The following chart is largely self-explanatory:
Red: The actual rise of atmospheric CO2 from 1966 to 2006
Pink: The actual rise of human emissions within that 40 year timeframe (starting point at 321 ppm for comparison)
Blue: Human emissions multiplied by 24.41 to parallel atmospheric CO2 growth
Black: The human emissions slope as it would be if CO2 had stagnated in the atmosphere
Gray line: Accumulating atmospheric human emissions with a yearly retention rate of 0.56 -- meaning that 44% is absorbed yearly, which contradicts the assertion that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
Alan Siddons
Holden, Massachusetts
--------------
Data sources are from the US government’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC):
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
But here’s the trick: How do you convert gigatons of carbon into ppm so you can compare the human and atmospheric trend? Well, CDIAC informs you: Divide gigatons by 2.13.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q6
Folks the chart only goes back to 1966, why not take it back to 1820 when the way to measure CO2 in the atmosphere was first discovered and logged at regular intervals in the libraries and botanical garden logs around the world (well northern hemisphere anyway)
Ernst George-Black did that study in 2007 and guess what? The records show that the levels in CO2 fluctuate all over the place, around 1830 it was 520ppm. then it dropped, then it went up and so forth. At the end of WW2 it was well over 400ppm. then it went down to around 290ppm, since the 60's it's tracking up but now slowing as we seem to be entering a cool period. at around 370ppm it's right in the middle of averages.
It goes down around 100ppm during day time in spring near garden plants as they absorb it for food. Stomata evidence supports these readings as well. Now don't attack me, if you must, try and attack that evidence, or work out why actual readings logged over a couple of hundred years are not as accurate as ice core data supplied by the IPCC. Interesting?
"But with increasing temp, the gas will start coming out of the solvent."
So the warmeners know the answer and merely kick against the goads!
The oceanic partial pressure of CO2 controls the atmospheric abundance. The ocean contains 150,000Gtons of CO2 dissolved and in carbonate form; the atmosphere 3000.
Yet the daily fluence between them is on the order of 100Gtons!
Spencer's F-Test on the variance in Mauna Loa seasonal and long-term CO2 signals in their 13C/12C fraction shows the are of the same origin.
"We are 100% certain that the increase in CO2 is due to humans."
Your certainty is a feeling, like the warmth in your soiled pants. It will pass.
John, my models started out in equilibrium (but not saturation) because the argument is about whether or not we have perturbed this equilibrium. In none of the cases after the perturbation was the system either in equilibrium or saturation.
John:
I freely admit the 'labels' Consortium S and Consortium W are fairly arbitrary.
I simply said let's call Consortium S the bloom closest to the middle of the year in the NH and closest to the end of the year in the SH and Consortium W the bloom closest to the end of the year in the NH and closest to the middle of the year in the SH. Please don't get hung up on these arbitrary labels.
The point is that, with respect to oceanic chlorophyll a levels and hence seasonal oceanic cyanobacterial blooming:
the oceanic latitude zone 30 S - 0 is weakly bimodal;
the zone 15 S - 15 N is more strongly bimodal; and
the zone 30 N - 60 N is even more bimodal.
However the zone 30 S - 60 S is essentially unimodal.
I would urge you to also look at the equivalent bands of (say) 60 N - 75 N and 60 S - 75 S.
The implication, with respect to the relative proportions of the year in which cyanobacteria are blooming in the NH and SH oceans, are stark.
It is the climatic implications of this pattern which I find so intriguing.