Theodore Dalrymple: The Persistence of Ideology - Grand ideas still drive history.

City Journal ^ | Winter 2009 | Theodore Dalrymple

[Brad from Tennessee]

I read somewhere that termites are the main living CO2 producers.

Water vapor is such a big factor it seems to me the affect of CO2 would be eclipsed. But I’m not a scientist.

Thanks for the info.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[cogitator]

I couldn't follow that explanation, but the point is the world is a huge carbon sink.

Yep, it is. If it wasn't for human activities, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would probably be decreasing at a very slow rate. (I.e, according to the current estimates, the natural fluxes are nearly in balance. I'll provide a model diagram below; you can find several by Googling "global carbon cycle". The numbers on the arrows may vary slightly in different model presentations.) It's half-size below; click it for full-size.

[neverdem]

"I couldn't follow that explanation, but the point is the world is a huge carbon sink."

Yep, it is.

Thanks for the pic, but I was refering to the DOE agency explanation for the numbers. I don't need help with biology or chemistry. The latter was my undergraduate major.

Human activity was responsible for 14 parts of the 100 ppm increase in CO2. Simultaneous human population gains were quite large since 1850.

[cogitator]

Human activity was responsible for 14 parts of the 100 ppm increase in CO2. Simultaneous human population gains were quite large since 1850.

Wrong. Human activity is responsible for ALL of the 100 ppm increase. (Actually, it's more like 80 ppm.) That's the whole point of the carbon sink we're discussing. Were it note for human activities, atmospheric CO2 would be decreasing.

The fact that CO2 from anthropogenic sources and CO2 from natural sources (and sinks) mix in the atmosphere does not change that fact. I've used the bathtub analogy before, but: imagine filling your bathtub to the brim, then pulling the drain plug and then adjusting the water flow from the spigot such that the water level remains exactly constant. Subsequently start adding water a cup at a time about once a minute.

What'll happen to the water in the tub? And what's causing that effect?

[neverdem]

Wrong. Human activity is responsible for ALL of the 100 ppm increase.

If you believe they are wrong, go tell the government. That's the source for the 14% number that I previously linked on the thread.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

[cogitator]

about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere,

That's the key phrase and the key words. (ALL of the additional CO2 went into the atmosphere; 40% of it is still there.) Were it not for human activities, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would not be increasing. Because of human activities, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing. The CO2 that goes into the atmosphere mixes with the CO2 already in the atmosphere, so what gets removed by natural processes (sinks) is a mixture of natural and anthropogenic CO2 (starting about 1750 or so, natcherally). Nature doesn't discriminate, it's all CO2.

So go back to the bathtub analogy and think it about it. The increased addition of the water to the tub, cup by cup, would be the complete and utter and total and only cause of the rise. But it gets mixed in the tub. So what goes out the drain is a mix of what goes in the tub from the faucet and what goes into the tub from the cups of water you're adding.

It's really actually very simple. I'm totally right. So is the government.