4 ms·
FYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is customary to reference A instead of B. So I found your table in Table 3 of here: http:
by yongjik 10y ago
FYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is customary to reference A instead of B.
So I found your table in Table 3 of here:
http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2005.pdf http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2...
And you seemed to have cut off two more columns:
Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere
-----------------------------------------------------
781,400 | 11,700
I.e., nature is absorbing about half of anthropogenic CO2. I stand by my previous remark.
- alphapapa 10y agoFYI: When someone posts factual data, it is poor etiquette to downvote them. Notice that I have not downvoted you even though I disagree with your conclusions. I am not afraid to debate the matter, so I feel no need to try to censor opponents. I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so sensitive to +/- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is ludicrous.