Carbon dating doesn t
A book will be released later this year: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. 5 we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.
“Could the Ocean, Rather Than Mankind, Be the Reason? It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are at least as big as the human source. the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the natural fluxes in and out of the surface.
He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.
The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge.
Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt.
Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?
” Chiefio also found some interesting quotes pointing out that corn (a C4 plant) absorbs more C13, and our mass fields of corn might just muck up the stats… Suspiciously, when satellites record atmospheric CO2 levels around the globe they find that the sources don’t appear to be concentrated in the places we’d expect — industry or population concentrations like western Europe, the Ohio Valley, or China.