-
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
RustneverSleeps.
“Another “why” question: Why do you so often just make things up in your head and present them as credible “just so” (yet counterfactual) representations of well-understood real-world phenonmenon”.
Robbie Burns answer I guess. I see your making things up in my head as thinking about things in my world. The fellow with the different hats theory [De Bono] says you need people like me [questioners] to make other people think about things more clearly which helps consolidate their real world views. Does not make one appreciate the fellow in the funny hat any better though.
DM,
“Perhaps the oldest and most basic carbon cycle canard stretches its wings again. Whether anthropogenic emissions are large or small compared with the magnitude of environmental fluxes is entirely irrelevant, what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
Thank you for the video and the X-File? music and science with it.
Much easier to address you after having seen that and the work you put in.
If I can try to comment without being too antagonistic which is hard when we have differing views I would put for your consideration the following.
I agree/understand your comment on emissions and sinks.
1. I did not want to put up a canard.
“The extra amount we produce is still reasonably small compared with the overall yearly carbon cycle.”
To me has the same meaning as
“what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
Particularly when I add “The fact that after several [many] severe outgassing of CO2 events in the past we are still here indicates to me that the biosphere and the earth sea chemical mixes have shown the needed resilience.”
which to me means that I took sinks into consideration.
In the video you mention the balance of the emissions with the uptake of the natural environment but then change terms to net sinks [presumably still the environment] which for 50 years have removed half the excess CO2 claimed produced by man.
There are at least four different natural causes for CO2 in the atmosphere. One is volcanoes. One is natural chemical. Even with no life forms anywhere but the current composition of the earth there would be CO2 in the atmosphere commensurate with dissolved CO2 in the water and calcium carbonate in the rock. The level might even be as high as 280 ppm because the third component, life forms, has a mutable create/ destroy existence.
Here [the second] emissions /sinks as you put it are in balance, have to be in balance, no choice.
But then you add the fourth cause, still “natural” but unwanted. Human beings adding in CO2 which is different to normal life activity.
Once you perturb the level “artificially” you activate the chemical sinks. By your own reckoning these sinks activated at a low level of CO2 increase are capable of taking 50% extra of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Now balance is important. As you ramp up the increase in CO2 you might [*] increase the sink capacity way beyond 50%. A bit like pH rise or fall being logarithmic.
If you choose to attribute, for very good paleontological reasons a linear 50% rise so be it.
If ATTP chooses to believe the sinks will become saturated and run out of puff so be it.
I do not wish to change my belief system, sorry but I do not mind being corrected on the science if and [very often I guess] it is needed.