Emissions and CO2 – Watt?

Willis Eschenbach's guest post (still banned X aka Twitter, see here)

Recently, Jennifer Marohazy, the best coral reef and ocean scientist, recently posted a Facebook post about the lack of a huge impact on atmospheric companies.₂ The level of emissions decline due to the combined causes. She said it showed human companies₂ Emissions have little impact on atmospheric CO₂ level. However, I was worried that her graphics were greatly misleading.

The problem is that she is showing the full range of two related but very different variables. Let me see if I can clear the confusion.

First, we need to change the CO₂ CO parts emissions are millions (PPMV)₂. To do this we need to separate the Gigatonnage of CO (billions of tonnes)₂ By CO's 8.71 Gigatonnes₂ Emissions per 1 ppmv increased.

Next, we need to consider the fact that the earth is constantly absorbing and isolating₂. I found that using the following process is very suitable. The basic assumption is that every year, a small percentage of the “excess” airborne companies₂ Natural processes are isolated, and the rest of the previous emissions are still in the air. What is “superbable company”₂“Well, that’s the number of more than some uncertain baselines, and we expect this to be the order of historical value of about 285 ppmv.

So I set up an Excel spreadsheet to use the solver to search for the values ​​of unknown percentages that are retained after continuous isolation, as well as the values ​​of unknown baselines, which provide the best fit for actual onboard CO₂. You can download my spreadsheet here with only 23 kbytes. I get the following value:

Unknown baseline: Best fit = 286.8 ppmv

Given that the fitting process can bring very broad value, this is a good sign that₂ Levels are indeed related to human emissions.

Unknown percentage remaining after annual quarantine: Best fit = 98.1%

This is the result of these values. Remember, I'm calculating the best fit for human emissions₂ Only the values ​​of the two fit variables are used – the remaining quantity after year isolation, and the pre-industrial baseline.

Now, at least on my planet, this is perfectly appropriate. In all respects, it is within 1.5 ppmv of the observation, R² Estimated and observed values ​​are 0.997

There are several comments on this. First, for the two-parameter fit between emissions and CO₂ level, where one of the appropriate parameters is very close to the expected value, it seems clear that the CO rises₂ Levels are mainly the result of human emissions.

I say “mainly” because as you pointed out, the observed Co₂ Levels are above and below estimates. I think this is because of changes in emission rates and isolation rates.

Now, as you can see, Jennifer is correct, because the estimated value of immersion time due to the common value is slightly lower than the actual value. How many? The biggest difference is that in the year after common, when the observations are 0.7 ppmv higher than the emission estimate… it's still my jump.

However, this is also true for many periods in the record.

Why is COVID not falling a lot? Four reasons.

First, the electronic folding time “tau” for slow attenuation of CO pulses₂ About 50 years, so any year is affected by previous years.

Second, the decline in emissions is small, only about 5%. Such small changes occur throughout the emission record and are smoothed through the natural process of isolation.

Third, emissions are very short, only one year, and return to normal in the second year.

Fourth, there are other factors that are playing a role in changes in natural emissions and isolation.

At the end, one might ask “tau” that the time is constant for only 50 years.₂ Stay in the air for hundreds of years. Is that correct? OK…yes…no. Extra Company₂ Still, just not much. Given the annual decay rate calculated above at .981, this is how to play for excess carbon.

(Yes, I know this is different from CO's standard “Bern model”₂ sez…see my posts on this model, including previous posts linked to it. )

Despite claims in this case, I would like to express my best wishes to Jennifer Marohazy – she is the most valuable and insightful scientist.

============

I, not only in the very remote Solomon Islands near the northern equator of Australia, I worked there for eight years. I chewed betel nut with lime and leaves in the more remote western solo province and had a great time. It was also the first time in three weeks that I had a reasonable internet. Why?

My friend with me has a star-striped link. So for all Elon haters you are there, he does a huge service for humanity.

The best person in the South Pacific is tomorrow’s scuba diving and will return to the United States next week.

w.

As I'm used to, I ask when you comment, you quote the exact word you're discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.

Related