What really is man's fossil fuel co2 load

[sigurdur]

Hi all. There are some great pools of knowledge on this board and I am thankful for that.

As I was working today, I was thinking, what specifically does the fossil fuel burning add as far a co2. I have read it is .03%. Is that figure correct?

If so, what actual increase in co2 levels in ppm can be attributed to fossil fuel burning? I know the whole carbon load is megatons released each year and then retained. I just don't know how much co2 is actually increased by fossil fuel burning.

With all the attention right now on fossil fuels, I am questioning if that tiny percentage that I have read has increased atmospheric co2 by even more than a few PPM.

Thank you.

[Ratty]

Another aspect is how much water vapour is generated by burning fossil fuels ....

[wylie]

Gentlemen,

I took this answer to your question (at least partial) from an internet site:

cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

The numbers sound reasonable. Hope this helps you.

Ian

************************************

Q. What percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been produced by human beings through the burning of fossil fuels?

A. Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.

In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

[sigurdur]

Thank you Wylie! I have been trying to find the numbers without success.

14%........interesting. Now how can we control the other 86%?

[glc]

14%........interesting. Now how can we control the other 86%?

We can't but we didn't need to. The "other 86%" was controlled by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere.

Incidentally, the figures in wylie's link are slightly out of date. The CO2 concentration is now ~385 ppmv which implies that ~97 ppmv have been added since since 1850. Using the 64% figure (which is now on the low side) as the percentage from fossil fuels yields 16% of atmospheric CO2 which can be attributed to fossil fuel combustion.

[curiousgeorge]

A related question is: What portion of the increase in food production, and subsequent population growth, can be attributed to the increased CO2 since 1850? Don't forget the fossil fuel contribution to fertilizer, and modern farming methods.

Along the same lines and related to the Cap & Trade Climate bill, here's some info on the impact that will likely have on the above food production capability of the US. www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc2217993701229af9cdfa067d&showCommentsOverride=false

Planted a garden yet?

[stevenotsteve]

Of course these figures are just IPCC propaganda. The IPCC models wrongly assume that the oceans can only absorb CO2. Basic chemistry will tell you that a warm ocean will hold less CO2 and this out gassing accounts for most of the rise. If you build this into the models you get down to about 3% human. Lets not forget that CO2 accounts for only appx 3% of all of the greenhouse gases so you get only a minuscule effect on climate due to human CO2 emmisions.

Now that the sun has gone quiet, the CO2 rate of rise has already started to flatten off.

[steve]

Jul 22, 2009 12:20:08 GMT stevenotsteve said:

Of course these figures are just IPCC propaganda. The IPCC models wrongly assume that the oceans can only absorb CO2. Basic chemistry will tell you that a warm ocean will hold less CO2 and this out gassing accounts for most of the rise. If you build this into the models you get down to about 3% human. Lets not forget that CO2 accounts for only appx 3% of all of the greenhouse gases so you get only a minuscule effect on climate due to human CO2 emmisions.

Now that the sun has gone quiet, the CO2 rate of rise has already started to flatten off.

Maple, I think some people here are genuinely interested in this subject. It would be helpful if you would target your nonsense only at socold and me.

[stevenotsteve]

Nope just read the ippc answer above and I still can't find the figure for the amount of CO2 released by the warming oceans during the solar maximum. Big trouble with the ipcc theory as CO2 levels have been in the 1000's of part per million many times before without mans assistance. To assume that the oceans only absorb CO2 at whatever temperature is nonsense and you know it steve.

[stevenotsteve]

Here is a link for you steve if you really don't believe that a warm ocean will hold less Co2. I think it's more the case that you would have to acknowledge that it's the sun doing the warming that's your problem.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption

[steve]

Jul 22, 2009 15:16:22 GMT stevenotsteve said:

Nope just read the ippc answer above and I still can't find the figure for the amount of CO2 released by the warming oceans during the solar maximum. Big trouble with the ipcc theory as CO2 levels have been in the 1000's of part per million many times before without mans assistance. To assume that the oceans only absorb CO2 at whatever temperature is nonsense and you know it steve.

Sounds like you've misunderstood. Probably you might have to explain where all man's CO2 emissions have gone if you think they had no effect (I could suggest an answer, but I wouldn't like to suffer the fate of your alter ego).

The uptake is a function of ocean temperatures and the partial pressure of CO2. The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere raises the partial pressure resulting in a net uptake by the ocean at the moment. There will also be a net uptake by plants because an increase in CO2 from current levels increases plant growth.

On geological timescales other factors may influence the levels of CO2. For example, CO2 dissolved in water will weather rocks. It tends to result, ultimately, in the creation of sedimentary rocks so removing the CO2 from the atmosphere. Possibly, the rise of the Himalayas exposed sufficient rocks to reduce CO2 levels to the point where the current ice age began.

[steve]

Jul 22, 2009 16:02:14 GMT stevenotsteve said:

Here is a link for you steve if you really don't believe that a warm ocean will hold less Co2. I think it's more the case that you would have to acknowledge that it's the sun doing the warming that's your problem.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/22/a-look-at-human-co2-emissions-vs-ocean-absorption

You seem to be saying the opposite to what the article said.

My only objective is to show that the CO2 released by human activities, combined with slow ocean absorption/neutralization and sea surface temperature variation, is broadly consistent with the measured historical trend in atmospheric CO2, including the effect of changing average SST on short term variation in the rate of CO2 increase. Temperature changes in ocean surface waters cause shifts of a few PPM up and down in the rate of increase, but surface temperature changes do not explain 80% to 90% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958, as suggested in Dr. Spencer’s May 11 post. Because of its relatively high pH, high buffering capacity, enormous mass, and slow circulation, the ocean is, and will be for a very long time, a significant net sink for atmospheric CO2.

[socold]

Jul 22, 2009 12:20:08 GMT stevenotsteve said:

Of course these figures are just IPCC propaganda. The IPCC models wrongly assume that the oceans can only absorb CO2.

No they don't. The oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit though.

Basic chemistry will tell you that a warm ocean will hold less CO2 and this out gassing accounts for most of the rise.

Basic chemistry also tells you that a warm ocean will absorb more co2 if there is an abundance of co2 in the atmosphere.

Now that the sun has gone quiet, the CO2 rate of rise has already started to flatten off.

How do you consistently get it wrong unless you are doing it on purpose?
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

[stevenotsteve]

socold

From your mauna low link

Rate of CO2 increase in PPM

1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.55
2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

I make the last available year the fourth lowest in the last decade, seems to be flattening a bit to me. I never said it was going down.

socold
No they don't. The oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit though.

Yes that's true but this exchange is not fixed and if you raise the temperature of the ocean (without using your CO2 model), this balance shifts and the oceans absorb less CO2 than they were before. All of the extra CO2 emitted by the oceans is now lumped together and called man made emissions.

[socold]

Jul 22, 2009 19:23:36 GMT stevenotsteve said:

socold

From your mauna low link

Rate of CO2 increase in PPM

1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.29
2004 1.56
2005 2.55
2006 1.69
2007 2.17
2008 1.66

I make the last available year the fourth lowest in the last decade, seems to be flattening a bit to me. I never said it was going down.

Doesn't look that way to me
www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/from:1999/trend

socold
"No they don't. The oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit though."

Yes that's true but this exchange is not fixed and if you raise the temperature of the ocean (without using your CO2 model), this balance shifts and the oceans absorb less CO2 than they were before. All of the extra CO2 emitted by the oceans is now lumped together and called man made emissions.

The oceans are removing more co2 from the atmosphere than they used to. Emissions have increased but absorption has increased more, so net result is the oceans are not contributing to the co2 rise in the atmosphere, they are limiting it.