlation there?

            During the 1938-1950 period, the opposite happened. CO2 emissions rates doubled, and yet CO2 concentrations did not change (310 or 311 ppm for 13 straight years). If humans are the nearly exclusive cause of CO2 concentration changes, why are there periods of several years without even a correlation?

          4. SebastianH

            But you’ve never answered the question (as usual). Why have CO2 emissions been flat since 2010 (hovering around 9 GtC/yr) while CO2 concentrations nonetheless rose by 20 ppm?

            It sure does look like you think that CO2 emissions need to increase or otherwise CO2 concentration would not increase.

            1) CO2 emissions haven’t been flat: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CO2-Global-768×452.png

            2) No, CO2 emissions really haven’t been flat: http://qfc.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FigureES1.jpg

            3) Law of mass action. CO2 concentrations will continue to increase until we emit less CO2 than what can be absorbed by oceans and the biosphere at that level of concentration (see the afore mentioned law).

            Humans being responsible for the CO2 increase has nothing to do with correlation. We simple output more CO2 than the concentration increases. It would require some magic effect being involved which only absorbs human CO2 in order for humans not to be responsible. The result would be that CO2 concentration would continue to increase even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, because natural CO2 will not be absorbed by those magic CO2 sinks that get rid of our CO2. Unfortunately that’s not how it works …

          5. Kenneth Richard

            Yes, it would appear global carbon emissions have flattened out. 2016 was the 3rd year in a row of no growth (not shown in the below graph), and 2014-’16 weren’t much higher than 2010-2013.
            https://www.betterworldsolutions.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/global-carbon-emissions-from-fossils.png

            “Humans being responsible for the CO2 increase has nothing to do with correlation.”

            Yes, I understand that in your world of belief, one doesn’t even need a correlation to establish cause. It’s not even correlation = causation. It’s causation is fact. And if one doesn’t agree that causation is fact, or if one even questions it, he is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier and should be characterized that way.

            This is exactly why your views are accurately portrayed as akin to religious beliefs.

          6. AndyG55

            “The result would be that CO2 concentration would continue to increase even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow”

            This is an ABSOLUTELY MARVELOUS response.

            Wouldn’t you agree, seb 🙂

            Continued growth of TOTALLY BENFICIAL atmospheric CO2.

            More plant growth and crop yield for the real environmentalists and all the world’s population.

            Unfortunately, as you have consistently shown, there is absolutely no prospect of any beneficial warming from CO2 in our convective atmosphere.

            We are at the Sun’s mercy, destined to REMAIN at the colder end of the current interglacial.

            More warming, and more atmospheric CO2 would lift the planet into much more abundant time, to the absolute benefit of ALL LIFE ON EARTH..

            Unfortunately…, no matter how much your FAKE RELIGION would love it to happen for its totalitarian control agenda, it doesn’t look like happening.

            I hope that though REALLY distresses you, seb. !

            You KNOW that even the slightest cooling trend would bring your child-minded belief cult crashing down….

            No wonder you are expending/wasting so, so much pointless time trying to push your MEANINGLESS, UNSUPPORTABLE RELIGION.

            Hint, little troll.. go and GET A LIFE !!

          7. SebastianH

            Kenneth, interesting x-axis scale on that graph.

            From the UNEP 2016 Emission gap report:

            In 2015, global carbon dioxide emissions from these sources stagnated for the first time and showed signs of a weak
            decline. Prior to 2015, global carbon dioxide emissions increased by roughly 1.3 per cent per year for the period 2012 to 2014, which was significantly slower than that of the 12 preceding years, where the average increase was 2.9 per cent per year (2000-2011), but higher than the average growth rate of around 1 per cent per year during the 1990s.

            It’s interesting that you call it religious belief when someone has faith in math or physical laws. Do you not agree that if the left side of an equation is negative, the right side must be too? And yet you still insist that it is somehow possible that some magic effect neutralizes nearly all human CO2 emissions so the equation (PPM_increase - Human_CO2_emissions = Nature_CO2_emissions - Nature_CO2_absorption) can be positive on both sides. Isn’t that what a religious belief is? It must be like you want it to be, so math is irrelevant when it suits you. Hmm …

          8. Kenneth Richard

            SebastianH, all you’re doing is substantiating what I originally wrote about CO2 emissions flattening out in recent years. CO2 has risen by 20 ppm in the last 6 years while CO2 emissions from humans have been, effectively, flat.

            IEA finds CO2 emissions flat for third straight year
            https://www.iea.org/media/news/2017/GlobalCarbonEmissions2.png

            “It’s interesting that you call it religious belief when someone has faith in math or physical laws.”

            Sorry, SebastianH, but your belief that CO2 concentration variations in volumes of 0.000001 are the dominant determinants of ocean heating and cooling is not supported by “physical laws.” It isn’t even supported by physical measurements or observations from an actual scientific experiment which even you acknowledge doesn’t exist.

          9. SebastianH

            Just re-asking my orignal question because it still sounds like you do believe that without an increase in (human) emissions the CO2 concentration can not increase. Why do you write that “CO2 has risen by 20 ppm” despite “emissions flattening out in recent years”? Do you have any idea how the law of mass action works and how long it would take CO2 concentration increase to flatten out if our emissions were constant from now on? A little hint: decades, many decades. And the reason is a physical law …

            P.S.:(1.3% is not flat and 2.9% before 2012 is definetly not flat, but whatever … for you it’s flat, I get it).

          10. Kenneth Richard

            “you do believe that without an increase in (human) emissions the CO2 concentration can not increase.”

            No, CO2 concentrations can increase or decrease without human emissions. That’s why CO2 rose from 180 ppm to 300 ppm during the last 3 interglacials, or why CO2 rose from 255 ppm to 280 ppm during the Early and Late Holocene (while global temps cooled by -3.0 C), or why CO2 concentrations rose to 470 ppm during the Pliocene or to 4,500 ppm during the Ordovician ice age. CO2 concentrations rise and fall without obvious correlation to temperature (or human emissions).

            Why do you write that “CO2 has risen by 20 ppm” despite “emissions flattening out in recent years”?

            To emphasize the correlational problems inherent in the paradigm. The opposite has happened too in the modern era. CO2 emissions doubled between 1938 and 1950 while atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained flat at 311 ppm. How do you explain that with the “law” that says that shouldn’t happen?

            “Do you have any idea how the law of mass action works and how long it would take CO2 concentration increase to flatten out if our emissions were constant from now on?”

            This assumes, of course, that we know enough about the actual causes of changes to atmospheric CO2 to make modeled guesses about future CO2 concentrations. I am not convinced, as you are, that we know enough about imbalances in the carbon cycle or the magnitudes of natural sinks and sources to speculate on such things. All you have are modeled assumptions based on wildly incomplete data. You can’t even scientifically explain why CO2 concentrations didn’t rise during 1938-1950 despite doubled CO2 emissions rates. Or why CO2 concentrations rose by 15 ppm during the Little Ice Age while ocean temperatures plummeted. You have no idea about these things, and yet you claim that what you think is the truth is a physical law. Sorry, SebastianH, but I truly am a skeptic. You, obviously, are not.

          11. SebastianH

            It is remarkable that you have strong believe in reconstructed data from the past (how was CO2 concentration measured between 1938 and 1950, we only seem to have reliable records from the middle of the 1950s?).

            What amount of CO2 emissions are we talking about here? An increase from 5 GtCO2 to 10 GtCO2? What was the average yearly ppm increase in those years? Any natural fluctuation as in this graph? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/mean:12/detrend:0.15

            You said it yourself … nature can override what humans do by adding/removing to/from the balance. The problem is: since the time we have reliable measurements humans have always out-emitted nature’s imbalances … always! There is not one year where our emissions were far greater than any natural fluctuations. Why do we know this? Because the increase in atmospheric CO2 was always less than what we emitted.

          12. Kenneth Richard

            “since the time we have reliable measurements humans have always out-emitted nature’s imbalances … always! There is not one year where our emissions were far greater than any natural fluctuations. Why do we know this? Because the increase in atmospheric CO2 was always less than what we emitted.”

            As the long explanation above illustrates…

            Considering the IPCC has a ratio of 95.7% (natural) to 4.3% (human) yearly emissions, for every 5 ppm humans emit per year (10.6 GtC), nature adds 115 ppm (243.8 GtC). For every 8.9 GtC (4.2 ppm) humans add (2013), natural sources add 206 GtC (97 ppm). Your claim that nature only adds “2.5 ppm” per year is something you’ve made up. The chance for an imbalance between sources and sinks with 220 GtC of yearly emission (natural) is much greater than the chance that there will be an imbalance in sources and sinks due to a 9 GtC emission (human).

          13. SebastianH

            *weren’t (There is not one year where our emissions weren’t far greater than any natural fluctuations.)

            Of course the 2.5 ppm were made up, I wrote “let’s say”, didn’t I? I used those numbers to illustrate to you that your believe goes against the math.

            And I repeat: 8.9 GtC of emissions in 2013 vs. 206 GtC of natural sources equals 214.9 GtC would equal an increase by 101.2 ppm according to you. But the concentration only increased by around 3 ppm, so nature obviously absorbed 98.2 ppm which equals 208.2 GtC. And that value is greater than the natural sources. Don’t you agree?

          14. Kenneth Richard

            “Of course the 2.5 ppm were made up, I wrote “let’s say”, didn’t I? I used those numbers to illustrate to you that your believe goes against the math.”

            Um, no. You used 2.5 ppm instead of 97 ppm (206 GtC) or 115 ppm (243 GtC) because you were trying to pretend that the natural emission isn’t 50-some times larger than 2.5 ppm. You intentionally used a tiny number that was half the size of the alleged human emission rate (5 ppm) because you (dishonestly) wish to portray the natural emission as smaller than the human emission. Give me a break with your post-facto explanations.

            “And I repeat: 8.9 GtC of emissions in 2013 vs. 206 GtC of natural sources equals 214.9 GtC would equal an increase by 101.2 ppm according to you.”

            So now when it’s pointed out to you (for the first time?) that if humans emit 8.9 GtC and nature emits 214.9 GtC, then suddenly, so as to dishonestly concoct another of your patented straw man fabrications, you claim that I have written that natural sinks no longer work anymore at all and CO2 concentrations increased by 101.2 ppm in 2013. Unbelievable. How old are you SebastianH? This is like middle school stuff.

            “But the concentration only increased by around 3 ppm, so nature obviously absorbed 98.2 ppm”

            Uh, no, it’s not “obvious” that the exactly right amount of only the massive natural emission was absorbed by natural sinks, allowing the tiny remaining anthropogenic emission to be the only CO2 left standing, unabsorbed. That, SebastianH, is your ASSUMPTION. You assume it’s true that 100% of naturally sourced CO2 is absorbed by equally- and tandemly-growing natural sinks. As the textbook Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate says:

            “Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude [100 times] greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.”

          15. SebastianH

            Let’s say natural emissions are currently overshadowing human emissions. Of the 3 ppm increase each year 2.5 ppm would be caused by nature, ok?

            I can not believe I have to quote myself … do you not understand what I have written there? Is my English so bad?

            I am beginning to doubt that you are a native English speaker. You split what I said into two quotes and act like both sentences weren’t standing back to back. Why?

            You know what I think? I think that you imagine that in my opinion human CO2 has a different color or something like that and that those human CO2 molecules are the only ones left standing each year.

            That’s not what I am saying Kenneth. If you could identify the source of the added molecules those could all be from natural sources … doesn’t matter. The important part then is that all human CO2 would have been absorbed by nature. But does nature care that it is human CO2? Most certainly not … so what would happen if we suddenly stopped emitting? Wouldn’t the same sinks just absorb natural CO2?

          16. Kenneth Richard

            “I am beginning to doubt that you are a native English speaker.”

            OK, SebastianH. You go ahead and duda that.

            “so what would happen if we suddenly stopped emitting? Wouldn’t the same sinks just absorb natural CO2?”

            Um, yes, if we stopped emitting, then the overall yearly emissions would be 203 GtC instead of 212 GtC. And your point?

          17. AndyG55

            Thank goodness the world will continue to INCREASE human CO2 output.

            The current atmospheric CO2 level is still on the low side for plant life and food production.

            Unfortunately that CO2 doesn’t cause any warming, so we are stuck on a tiny bump at the cool end of the current interglacial.

          18. SebastianH

            if we stopped emitting, then the overall yearly emissions would be 203 GtC instead of 212 GtC. And your point?

            The point is that the sinks that absorbed “our” CO2 before can now absorb “other” CO2 (~206 GtC were absorbed before, how much would be absorbed if we stopped emitting?) and CO2 concentration would decrease.

      2. AndyG55

        “the concentration in sea water will not change by much when CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed”

        Oh.. so that’s a big NO to “ocean acidification”, is it then, seb.

        You open your mouth, just to change to the other foot. !

        1. SebastianH

          Have you even read the link about the chemistry of ocean acidification?

          1. AndyG55

            Yep, its yet another load of nonsense.

            The ocean is massively buffered against any changes in pH, and NO ocean wide changes have ever been registered.

            End of story.

            Just like there is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

            Propaganda NON-information.. which you just alp up because you don’t have the scientific nouse to realise what a farce it all is.

        2. SebastianH

          My apologies, I ment to write “the amount in sea water will not change”, not “the concentration”. That’s the assumption the authors of the linked to paper make (after formula 2.1 in the text).

  4. Kenneth Richard

    “[T]he contention of all CO2 increase being anthropogenic implies that the sinks are controlled so as to just take enough ACO2 to keep the atmospheric rate constant. I cannot imagine a mechanism capable of doing that. In fact I cannot think of a mechanism that can differentiate between ‘natural’ CO2 and fossil fuel CO2.”

    That’s the magical thinking that is required to follow along: the natural CO2 sinks must neatly fall in line in their adjustments to changes in natural CO2 sources so that they are always essentially equal to one another. This way, only the anthropogenic emission can affect the balance/imbalance. The natural sources and sinks must ebb and flow in concert and without exception. That’s what one must believe to assume that the CO2 concentration increase is almost exclusively anthropogenic.

    You cannot imagine a mechanism that forces this perpetual counterbalanced proportionality because there isn’t one.

    1. SebastianH

      Of course there is … see above.

  5. AndyG55

    It really is unfortunate that the atmospheric CO2 level will be limited to such small values 🙁

    1000ppm would be a much better aim.

    Perhaps once people realise the ABSOLUTE IMPORTANCE of an increased atmospheric CO2 level, they will start using nuclear power to break down limestones, releasing further CO2.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    I’ve posted several comments in recent years questioning the amount of CO2 humans might add to the atmosphere. I’ve seen a few others bring up the topic. Generally, it seemed to be that folks calculated an amount that ought to give an increase of 4 ppm, but only 2 ppm show up. Processes of Earth that consume CO2 increase the rate of removal as more is added. If earthlings stop adding CO2, those earth processes will continue at the faster rates, but begin a lagged and slowing removal.
    Earth will be more comfortable at between 600-800 ppm, and I will feel there is a cushion or reserve. Going below about 180 is a problem but by 200 there would begin a long tail to the processes, approaching 180 asymptotically.
    [I do not have the energy, time, nor technical smarts to do the research.]

    This paper seems to agree. Luboš Motl, on trf blog, provided a cleaner discussion of this issue about 2 years ago.

    1. AndyG55

      If CO2 starts to drop, it will not be that long before people start to notice the drop in crop yields.

      Then some wily politician will suddenly come up with the idea…

      .. “oh gees…. plants need CO2 to grow”

      1. John F. Hultquist

        Sounds right, but this “it will not be that long before people start to notice the drop in crop yields” . . . is an unknown.

        We now add about 4 ppm but 2 of those don’t show up. Into ‘sinks’ — and those are many (plants grow, etc.).
        Say emissions drop 50% so we are only adding 2 ppm. Then the sinks take that out. The net is zero. We would have to cut more than 50% for the CO2 in the atmosphere to start to drop and crop yields respond.
        How “long” all of this might take is, to use a non-technical term, a WAG.

        1. sod

          “We now add about 4 ppm but 2 of those don’t show up. Into ‘sinks’ — and those are many (plants grow, etc.).
          Say emissions drop 50% so we are only adding 2 ppm. Then the sinks take that out. The net is zero. ”

          sorry John, but this is totally wrong. Please read the article(as i did).

          The article specifically says that air concentration influences ocean uptake. so reducing the human CO2 output would NOT cause CO2 concentration to sink (it would just add at lower speed).

          “and crop yields respond.”

          that is total garbage as well. Even slowly sinking CO2 would not change crop yields in a significant way. You have the facts completely wrong!

          1. AndyG55

            CO2 is plant food.. enhance atmospheric plant food leads to increased yields. Proven by thousands of experiments and by actual use of CO2.

            You are, as always, very mis-informed, sob.. and just making up LIES as you go along.

  7. Graeme No.3

    We need to invoke the precautionary principal. When the next ice age starts a drop from 500 ppm to 300 ppm. would be far better for the grandchildren than a drop from 280 ppm to 170 ppm. We must think of the grand children.

    Equally President Trump must be congratulated on building the Mexican Wall, as that will have its uses as a barrier to climate refugees upsetting mexican politics.

    1. sod

      “We must think of the grand children.”

      How absurdly fast do you expect ice ages to show up?

      do you think i can go to the beach this summer or is there danger of getting stuck frozen with my feet in the water?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        No one knows. But during the last 100 years, we have been blessed with some of the highest solar activity since Medieval times and very low volcanic activity. Consequently, we’ve warmed up some since the Little Ice Age. But the overall trajectory is, and continues to be, a cooling trend. We fortunately were allowed to live through its brief interruption.

        This interglacial is already 11,700 years old. Most interglacials don’t last much past 10,000. So, as the National Academy of Sciences wrote in 1975: “There is a finite possibility” the next ice age could occur “in the next 100 years.”

      2. Robert Folkerts

        How absurdly fast do you think your feared warming will show up, sod?