CO2 airbourne fraction

By stoat on September 5, 2006.

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/rising_risk.pdf asserts that the "airbourne fraction" of CO2 is coming up to 100%, having been 50%: The point of great concern here is that over the last couple few years 2003/4/5 the rate of increase has jumped to nearer 3 ppmv per annum. This gives a loading of the atmosphere by weight that is roughly equal to not half but all the emissions from fossil fuel burning.

As far as I can see this is wrong. In 2003/4 growth rates were 2+ ppmv and heading downwards.

But the main point of this post was to inquire if anyone knows where the 2005 data is hiding. I can only find up to the end of 2004 (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2 via http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm ).

[Update: two people have now pointed me to http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/trends/co2_mm_mlo.dat - thanks. Now to update the pic... -W]

[Update: OK, so the pic up to 2005 is:

i-a37538bd60b90526822b69b147f15464-co2-rise.png which is trending upwards somewhat, but not to any very exciting degree - the black mean line in the top pic is somewhat above the 20 year trend, but not by any huge amount -W]

Tags
climate science

More like this

Airbourne fraction, again
This was an ask stoat question, and probably a fairly easy one, so I'll have a go. First of all, what is it? AF (ie, Airbo(u)rne Fraction, is the proportion of human emitted CO2 that stays in the atmosphere, the rest being sunk in land or ocean. Now it is important not to confuse the "proportion…
Carbon emissions show sharp rise?
The BBC reports The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year. And then provides various reasons why this is so, including a switch from oil to charcoal as oil prices rise (is this plausible, on the large…
Global Warming is Just a Hoax
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic. Objection: Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government. Answer: Here is…
Methane Data
AL (and V1S, sorry!) pointed me to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/, which lead me to http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/iadv/, from which I selected Barrow, as being in the Arctic, and CH4, as being methane, and 2000-2008, as being a small enough interval that you can see whats going on, and I…

William, try this link:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

It will take you to the current MLO data and global data. Scroll down to find the actual 1958 to July 06 figures for MLO and global.

And, what to make of the airborne fraction paper? No citation. Makes no sense.

By John l. McCormick (not verified) on 05 Sep 2006 #permalink

The magic words are the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact nations in the late 80s early 90s. The slope dipped then and recovered in the mid 90s esp. as China and India ramped up and the FSU/Warsaw pact nations began to recover.

I'd like to see some less than magic words, in the form of a citation. William, can you offer anything in this regard?

By John L. McCormick (not verified) on 05 Sep 2006 #permalink

Hank, I asked to see the citation (origin of William's initial post):

[asserts that the "airbourne fraction" of CO2 is coming up to 100%, having been 50%: ]

I'll wait for your memory to return from its vacation.

[I'm a bit confused by what you want. I've provided a link to the original report. I agree that doesn't really tell you where it gets its 100% from - it claims to see it in the data, but I can't -W]

By John McCormick (not verified) on 05 Sep 2006 #permalink

William, I picked up the scent again. Back on the trail. Thanks. I will contact C&C to get email info of author.

By John McCormick (not verified) on 06 Sep 2006 #permalink

John Rabett Run is the blog for forcing fans. Click on the graph here to see what happened in 1989-90. You can really see the effect of the fall of the Soviet Union in the rate of growth curve for CO2. Also in N2O. CH4 and the CFCs were dominated by reductions in flaring and the Montreal Protocols