Those are good points--previous post, from jmclemore --but when I look at numbers, the evidence still points overwhelmingly to humans as the cause for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and not to volcanoes, or to forest fires like the fires that are still threatening Fort McMurray in Canada's Alberta province.

But before "we" get to any specific numbers, "let's talk about isotopes".

There are three naturally occuring isotopes of the element carbon (C): C12, C13 and C14. C12 and C13 are stable, and there are about 100 C12 atoms for every one C13 atom. C14 is a radioisotope. It’s produced when cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. C14 reverts to nitrogen by emitting electrons as beta radiation with a half-life of just over 5700 years. This is the foundation of the carbon dating techniques that are widely used by archaeologists to close in on the antiquity of archaeologic discoveries in terms of Years Before Present.

So there are three naturally occuring versions of the CO2 molecule, depending on which carbon isotope. The three isotopically different CO2 molecules are all equivalent or interchangeable (no difference) in terms of their greenhouse warming effect and in terms of their chemical and biological pathways into and out of the atmosphere as part of the “carbon cycle”.

Some of the evidence that has been developed to support the thinking that recent and current global temperature increases are driven by recent and current increases in the amount of fossil carbon (in the form of atmospheric CO2)--and not from some other natural source of carbon emissions such as deforestation or forest fires--is based on analyzing CO2 in air samples and measuring the ratio between the CO2 molecules that contain C14 and the CO2 molecules that contain either C12 or C13.

These carbon isotope ratio measurements are (likely, I would think) mute (or moot) on distinguishing between CO2 that was released into the atmosphere from human reliance on fossil fuels and CO2 that was transported into the atmosphere from deep below the surface by volcanic activity. However--and I posted this right here, as recently as May 9--I cannot find much in the way of scientific reporting that leans towards volcanic activity as a significant source of atmospheric CO2 (or other greenhouse gases), in comparison to the recent and current greenhouse gas emissions from human activities; and especially, in comparison to the magnitude of human-driven carbon emissions from the intentional combustion of fossil fuels in order to extract energy.

"Volcanic activity and carbon dioxide"; May 9, 2016
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...57033-143.html#p5701

In terms of the greenhouse effect, there is only one factor that differentiates the CO2 from forest and wildfires vs the CO2 from volcanic activity vs the CO2 from the human reliance upon fossil fuels for energy, and that is the relative amounts of CO2 from each different pathway that have already been released, are continuing to be released and are predicted to be released into the atmosphere over the next two or three hundred years. (Trying to look any farther into the future than the next two or three hundred years—and there is a great deal of focus on just the remainder of the current century in the IPCC reports—would be going beyond the scope of the current concerns and disagreements about human activities and climate change.)


More about the evidence that clears volcanoes of any major "wrongdoing"

"The emissions of CO2 from volcanic eruptions are at least 100 times smaller than anthropogenic [human] emissions, and [are] inconsequential for climate on century time scales."
~IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis


Could that assessment change in a significant way during the next 15 or 20 years, based on as yet unpublished research that either hasn't been completed yet, or hasn't been started yet, or hasn't even been conceived of yet in terms of how to go about it?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge is to quantify the amount of CO2 that is being released by volcanic activity offshore and deep below the surface of the oceans.

Here's a comment from a fellow who (as recently as 2011) was skeptical that offshore volcanic activity will be found to be a "game changer" in comparison to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases:

quote Don’t you think it’s too much of a coincidence that Casey’s “1000 potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide” have been hypothetically increasing their emissions, starting around 1850, precisely matching the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions? Something that has never happened in the last [400 thousand] years, according to the Vostok [ice core] CO2 record. Casey is also wrong in his assertion that volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions. Concentrations and isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in ocean-floor basalts SARAI et. al 1984 found “The isotopic ratios of indigenous carbon and nitrogen are in very narrow ranges, -6.2 [per mil; symbol didn’t paste] relative to PDB and +0.2 & 0.6460 relative to atmospheric nitrogen, respectively.” This is less negative than the atmospheric ratio, which declined from -7.6 in 1980 to -8.2 in 2008. The Mid Ocean Ridge is the largest volcanic structure on earth, 65,000 miles long. Its erupted basalt created the ocean floor, average age ~70 million years, thickness ~2km, area ~1.8e8 km^2. The volume is therefore 3.6e8 km^3, and the eruption rate is ~5km^3 per year. The is equivalent to one "Pinatubo" every 2 years. Pinatubo was the largest eruption since Novarupta in 1912, and caused no measurable change in atmospheric carbon isotope ratios. “We estimate that the carbon flux (CO2 plus methane) through submarine fluid venting at the outer fore arc is 8.0 × 105 g C km−1 yr−1, which is virtually negligible compared to the total sedimentary carbon input to the margin, …the implication is that most of the carbon being subducted in Costa Rica must be transferred to the (deeper) mantle, i.e., beyond the depth of arc magma generation.” The ocean ridge carbon has the wrong isotope ratio to account for atmospheric CO2 rise. Plate margin subduction zone volcanism removes more carbon than it emits. Even if you accept Casey’s glorified guesswork that Toba emitted 494 Mt of carbon, that is a small fraction (<2%) of the 26 Gt of carbon from fossil fuels and other human activities. We can't possibly be missing 50 Toba scale eruptions per year, (or 500 Tambora scale eruptions). Pinatubo didn't even make Casey's scale, and most of us noticed that eruption and its effect on climate.

Brian Dodge; August 5, 2011; comment on RealClimate(.org) in response to "Volcanic vs Anthropogenic CO2"
http://www.realclimate.org/...-co2/#comment-212403


Volcanoes are free to leave the courtroom. Now for stacking up the amount of carbon emissions from wildfires (forest fires and brush fires) and from fires that are purposely set to clear land for agricultural use, against the amount of carbon emissions from other human factors

How significant is the amount of CO2 from forest and brush fires, and from fires that are set to clear uncultivated areas of natural vegetation for human projects such as farming? What is the effect of these accidental and intentional fires on the planet's capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as part of the carbon cycle?

Several recent estimates have converged on 2 gigatons (2 billion tons) of carbon emissions per year [in recent years] from accidental and intentional fires all around the world.

The deforestation that resulted from accidental and intentional fires all around the world reduced the planet's ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere by an average of 0.3 gigaton per year over the years from 1901 to 2012. This is the equivalent of an additional 0.3 gigatons per year of carbon emissions. So you could just as well say that fires are adding about 2.3 (or almost 2.5) gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere every year.

Carbon emissions from all human causes--which would (on the face of it) include energy extraction from fossil fuels, forest and wildfires and fires set to clear land for cultivation, CO2 and methane emissions from farm and livestock waste and other miscellaneous categories including building and road construction using concrete and many other smaller "line items"--reached a record high of 10 gigatons of carbon emissions per year in 2014.

So, fires account for almost 2.5 gigatons of the current (or almost current) 10 gigatond of human-derived carbon emissions per year. Or, on a percentage basis, fires account for about 25 percent of all human-related carbon emissions.

And in so far as what Mickey_Moose has been alluding to--on the previous page--it seems to me that even if the carbon emissions from fires are essentially irreducible--something that humans have no realistic chance of controlling--there is another 75 percent of the total human carbon footprint to look at, in terms of finding reductions.


How do these numbers, which are from other sources, line up for comparison with the IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis?

quote Carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production came to 8.3 gigatons per year, averaged over the years 2002 to 2011, and topped out at 9.5 gigatons for the year 2011, which is more than 50 percent above the year 1990. Land use changes added another 0.9 gigatons of carbon emissions per year, averaged over the same period of years from 2002 to 2011.

I'd say that is "kind of on the same page".


This, also, from the IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:

quote The atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide--all greenhouse gases--have increased to levels that are higher than at any other time in the previous 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, first and foremost from fossil fuel emissions, and secondly, from net land use changes.

Additional sources:

"Modelling the role of fires in the terrestrial carbon balance by incorporating SPITFIRE into the global vegetation model ORCHIDEE – Part 2: Carbon emissions and the role of fires in the global carbon balance"
Geoscientific Model Development; May 6,2 015 (Yup, Ciais, Cadule, Thonicke and van Leeuwin)
http://www.geosci-model-dev.../gmd-8-1321-2015.pdf

"Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years"
Nature Geoscience; March 21, 2016 (Zeebe, Ridgwell and Zachos)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/...4/full/ngeo2681.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-18-2016).]

While the contributors of CO2 emissions
are unequal in their level of contribution,
it is incorrect to conclude that any specific
source is more harmful than another.

They are either equally harmful or equally
inconsequential. However, after reading a
lot of the articles that have been referenced
to shotgun claims that are counter to the CO2
connection to global warming climate
change, there is one fact mentioned that adds to
the number of flags being raised.

quote Carbon Cycle The ocean plays a vital dominant role in the Earth's carbon cycle. The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years. At least 1/2 of the oxygen we breathe comes from the photosynthesis of marine plants. Currently, 48% of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is sequestered into the ocean. But the future fate of this important carbon sink is quite uncertain because of potential climate change impacts on ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, and ecosystem dynamics. Global Flows of Carbon The ocean plays a vital dominant role in the Earth's carbon cycle. The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years. Carbon atoms are constantly being cycled through the earth's ocean by a number of physical and biological processes. The flux of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean is a function of surface mixing (related to wind speed) and the difference the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air and water The concentration in the ocean depends on the atmosphere and ocean carbon dioxide partial pressure which, in turn, is a function of temperature, alkalinity (which is closely related to salinity), photosynthesis, and respiration. Carbon is also sequestered for long periods of time in carbon reservoirs (sinks) such as deep ocean and ocean sediment.

According to those articles, the world's CO2 inventory heavily relies on
the ocean to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere. This argument
presents another chicken/egg discussion. Apparently, The effect CO2 has
on our atmosphere interferes with ocean temperatures and causes ocean
currents to slow which reduce the absorption of CO2. So excess CO2 causes
the ocean to absorb less CO2 and the reduced absorption of CO2 causes an
increase in CO2. It's like a dog chasing it's tail and no matter how many times
it bites it's own tail it starts the run around all over again.


However, this should not happen. According to the carbon cycle, co2 is
absorbed at the surface as current flows, waves, churning and wind mixes
and transfers captured co2 from the surface to lower depths until it finally
rests at the bottom of the ocean floor as sediment. please think
that idea through. It does not require a higher education to recognize a
contradiction when you see one.


Wait just one minute.....

Are they asking us to believe that CO2 level at 400PPM has saturated
the entire carbon storage capacity to such a degree that We can not
remove the CO2 being produced today.

Our transportation systems and vehicles produce CO2.
Our industries produce CO2.
Our environment produces CO2.
Our planet produces CO2.

All of which contributes to the milestone of 400 PPM.

At 400 PPM

It is to much for the Trees and vegetation to remove. culprit : industrialization
it is to much for the oceans to absorb. culprit: industrialization
and it is now being seen in nearly every layer of our atmosphere. culprit: industrialization.

Edit -
I unintentionally deleted this part of my reply and had to add it back in.

With all of the natural occurring obstacles reducing CO2 absorption,
how can we expect that a reduction in the emission rate would resolve
the problem. After all, All of the natural reservoirs have a bottom to them
and can not last forever. If we removed all combustion propulsion and drive
systems it would not increase the amount of natural storage capacity. If,
we were able to stop all countries from industrial, farming and waste disposal
methods that produce CO2, it will not increase the natural storage capacity.

If all we had were volcanoes and forest fires, the destruction of CO2 capture
alone would reduce absorption rates. Worse, the lack of industrial equipment,
productions and processes would leave us without the most important ingredient
we have to fight and correct such natural disasters, The Human Initiated and
Fulfillment of Recovery. Human beings, with internal combustion vehicles fight
the spread and devastation of fires. Afterwards, more Human beings with fossil
fuel burning equipment clean up, replant, redevelop and restore the environment.

Human activities are the only one that benefit this planet. Without our intervention
it would be a chaotic, charred and inhospitable. We are the only life form that produces
it's own food supply. All others take what they need without maintaining or replenishing
their food supply. No they eat, poop, procreate and pollute until the area becomes toxic,
barren and inhabitable and just move on to an untouched area to squat and destroy.

Human activities destroying this planet, not likely.
It's like marrying a a person hoping they will be transformed
by you into someone you can love instead of just admiring
and respecting them for their good points. Everybody thinks
the little monkey is cute until it's hurling a nice warn handful
of poop at you.....

Besides, we don't have to force manufacture into making
higher quality products with lower emissions. They will do it anyway
just to have a couple of niche areas to promote their product under.
How many different ways can a car engine burn fuel? At some point
they all do the same thing. Yeah one might gave more valves per
cylinder, more HP with fewer pistons, or a more precise computer
controlling finer ignition and combustion factor. But all are competing
to be the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market.

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-18-2016).]

So, the "climate alarmists" cry out (in alarm), "But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years."

And the "wise men" of Breitbart(.com) respond thusly:

quote CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient time frame [for the "climate alarmists"] to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.

And I say:

What else is significant about the most recent 800,000 years of geologic history? The lineage of human species only goes back slightly farther, to about two million years ago. That is when the earliest known species that was recognizably human--homo habilis--first appeared.

The fossil evidence for modern day humans--homo sapiens--fixes our origins as a species to only about 200,000 years ago.

In terms of our anatomy and physiology, all of the evolutionary fine-tuning that has shaped our bodies and distinguishes us from somewhat earlier human species has come about within the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2 levels, as compared with earlier periods in the Deep History of Earth when much higher CO2 levels were prevalent. (This is known from fossil evidence and from other analytical methods that have been developed by paleoclimatologists.)

Where we modern humans live. What we eat. Where and how we grow and harvest food from the land and wrest food from the lakes, rivers and seas. The other species of plants, animals and microorganisms that affect us. All of this fell into place as it is today within the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2 in terms of the Earth's four billion year history. The domestication of wild growing plant species to be farmed as cereal crops and wild herd animals to be raised as livestock are developments that date back to only about 11,000 years ago--all that in this smallest and most recent fraction of the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2.

"Relatively low CO2" is very much "who we are". So when the wise men of Breitbart(.com) say, as they have here--in so many words--that to see a near-term transition to higher CO2 levels from where we already are today (~400 ppm) is "no big deal", they are indulging in a kind of mislead, along the lines of "putting lipstick on a pig" or "polishing a turd".

That is not a compelling or well-reasoned observation (IMO), from the wise men of Breitbart(.com).

The planet's climate will change, and probably in a big way, regardless of any human plans or decisions.

But why would anyone with a humanist perspective about life reasonably want to shorten the time between today and the leading edge of the next big climate change that Mother Nature has in store for us? Wouldn't it be better, in terms of prolonging the "day" of our own kind (modern humans), to have anything from several hundred to several thousand more years of something similar to the current climate, as lead time, to be used for planning our adaptions to the next big climate change--instead of having to adapt to the next big climate change over just the remainder of the current century and the course of the next century after that?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-29-2016).]