Dear All,
As the original thread is closed, and I have not obtained any comments on my questions asked in December 2024 and is repeated on January 4, 2025 at 3:47 pm
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-iples-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-828755,
I am trying here again.
On December 3, 2024 at 11:55 am,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-iples-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827818,
Mark Matson asked:
“What would add context to the previous keel curve is a delineation of the contribution of anthropogenic and non -anthropogenic CO2 to the atmospheric CO2. A change in the scale of the axis and to start at zero, and the X axis goes back in time will also clarify the magnitude of the contributions. “
Dr. Schmidt replied:
How this?
https://www.realclimate.org/images//co2_ghe1.pdf
– Gavin
I opened the link provided by Dr. Schmidt and on December 4, 2024 at 5:11 am,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/11/twenty-iples-of-blogging-in-hindsight/#comment-827856,
He asked Dr. Schmidt some more questions about his comment:
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
I think their graphics do not respond to the application / suggestion raised by Mark Matson.
There is no possibility of making a distinction between CO2 that originated in anthropogenic sources such as the combustion of fossil fuels on the one hand, and the CO2 of other sources, on the other hand, I fear.
The statement put in the graphics:
“A third of CO2 now in the air is due to human emissions: combustion of fossil fuels, cement, deforestation, etc.”
It suggests, in my understanding, that the growing part of the curve is caused only by anthropogenic sources of CO2. However, this statement seems to be a mere statement that has no support in the graph itself, because the curve obviously summarizes the atmospheric CO2 of all possible sources, regardless of its origin.
I understand that all the sources mentioned in the text can be considered as anthropogenic contributions. However, Mark proposed a “delineation of anthropogenic and non -anthropogenic CO2 contributions.” In this regard, I would like to ask if there is any experimental method that allows to distinguish EG between the CO2 resulting from the combustion of the so -called “biofuel” or “biomass” on the one hand, from CO2 that can be released from the ocean ocean The average surface water temperature, on the other hand.
While the CO2 of “biomass” combustion is undoubtedly an anthropogenic contribution (although, without a doubt, it is not linked to the consumption of fossil fuels), the CO2 released from the ocean could be considered at least partly as “natural” , at least if “truly anthropogenic CO2” “(of fuel combustion in the past) is not a predominant part of the total CO2 dissolved in seawater.
This difference can be important. If there are people who doubt that the entire CO2 added to the atmosphere during the industrial era is anthropogenic, I do not think it is productive to simply say again “is anthropogenic.”
In addition, while “biomass” is considered mainly as a good in the recent policies of “weather savings” (although in fact it can be quite questionable in view of its poor efficiency compared to alternative methods of solar energy exploitation, as well as in view of its unwanted side effects such as competition with food production, soil deterioration and/or the natural destruction of habitat), fossil fuel combustion is mainly considered as evil, namely, the cause root of the global warming observed.
In this regard, I would like to ask if it could be easier to delineate the contribution of “fossil” carbon dioxide of “recent” or “young” carbon dioxide, instead of clearly distinguishing between “anthropogenic” and “natural” natural “one .
Perhaps the natural CO2 released by volcanism is indistinguishable from anthropogenic CO2 released from fossil fuel combustion in terms of its isotopic composition? If so, perhaps there could still be other methods that could separate these two contributions to the “fossil” carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with each other, and therefore allow the CO2 of the fossil fuel fuel of one hand and the entire Remaining CO2 in the other hand. Are such methods / such delineation available?
As an expert in climate science, it certainly has better information (than me or Mark) where you can find the respective information, despite the fact that the attribution of CO2 in several swimming pools (atmosphere, ocean) to several sources of CO2 may not be its specialization .
To conclude, I think Mark raised a relevant point. I think the best that scientists can do in climatic discussions is to provide information as precise and complete as possible. It can be a difficult task, because it can be difficult to keep it understandable enough, however, I still see very important that the public has the opportunity to see a complete image. In this regard, it seems rather that the graphics that suggested as an explanation to the point raised by Mark was not, not very useful.
Sincerely
Tomáš
I understand that Dr. Schmidt may not have enough time to deal with questions addressed to him in this forum. I think the question raised by Mark Matson deserves a better answer.
Maybe someone else will provide it?
Thanks in advance and greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Meanwhile, I found a 20 -year -old RC article related to these issues:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do
It can be a good introduction, but it does not seem to address all the questions I have asked (and other people can also do). Of course, it also does not cover the last two decades.
Maybe this article could deserve additional update?
#REALCLIMATE #FORCED #VARIATIONS #January
