Comments on: The growth rate of carbon emissions has TRIPLED http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:53:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Jim O'Rourke http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4494 Jim O'Rourke Tue, 22 May 2007 20:13:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4494 Did this study look at the possibility of feedbacks such as melting tundra adding to the CO2 concentrations? Did this study look at the possibility of feedbacks such as melting tundra adding to the CO2 concentrations?

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4495 Joe Tue, 22 May 2007 20:34:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4495 This study, which you can access, deals with soaring human emissions of CO2, not concentrations. The quote I give about the weakening of sinks is incidental to the main point. This study, which you can access, deals with soaring human emissions of CO2, not concentrations. The quote I give about the weakening of sinks is incidental to the main point.

]]> By: Jim O'Rourke http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4498 Jim O'Rourke Wed, 23 May 2007 18:06:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-4498 Thanks I did go back and read the report after posting the question. Thanks I did go back and read the report after posting the question.

]]> By: Bill Alexander http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-9024 Bill Alexander Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:26:36 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-9024 One of the final comments in the submission: "the fraction of total anthropogenic [human-made] CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere … has increased slowly with time … implying a slight weakening of sinks relative to emissions." states that human originating CO2 emissions are growing only "slowly with time"? If the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been as infinitesimal as it apparently has for many millenia (currently totalling even with increases, less than an eighth of an inch on the total length of an atmospheric football field), and it is increasing slowly...how in God's name can you blame it for alleged climate change variations that have been with us for ever? One of the final comments in the submission: “the fraction of total anthropogenic [human-made] CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere … has increased slowly with time … implying a slight weakening of sinks relative to emissions.” states that human originating CO2 emissions are growing only “slowly with time”?
If the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has been as infinitesimal as it apparently has for many millenia (currently totalling even with increases, less than an eighth of an inch on the total length of an atmospheric football field), and it is increasing slowly…how in God’s name can you blame it for alleged climate change variations that have been with us for ever?

]]> By: Patrick M http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-11337 Patrick M Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:09:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/22/the-growth-rate-of-carbon-emissions-has-tripled/#comment-11337 "The carbon sinks — the oceans, forests, soils, and tundra — are saturating, even as the carbon sources — the burning of fossil fuels plus deforestation — are growing." There is no reason nor evidence to support this. As CO2 concentration increases, the gas diffusion law states that ocean CO2 capacity increases. Further, the biosphere is a more productive absorber due to "CO2 fertilization" effect. The sinks will pull more CO2 as CO2 concentrations rise. The trendlines of CO2 concentrations are not accelerating, so that even if man is outputting more CO2, the levels are not rising any faster. Thus, the carbon sinks are *not* saturating. “The carbon sinks — the oceans, forests, soils, and tundra — are saturating, even as the carbon sources — the burning of fossil fuels plus deforestation — are growing.”

There is no reason nor evidence to support this.
As CO2 concentration increases, the gas diffusion law states that ocean CO2 capacity increases. Further, the biosphere is a more productive absorber due to “CO2 fertilization” effect. The sinks will pull more CO2 as CO2 concentrations rise.
The trendlines of CO2 concentrations are not accelerating, so that even if man is outputting more CO2, the levels are not rising any faster.
Thus, the carbon sinks are *not* saturating.

]]>